Very Interesting PBS Half Hour Synopsis On The Mueller Report, No Editorial, Just Facts
Jun 19, 2019 13:32:56 #
PeterS wrote:
The right lives in a world built around logical fallacies. What good are facts when you can just make them up to support what you believe...
Isn't that what the Dems have done for more than two years? I believe they had said they had proof beyond a shadow of a doubt but have never provided any proof to prove their claims? Where are their facts, for what they have said, were obvious? Just pure fallacies by the boat load. It seems that the Dems and the progressives are good on making up non facts but try to prove that the conservatives are the ones making up lies. The progressive have finally shown their true colors.
Jun 19, 2019 13:35:08 #
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
Tsk, tsk, tsk, you never learn do you? Trump supporters and actual facts are like oil and water, they don't mix.
That post just proves you don't have common sense.
Jun 19, 2019 14:29:48 #
Louie27 wrote:
Isn't that what the Dems have done for more than two years? I believe they had said they had proof beyond a shadow of a doubt but have never provided any proof to prove their claims? Where are their facts, for what they have said, were obvious? Just pure fallacies by the boat load. It seems that the Dems and the progressives are good on making up non facts but try to prove that the conservatives are the ones making up lies. The progressive have finally shown their true colors.
There is quite the difference between providing legitimate facts that nut jobs refuse to acknowledge and not providing any facts at all. It is no wonder you people keep sliding deeper and deeper down that rabbit hole of yours, you can no longer tell t***h from fiction, and that is the way the alt-right wants it. One can onbly hope that you people enjoy your alternate reality that you have built for yourself.
Jun 19, 2019 14:31:31 #
Louie27 wrote:
That post just proves you don't have common sense.
Nah, it just proves that you don't know the t***h when it smacks you in the face. That is the problem one faces when they refuse to acknowledge facts in favor of fallacies.
Jun 19, 2019 15:08:15 #
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
"no evidence of no collusion," would be the same thing as saying "evidence of collusion". I really don't think that was what you meant to say but it is what you DID say.
I'm afraid you are quite wrong CSM. That isn't what he said. No evidence of no collusion does not in fact mean evidence of collusion. Think about that a bit. You are obviously not a grammarian. That statement is not the same as a double negative. Maybe you could explain to me what evidence of "nothing" might look like. Then we could talk about what none of it might look like. Have fun.
Jun 19, 2019 15:30:00 #
bylm1-Bernie wrote:
I'm afraid you are quite wrong CSM. That isn't what he said. No evidence of no collusion does not in fact mean evidence of collusion. Think about that a bit. You are obviously not a grammarian. That statement is not the same as a double negative. Maybe you could explain to me what evidence of "nothing" might look like. Then we could talk about what none of it might look like. Have fun.
If you have NO evidence suggesting that there was NO collusion, then we must assume that the opposite MUST be true. I know, your limited intellect prevents you from rationalizing it out. Don't worry about it, let the more intelligent amongst us work it out for you, relax that paper weight between your ears. It really isn't good for anything useful anyways.
Jun 19, 2019 15:41:03 #
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
If you have NO evidence suggesting that there was NO collusion, then we must assume that the opposite MUST be true. I know, your limited intellect prevents you from rationalizing it out. Don't worry about it, let the more intelligent amongst us work it out for you, relax that paper weight between your ears. It really isn't good for anything useful anyways.
Typical liberal reaction - When in trouble, BLAST! I know it must be difficult for you to fathom what I said. Don't worry about it.
Jun 19, 2019 15:47:26 #
bylm1-Bernie wrote:
I'm afraid you are quite wrong CSM. That isn't what he said. No evidence of no collusion does not in fact mean evidence of collusion. Think about that a bit. You are obviously not a grammarian. That statement is not the same as a double negative. Maybe you could explain to me what evidence of "nothing" might look like. Then we could talk about what none of it might look like. Have fun.
Collusion is not a legal term, therefore Mueller did not look for that. Rather he looked for conspiracy.
Jun 19, 2019 16:08:26 #
Seth wrote:
The things you folks consider To be "facts" are known by most intelligent people by a different name: "bulls**t."
And so neither side will ever convince the other what the facts actually are. And the beat goes on...
Jun 19, 2019 16:11:06 #
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
If you have NO evidence suggesting that there was NO collusion, then we must assume that the opposite MUST be true. I know, your limited intellect prevents you from rationalizing it out. Don't worry about it, let the more intelligent amongst us work it out for you, relax that paper weight between your ears. It really isn't good for anything useful anyways.
You didn't really address my concerns about your non-sequitur, you only cast a few aspersions. Does that mean that you would really rather not get further into it? That's fine.
Jun 19, 2019 16:30:48 #
Jun 19, 2019 16:36:05 #
moldyoldy wrote:
https://www.salon.com/2019/04/19/trumps-pattern-of-crime-exposed-in-mueller-report-but-its-much-bigger-than-that/
Salon!?
Oh, and
!!!!!!!!Jun 19, 2019 17:29:29 #
Nickolai wrote:
These are the words of yet another l*****t who has not read the report and just repeats the MSM's fallacious bleating about things they wish the report said, but didn't. I'm waiting to see whether or not Mueller testifies. Based on his "final statement" about the issue, I'm thinking he'd prefer to ride off into the sunset... he listed all of Trumps obstructions
Jun 19, 2019 18:08:03 #
Fit2BTied wrote:
...I'm waiting to see whether or not Mueller testifies. Based on his "final statement" about the issue, I'm thinking he'd prefer to ride off into the sunset...
If he does, I hope it's with a posse hot on his tail, preferably with the resolve of the one led by George Kennedy in Bandolero!
Jun 19, 2019 18:14:40 #
Seth wrote:
There's one I haven't seen in a while. Always liked GK. Except for in Sons of Katy Elder. If he does, I hope it's with a posse hot on his tail, preferably with the resolve of the one led by George Kennedy in Bandolero!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.