Facts and opinion on OPP: I usually post my opinion on opp. Sometimes my opinion is influenced by my politics. On occasions my opinion is supported by facts, most often the expressed...

Fodaoson Loc: South Texas

I usually post my opinion on opp. Sometimes my opinion is influenced by my politics. On occasions my opinion is supported by facts, most often the expressed opinion is supported by my politics. If I am shown that the facts do not support me, I can change my opinion without changing my politics. Opinion can be based on one or a few facts while politics are bed on a wide range of ideas and facts. We can disagree on opinion but facts tend to be unchangeable. Supposed facts can be misstated or made up completely

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Fodaoson wrote:

I usually post my opinion on opp. Sometimes my opi... (show quote)

I tend to enjoy your opinions

crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island

Fodaoson wrote:

I usually post my opinion on opp. Sometimes my opi... (show quote)

Opinions should be based on facts or principles. Its like mathematics or physics. A very small error at the beginning can result in huge errors later. A laser with a 0.00001 divergence will be light years across at the other end of the galaxy.

Hug

Fodaoson wrote:

I usually post my opinion on opp. Sometimes my opi... (show quote)

If you read in the paper, or hear on the news that Olif had a car wreck yesterday, but Olif does not exist and there was really not a car wreck yesterday, the fact is for you that Olif had a car wreck yesterday. Yes, facts are often just made up.

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

Excellent point

There can be a wide divergence between a supposed "fact" and the actual t***h.

There is always only one t***h.

Hug wrote:

If you read in the paper, or hear on the news that Olif had a car wreck yesterday, but Olif does not exist and there was really not a car wreck yesterday, the fact is for you that Olif had a car wreck yesterday. Yes, facts are often just made up.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Zemirah wrote:

Excellent point

There can be a wide divergence between a supposed "fact" and the actual t***h.

There is always only one t***h.

What happens when t***h is subjective?

And happy Thanksgiving

Hug

There is only one universal t***h and that is "birth, life and death cycle".

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Hug wrote:

There is only one universal t***h and that is "birth, life and death cycle".

Sounds Buddhist

Sew_What

crazylibertarian wrote:

Opinions should be based on facts or principles. Its like mathematics or physics. A very small error at the beginning can result in huge errors later. A laser with a 0.00001 divergence will be light years across at the other end of the galaxy.

Yea, lols coming from you:

To refute you about "the t***h" lets consider the whistleblower, here are a few points to consider.

The whistleblower—or “whistleblower” if you prefer—filed a complaint with the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG), claiming to have it on good authority that President Trump had attempted to coerce Ukrainian President Zelenskyy into providing dirt on his (Trump’s) highest-polling political opponent for the 2020 p**********l e******n, that he predicated continuation of foreign aid to Ukraine on that act from Zelesky, and that the White House had then attempted to conceal that evidence by placing the notes from the conversation on a server reserved for sensitive information:

-Donald Trump, the president, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. ??????
-Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. ??????
-Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House Chief of Staff, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. ??????
-Fiona Hill, the former top White House Russia advisor, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Michael McKinley, former top aide to the Secretary of State, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Gordon D. Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the EU, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-William Taylor, the senior U.S. diplomatic official in Ukraine, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Laura Cooper, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council’s head of European Affairs, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. What did he lie about?

All of the above are facts.

Now with those in mind, let me answer your question by posing some other questions to consider.

1. What does “there is not an actual whistleblower accusing President Trump” even mean? Clearly, someone filed the complaint with the IGIC, who deemed it credible. Someone also wrote a letter outlining the complaint to Sen. Burr and Rep. Schiff. (We’ve all seen the letter.) Whoever wrote that letter is the whistleblower. If it was actually Schiff who wrote it, or actually the IGIC who wrote it, then that person is a whistleblower.
2. If “there is not an actual whistleblower accusing President Trump,” then so what? Who wrote the letter, and who filed the complaint, and indeed whether anyone did, is at this point irrelevant. The credibility of the “whistleblower’s” claims is not in question: His claims have not only been confirmed, they have been confirmed by the president himself. There is no longer any hearsay: Lt. Col. Vindman was listening in on the president’s call with Zelenskyy and agrees with what the whistleblower says about it. (For that matter, the summary of the call that the president himself released also agrees with what the whistleblower says about it.)

So to summarize: it’s awfully hard to make a case that a whistleblower doesn’t exist, and if they don’t, it doesn’t matter, because everything that non-person said has been proven true several times over.

crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island

Sew_What wrote:

Yea, lols coming from you:

To refute you about "the t***h" lets consider the whistleblower, here are a few points to consider.

The whistleblower—or “whistleblower” if you prefer—filed a complaint with the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG), claiming to have it on good authority that President Trump had attempted to coerce Ukrainian President Zelenskyy into providing dirt on his (Trump’s) highest-polling political opponent for the 2020 p**********l e******n, that he predicated continuation of foreign aid to Ukraine on that act from Zelesky, and that the White House had then attempted to conceal that evidence by placing the notes from the conversation on a server reserved for sensitive information:

-Donald Trump, the president, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. ??????
-Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. ??????
-Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House Chief of Staff, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. ??????
-Fiona Hill, the former top White House Russia advisor, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Michael McKinley, former top aide to the Secretary of State, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Gordon D. Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the EU, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-William Taylor, the senior U.S. diplomatic official in Ukraine, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Laura Cooper, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council’s head of European Affairs, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. What did he lie about?

All of the above are facts.

Now with those in mind, let me answer your question by posing some other questions to consider.

1. What does “there is not an actual whistleblower accusing President Trump” even mean? Clearly, someone filed the complaint with the IGIC, who deemed it credible. Someone also wrote a letter outlining the complaint to Sen. Burr and Rep. Schiff. (We’ve all seen the letter.) Whoever wrote that letter is the whistleblower. If it was actually Schiff who wrote it, or actually the IGIC who wrote it, then that person is a whistleblower.
2. If “there is not an actual whistleblower accusing President Trump,” then so what? Who wrote the letter, and who filed the complaint, and indeed whether anyone did, is at this point irrelevant. The credibility of the “whistleblower’s” claims is not in question: His claims have not only been confirmed, they have been confirmed by the president himself. There is no longer any hearsay: Lt. Col. Vindman was listening in on the president’s call with Zelenskyy and agrees with what the whistleblower says about it. (For that matter, the summary of the call that the president himself released also agrees with what the whistleblower says about it.)

So to summarize: it’s awfully hard to make a case that a whistleblower doesn’t exist, and if they don’t, it doesn’t matter, because everything that non-person said has been proven true several times over.

Yea, lols coming from you: br br To refute you ab... (show quote)

Not one thing is true; not your facts nor your conclusions.

What is true is that H****r B***n secured a job for which he was eminently unqualified to the tune of millions of dollars. Trump inquired about it so Adam Schiff, a proven liar, investigates Trump.

The witnesses have second, third & even fourth hand information, hearsay. Ever played the game Telegraph?

And what I wrote is scientifically and mathematically true. I had 21 points toward a master's degree in math before I went to medical school, sport. The entirety of mathematics is based upon a set of assumptions none of which can be, in & of themselves, proved to be true.

As far as your assertion that the whisteleblower doesn't have to exist, you would be laughed out of any scientific inquiry.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

What happens when t***h is subjective?

And happy Thanksgiving

T***h, real T***h cannot ever be subjective. Moral relativism is what passes for subjective t***h . No nation that practiced moral relativism ever survived because they lost the ability to know right from wrong, good from evil.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

padremike wrote:

T***h, real T***h cannot ever be subjective. Moral relativism is what passes for subjective t***h . No nation that practiced moral relativism ever survived because they lost the ability to know right from wrong, good from evil.

I love my wife...

You love your wife....

Both true...

Neither are objective...

I'm not saying that there aren't objective t***hs... Just that there are also subjective t***hs that are not measurable or comparable...

No?

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

If you are claiming the t***h can be both, subjectively true and objectively true, I agree with that.

The t***h, however, cannot be true for you, and not true for someone else. That would be opinion.

The t***h is the t***h. It either is or it isn't.

Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

What happens when t***h is subjective?

And happy Thanksgiving

Hug

Zemirah wrote:

If you are claiming the t***h can be both, subjectively true and objectively true, I agree with that.

The t***h, however, cannot be true for you, and not true for someone else. That would be opinion.

The t***h is the t***h. It either is or it isn't.

The t***h is wh**ever you believe it to be.

fullspinzoo

Sew_What wrote:

Yea, lols coming from you:

To refute you about "the t***h" lets consider the whistleblower, here are a few points to consider.

The whistleblower—or “whistleblower” if you prefer—filed a complaint with the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG), claiming to have it on good authority that President Trump had attempted to coerce Ukrainian President Zelenskyy into providing dirt on his (Trump’s) highest-polling political opponent for the 2020 p**********l e******n, that he predicated continuation of foreign aid to Ukraine on that act from Zelesky, and that the White House had then attempted to conceal that evidence by placing the notes from the conversation on a server reserved for sensitive information:

-Donald Trump, the president, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. ??????
-Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. ??????
-Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House Chief of Staff, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. ??????
-Fiona Hill, the former top White House Russia advisor, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Michael McKinley, former top aide to the Secretary of State, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Gordon D. Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the EU, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-William Taylor, the senior U.S. diplomatic official in Ukraine, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Laura Cooper, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council’s head of European Affairs, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. What did he lie about?

All of the above are facts.

Now with those in mind, let me answer your question by posing some other questions to consider.

1. What does “there is not an actual whistleblower accusing President Trump” even mean? Clearly, someone filed the complaint with the IGIC, who deemed it credible. Someone also wrote a letter outlining the complaint to Sen. Burr and Rep. Schiff. (We’ve all seen the letter.) Whoever wrote that letter is the whistleblower. If it was actually Schiff who wrote it, or actually the IGIC who wrote it, then that person is a whistleblower.
2. If “there is not an actual whistleblower accusing President Trump,” then so what? Who wrote the letter, and who filed the complaint, and indeed whether anyone did, is at this point irrelevant. The credibility of the “whistleblower’s” claims is not in question: His claims have not only been confirmed, they have been confirmed by the president himself. There is no longer any hearsay: Lt. Col. Vindman was listening in on the president’s call with Zelenskyy and agrees with what the whistleblower says about it. (For that matter, the summary of the call that the president himself released also agrees with what the whistleblower says about it.)

So to summarize: it’s awfully hard to make a case that a whistleblower doesn’t exist, and if they don’t, it doesn’t matter, because everything that non-person said has been proven true several times over.

Yea, lols coming from you: br br To refute you ab... (show quote)

Why is it Adam Schiff lied about knowing the identity of the whistleblower not once but twice? What if the f**e whistleblower turns out to be nothing but a CIA informant who h**ed Trump from Day1 and is just out to get Trump anyway he can (just about like all of the i***ts on the Left out to reverse the e******n). If he is a CIA informant put him up on the stand under oath. and maybe will get the t***h. Could it be that Schiff just factiously called him a "whistleblower" so that everyone would leave him alone? Adam Levine gives a good account of why this guy shouldn't be labeled a "whistleblower". Schiff is just making the guy "untouchable".