Saspatz007 wrote:
No.
I have never said I that I believe Schitt.
Apparently some people think that because I don’t know for sure whether he was telling a direct lie in this case that I definitely believe he’s telling the t***h.
Seriously?
I don’t think it’s provable either way. Maybe it can be deduced. But deduction is not proof.
Evidence is proof. While there is circumstantial evidence, it’s not hard evidence. If this is going to fly with people who don’t agree that there are no grounds for the inquiry in the first place, there needs to be hard evidence.
That being said. The strategy of the Democrats is to insist that it doesn’t matter.
This makes no sense to me.
The veracity of a witness is critical to the credibility of their testimony.
As for me, the entire circus is intended to divert attention away from what’s going on right under our noses.
Take a peak at s.2584
Commerce, justice, science and related agencies appropriations act of 2020.
Pay attention to the defined ways these funds can be used. Who, exactly, is in a position to access the money.
Follow the money.
Understand the game.
Monitor the action as it progresses through the process.
Read the amendments. Pay attention to who proposes them and who profits. Watch the web unfold.
Most people are either unwilling or unable to do the homework.
Unable, I’ll excuse. They have my pity.
Someone who is able do the work and understand what’s going on, and still chooses not to do the work of looking for themselves, deserves the price they will surely pay.
No. br I have never said I that I believe Schitt. ... (
show quote)
Sas!
Lets get you up to date.
Laura Ingraham Fox News december 17, 2019
Pelosi's 3-ring Flop
https://youtu.be/vu2W0irkcNgThe Senate needs to hold a trial on impeachment to really expose the Democrats for what they represent.
zillaorange wrote:
We'll include the smartest. Then we can say we are bipartisan !
It’s not about being smart. Some of the smartest people I know are feces throwers. Some of slower people I know are respectful. Education, or lack thereof, is not a disqualification either.
It’s about respect. This means staying away from insults, name calling, personal attacks, blanket assumptions, and condemnation rather than argument. We can disagree, adamantly, and not be disagreeable. We can find a position horrible without insisting that the people who hold it are horrible.
It’s about civil discourse . Emphasis on “civil “.
Saspatz007 wrote:
It’s not about being smart. Some of the smartest people I know are feces throwers. Some of slower people I know are respectful. Education, or lack thereof, is not a disqualification either.
It’s about respect. This means staying away from insults, name calling, personal attacks, blanket assumptions, and condemnation rather than argument. We can disagree, adamantly, and not be disagreeable. We can find a position horrible without insisting that the people who hold it are horrible.
It’s about civil discourse . Emphasis on “civil “.
It’s not about being smart. Some of the smartest p... (
show quote)
I try to be civil most of the time, but I am rough around the edges.
eagleye13 wrote:
I try to be civil most of the time, but I am rough around the edges.
Rough around the edges is fine.
Just don’t get suckered into a monkey fight.
Saspatz007 wrote:
It’s not about being smart. Some of the smartest people I know are feces throwers. Some of slower people I know are respectful. Education, or lack thereof, is not a disqualification either.
It’s about respect. This means staying away from insults, name calling, personal attacks, blanket assumptions, and condemnation rather than argument. We can disagree, adamantly, and not be disagreeable. We can find a position horrible without insisting that the people who hold it are horrible.
It’s about civil discourse . Emphasis on “civil “.
It’s not about being smart. Some of the smartest p... (
show quote)
Does being honest fall under civil dialogue?
Bullschitt makes a debate unending, just as the power drunk rambling chase for impeachment of a President who doesn't deserve it.
You people are already talking schitt of another impeachment charade after this one turns to schitt.
No conclusion was the goal from the beginning, because then the left would have to concede their barbaric use of mob rule, as a devastating defeat.
But alas..all y'all can write books to reinforce self defeat.
Just a little heads up.."Beware" there are Conservative and Republican members of OPP who have grown weary of the l*****t whining.
We are not Demoproggie Soyboy debaters.
Edit...excuse my lack of including our wonderful Lady Warriors as stout and informed too.
Saspatz007 wrote:
Rough around the edges is fine.
Just don’t get suckered into a monkey fight.
"Rough around the edges is fine.
Just don’t get suckered into a monkey fight."
I find monkeys entertaining, and worth while. LOL
eagleye13 wrote:
"Rough around the edges is fine.
Just don’t get suckered into a monkey fight."
I find monkeys entertaining, and worth while. LOL
We are not monkeys. Yes, they’re fun to watch.
The question is whether we want to change people’s minds.
This doesn’t happen when we start shouting and insulting each other.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.