robosmith

YOU brought it up HERE (from HOW LONG AGO?). What's pathetic is YOU misrepresenting an anecdote about 60 years ago to TRY to tar Joe. But I guess that's the BEST YOU GOT. :applause:

But you've completely FAILED to substantiate ANY part of ^this OPINION. ANYONE CAN WRITE ANY WORDS THEY WANT HERE. Means NOTHING without EVIDENCE.

Did they teach you about the biology of stages of sexual development in the womb where you got your degree in statistics? IF you ever got a degree at all....

Don't know, don't care. The point is YOU got the story WRONG and have not apologized like Joe said HE did. AFAIK, Joe's story is the ONLY reason YOU'RE talking about "Corn Pop." You know it says something good about Joe AND not good about YOU, that you have to go to a story from 60 years ago to TRY to tar Joe. Do you have ANY EVIDENCE Joe's story was not accurate? Maybe you can dig up some witness from 60 years ago if it's that important to you. LMAO

^Lying again. Joe armed himself with a chain, but didn't have to fight at all.

The FACT is, Joe never said he beat up Corn Pop and someone (Fox?) LIED to you. YOUTUBE starting ~4:25 Joe tells the story of APOLOGIZING to Corn Pop and not fighting him because he apologized. Now it's your turn to apologize for LYING about Joe. Bet you don't have as much class as Joe.

Who told you he did? Did you see that on Fox LIes? LMAO

He also told less LIES than YOU, but that whataboutism means NOTHING.

Do you STILL not understand the DIFFERENCE between stealing documents with the INTENT of KEEPING them and LYING ABOUT NOT KNOWING YOU HAVE THEM when they're in YOUR DESK and giving them back as soon as they're discovered? Clue for you Canadians: INTENT is VERY IMPORTANT in US LAW.

You mean like when the SCOTUS completely BROKE from a PRECEDENT set 50 years ago? LMAO. Got news for YOU, precedent is NOT STRONG NOR BINDING HERE.

No it's Trump's LIE that it didn't RAIN, and you admitted it "drizzled" which IS RAIN. Merrium-Webster But enough of YOUR LIES. ?

Do you even understand the meaning of that "clicky little term like 'whataboutism'"? It means you're ignoring something that's alleged, by SUGGESTION it's NO WORSE than something else. AKA defense by pure deflection, rather than addressing the allegation.

I've given you plenty of evidence and you just make EXCUSES for ignoring it. Have you read ANY of the SWORN testimony by Republicans working in Trump's WH from the Jan 6th Final Report yet? I didn't think so. Because you don't WANT to know the truth about what happened.

Why would I go on a fishing expedition looking for support for YOUR OPINIONS when YOU can't even post ANY evidence to back them up? What you're talking about might be as ANCIENT as the "Summer of Love" (1967?) to which you keep cryptically referring. LMAO I know Maxine has said some shit that CONS don't like, but she's just a House member and not at all influential. That's why I pay NO ATTENTION to what she says. Duh.

WTH is "dirty doggery"? No one cares about ALLEGATIONS. NOT HAVING EVIDENCE of FRAUD is why Trump et al LOST 60+ court challenges to the CERTIFIED VOTE COUNTS.

AGAIN, NO EVIDENCE for your allegations. Why do you keep destroying your credibility by posting ONLY your OPINIONS? Maybe cause you're LYING?

Don't know what Omar has done, but Schiff and Swalwell did a bang up job on BOTH impeachment committees. AGAIN, you have NO EVIDENCE that EITHER is a "crook" or "traitor." There is NOTHING illegal about presenting evidence at an impeachment hearing.

I didn't say "good," I said NOT terrible. I have not watched her enough to know one way or the other since she's quite new. Do you watch her on CSPAN?

Someday those here who defend Trump's NUMEROUS LIES will be reduced to the same class of id iots who believed Joe McCarthy until the spell of HIS CULT was broken.

When it comes to LYING, Trump is in a class by himself. He is pathological and has NO SHAME. It seems that those here who defend him, do so because they admire LIARS.

I know damn well that the definition I posted says "drizzle" is (a kind of) RAIN, Trump LIED, YOU reached the ridiculous conclusion that dry APPEARING hair proves it didn't rain (which is laughable) and ONE statement that you pretend you proved true means ALL the other documented LIES were also true. On top of that, you don't understand it is IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE A NEGATIVE. You not seeing the evidence YOU EXPECT TO SEE is NOT proof it didn't happen. You've piled fake proof on top of logical fallacies, and are just too stubbornly proud to ever admit YOU'RE WRONG. Numerous eyewitnesses said it rained and you weren't there, but just keep demonstrating how delusional you are.

He's on TWO committees ALREADY cause McCarthy NEEDS his vote to stay speaker. According to McCarthy's "innocent until proven guilty" standard of criminal law, he's fine with the unconvicted being in HIS caucus. I wonder if a conviction for check kiting in Brazil will change his mind. I'm betting not. Thanks for demonstrating how behind the curve YOU ARE, AGAIN.

Jean-Pierre isn't terrible at her job. Nothing hard about that. Based on your grammar, you must have been educated in FL schools by our resident SUBSTITUTE teacher.

IF you LIE on your resume or job application and are found out, you can and LIKELY WILL be FIRED.

Q's head didn't "explode." He APPLAUDED. LMAO