gatomontes99 Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 9 hours ago, robosmith said: It's just ^your BULLSHIT IMAGINATION. 1 Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
Radiorum Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 9 hours ago, CdnFox said: No, it's an accusation of what happened. Do you have a judgment from a judge confirming that in his opinion after a fair trial this is what happened? Do you understand how the legal process works? If trump's defense were to file a reply that said he was innocent would you accept that as being the truth and facts just because it was a filing? This is why we have trials. Very frequently the evidence turns out to be false. Or the conclusions about the evidence being illegal turns out to be false. Let's try and keep it real. These are what trump was accused of doing. Trump and his legal team would obviously see the facts as being very different. By no means shape or form can this document be considered to be a statement of fact. It's just a statement No, what Smith has presented are irrefutable facts supported by evidence. The role of the courts is not to question reality, but to see if this particular reality supports the charges. Having said that, I'll add that your opinion about a report you have not read is invalid. 1 1 Quote
Legato Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 1 hour ago, Radiorum said: No, what Smith has presented are irrefutable facts supported by evidence. The role of the courts is not to question reality, but to see if this particular reality supports the charges. Having said that, I'll add that your opinion about a report you have not read is invalid. One mans facts are another mans bullshit. Irrefutable facts supported by evidence are only valid until a more evidence is found which disputes the said facts. Evidence that is manufactured to server a purpose is not and never will be evidence. Welcome to Salem. 1 Quote
Deluge Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 10 hours ago, robosmith said: You know that NO ONE outside the MAGA CULT believes your BULLSHIT don't you. IOW you're just wasting your time. And if you don't start making substantive posts, I'm going to add you to my ignore list. I know that truth is your biggest roadblock. It's the same for all democrats because your brains are poisoned with the woke pathogen. And it's obvious that you can't stand the truth, so go ahead and fire up that ignore list. 9 hours ago, CdnFox said: Woo HOOOO @Deluge makes the list I know you worked hard at that bud So what has he got left, like 3 people he can still talk to? Wow, is the list that extensive? I guess it make sense, though. lol 1 Quote
Legato Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 10 hours ago, robosmith said: add you to my ignore list. What colour crayon do you use? I hope it's a Maga red. 3 Quote
West Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 2 hours ago, Radiorum said: No, what Smith has presented are irrefutable facts supported by evidence. The role of the courts is not to question reality, but to see if this particular reality supports the charges. Having said that, I'll add that your opinion about a report you have not read is invalid. In my view they had a theory and Smith manufactured circumstantial evidence at best to fit his theory. Opposite of how any functioning legal system should operate 1 Quote
CdnFox Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 5 hours ago, Radiorum said: No, what Smith has presented are irrefutable facts supported by evidence. No, what smith has presented is a claim. Then you go to court and THEN both sides get a chance to refute it. AFTER that the judge (and jury in some cases) will decide what has been proven to be fact or not. You're just out and out lying at this piont. And posting exerpts every 5 minutes to disrupt the forum and the thread just proves even you don't believe it's true, or you'd just have posted a link and possibly some of the points you consider to be critical. This is exactly the kind of dishonestly we've become used to seeing from the left and why nobody with a brain accepts what this guy said as 'true' on good faith. The republicans are going to own the dems for the next 12 years and the CPC in Canada will own the left probably for about as long. Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Radiorum Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 3 hours ago, CdnFox said: No, what smith has presented is a claim. Then you go to court and THEN both sides get a chance to refute it. AFTER that the judge (and jury in some cases) will decide what has been proven to be fact or not. You're just out and out lying at this piont. And posting exerpts every 5 minutes to disrupt the forum and the thread just proves even you don't believe it's true, or you'd just have posted a link and possibly some of the points you consider to be critical. This is exactly the kind of dishonestly we've become used to seeing from the left and why nobody with a brain accepts what this guy said as 'true' on good faith. The republicans are going to own the dems for the next 12 years and the CPC in Canada will own the left probably for about as long. This is a thread about Smith’s Report. I quoted from the report. Totally appropriate. So, if you have any comments to make, make them about the contents of the report. Oh yeah, that’s right, you never read it. But somehow, you are an expert. Dishonesty? It’s your own position that you are thinking of Quote
robosmith Posted January 15 Author Report Posted January 15 16 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said: So the electorate holds a veto against the rule of law? LOL. Good thing the electorate don't all have law degrees. The Democrats need to soul search and figure out why voters elected instead of them a wannabe authoritarian dictator and clear felon with little regard for the constitution or democracy when his power is at risk. The bar wasn't very high and they lost LOL. We pretty much know why they voted for Trump: they believed HIS LIES. But a close second is that Harris is a relative unknown and thus susceptible to being falsely characterized. Quote
robosmith Posted January 15 Author Report Posted January 15 7 hours ago, Deluge said: I know that truth is your biggest roadblock. It's the same for all democrats because your brains are poisoned with the woke pathogen. And it's obvious that you can't stand the truth, so go ahead and fire up that ignore list. Wow, is the list that extensive? I guess it make sense, though. lol Trouble is, you believe CdnLIAR. LYING is how he was the first to make my IGNORE LIST. And now you will be #4. Welcome to it, cause your completely unsubstantiated BULLSHIT deserves it. Quote
CdnFox Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 2 hours ago, Radiorum said: This is a thread about Smith’s Report. I quoted from the report. Totally appropriate. A thread means discussion, which you did none of. And quotes are in support of something, so what you did was totally in approriate. And spamming isn't ok regardless of what the thread is about, that's just an attempt on your part to shut the thread down. Which isn't appropriate. Don't be a complete dick if you can avoid it pls. Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Radiorum Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 7 minutes ago, CdnFox said: A thread means discussion, which you did none of. And quotes are in support of something, so what you did was totally in approriate. And spamming isn't ok regardless of what the thread is about, that's just an attempt on your part to shut the thread down. Which isn't appropriate. Don't be a complete dick if you can avoid it pls. Omg, thanks for the laugh. Are you laughing when you write this drivel? Quote
Radiorum Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 1 hour ago, CdnFox said: A thread means discussion Okay, then, sorry. Smith is devoted to the rule of law. Trump is devoted only to himself. Discuss. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 Steele Dossier 2.0 is a bust...go figure. 1 Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
CdnFox Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 40 minutes ago, Radiorum said: Okay, then, sorry. Smith is devoted to the rule of law. Trump is devoted only to himself. Discuss. I don't find the first one to be true. The second one is a tiny bit harder to dispute Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Deluge Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 (edited) 15 hours ago, robosmith said: Trouble is, you believe CdnLIAR. LYING is how he was the first to make my IGNORE LIST. And now you will be #4. Welcome to it, cause your completely unsubstantiated BULLSHIT deserves it. You're a left-wing parrot - that's where the REAL trouble lies. You're allowed to be a socialist, comrade, as we live in a free country. Just be honest about it. On 1/15/2025 at 6:34 AM, gatomontes99 said: MMMMMMM, COPIUM... -- The Left Edited January 16 by Deluge Quote
godzilla Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 what about Mike Pence stating that he refused to overturn the election at Trumps request? is he lying? Pence Says He Had 'No Right' To Overturn 2020 Election if he's not lying then i guess no report or trial is needed to determine the truth. Quote
CdnFox Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 59 minutes ago, godzilla said: what about Mike Pence stating that he refused to overturn the election at Trumps request? is he lying? Pence Says He Had 'No Right' To Overturn 2020 Election if he's not lying then i guess no report or trial is needed to determine the truth. well that would be true if Pence was the final arbiter of what is and isn't allowed or appropriate under the law. He is not. His opinion is one thing. Others may have a different opinion. We don't decide things based on one person's opinion, we have a legal system that examines everything. Pence could entirely believe he had no such power and be wrong. Trump could entirely believe he did and be wrong. And both could wind up being correct or incorrect without a law being offended. It always amazes me how quickly those on the left are prepared to throw out the rule of law and just determine guilt based on someone's say so. Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
ironstone Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 (edited) "A compilation of gossip" Edited January 16 by ironstone Quote "Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell
godzilla Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 (edited) 52 minutes ago, CdnFox said: well that would be true if Pence was the final arbiter of what is and isn't allowed or appropriate under the law. He is not. His opinion is one thing. Others may have a different opinion. We don't decide things based on one person's opinion, we have a legal system that examines everything. Pence could entirely believe he had no such power and be wrong. Trump could entirely believe he did and be wrong. And both could wind up being correct or incorrect without a law being offended. It always amazes me how quickly those on the left are prepared to throw out the rule of law and just determine guilt based on someone's say so. let me ask you this... the certificates of ascertainment identifying Trump in states that also Biden won exist, do they not? the ones referred to by Pence, the electors that signed them, Chesebro and others... the ones in the possession of the DOJ... those ones? the ones that electors have already been convicted of producing? Republican activist becomes first person to be convicted in Arizona’s fake elector case Edited January 16 by godzilla 1 Quote
Hodad Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 1 hour ago, ironstone said: "A compilation of gossip" That's a very funny way to describe a thoroughly documented and evidence-backed presentation of facts. 1 Quote
CdnFox Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 45 minutes ago, godzilla said: let me ask you this... the certificates of ascertainment identifying Trump in states that also Biden won exist, do they not? I don't know, i've never seen them. Nor would i be able to authieticate them if i could. That's why we have judges and courts, they can determine the validity of relevant evidence. I get that you've got a little 'stalin worship' going on where we just convict people and throw them in a gulag without the benefit of a trial if they're your political enemies. But it's hard to take you seriously when you're trying to cry about a threat to the democracy while at the same time demanding that due process isn't a thing. It's fine if you want to say that based on the balance of probabilities (a low bar for evidence) that you perosnally believe trump was guilty of something. Useful if you're trying to decide who to vote for i suppose. It's also fine to say you feel there's enough evidence at first look (prima facia) to warrant a full trial to examine it. But that's about it. Trump argues that what he did was technically correct based on the wording of the law, and further claims that the law is not offended if he does something as part of his powers as president (which he was at the time). Those are complicated issues and would require going through the proper legal process to answer. Probably to the supreme court. Sorry that jurisprudence is so inconvenient for you But it's one of the most critical parts of a free society. 3 minutes ago, Hodad said: That's a very funny way to describe a thoroughly documented and evidence-backed presentation of facts. Has it been tested in a court? How can we prove they're facts otherwise. The left hasn't moved much beyond Stalin these days has it. Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
ironstone Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 9 minutes ago, Hodad said: That's a very funny way to describe a thoroughly documented and evidence-backed presentation of facts. Didn't bother to actually listen to the show did ya' ?😉 Quote "Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell
robosmith Posted January 16 Author Report Posted January 16 3 hours ago, ironstone said: "A compilation of gossip" UNREBUTTED sworn testimony BY WITNESSES is GOLD when it comes to US JUSTICE, no matter what Douchowitz says. And the report was REQUIRED BY LAW. Trump could have volunteered to submit SWORN TESTIMONY, but DID NOT. 2 hours ago, ironstone said: Didn't bother to actually listen to the show did ya' ?😉 Douchowitz was NOT under oath, so he can LIE WITH IMPUNITY and HE KNOWS IT. Unfortunate that YOU DON'T. Quote
robosmith Posted January 16 Author Report Posted January 16 2 hours ago, Hodad said: That's a very funny way to describe a thoroughly documented and evidence-backed presentation of facts. It's the MAGA CULT way. Whatever the DON wants. 3 hours ago, ironstone said: "A compilation of gossip" ^The LIES of a DEFENSE lawyer, NOT UNDER OATH, of course. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.