US politics

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

US politics

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 170 of 706 < 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 >

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Nov 21 2.38pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle To be fair though you’ve yet to provide your list of approved sources. Whenever presented with any evidence you rebut it as unreliable or biased. It isn't though fair, is it? It's not for me to provide evidence when someone else makes assertions. It's for them and should they not then what they claim can be dismissed. If anyone does present real evidence, then I will always look at it. Sadly though, what people often seem to regard as evidence is no such thing. it's hearsay at best. Just opinion at worst. Claims made by right-wing commentators or web forums are not evidence. They tend to feed off each other, and myths become self-perpetuating "truth" in some minds. You have only to read Alex Jones, or visit Gab to understand that. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 21 Nov 21 2.38pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

To be fair though you’ve yet to provide your list of approved sources. Whenever presented with any evidence you rebut it as unreliable or biased.

It isn't though fair, is it?

It's not for me to provide evidence when someone else makes assertions. It's for them and should they not then what they claim can be dismissed.

If anyone does present real evidence, then I will always look at it. Sadly though, what people often seem to regard as evidence is no such thing. it's hearsay at best. Just opinion at worst.

Claims made by right-wing commentators or web forums are not evidence. They tend to feed off each other, and myths become self-perpetuating "truth" in some minds. You have only to read Alex Jones, or visit Gab to understand that.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 21 Nov 21 2.47pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle It isn't though fair, is it? It's not for me to provide evidence when someone else makes assertions. It's for them and should they not then what they claim can be dismissed. If anyone does present real evidence, then I will always look at it. Sadly though, what people often seem to regard as evidence is no such thing. it's hearsay at best. Just opinion at worst. Claims made by right-wing commentators or web forums are not evidence. They tend to feed off each other, and myths become self-perpetuating "truth" in some minds. You have only to read Alex Jones, or visit Gab to understand that. Hence the need for your list of approved sources. There’s not much point in copying a link to something that gets dismissed out of hand.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

21 Nov 21 2.47pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

It isn't though fair, is it?

It's not for me to provide evidence when someone else makes assertions. It's for them and should they not then what they claim can be dismissed.

If anyone does present real evidence, then I will always look at it. Sadly though, what people often seem to regard as evidence is no such thing. it's hearsay at best. Just opinion at worst.

Hence the need for your list of approved sources. There’s not much point in copying a link to something that gets dismissed out of hand.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 21 Nov 21 3.27pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle It isn't though fair, is it? It's not for me to provide evidence when someone else makes assertions. It's for them and should they not then what they claim can be dismissed. If anyone does present real evidence, then I will always look at it. Sadly though, what people often seem to regard as evidence is no such thing. it's hearsay at best. Just opinion at worst. Claims made by right-wing commentators or web forums are not evidence. They tend to feed off each other, and myths become self-perpetuating "truth" in some minds. You have only to read Alex Jones, or visit Gab to understand that. This is something you do all the time. However, you only seem to recognise it in others. If you are going to insist that every claim is evidenced then be prepared to do that for every claim you make yourself. Your Russia-gate claims were you basically spending years claiming things as factual which were later not proven.....then you come out with things like this seemingly with no self reflection at all. 'It's ok for me, but not for thee'. Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Nov 2021 3.28pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

21 Nov 21 3.27pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

It isn't though fair, is it?

It's not for me to provide evidence when someone else makes assertions. It's for them and should they not then what they claim can be dismissed.

If anyone does present real evidence, then I will always look at it. Sadly though, what people often seem to regard as evidence is no such thing. it's hearsay at best. Just opinion at worst.

This is something you do all the time.

However, you only seem to recognise it in others.

If you are going to insist that every claim is evidenced then be prepared to do that for every claim you make yourself.

Your Russia-gate claims were you basically spending years claiming things as factual which were later not proven.....then you come out with things like this seemingly with no self reflection at all.

'It's ok for me, but not for thee'.

Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Nov 2021 3.28pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Nov 21 8.23pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle Hence the need for your list of approved sources. There’s not much point in copying a link to something that gets dismissed out of hand. With respect, I think you cannot really be serious. I no more have a "list of approved sources" than anyone else does. I judge on a case by case basis, just as most people do. If the evidence is there, then it speaks for itself. When it's only someone's opinion, then that too is obvious. No "source" only publishes actual evidence. Most will also publish opinion. Some only publish opinion. This has nothing to do with me personally. My expectations are no different to those of most people, if they stopped and think about it. It's summarised in that Hitchens quote."That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." It would be much easier to give you a list of sources I distrust as being generally suspect, but I won't. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 21 Nov 21 8.23pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Hence the need for your list of approved sources. There’s not much point in copying a link to something that gets dismissed out of hand.

With respect, I think you cannot really be serious. I no more have a "list of approved sources" than anyone else does. I judge on a case by case basis, just as most people do.

If the evidence is there, then it speaks for itself. When it's only someone's opinion, then that too is obvious.

No "source" only publishes actual evidence. Most will also publish opinion. Some only publish opinion.

This has nothing to do with me personally. My expectations are no different to those of most people, if they stopped and think about it.

It's summarised in that Hitchens quote."That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

It would be much easier to give you a list of sources I distrust as being generally suspect, but I won't.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Nov 21 8.50pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays This is something you do all the time. However, you only seem to recognise it in others. If you are going to insist that every claim is evidenced then be prepared to do that for every claim you make yourself. Your Russia-gate claims were you basically spending years claiming things as factual which were later not proven.....then you come out with things like this seemingly with no self reflection at all. 'It's ok for me, but not for thee'. Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Nov 2021 3.28pm) More bs. I don't insist that every claim made be supported by evidence. I only seek to establish the difference between an evidence free assertion and one that is supported by something factual. None of us are in the position of personally investigating things like "Russiagate". The only evidence we can personally present is about those things that happen in our own lives. That though, is not to say that evidence doesn't exist, and has been presented by others in such a way as to be reliable and trustworthy. I provide links to such sources as evidence. On things, like the DNC having a policy to encourage rioting and destruction, you don't, because you can't, as it doesn't exist. There are plenty of fact checking sites out there these days, ready able and competent to check claims and determine whether they stack up. Of course, the right dismiss these as "fake news" and claim they are all biased against them, such is the level of misinformation they circulate. All I ever said about Trump and the support he received from Russia is based on solid information, much of it in the public domain. You are quite right, though. It is not proven. Not yet. That though doesn't mean it isn't true, or that the evidence doesn't exist. Mueller found a lot of evidence, but couldn't use it. If his unredacted report ever gets published, or the NY Court decides to move, then perhaps even you will believe it. I cannot myself yet provide evidence for those assertions, so you are entitled to dismiss them, if that makes you happy. I though feel very confident that, in time, the evidence will see the light of day. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 21 Nov 21 8.50pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

This is something you do all the time.

However, you only seem to recognise it in others.

If you are going to insist that every claim is evidenced then be prepared to do that for every claim you make yourself.

Your Russia-gate claims were you basically spending years claiming things as factual which were later not proven.....then you come out with things like this seemingly with no self reflection at all.

'It's ok for me, but not for thee'.

Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Nov 2021 3.28pm)

More bs.

I don't insist that every claim made be supported by evidence. I only seek to establish the difference between an evidence free assertion and one that is supported by something factual.

None of us are in the position of personally investigating things like "Russiagate". The only evidence we can personally present is about those things that happen in our own lives.

That though, is not to say that evidence doesn't exist, and has been presented by others in such a way as to be reliable and trustworthy. I provide links to such sources as evidence. On things, like the DNC having a policy to encourage rioting and destruction, you don't, because you can't, as it doesn't exist.

There are plenty of fact checking sites out there these days, ready able and competent to check claims and determine whether they stack up. Of course, the right dismiss these as "fake news" and claim they are all biased against them, such is the level of misinformation they circulate.

All I ever said about Trump and the support he received from Russia is based on solid information, much of it in the public domain.

You are quite right, though. It is not proven. Not yet. That though doesn't mean it isn't true, or that the evidence doesn't exist. Mueller found a lot of evidence, but couldn't use it. If his unredacted report ever gets published, or the NY Court decides to move, then perhaps even you will believe it.

I cannot myself yet provide evidence for those assertions, so you are entitled to dismiss them, if that makes you happy. I though feel very confident that, in time, the evidence will see the light of day.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst The garden of England 21 Nov 21 8.55pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle More bs. I don't insist that every claim made be supported by evidence. I only seek to establish the difference between an evidence free assertion and one that is supported by something factual. None of us are in the position of personally investigating things like "Russiagate". The only evidence we can personally present is about those things that happen in our own lives. That though, is not to say that evidence doesn't exist, and has been presented by others in such a way as to be reliable and trustworthy. I provide links to such sources as evidence. On things, like the DNC having a policy to encourage rioting and destruction, you don't, because you can't, as it doesn't exist. There are plenty of fact checking sites out there these days, ready able and competent to check claims and determine whether they stack up. Of course, the right dismiss these as "fake news" and claim they are all biased against them, such is the level of misinformation they circulate. All I ever said about Trump and the support he received from Russia is based on solid information, much of it in the public domain. You are quite right, though. It is not proven. Not yet. That though doesn't mean it isn't true, or that the evidence doesn't exist. Mueller found a lot of evidence, but couldn't use it. If his unredacted report ever gets published, or the NY Court decides to move, then perhaps even you will believe it. I cannot myself yet provide evidence for those assertions, so you are entitled to dismiss them, if that makes you happy. I though feel very confident that, in time, the evidence will see the light of day. Didn't the rioters get bailed by Democrats and their supporters to just riot again.
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 21 Nov 21 8.55pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

More bs.

I don't insist that every claim made be supported by evidence. I only seek to establish the difference between an evidence free assertion and one that is supported by something factual.

None of us are in the position of personally investigating things like "Russiagate". The only evidence we can personally present is about those things that happen in our own lives.

All I ever said about Trump and the support he received from Russia is based on solid information, much of it in the public domain.

Didn't the rioters get bailed by Democrats and their supporters to just riot again.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 21 Nov 21 9.34pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle More bs. I don't insist that every claim made be supported by evidence. I only seek to establish the difference between an evidence free assertion and one that is supported by something factual. None of us are in the position of personally investigating things like "Russiagate". The only evidence we can personally present is about those things that happen in our own lives. That though, is not to say that evidence doesn't exist, and has been presented by others in such a way as to be reliable and trustworthy. I provide links to such sources as evidence. On things, like the DNC having a policy to encourage rioting and destruction, you don't, because you can't, as it doesn't exist. There are plenty of fact checking sites out there these days, ready able and competent to check claims and determine whether they stack up. Of course, the right dismiss these as "fake news" and claim they are all biased against them, such is the level of misinformation they circulate. All I ever said about Trump and the support he received from Russia is based on solid information, much of it in the public domain. You are quite right, though. It is not proven. Not yet. That though doesn't mean it isn't true, or that the evidence doesn't exist. Mueller found a lot of evidence, but couldn't use it. If his unredacted report ever gets published, or the NY Court decides to move, then perhaps even you will believe it. I cannot myself yet provide evidence for those assertions, so you are entitled to dismiss them, if that makes you happy. I though feel very confident that, in time, the evidence will see the light of day. You were the one insisting on evidence for claims. You can't make claims yourself, just say they are factual, and then present no evidence and then complain about others. Well, not without being a hypocrite you can't. You spent years telling people on the Trump thread that Muller would see Trump in jail and all the end result was you cobbling together a collection of words to weed out of the fact that you were wrong. You aren't man enough to admit it....anyone on here can go onto that thread...in fact I recommend it, start where Wisbech begins and see how wide the gulf between fantasy and reality was. I spent the time on the previous page answering some of your claims on Rittenhouse due to several of your assertions.....Some of it just shows how willing you are to just accept Democrat news sources without question. Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Nov 2021 9.36pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

21 Nov 21 9.34pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

More bs.

I don't insist that every claim made be supported by evidence. I only seek to establish the difference between an evidence free assertion and one that is supported by something factual.

None of us are in the position of personally investigating things like "Russiagate". The only evidence we can personally present is about those things that happen in our own lives.

All I ever said about Trump and the support he received from Russia is based on solid information, much of it in the public domain.

You were the one insisting on evidence for claims. You can't make claims yourself, just say they are factual, and then present no evidence and then complain about others.

Well, not without being a hypocrite you can't.

You spent years telling people on the Trump thread that Muller would see Trump in jail and all the end result was you cobbling together a collection of words to weed out of the fact that you were wrong. You aren't man enough to admit it....anyone on here can go onto that thread...in fact I recommend it, start where Wisbech begins and see how wide the gulf between fantasy and reality was.

I spent the time on the previous page answering some of your claims on Rittenhouse due to several of your assertions.....Some of it just shows how willing you are to just accept Democrat news sources without question.

Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Nov 2021 9.36pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Nov 21 9.41pm
Originally posted by cryrst Didn't the rioters get bailed by Democrats and their supporters to just riot again. I have no idea whether anyone got bailed and then rioted again, or what the political affiliations of those who stood bail was. Although I doubt whether they would have been Trump supporters. The very fact that you post this in reply lends support to what I have been saying. Just because some people, who aren't Republicans and might support the Democrats, or indeed even be local politicians, are sympathetic to the protests, which led to the rioting and destruction, doesn't have any bearing at all on the matter. The assertion was that the "Democrats", ie the DNC, had such a policy. Not just people at a local level. It's as silly as suggesting that because those support the KKK are also more likely to be Republican sympathisers politically than Democrats, that the GOP is behind the KKK. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 21 Nov 21 9.41pm

Originally posted by cryrst

Didn't the rioters get bailed by Democrats and their supporters to just riot again.

I have no idea whether anyone got bailed and then rioted again, or what the political affiliations of those who stood bail was. Although I doubt whether they would have been Trump supporters.

The very fact that you post this in reply lends support to what I have been saying.

Just because some people, who aren't Republicans and might support the Democrats, or indeed even be local politicians, are sympathetic to the protests, which led to the rioting and destruction, doesn't have any bearing at all on the matter.

The assertion was that the "Democrats", ie the DNC, had such a policy. Not just people at a local level.

It's as silly as suggesting that because those support the KKK are also more likely to be Republican sympathisers politically than Democrats, that the GOP is behind the KKK.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 21 Nov 21 9.52pm
Oh look. Suddenly he has no idea. How convenient. I mean he could actually research into it as he has stated on here that the DNC were not in collusion with rioters over that 18 month period.....it's a joke, prosecutors in Democratic cities literally stating that rioters and looters wouldn't be jailed....the facts are there for this suddenly uncurious person to find. However, actions mean more than words....thank god, otherwise he would have to be taken seriously. Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Nov 2021 9.56pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

21 Nov 21 9.52pm

Oh look.

Suddenly he has no idea.

How convenient.

I mean he could actually research into it as he has stated on here that the DNC were not in collusion with rioters over that 18 month period.....it's a joke, prosecutors in Democratic cities literally stating that rioters and looters wouldn't be jailed....the facts are there for this suddenly uncurious person to find.

However, actions mean more than words....thank god, otherwise he would have to be taken seriously.

Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Nov 2021 9.56pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Nov 21 10.06pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays You were the one insisting on evidence for claims. You can't make claims yourself, just say they are factual, and then present no evidence and then complain about others. Well, not without being a hypocrite you can't. You spent years telling people on the Trump thread that Muller would see Trump in jail and all the end result was you cobbling together a collection of words to weed out of the fact that you were wrong. You aren't man enough to admit it....anyone on here can go onto that thread...in fact I recommend it, start where Wisbech begins and see how wide the gulf between fantasy and reality was. I spent the time on the previous page answering some of your claims on Rittenhouse due to several of your assertions.....Some of it just shows how willing you are to just accept Democrat news sources without question. Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Nov 2021 9.36pm) Over my many posts on the subject, I have provided lots of evidence. Much of it circumstantial but nonetheless evidence. Trump's associates were jailed, whilst he, like the mob boss he emulates, maintained plausible deniability. I admit I was wrong about one thing. Barr spiked Mueller, at least at the time, and I didn't anticipate that. Mueller is cleverer than me though, and was prepared for it, and his files are now in the hands of the NY District Attorney. So whilst Mueller himself may not present an indictment, I firmly believe his work will result in one. I said it would take time, and it will. How much time is unknown, and you can scoff all you wish. I am patient. Trump employs some clever attorneys, and they will doubtless string things out as they are now doing with Bannon refusing to give evidence to Congress to protect him. His best hope is that they can delay things long enough that his death comes first. That's the only way he will get off the hook. There are no Democrat news sources. There are just news sources, some of which present things from different perspectives. You made claims about Rittenhouse which I believe aren't true. As I showed you. He didn't have a job, according to all the reports I read, and the garage he claimed to have asked him for help has denied it. He SAID his job was to protect businesses. That was just his fantasy. Just because you write things doesn't make them true. I provided a reference (from Fox, hardly a Democrat supporting source). You just make assertions, without evidence, so are dismissed. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 21 Nov 21 10.06pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

You were the one insisting on evidence for claims. You can't make claims yourself, just say they are factual, and then present no evidence and then complain about others.

Well, not without being a hypocrite you can't.

Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Nov 2021 9.36pm)

Over my many posts on the subject, I have provided lots of evidence. Much of it circumstantial but nonetheless evidence. Trump's associates were jailed, whilst he, like the mob boss he emulates, maintained plausible deniability.

I admit I was wrong about one thing. Barr spiked Mueller, at least at the time, and I didn't anticipate that. Mueller is cleverer than me though, and was prepared for it, and his files are now in the hands of the NY District Attorney. So whilst Mueller himself may not present an indictment, I firmly believe his work will result in one.

I said it would take time, and it will. How much time is unknown, and you can scoff all you wish. I am patient. Trump employs some clever attorneys, and they will doubtless string things out as they are now doing with Bannon refusing to give evidence to Congress to protect him. His best hope is that they can delay things long enough that his death comes first. That's the only way he will get off the hook.

There are no Democrat news sources. There are just news sources, some of which present things from different perspectives.

You made claims about Rittenhouse which I believe aren't true. As I showed you. He didn't have a job, according to all the reports I read, and the garage he claimed to have asked him for help has denied it. He SAID his job was to protect businesses. That was just his fantasy. Just because you write things doesn't make them true. I provided a reference (from Fox, hardly a Democrat supporting source). You just make assertions, without evidence, so are dismissed.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 21 Nov 21 10.16pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Over my many posts on the subject, I have provided lots of evidence. Much of it circumstantial but nonetheless evidence. Trump's associates were jailed, whilst he, like the mob boss he emulates, maintained plausible deniability. I admit I was wrong about one thing. Barr spiked Mueller, at least at the time, and I didn't anticipate that. Mueller is cleverer than me though, and was prepared for it, and his files are now in the hands of the NY District Attorney. So whilst Mueller himself may not present an indictment, I firmly believe his work will result in one. I said it would take time, and it will. How much time is unknown, and you can scoff all you wish. I am patient. Trump employs some clever attorneys, and they will doubtless string things out as they are now doing with Bannon refusing to give evidence to Congress to protect him. His best hope is that they can delay things long enough that his death comes first. That's the only way he will get off the hook. There are no Democrat news sources. There are just news sources, some of which present things from different perspectives. You made claims about Rittenhouse which I believe aren't true. As I showed you. He didn't have a job, according to all the reports I read, and the garage he claimed to have asked him for help has denied it. He SAID his job was to protect businesses. That was just his fantasy. Just because you write things doesn't make them true. I provided a reference (from Fox, hardly a Democrat supporting source). You just make assertions, without evidence, so are dismissed. I presented a statement concerning the job from his legal team. Show me the evidence refuting his legal team. Where is the legal statement saying that he didn't have a job? I covered the topic over protecting businesses....firstly this wasn't a claim I made. It's a claim he made that you seemed to think was relevant to me. Secondly I presented pretty conclusive evidence that whether he was or wasn't is unknowable.....however it was certainly quite likely people were asked as witnesses testified to that fact. I provided legal facts....that is actual evidence. I make an important request to readers. If anyone is reading WE's post and thinks it a balanced summary. Please read my post on the previous page where I tackle his assertions. I put quite a lot of work into it. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

21 Nov 21 10.16pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

There are no Democrat news sources. There are just news sources, some of which present things from different perspectives.

I presented a statement concerning the job from his legal team.

Show me the evidence refuting his legal team.

Where is the legal statement saying that he didn't have a job?

I covered the topic over protecting businesses....firstly this wasn't a claim I made. It's a claim he made that you seemed to think was relevant to me. Secondly I presented pretty conclusive evidence that whether he was or wasn't is unknowable.....however it was certainly quite likely people were asked as witnesses testified to that fact.

I provided legal facts....that is actual evidence.

I make an important request to readers. If anyone is reading WE's post and thinks it a balanced summary. Please read my post on the previous page where I tackle his assertions. I put quite a lot of work into it.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 21 Nov 21 10.19pm
WE believes his posts on the Trump thread will result in him going to jail. Russia-gate has been shown to be a complete put up job....watch Jimmy Dore tear it apart...hardly a Trump fan. So we are left with the options that WE is right or that pretty much WE is a dishonest fantasist. I'll leave others to judge on that. Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Nov 2021 10.21pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

21 Nov 21 10.19pm

WE believes his posts on the Trump thread will result in him going to jail. Russia-gate has been shown to be a complete put up job....watch Jimmy Dore tear it apart...hardly a Trump fan.

So we are left with the options that WE is right or that pretty much WE is a dishonest fantasist.

I'll leave others to judge on that.

Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Nov 2021 10.21pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 170 of 706 < 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

US politics

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors