Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 10-08-2019, 12:07 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,982

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
Look at those Bidens! This one, and that one, and those over there! Bad bad Bidens! Look! Look! Investigate! Investigate! (Wave arms, clap hands, yell and fart.) Bidens!

Look over there, not here. Don't look at an administration actively committing treason, as constitutionally defined. And bribes emoluments - what's to see? Oh no, witness tampering and inciting violence against Americans aren't unconstitutional.

Bidens! Bidens! They're everywhere, like cockroaches, or just cocks & roaches. Bidens!

(Previously on this channel: Clintons! Obamas! Yo-mamas! Liberals! Mexicans! Junkies! {Except Rush Limbo, illegal addict.} Clintons again! More and more Clintons! And more!)
Don't threadshit. I suggest you tone down your hyperbole that is present across most of your posts because many of them appear intentionally antagonistic.

[/moderating]
  #152  
Old 10-08-2019, 12:08 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,982

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post

I would like to see a cite that backs up the claim that either Trump son has a "drug abuse" problem that is remotely what Hunter Biden has had.
You've gotten what you asked for. You seem intent on beating on this comparison to Obama drum but that's not what this thread id about. Drop this tangent.

[/moderating]
  #153  
Old 10-08-2019, 12:23 AM
Superdude's Avatar
Superdude is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Like I said, GW Bush appointed him to the Amtrak Board of Directors. Yes, some boards are jut gladhanders/schmoozers for the company.
Wasn't Bush himself a well-known alcoholic who also served on the boards of different companies?
__________________
I can't help being a gorgeous fiend. It's just the card I drew.
  #154  
Old 10-08-2019, 01:51 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,615
If you say so. I guess Bush knew how to spot someone with the qualifications for the job then.
  #155  
Old 10-08-2019, 02:25 AM
Superdude's Avatar
Superdude is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,671
Well, if not a full-blown alcoholic, he did confess to drinking too much.
__________________
I can't help being a gorgeous fiend. It's just the card I drew.
  #156  
Old 10-08-2019, 02:33 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,615
There was a bunch of chatter about him being a "dry drunk" when he was in office but it sounded so petty I didn't get into it. Oh, they had a shot of him chatting with Ellen DeGeneres at the Dallas game this weekend. Guess they were sitting next to each other in the same box.

Last edited by CarnalK; 10-08-2019 at 02:34 AM.
  #157  
Old 10-08-2019, 08:45 AM
Superdude's Avatar
Superdude is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,671
Laura Bush has said that he had a "drinking problem," so I suppose it depends on the definitions and perspectives. But I don't think it's worth continuing the hijack, so I'll drop it.
__________________
I can't help being a gorgeous fiend. It's just the card I drew.
  #158  
Old 10-11-2019, 08:24 PM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 328
Burisma paid Joe Biden $900,000 for lobbying – Ukrainian MP

"KYIV. Oct 9 (Interfax-Ukraine) – Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden received $900,000 for lobbying activities from Burisma Group, Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada member Andriy Derkach said citing investigation materials.

Derkach publicized documents which, as he said, "describe the mechanism of getting money by Biden Sr." at a press conference at Interfax-Ukraine's press center in Kyiv on Wednesday.

"This was the transfer of Burisma Group's funds for lobbying activities, as investigators believe, personally to Joe Biden through a lobbying company. Funds in the amount of $900,000 were transferred to the U.S.-based company Rosemont Seneca Partners, which according to open sources, in particular, the New York Times, is affiliated with Biden. The payment reference was payment for consultative services," Derkach said.

https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/pres...ce/617936.html
  #159  
Old 10-11-2019, 08:48 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,977
I propose a $500 bet. If it’s true that Joe Biden got nearly a million dollars from this company, I will write you a check. If not, you pay me.

Deal?
  #160  
Old 10-11-2019, 08:52 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
Burisma paid Joe Biden $900,000 for lobbying – Ukrainian MP

"KYIV. Oct 9 (Interfax-Ukraine) – Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden received $900,000 for lobbying activities from Burisma Group, Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada member Andriy Derkach said citing investigation materials.

Derkach publicized documents which, as he said, "describe the mechanism of getting money by Biden Sr." at a press conference at Interfax-Ukraine's press center in Kyiv on Wednesday.

"This was the transfer of Burisma Group's funds for lobbying activities, as investigators believe, personally to Joe Biden through a lobbying company. Funds in the amount of $900,000 were transferred to the U.S.-based company Rosemont Seneca Partners, which according to open sources, in particular, the New York Times, is affiliated with Biden. The payment reference was payment for consultative services," Derkach said.

https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/pres...ce/617936.html
Our source:
“Interfax Ltd. (Russian: Интерфакс) is a privately-held independent major news agency in Russia (along with state-operated TASS and RIA Novosti) and information services company headquartered in Moscow.”
  #161  
Old 10-11-2019, 08:53 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,660
Why would anyone worry about Russian propaganda interfering in the US political process?
  #162  
Old 10-12-2019, 08:28 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
LAZombie, I have a serious question -- why are you reading and repeating Russian propaganda? If the story is true, don't you think a more reliable Western outlet would pick it up eventually? BBC News, NPR, even Fox News (not their opinion section, of course), the Wall Street Journal?

Assuming you're really undead from LA, that makes you probably a late US citizen, right? It's like posting something from the USSR during the Cold War -- Russia is a hostile global competitor. They are currently on the other side of the Syrian civil war from us, siding with Iran. They have interfered and are currently interfering with our democratic elections. Why are you posting their propaganda, without waiting for at least the news section of Fox to check it out?
  #163  
Old 10-12-2019, 02:25 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,822
Here's what a mainstream media source says:
Quote:
The latest came Wednesday, when Ukrainian lawmaker Andriy Derkach announced he has evidence that Burisma paid Joe Biden himself for lobbying. Derkach claimed his source for this information was a journalist; he didn't name him. The Kyiv Post, an English-language newspaper, called Derkach "dubious."

Hours later, Giuliani appeared on Sean Hannity's show on Fox News and parroted Derkach's claim.
Even Steve Doocy of all people was skeptical.

I will now post this in Russian so LAZombie might better understand it.

Вот что основной источник СМИ говорит:
Quote:
Последнее пришло в среду, когда украинский законодатель Андрей Деркач объявил, что у него есть доказательства того, что Burisma заплатила Джо Байдену за лоббирование. Деркач утверждал, что его источником этой информации был журналист; он не назвал его. The Kyiv Post, англоязычная газета, назвала Деркач сомнительным.

Несколько часов спустя Джулиани появился на шоу Шона Хэннити в Fox News и поприветствовал заявление Деркача.
Даже Стив Дуси из всех людей были скептически настроены .
  #164  
Old 10-12-2019, 09:01 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,927

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
Here's what a mainstream media source says:Even Steve Doocy of all people was skeptical.

I will now post this in Russian so LAZombie might better understand it.

Вот что основной источник СМИ говорит: Даже Стив Дуси из всех людей были скептически настроены .
I know that this was intended as humor, but we really do not want posts in non-English languages. (It is even in the board rules.)
Please refrain from this sort of action in the future.

[ /Moderating ]
  #165  
Old 10-12-2019, 09:33 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
Burisma paid Joe Biden $900,000 for lobbying – Ukrainian MP

"KYIV. Oct 9 (Interfax-Ukraine) – Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden received $900,000 for lobbying activities from Burisma Group, Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada member Andriy Derkach said citing investigation materials.

Derkach publicized documents which, as he said, "describe the mechanism of getting money by Biden Sr." at a press conference at Interfax-Ukraine's press center in Kyiv on Wednesday.

"This was the transfer of Burisma Group's funds for lobbying activities, as investigators believe, personally to Joe Biden through a lobbying company. Funds in the amount of $900,000 were transferred to the U.S.-based company Rosemont Seneca Partners, which according to open sources, in particular, the New York Times, is affiliated with Biden. The payment reference was payment for consultative services," Derkach said.

https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/pres...ce/617936.html
I've only briefly glanced at it, but they seem to be saying that a bunch of money was paid to Rosemont Seneca, a business that Hunter is part of.

Joe is a different human being than Hunter.

If the pair of them do business together then that is problematic. If Hunter is a slimeball who frustrates his dad, and refuses to refrain from taking advantage of his dad's name (despite not actually being able to do anything with it), then that's unfortunate for Joe but not really an issue that we would be concerned about.

I'll look back through the thread since I haven't really had a chance to participate due to personal life, but my sense is that Hunter isn't the best person in the world. That's not who we would be voting for, though.
  #166  
Old 10-12-2019, 09:52 PM
Chingon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 690
I can't wait to see what you uncover in your investigation.
  #167  
Old 10-12-2019, 10:10 PM
mjmlabs's Avatar
mjmlabs is offline
A Rather Dubious Fellow Indeed
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Last Green Valley
Posts: 640
I'll offer you a head start on that investigation: that company (Rosemont) was an investment fund. They wanted to raise $1.5Bn to invest in opportunities outside China; IIRC, they only wound up with about a third of that. They did not "get paid" 1.5 billion dollars, nor even the ~$500K they raised for their investment fund.

Hope those leads help.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
__________________
Take care of yourselves, and those around you. -- Margo Timmins
  #168  
Old 10-12-2019, 10:34 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmlabs View Post
I'll offer you a head start on that investigation: that company (Rosemont) was an investment fund. They wanted to raise $1.5Bn to invest in opportunities outside China; IIRC, they only wound up with about a third of that. They did not "get paid" 1.5 billion dollars, nor even the ~$500K they raised for their investment fund.

Hope those leads help.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
1) Failed corruption doesn't mean you weren't corrupt.
2) You don't mention Joe at any point in that.
  #169  
Old 10-12-2019, 10:42 PM
mjmlabs's Avatar
mjmlabs is offline
A Rather Dubious Fellow Indeed
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Last Green Valley
Posts: 640
I also omitted any mention of Xenu, Marshal Tito, or osmium.

If you find any evidence of corruption, even attempted corruption, implicating either Biden, post it here. Anyone can voice baseless allegations and insinuations, and when they are repeated often enough, some people take them as "proven." I submit that the GOP is skilled at that, and that Trump is the master.

Claims require evidence; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
__________________
Take care of yourselves, and those around you. -- Margo Timmins
  #170  
Old 10-12-2019, 10:57 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmlabs View Post
Claims require evidence; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The existence of a toga wearing, bearded old man who sits on a throne in an alternate dimension, ruling our universe is an extraordinary claim. Saying that a rich guy's son is a degenerate is not so much. Saying that a father would do favors for his son that he probably should not is not an extraordinary claim, either.

Let's also note that the discovery of truth is not always the goal.

I realise that sounds like a strange statement but consider a case where you're thinking of giving Gerald $50,000 as an investment in a new restaurant. Right before giving him the money, you learn that he's an ex-con who was arrested for a variety of financial crimes 10 years ago.

That criminal conviction does not mean that Gerald ever was or still is a crook. He could have been set up. He could have reformed. Maybe if you broke into his place and looked through his papers and computer and everything, you might be able to determine whether the restaurant is a real thing or just a con but that's obviously not feasible. Determining the truth of the matter is beyond what you can do, before having to invest the $50k.

But this isn't a case where you have to determine the truth. That's the not the question.

The question is, are there other places in the world where you could invest $50k and not need to worry about the question? If so, then why take the risk?
  #171  
Old 10-12-2019, 11:16 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
The question is, are there other places in the world where you could invest $50k and not need to worry about the question? If so, then why take the risk?
I get what you're saying, and under normal circumstances, I'd agree. But in the case we're talking about, the evidence is tainted: your reasons for thinking Gerald might be a crook are based on the innuendo and claims of some very, very bad actors.

Refusing to fund Gerald based on those bad actors ends up empowering bad actors and incentivizing other people to make similar bad-faith claims.

Normally, don't take such risks. But here, I think it's crucial we give precisely zero weight to Trump's and Giuliani's claims in our risk assessment, because to do otherwise encourages behavior we really, really don't want to encourage.
  #172  
Old 10-13-2019, 01:13 AM
mjmlabs's Avatar
mjmlabs is offline
A Rather Dubious Fellow Indeed
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Last Green Valley
Posts: 640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
The existence of a toga wearing, bearded old man who sits on a throne in an alternate dimension, ruling our universe is an extraordinary claim. Saying that a rich guy's son is a degenerate is not so much. Saying that a father would do favors for his son that he probably should not is not an extraordinary claim, either.
Then I suppose those merely ordinary claims would require merely ordinary evidence.

Whaddya got? Or, rather, what do those making the claims offer in support?
  #173  
Old 10-13-2019, 01:13 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I get what you're saying, and under normal circumstances, I'd agree. But in the case we're talking about, the evidence is tainted: your reasons for thinking Gerald might be a crook are based on the innuendo and claims of some very, very bad actors.

Refusing to fund Gerald based on those bad actors ends up empowering bad actors and incentivizing other people to make similar bad-faith claims.

Normally, don't take such risks. But here, I think it's crucial we give precisely zero weight to Trump's and Giuliani's claims in our risk assessment, because to do otherwise encourages behavior we really, really don't want to encourage.
Good faith or bad faith is not relevant.

In the case of the Trump whistleblower, for example, the right is pointing out that the whistleblower worked with Joe Biden and possibly with his campaign.

Let's assume that's true that the whistleblower is not an unbiased reporter and has more motive than the average person to falsify a report of criminal activity.

Motive doesn't mean "did". The whistleblower has motive to lie but he also has motive to simply be a whistleblower and tell the truth. On average, we could probably guess that about 85% of people are honest. 15% of research studies that have a financial motive to be skewed in a particular direction are skewed, for example. The other 85%, despite having a financial motive to falsify their results, are still honest. In cases where you have no particular motive to lie - sexual assault allegations, for example - estimates are that people are lying about the accusation are more in the 2-10% range. The motive aspect may significantly increase the probability of lying, but the probability of telling the truth is still the far greater majority.

Assuming that people lie because they're motivated to is a bad assumption, particularly if you're talking about the news media. They could get sued down to nothing for libel, if they make stuff up. This isn't to say that there aren't a ton of ways to lie while telling the truth, but everything you read in any major, American news source should be factual if read in a very literal manner and if you properly separate out the parts that are statements of fact from "personal reads" and opinion.

And besides financial risk, it's simply hard to make a lie that stands much scrutiny. Your average liar will still mostly tell the truth, if they're any good at it, simply because it's safer and easier.

And all of that is irrelevant if the information proves true. The whistleblower, the guy who told us about Gerald, whatever it may be, if we've double-checked a reliable source and the information was true, then the information was true. That information, at least, we can trust even if there are still parts of the story that we can't or haven't yet verified.

But so far, in the case of the Biden's, we don't need anyone to lie to find Joe Biden innocent. Proving that Hunter Biden is the largest sleazeball in history is irrelevant to any vote on Joe Biden - unless we want to critique his parenting ability.

In the case of Donald Trump, for example, it's clear that his family and associates are all crooked. We can take back from that, that Donald is probably crooked. It's statically unlikely that you're going to have done business with 12+ people who have gone to jail for financial crimes through simple random chance. It is fair to judge Donald by the people that he hangs out with and by the actions of his children. His children and he are in close business together.

If Hunter Biden is the only bad egg in Joe's orbit and Joe is mostly disapproving of the things he has done, then that's not really any evidence against Joe.

We can look at things superficially and say "corrupt family member means corruption!" but that's not really rational. If you look in the world, I'm sure that you'll find families with police and crooks coming out of the same parents, or switching from generation A to generation B.

The superficial view is what is called spin. People might not lie very much, but they do spin like all get out.

There is a substantive difference between Trump appointing a man convicted of bribing an elected official into the RNC finance committee and Joe Biden having a son who doesn't give a crap about dad's job and national security if it's going to keep him away from cheap and easy money. One of them is an actual thing that the person being discussed did. The other is a risk, but probably not a huge concern minus any evidence that Joe is strongly affected by his son's desires. So far as I am aware, at last glance, he fired a prosecutor who wasn't investigating Hunter's company, in preference for someone who would be more likely to do so. Whatever theoretical concern there might be that Joe is his son's patsy seems to have been disproved.

Now this isn't to say that if Hunter got himself into some major trouble, somewhere abroad - arrested for financial crimes, for example - that I would expect Joe to recuse himself and let that play out without his involvement even if it meant that Hunter served hard time in China.

But, I don't know that I'd expect any of the candidates with children to behave completely rational in that situation either.

Separating out spin and superficial comparisons is important. Narrowing in on what's actually a fact, what that really means from a reasonable standpoint, etc. is important.

If you can find trustworthy sources, obviously that is wonderful and all, but ultimately you need the ability to read something and think about what you have read, separate out the fact-checkable statements, and ignore everything else regardless of whether that's a source you believe in or not. All the source of the information means is how much fact-checking you actually do.

If something is true, though, than it's true. It doesn't matter where it came from.

But being true, that doesn't mean that is relevant to anything at all in the world. Don't get lost in spin. Just because someone says that "This is proof that Joe Biden is dirty" doesn't mean that it is. Did the money actually go to Joe Biden? Is Joe Biden happy about that money transfer? Is Joe Biden likely to do anything positive towards the source of that money, because if the transfer? If not then it's all irrelevant, whether the existence of the payment is true or not.
  #174  
Old 10-13-2019, 07:39 AM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,822
Any evidence in all those words?

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
  #175  
Old 10-13-2019, 09:33 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Good faith or bad faith is not relevant.
Of course it is.
Quote:
In the case of the Trump whistleblower, for example, the right is pointing out that the whistleblower worked with Joe Biden and possibly with his campaign.
Ima stop you right there: they're making that claim based on virtually no evidence. That's not "pointing out."
Quote:
Let's assume that's true that the whistleblower is not an unbiased reporter and has more motive than the average person to falsify a report of criminal activity.
Let's assume nothing of the sort.

Your post is really long, and the first three paragraphs are all objectionable. I'm going to apply the correct principle here: when the first three paragraphs are this bad, I'm not going to throw good time after bad. Just as I feel comfortable assuming that it's a waste of time to pursue further Republican claims about Hunter Biden, I feel comfortable assuming I won't get much from the rest of this post.

That's how it works. A politician doesn't bring their A game, they don't get my time.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 10-13-2019 at 09:34 AM.
  #176  
Old 10-13-2019, 11:20 AM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
The existence of a toga wearing, bearded old man who sits on a throne in an alternate dimension, ruling our universe is an extraordinary claim. Saying that a rich guy's son is a degenerate is not so much. Saying that a father would do favors for his son that he probably should not is not an extraordinary claim, either.

Let's also note that the discovery of truth is not always the goal.

I realise that sounds like a strange statement but consider a case where you're thinking of giving Gerald $50,000 as an investment in a new restaurant. Right before giving him the money, you learn that he's an ex-con who was arrested for a variety of financial crimes 10 years ago.

That criminal conviction does not mean that Gerald ever was or still is a crook. He could have been set up. He could have reformed. Maybe if you broke into his place and looked through his papers and computer and everything, you might be able to determine whether the restaurant is a real thing or just a con but that's obviously not feasible. Determining the truth of the matter is beyond what you can do, before having to invest the $50k.

But this isn't a case where you have to determine the truth. That's the not the question.

The question is, are there other places in the world where you could invest $50k and not need to worry about the question? If so, then why take the risk?
There are lots of places, I’m sure. But high risk investments usually promise a non-zero chance of high reward.
Investment in formerly communist countries had the potential to be very rewarding. Many legitimate western investment firms were attracted by companies that carried a very low price tag, often a fraction of the value of their physical assets.
Some of these investors got badly burned, usually by underestimating the depth of the corruption in these countries. Some of them lost everything, some of them were actually placed in physical danger.

And some of them played these complicated hand of cards just right and made money for their investors.
Players in this game included not just small risk taking investment companies but large conglomerates like Exxon-Mobil.

It is worth noting that many of these investments were in the Russian/Ukraine energy sector. The USA, for a time, encouraged the nurturing of these companies as a route to lessen US dependence on Middle East oil.

The above is probably oversimplified. This is a subject I’ve been interested in for a long time, well before Trump oozed down the escalator at Trump Tower. And I get frustrated when people assume that Hunter Bide was doing something different than the things that dozens, if not hundreds, of other American investors were doing. Yes, investment in the international energy sector is a dangerous and often unsavory game but it is a game played by lots of people and encouraged by US policy.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 10-13-2019 at 11:22 AM.
  #177  
Old 10-13-2019, 12:44 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Of course it is.
Ima stop you right there: they're making that claim based on virtually no evidence. That's not "pointing out."
Then take it as a hypothetical since the point was raised not to raise the subject but to serve as a hypothetical.

Quote:
Your post is really long, and the first three paragraphs are all objectionable.
What is the objection?
  #178  
Old 10-13-2019, 12:49 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
Any evidence in all those words?

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
It wasn't that sort of post.

I was explaining why the Rosemont allegation isn't very meaningful.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017