Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The problem isn't my failure to convince you what I said is true. But your claim my statement was false. And when I post independent proof my statement was true, you revert to my initial statement didn't prove anything.I objected to your belief that I'm obligated to accept your claims without proof. That only proves that I'm not an imbecile like you.
Your problem is your inability to commit logic. You obviously can't convince me of anything using irrationality. Your statement was that the U.N. inspections proved there were no WMDs. They did nothing of the sort. You even admitted that no one believed the U.N. inspectors until the U.S. army invaded Iraq.The problem isn't my failure to convince you what I said is true. But your claim my statement was false. And when I post independent proof my statement was true, you said my initial statement didn't prove anything.
Actually many of our allies like france believed them Because france had spies embedded inside Iraq who reported the same thing. And in the end they turned out to be 100% correct.Your statement was that the U.N. inspections proved there were no WMDs. They did nothing of the sort. You even admitted that no one believed the U.N. inspectors until the U.S. army invaded Iraq.
Once again you fail to back up your claim and feebly attempt to deflect to another topic.It has been proven. Did you not see all the court cases that were tossed?
Yes, you did. You just didn’t realize it.Nope.
It has been proven. Did you not see all the court cases that were tossed?
The court cases are "PROOF".Once again you fail to back up your claim and feebly attempt to deflect to another topic.
You are a clown.
Nope. The one making a claim is the one with the burden of proof, Dumbass.You have it backwards. The burden of proof is upon the person who can prove the case. If the question is the existence of unicorns it's impossible to prove their non-existence, example the non-existence of WMD's in Iraq.
So the burden switched to proving the existence, as the CIA Duelfer report attempted to do. Their failure to find WMD's (of any significance) proved the non-existence of WMD's.
The same goes for voter fraud.
Six more than those disenfranchised by voter ID.OH MY GOD!!!!!
SIX PEOPLE!!!!
Clear rampant wide scale election fraud! Every election must be audited NOW!
I see, like Bripat, you failed logic.Nope. The one making a claim is the one with the burden of proof, Dumbass.
Quote the court case that said there are very few instances if vote fraud nationwide.The court cases are "PROOF".
You just won't be convinced until the audits prove the same thing.
No, the burden is on the ones making the claim he broke the law. You really are stupid beyond belief.I see, like Bripat, you failed logic.
It's like when a person is charged with a crime, and he pleads "not guilty". You would say that the burden of proof then shifts on him, to PROVE, that he's not guilty, (his claim)
Ask ObammyAre you saying that Compton "culturally appropriated" corruption from white Chicago politicians?
Where you from? Innocent until proven guiltyI see, like Bripat, you failed logic.
It's like when a person is charged with a crime, and he pleads "not guilty". You would say that the burden of proof then shifts on him, to PROVE, that he's not guilty, (his claim)
My point was made, you can’t readI read just fine, you're really bad about covering for the fact that you can't make a point.
The only court that was asked to look at nationwide fraud, was the US Supreme Court, and they voted 7-2 there was no nationwide fraud. And the 2 only withheld their vote on the principle that they should do more than just read the briefs.Quote the court case that said there are very few instances if vote fraud nationwide.
GO!
That’s hilariousThe only court that was asked to look at nationwide fraud, was the US Supreme Court, and they voted 7-2 there was no nationwide fraud. And the 2 only withheld their vote on the principle that they should do more than just read the briefs.
You claimed no one believed them. Now your claiming otherwise.Actually many of our allies like france believed them Because france had spies embedded inside Iraq who reported the same thing. And in the end they turned out to be 100% correct.
Your claim this wasn't proof, is just denial.
As I said, you confuse proving with convincing.
And there are just some people who you can't convince, no matter how much evidence you provide.
But you said, when somebody makes a claim, such as claiming he's not guilty, that the burden of proof automatically falls upon them.No, the burden is on the ones making the claim he broke the law. You really are stupid beyond belief.
Nope. The one making a claim is the one with the burden of proof, Dumbass.
No one said the fraud was nationwide. Fraud in a few particular ccounties would have been sifficient to overturn the election, moron.The only court that was asked to look at nationwide fraud, was the US Supreme Court, and they voted 7-2 there was no nationwide fraud. And the 2 only withheld their vote on the principle that they should do more than just read the briefs.
I'm going by nostra's claimWhere you from? Innocent until proven guilty
Nope. The one making a claim is the one with the burden of proof, Dumbass.
