Jan 6th Commission About To Issue Invitations To Get Down!

[BackAgain]

TO WHOM, YOU F...ING HADDOCK?

You are very simple minded for such a blow hard.

Have you ever even heard of the fallacy burden or proof?

Here. I’ll help you out:

Burden of Proof​

This fallacy originates from the Latin phrase "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat"). The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions) the claim. The fallacy of the Burden of Proof occurs when someone who is making a claim, puts the burden of proof on another party to disprove what they are claiming

Burden Of Proof - Definition & Examples | LF

Explanation and examples about the Burden Of Proof fallcy.

www.logicalfallacies.org

The translation, since I’m sure you’re abysmally ignorant is: “The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms not he who denies.”

It follows that you are asking the wrong question. It doesn’t really matter about whether the proof needs to satisfy any one person or group. The point is that it is a fallacy for you to avoid seeking to prove your assertion altogether or if you sneakily try to ascribe the burden to your opponent.

Suck it up, buttercup. Try to at least offer some proof of your claim.

 

[The5thHorseman]

I have a fucking life! Apparently you do not.

If there is evidence, you should be able to supply at least one example. Since you cannot, we are all putting you on ignore, liberals and conservatives alike.

Because you "have a life" I have to replay over 20 hrs of hearings with finger puppets.


But there's a much easier way.

There's a witness, who didn't even enjoy the advantage of having seen the hearings, who just happens to be a lawyer..

He has offered a rather unequivocal stand on that.

There's also a matter of several peeps fingerings their boss under oath.

 

[The5thHorseman]

You are very simple minded for such a blow hard.

Have you ever even heard of the fallacy burden or proof?

Here. I’ll help you out:

Burden of Proof​

Burden Of Proof - Definition & Examples | LF

Explanation and examples about the Burden Of Proof fallcy.

www.logicalfallacies.org

The translation, since I’m sure you’re abysmally ignorant is: “The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms not he who denies.”

It follows that you are asking the wrong question. It doesn’t really matter about whether the proof needs to satisfy any one person or group. The point is that it is a fallacy for you to avoid seeking to prove your assertion altogether or if you sneakily try to ascribe the burden to your opponent.

Suck it up, buttercup. Try to at least offer some proof of your claim.

Please don't be so tedious.

Dead End Blowhards have a habit of demanding things be proven to them - things they've already determined not to believe.

This is a worthless exercise.

Neither of us will make the call....I suggest that a witness, who was also made privy to the details of the impeachment charges, happens to be a lawyer, and is a ranking Republican, would make a sound proxy for the federal judge and jury charged with making such a determination.

 

[cnm]

I’m sure the Liberal prosecutors presented a “strong” case.

And got a conviction for seditious conspiracy. I suppose in your book that's a notch below 'innocent tourism'.

 

[scruffy]

The idiot Dems did, indeed, cook that one up... but that has zero to do with the traitors of January 6, 2021, and the need to ensure that doesn't happen again.

Oh but it will.

Happen again.

Like you MAGA scum channeling the Ghost of Joseph Goebbels with Rump's Big Lie?

Donald Trump has proven you wrong EVERY TIME. First you said there was Russian collusion, now you admit it was all a hoax. You're the boy who cried wolf. 14 thousand times.

You said there was no wiretapping either, and there was. You lied to a federal judge to even get near Trump in the first place.

You'll forgive me if I call you on your bullshit, and point out in public that you're a lying whining snowflake with your head stuck up CNN's butt

 

[scruffy]

No better nor worse in their own way than Republicans. Both parties are full of $hit clean up to their ears. Each in its own way and in its own blind spots.

Republicans are stupid. Democrats are evil. There's a difference

 

[BackAgain]

Please don't be so tedious.

Dead End Blowhards have a habit of demanding things be proven to them - things they've already determined not to believe.

This is a worthless exercise.

Neither of us will make the call....I suggest that a witness, who was also made privy to the details of the impeachment charges, happens to be a lawyer, and is a ranking Republican, would make a sound proxy for the federal judge and jury charged with making such a determination.

I recognize the hallmarks of you pussies being pussies. You just checked every box.

Stop running, you pussy. Sack up. Try (although I am sure it will be futile) to meet your burden.

 

[The5thHorseman]

Oh but it will.

Happen again.




Donald Trump has proven you wrong EVERY TIME. First you said there was Russian collusion, now you admit it was all a hoax. You're the boy who cried wolf. 14 thousand times.

You said there was no wiretapping either, and there was. You lied to a federal judge to even get near Trump in the first place.

You'll forgive me if I call you on your bullshit, and point out in public that you're a lying whining snowflake with your head stuck up CNN's butt

You're lying.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You’re already done. These posts are nothing but attempts to hide your nakedness. A sad afterthought of a bad idea.

Do you have a rebuttal? I mean, I stated a fact, either you have something to refute or you don't. I'm not trying to hide anything.

 

[The5thHorseman]

I recognize the hallmarks of you pussies being pussies. You just checked every box.

Stop running, you pussy. Sack up. Try (although I am sure it will be futile) to meet your burden.

Why do you cornholes presume to make yourselves arbiters?

"Bring me your evidence for my approval!"

We're gonna skip that crap and go directly to someone whose opinion is far better qualified, and informed by direct experience.

Is this getting through?

 

[Kondor3]

Oh but it will. Happen again.

If it does, then the area should be cordoned off by troops and mob of traitors subdued by force.

Donald Trump has proven you wrong EVERY TIME. First you said there was Russian collusion, now you admit it was all a hoax. You're the boy who cried wolf. 14 thousand times.

Your Orange Comb-Over Albatross sold you gullible idiots on his Big LIe and now you use excuses and distractions to try to weasel-rationalize your support.

You said there was no wiretapping either, and there was. You lied to a federal judge to even get near Trump in the first place.

There was no wiretapping required to observe Rump summoning a riotous traitorous violent mob to Washington and point them at the US Congress.

You'll forgive me if I call you on your bullshit, and point out in public that you're a lying whining snowflake with your head stuck up CNN's butt

Of course I forgive you for your profoundly inaccurate assessment... village idiots acting in defense of their Master should be forgiven their idiocy.

 

[The5thHorseman]

If it does, then the area should be cordoned off by troops and mob of traitors subdued by force.

Your Orange Comb-Over Albatross sold you gullible idiots on his Big LIe and now you use excuses and distractions to try to weasel-rationalize your support.

There was no wiretapping required to observe Rump summoning a riotous traitorous violent mob to Washington and point them at the US Congress.

Of course I forgive you for your profoundly inaccurate assessment... village idiots acting in defense of their Master should be forgiven their idiocy.

The cut of your jib is quite flattering.

 

[The5thHorseman]

What are your qualifications?

I'm a very good reader.

Though not an attorney I read better than most...I've embarrassed both attorneys and a judge in local courtrooms.

But it's not about me....it's about you, Ray, indeependent and the rest of the Loser Legion only knowing what you are told....by media halfwits.

I don't subscribe to the conceit that this is about the informed bringing evidence for scrutiny by the willfully uninformed.

Ya follah?

 

[jc456]

The word I think you were looking for is "prosecute", not "persecute".

he might actually want to persecute people.

 

[jc456]

What evidence they have that Trump planned and incited the riot?

none. It's why they won't answer.

 

[jc456]

Though not an attorney I read better than most...I've embarrassed both attorneys and a judge in local courtrooms.

Ahhhh, look at this internet genius. Isn't everyone an internet genius?

For you however, you're a high IQ stupid person.

 

[The5thHorseman]

Ahhhh, look at this internet genius. Isn't everyone an internet genius?

For you however, you're a high IQ stupid person.

He insisted, I answered.

But it's not about me.

 

[The5thHorseman]

none. It's why they won't answer.

Plenty....it's why you averted your eyes from the hearings.

What slack jaws can't grasp is that prosecution on a charge of inciting Insurrection demands that certain predicates be established.

The conviction of the Oath Keepers is an important step.

 

[The5thHorseman]

he might actually want to persecute people.

Thank you for explaining that to the idiot.

 

[jc456]

Plenty....it's why you averted your eyes from the hearings.

What slack jaws can't grasp is that prosecution on a charge of inciting Insurrection demands that certain predicates be established.

The conviction of the Oath Keepers is an important step.

well simpleton, if you have it why won't you show it then? avoidance is an indication you lie.