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.
Consider this.
The author of this thread believes that the book of Genesis is the correct description for how the Earth, and life on it, came about. You can find her making that argument in several places elsewhere on the board.
She would not, in those arguments, accept any scientific evidence to the contrary. None. Simply rejected it all.
So, to be fair, and since this is her thread, how about we all apply her own standards of evidence to the case?
Would that be fair?
Or, from a more general perspective, given the prevalence of so many conservatives who deny global warming, quite often the same conservatives who want us to believe that President Obama is somehow culpable in the IRS affair,
how about we apply their standard for accepting or rejecting scientific evidence presented that makes the case for global warming...
...IOW, how about we simply set a standard of proof so high, as they do, that the evidence simply cannot ever achieve that standard to their satisfaction.
Would that be fair?
This post is filled with lies....you're usual mode.
Do you believe Genesis is an accurate description of the origins of life, earth and the Universe?
The OP doesn't provide evidence that the 'policy' came from the top. It offers an argument designed to sell the idea that the policy came from the top.
When the sales guy at the automobile dealer makes an argument that you should spring for the extra and costly rustproofing,
it isn't evidence that you need it.
Nor is it evidence that you don't, but you wouldn't understand that.
Carb we both know if Obama was on tape ordering it you'd say so what and support him in it.
No. The OP's claim is without evidence.
There has been wrongdoing on my "team". Quite a bit of it, in fact. I acknowledge this.
Want some examples?
Bankster's not prosecuted.
Drone strikes sans trial.
Private Manning's detainment.
But............IRS mistakes in judgement being 'from the top"? Nope. There is no evidence.
Now, now....
Actually, what is known at this point establishes my argument to a far greater degree than you allow.
"In US Criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a popular cultural summation of the three aspects of a crime that must be established before guilt can be determined in a criminal proceeding.
Respectively, they refer to: the ability of the defendant to commit the crime (means), the reason the defendant felt the need to commit the crime (motive), and whether or not the defendant had the chance to commit the crime (opportunity). Opportunity is most often disproved by use of an alibi, which can prove the accused was not able to commit the crime as he or she did not have the correct set of circumstances to commit the crime as it occurred. Motive is not an element of many crimes, but proving motive can often make it easier to convince a jury of the elements that must be proved for a conviction.." Means, motive, and opportunity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't expect you to leap to my side of the argument....but I know you recognize the approach of the avalanche.
This issue is both more important to the nation, and the crime proven to a far greater degree than Ira Libby's conviction.
Bullshit. But at least it was bullshit without the grade school outline form. For that, we must all be grateful.
Nothing illegal was done by the IRS.
The OP doesn't provide evidence that the 'policy' came from the top. It offers an argument designed to sell the idea that the policy came from the top.
When the sales guy at the automobile dealer makes an argument that you should spring for the extra and costly rustproofing,
it isn't evidence that you need it.
Nor is it evidence that you don't, but you wouldn't understand that.
Carb we both know if Obama was on tape ordering it you'd say so what and support him in it.
Since I pointed out yesterday that the difference between Nixon and Obama re the IRS was that we have no evidence whatsoever that Obama did anything wrong,
but we have Nixon on tape proving him guilty,
that wouldn't make much sense would it?
This post is filled with lies....you're usual mode.
Do you believe Genesis is an accurate description of the origins of life, earth and the Universe?
Dr. Andrew Parker, biologist at Oxford, wrote the book "The Genesis Enigma."
In it he says:
1. The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.
2. The images in that writers mind of how our planet and life came to be must have seemed curious for the knowledge and experience of the time! Yet .he presented it as though it had been dictated to him, as though he had been spoken to by God.
3. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.
Care to dispute that?
The OP doesn't provide evidence that the 'policy' came from the top. It offers an argument designed to sell the idea that the policy came from the top.
When the sales guy at the automobile dealer makes an argument that you should spring for the extra and costly rustproofing,
it isn't evidence that you need it.
Nor is it evidence that you don't, but you wouldn't understand that.
Carb we both know if Obama was on tape ordering it you'd say so what and support him in it.
Since I pointed out yesterday that the difference between Nixon and Obama re the IRS was that we have no evidence whatsoever that Obama did anything wrong,
but we have Nixon on tape proving him guilty,
that wouldn't make much sense would it?
Usually one resorts to barnyard language when they know they are wrong.
As you are.
Try to be civil.
Or...are you a lying sack of offal?
I'm gonna go with the latter.
Doesn't the word 'integrity' stick in your throat?
P.Chic -
1. Any lies that I have posted? Present 'em.
I didn't say you had posted any lies - I suggested that your thread is fullof hearsay, gossip and your opinions, which we both know it is.
Again, this does not show much integrity on your part.
2. Are you claiming that I posted "17. Obama is Satan - fact!"
Where????
Prove it or apologize.
No, I'm not - I was satirising your posting style.
Nor is it evidence that you don't, but you wouldn't understand that.
Carb we both know if Obama was on tape ordering it you'd say so what and support him in it.
Since I pointed out yesterday that the difference between Nixon and Obama re the IRS was that we have no evidence whatsoever that Obama did anything wrong,
but we have Nixon on tape proving him guilty,
that wouldn't make much sense would it?
We don't know what we have or don't have, there has been no onvestigation yet...you do understand that? It was during the investigation that we learned of the tapes.
YOU would support Obama giving the order to do it though, why won't you admit that?
Nor is it evidence that you don't, but you wouldn't understand that.
Carb we both know if Obama was on tape ordering it you'd say so what and support him in it.
Since I pointed out yesterday that the difference between Nixon and Obama re the IRS was that we have no evidence whatsoever that Obama did anything wrong,
but we have Nixon on tape proving him guilty,
that wouldn't make much sense would it?
Nixon was not proven guilty of using the IRS as a political cudgel.
The Nixon IRS did not do what the Obama IRS did: harass political enemies.
Since I pointed out yesterday that the difference between Nixon and Obama re the IRS was that we have no evidence whatsoever that Obama did anything wrong,
but we have Nixon on tape proving him guilty,
that wouldn't make much sense would it?
We don't know what we have or don't have, there has been no onvestigation yet...you do understand that? It was during the investigation that we learned of the tapes.
YOU would support Obama giving the order to do it though, why won't you admit that?
Why would you make an assumption about me like that? Because I strongly defend what I believe?
Do you assume that everyone around here, left or right, is corrupt and has no respect for the rule of law simply because they have strong views on the issues?
Do you assume that about yourself?
So....this was not a few...this was not done by rouge agents in Cincinnati...this was from the top.
.
Since I pointed out yesterday that the difference between Nixon and Obama re the IRS was that we have no evidence whatsoever that Obama did anything wrong,
but we have Nixon on tape proving him guilty,
that wouldn't make much sense would it?
Nixon was not proven guilty of using the IRS as a political cudgel.
The Nixon IRS did not do what the Obama IRS did: harass political enemies.
Unwittingly you have just proven the point I just made about you.
We don't know what we have or don't have, there has been no onvestigation yet...you do understand that? It was during the investigation that we learned of the tapes.
YOU would support Obama giving the order to do it though, why won't you admit that?
Why would you make an assumption about me like that? Because I strongly defend what I believe?
Do you assume that everyone around here, left or right, is corrupt and has no respect for the rule of law simply because they have strong views on the issues?
Do you assume that about yourself?
Not one of you has decried what is happening, you do realize that, don't you?
Here is your chance, admit we need an INDEPENDENT Special prosecutor for this because we DON'T know what happened here and the truth needs to be known.
This is far more urgent than Nixon's transgression and Nixon DESERVED to be impeached.
