More off-topic posting, the shame; the funny bit is his source is literally banned for being russian propaganda. But nah, Tecshare isn't russian asset meant to derail converstation @ThePatriot143 gone  But nah, you can look up the trump inauguration for yourself, shit was pretty tiny. The camera's public access so I mean you can check yourself instead of relying on that photoshopped russian propaganda. I watched the shit live waiting for someone to do something about the atrocity.  but the protests was fun, I think ours dispersed pretty early, at 6 PM. CNN is banned for being Russian propaganda? WOW people really are woke. |
|
|
|
It's much harder to kill with any other weapon that you could reasonably obtain (vehicle, knife, baseball bat, etc) and that's obvious from what's going on in other civilized countries that don't have a powerful gun lobby. Is it? It is really tho? Is gasoline hard to get? What about improvised explosives? How hard is it to steal a car or a truck to run lots of people over with? Are you saying setting fire to a populated building wouldn't kill people faster than a gun? Shit there are enough supplies at any local grocery store to build basic IEDs. This premise is bullshit. What is required to kill is INTENT, not a gun. You know the problem though? You can't defend your home, your family, or your person with gasoline, IEDs, or trucks. |
|
|
|
You can not trust all the media. There are sources that are funded by the government, and they must be ignored.
I believe that there should be more independent sources. They should be supported by ordinary people.
Never ignore information. Even bullshit has value if you need to fertilize your field. There is no such thing as bad information, only useless interpretations of it. |
|
|
|
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6367571/Las-Vegas-massacre-survivors-country-bar-California-gunman-opened-fire.html
REVEALED: Dozens of survivors of Las Vegas massacre were inside the California country bar when shooting broke out because they regularly meet there and treat it as 'a place of healing'
Survivors of the Las Vegas massacre were also at the California bar shooting
Nick Champion says he and 50 to 60 survivors were at Borderline Bar and Grill when the gunman opened fire on a student night in Thousand Oaks, California
The survivors considered the bar a 'place of healing' and would often gather
What a coincidence..
Lose ends to tie up. Like I said, there is a reason they buried the results of the Vegas investigation. Lots of witnesses ending up dead very shortly after the original event as well... |
|
|
|
If this case is not justify as it suppose to be then the state have to prepare for the injustice outbreak. Even the way the case is going the masses shouldn't relent. What good for the goose is good for the gander. Exemption in law should in any way be accepted.
Yep, this is the result of turning our justice system into a political witch hunt apparatus... people lose respect for the rule of law, and when we lose the rule of law we lose society. |
|
|
|
I saw that video over 10 times, all he did was stop her from grabbing the mic. If that's considered assault, then our justice system is fucked more than it already is.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assaultYeah isn't it a shame you can't just use physical force whenever you like to get what you want when you have no legal right to it? I mean as long as you don't injure anyone it is ok right? No. Now prosecuting this, yes I agree would be excessive, however that doesn't change the fact that he very literally committed an act of assault. |
|
|
|
So what, what the fuck is your point here? Nothing will ever be 100% true, ever. You can't prove anything with an 100% certainty. Saying that is useless, that's why we use the best we have, the best we can do, which is scientific theories. Yes they are up for debate, if that's what you really want me to say, but not any debate, some idiots saying evolution isn't real shouldn't be seen as a debate. The evidence for gravity or evolution is so overwhelming that you basically have to accept it as 100% truth. We have been using and applying scientific theories for a variety of things and it works, science works. Someone who is unable to accept well established scientific theories just because he doesn't like them should NOT discuss anything related to science, and that's a fact heh.
Yeah pretty much. Everything is relative. That doesn't mean there is no truth, just you are statistically unlikely to ever see or know it. We can make educated guesses about things. That is literally the best science has to offer. That doesn't make it useless or something we shouldn't strive for, but if you don't understand this, what you are practicing is not science, it is religion. I don't really give a fuck about any of the other points argued here so don't bother arguing them with me. I am not here to defend them. |
|
|
|
PRO TIP: Putting your hands or any part of your body in contact with another person without their permission is in fact legally assault. Pushing, shoving, punching, or even brushing some one one's arms aside multiple times while they are in the process of recovering property that she is in legal charge of, and has every right to retrieve, is in fact assault. |
|
|
|
|
You are living in it. No one forces you to work, but you have to eat at the very least right? Well nothing is stopping you from going out into the forest and living like a cave man. Of course that is in itself work. What you are saying is either one of 2 things. Either you are suggesting a future where people are ENTITLED to the products and services of society while contributing nothing to it, or you are suggesting a future without personal responsibility. Thinking you are entitled to the products of society is pretty presumptuous. Thinking humans will ever be able to live without responsibility is the thing of fairy tails, no matter how much AI and how many super advanced androids you throw at it. Of course the one exception to this is if humans all live in one big prison... so be careful what you wish for... and program AI to do.
|
|
|
|
Whitaker must recluse!
You want him to isolate himself? Serious man, politics is complicated business. If you don't even know the definitions of the words you use how do you expect anyone to take your opinion seriously? Nothing is wrong with Whitaker, and this is little more than a protectionism strategy for the Democrats hoping their golden children will not be brought up on charges for the laundry list of crimes they have been accumulating under dem control. |
|
|
|
Like I said before... just enough rope |
|
|
|
Had a go at mystery steam box, very happy with games sent, thanks alot :-)
Thanks so much for taking the time to post, and for your purchase! |
|
|
|
Oh no, I read it. Also I already directly responded to it as you already presented that in the Snopes article:
So ... a peer reviewed study from a respected peer reviewed journal
... is a good source only if it meets your preconceived notion of "many" illegal voters. Anything that doesn't is automatically false, biased, not credible. How about the lack of "many" criminal prosecutions and convictions of such illegal voters? Does that mean anything or is it another conspiracy? Except I didn't just attack the source. I refuted its contents. |
|
|
|
Have you ever thought about writing professionally? You have such talent for words. and yet again... here we are on another cycle of completely unending topics you will post about in a vain and pathetic attempt to avoid continuing the discussion about facts already raised. If you notice, unlike you I don't just trash the source, I ALSO REFUTE IT. However, I do not respond to every single source you post, because they simply serve to allow you to distract from the last argument you ran from without responding. |
|
|
|
4. Post a study which does not directly refute anything posted
Let me quote it since you seem to be unable to click on a link. It's about as direct as it can get: This paper documents how low-level measurement error for survey questions generally agreed to be highly reliable can lead to large prediction errors in large sample surveys, such as the CCES. The example for this analysis is Richman, Chattha, and Earnest (2014), which presents a biased estimate of the rate at which non-citizens voted in recent elections. The results, we show, are completely accounted for by very low frequency measurement error; further, the likely percent of non-citizen voters in recent US elections is 0. https://cces.gov.harvard.edu/news/perils-cherry-picking-low-frequency-events-large-sample-surveysOh no, I read it. Also I already directly responded to it as you already presented that in the Snopes article: "the number of non-citizens who voted illegally in the 2008 election ranged “from just over 38,000 at the very minimum to nearly 2.8 million at the maximum.” Their “best estimate” is that 1.2 million or “6.4% of non-citizens actually voted.”"
In short this Snopes hack job is largely focused on Trump's claims, not the veracity of the study itself, so you haven't debunked anything. The only attempt to even argue the veracity of the study itself is based on claims the surveyed parties "made mistakes" answering surveys, and the replies were just mistakes. So they went back and rejiggered the survey, and partially re-conducted it to get the desired result to try to claim the original was invalid.
This is classic massaging of statistics to get numbers you want, but I don't expect you to understand this if you think scientific journals qualify as "conspiracy sites". He simply found a way to widen the margin of error and then disappear real results into that gap, then look, poof, they are "invalid". The author even makes dumb statements like there were ZERO illegal immigrant voters, which tells me a lot about his credibility and bias right there.
Perhaps you aren't even reading your sources? |
|
|
|
Mueller targeted Don Jr.
Trump had to act. Pretty much Mueller waited until after midterms to prevent the violent right from saying "THIS WAS TO INFLUENCE ELECTIONS".
Trump freaked out, requested Sessions to resign to protect "Donald Trump Jr."
You are basing these conclusions on what evidence exactly? |
|
|
|
all the retarded shit
in summary; "CLINTON BAD TRUMP GOOD!!!" "CLINTON HAX INVESTIGATION!!! FAKE IVNESTIGATION! BAD THINGS WERE BURIED" "TRUMP INVESTIGATION ALL HOAX, NO FINDING OF EVIDENCE! NO LINKS!" just making sure that's clear. cause so far, all you've done is rant without providing so called "evidence" for ANY of your claims. An eloquent retort as usual. Care to refute any of the points? Pick one I would be happy to source it. Refuted. Thanks for being so predictable as usual with the misdirection to YET ANOTHER topic. What in that OPINION PIECE even addresses ANY of the points I just presented? It is always the same thing with you. I present sources, you make some personal attacks, and some superficial or fallacious argument, I refute that argument using the sources, and you pick yet another topic to inject to distract from the fact you can not argue my refutation. Also, are you even capable of forming your own words and thoughts or do you now consider "The Fresno Bee" to be your own critical thought? |
|
|
|
all the retarded shit
in summary; "CLINTON BAD TRUMP GOOD!!!" "CLINTON HAX INVESTIGATION!!! FAKE IVNESTIGATION! BAD THINGS WERE BURIED" "TRUMP INVESTIGATION ALL HOAX, NO FINDING OF EVIDENCE! NO LINKS!" just making sure that's clear. cause so far, all you've done is rant without providing so called "evidence" for ANY of your claims. An eloquent retort as usual. Care to refute any of the points? Pick one I would be happy to source it. |
|
|
|
If you are going to try to debate me, at least debate statements I actually made.
Yep, The Social Security Administration, and well respected peer reviewed journals are conspiracy sites.
Very funny. I didn't say SSA is a conspiracy site. I said (1) Youtube and conspiracy sites [such as Agresti's Just Facts] don't count as proof; and (2) [Newsweek, ScienceDirect, & SSA] don't support your claims about illegal votes. I link you a peer reviewed study from a respected peer reviewed journal, and your retort is Snopes?
Yeah right... here is one of those peer reviews: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379415001420 ---> https://cces.gov.harvard.edu/news/perils-cherry-picking-low-frequency-events-large-sample-surveysNow I get you don't like Snopes so that's fine. I can't argue with a factless feckless moron. Let me sum up your statement... 1. Deny your own words 2. Deny very reputable sources are reputable 3. Deny the sources themselves contain evidence 4. Post a study which does not directly refute anything posted 5. Make a personal attack and walk away pretending you made an argument |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
