That's not what I said. I said one was fictional, in reference to your claim about Mike Pompeo saying Bigfoot is real. This on the other hand is not fictional: https://i.imgur.com/P53g4Nh.pngIt is Mike Pompeo going on record saying he received a subpoena. That's why your false equivalence is doubly false. This is some pretty sad slinking you are resorting to in an attempt to worm your way out of admitting you were wrong about the subpoena not being real. Wrong. Before anyone said anything else, you claimed it doesn't exist and you can prove your statement by requesting it and showing you can't get it. It's a public document as you've said so either they have it or they don't. So backup your claim and request it. It's your burden to prove your original statement.
Every congressional subpoena in recent years is not on the internet.
Unless you disagree with this statement ^^^, your entire theory has been debunked. TL;DR 1. Mike Pompeo 2. I claimed the subpoenas didn't exist before you claimed they did exist. 3. All Congressional subpoenas are not on the internet therefore you will never, ever, EVER be able to provide a copy of any House subpoena related to impeachment issued before October 31st 2019. Does this about sum up your "debunking"? |
|
|
|
a public court record is just mysteriously unpublished and unavailable to ANYONE?
I'll say it again. You made the initial claim it does not exist. The burden of proof is yours. So here you go. Prove to us you can't get it cause it doesn't exist. https://www.foia.gov/That's not how burden of proof works. Your premise is the subpoenas existed. You have the burden to prove they existed. I don't have the burden to prove a negative, that they never existed. Don't ever lecture me about logic again if this is the kind of tripe you are trying to sell. No -- you are equating a fictional event with something that actually happened. Not only do the two things have nothing to do with each other, one of them never happened. That's the lowest form of false equivalence. Exactly, both are fictional! I am glad you are finally with me! Even if I had video of Mike Pompeo saying Bigfoot is real and he's "seent it", that is equally as much proof of Bigfoot existing as when Mike Pompeo says there was a subpoena, that a subpoena existed. That amount of proof being zero of course. What you have here is called a non-sequiter. You can't and won't ever prove the subpoenas ever existed. Admit it. |
|
|
|
This is a false equivalence in one of its lowest forms. We're not talking about bigfoot, we're talking about Pompeo's letter to a house committee: https://i.imgur.com/P53g4Nh.pngSo it Pompeo lying or wrong? You insist that you have a better understanding of the situation than he does, so tell us what he actually received if not a subpoena. No, it is a valid equivalence. You insist the subpoenas exist. You can not prove they exist. You claim Mike Pompeo saying they exist is proof. I say Mike Pompeo said Bigfoot was real is proof Bigfoot is real. You bringing up Mike Pompeo is to the subpoena as me bringing up Mike Pompeo is to Bigfoot. This is an exact valid equivalence. The only false equivalence is your claim "Mike Pompeo said" is proof of anything. When did Mike Pompeo say Bigfoot is real? I can't seem to find that anywhere. If he did that would be proof of Bigfoot's existence? |
|
|
|
This is a false equivalence in one of its lowest forms. We're not talking about bigfoot, we're talking about Pompeo's letter to a house committee: https://i.imgur.com/P53g4Nh.pngSo it Pompeo lying or wrong? You insist that you have a better understanding of the situation than he does, so tell us what he actually received if not a subpoena. No, it is a valid equivalence. You insist the subpoenas exist. You can not prove they exist. You claim Mike Pompeo saying they exist is proof. I say Mike Pompeo said Bigfoot was real is proof Bigfoot is real. You bringing up Mike Pompeo is to the subpoena as me bringing up Mike Pompeo is to Bigfoot. This is an exact valid equivalence. The only false equivalence is your claim "Mike Pompeo said" is proof of anything. You believed lies. You refuse to admit they were lies, and you continue to defend those that lied to you. You can't prove otherwise, now you are trapped in this perpetual loop of making excuses why you can not now or forever more produce the subpoena. Ukraine interfered with our election.
The DNC colluded with Ukraine to interfere in our election.
The Clintons had Epstein murdered.
Seth Rich was involved in the DNC hack.
Seth Rich was murdered because he was involved in the DNC hack.
Hunter Biden was doing something illegal in Ukraine.
Biden bribed Ukraine to fire the prosecutor
Biden bribed Ukraine to protect his son
In your opinion, all of these things are true, right? You don't have proof, but you believe they are true.
If you apply the same logic to any of these issues that you've applied to the subpoena, you should know for a fact that they are all false.
In reality, neither of us can conclude that any of them are true or false. All we can do is consider all the evidence that's available, and then decide how likely true or not true each issue is. We aren't talking about a list of 8 other subjects. We are talking about the fact that you believed a lie, you refuse to admit it was a lie, and you continue to defend those that lied to you. You have no empirical evidence to prove otherwise. Mike Pompeo isn't going to help you. Just admit it was a lie, you know I am never going to let this go until you do right? Unless you admit the subpoenas never existed I am going to forever taunt you and Nutilduhh to produce the subpoenas knowing full well you will never be able to produce them, a constant reminder for you and all around you of the lie you live every day. |
|
|
|
This is not "zero evidence": https://i.imgur.com/P53g4Nh.pngIts zero evidence to you because you are unwilling to be honest as it would mean you might have to admit you were wrong about something. He's making the claim the subpoena exists. Is he lying or is he just wrong? Mike Pompeo says Bigfoot is real. Bigfoot is real and you are a liar for not admitting Bigfoot is real because it would mean you would have to admit you were wrong about Bigfoot not existing. He is making the claim that Bigfoot exists. Is he lying or who gives a fuck because either way it doesn't prove the subpoena ever existed. This is absolute rock solid proof that the culture of the Democrat party is one of facts being irrelevant, the ends justifying the means, and just flat out absolute bullshit. Come on butterball, make me look real dumb, produce the subpoena! Subpoenas are public record, how long could it possibly take? |
|
|
|
I don't think anything.
Yeah we know that already. Its absurd to continue to believe a subpoena doesn't exist after Pompeo said that he received it. https://i.imgur.com/P53g4Nh.pngPerhaps you should be asking him to produce the subpoena since he's the one you have a disagreement with. What is absurd is you claim to have the preponderance of evidence when in fact you have zero evidence. All this is just absolute proof facts are irrelevant to you, and you believe what you are told, and that is that. Who needs public court documents when you have Mike Pompeo? |
|
|
|
Basically yeah.
House: We sent subpoena to Mike, here's the letter that explains the reasons we sent it and the scope of the subpoena.
Mike: I received the subpoena.
That's pretty solid.
I understand that you think both the house and mike are lying because nobody put a copy of the actual subpoena on the internet because it's a public document. But public document doesn't mean it has to be on the internet. Not every congressional subpoena goes on the internet, at least not anywhere I've looked. So, I don't know what else to tell you except that If you can prove that every subpoena congress issues goes on the internet somewhere, and Pompeos subpoena isn't there, then things would be different. But you can't because that's just not the case.
I'm also really curious. Why do you think Pompeo and Rudy would lie about receiving the subpoena from the House when he didn't? I don't think anything. I know you can't now or ever produce the subpoena. The fact people discussed the potential of said mythical subpoena is not empirical data supporting its existence. You refuse to define a reasonable time frame to produce said mythical subpoena, but it totally really exists serious cause Mike Pompeo said so. By the way, speaking of the fact that I can't prove this subpoena ever existed, did I mention Mike Pompeo? Mike Pompeo says all of your distractions are irrelevant to the fact that you can not now, nor ever will be able to prove those subpoenas ever existed. TV told me so, and Nancy Pelosi and Mike Pompeso said so, therefore it has to be true, no verification of public documents is required whatsoever, move along to the next distraction please. Did I mention Mike Pompeo? |
|
|
|
Why on earth would I say the subpoena doesn't exist when Mike Pompeo (the man receiving said subpoena) says it does? That would be madness. https://i.imgur.com/P53g4Nh.pngMaybe never? If you can prove that every other subpoena that congress has issued from 5 years ago is on the internet, then that would definitely change my opinion though.
Or if you could find some rule that says the house must put suboenas on the internet within X days, and X days have passed, that would change my opinion.
Or if someone who the house claims to have subpoenad said they didn't receive a subpoena, that would also change my opinion.
Whether or not it's published on the internet matters very little, in my opinion, unless someone is claiming they never received one. So in summary, "Mike Pompeo says...™", the subpoenas exist, superserial guys, but I can never prove it ever and oh yeah did I mention Mike Pompeo? |
|
|
|
You mean demanding you abide by the rules of logic and you bear the burden of proof in your claims? Yeah logic and proof are dumb aren't they?
Logic dictates the subpoena exists. https://i.imgur.com/P53g4Nh.pngIt would be much better if we just believed whatever we are told and defended it regardless of a total lack of supporting evidence like you wouldn't it?
Supporting evidence suggests the subpoena exists. https://i.imgur.com/P53g4Nh.pngHow long do you think it would take for such a document to be published in such a contentious public government function? Days? Weeks? Months? What is an acceptable deadline for you to admit the subpoena never existed if it doesn't appear in your lap as if by magic?
I already told you pages ago: like the example you posted earlier, it could take several months, up to a year. In the meantime its illogical to believe it doesn't exist when the man receiving it said that it does. No, logic dictates you are affirming the premise that the subpoenas exist, therefore you have the burden of proof to logically demonstrate it using plainly observable empirical data. Some one talking about it is not empirical data. The actual document itself is empirical data. The fact some one said the word "subpoena" is your ONLY "evidence" there is no supporting anything, that is it. Give me a date Nutilduhh. When is the date you are willing to admit you were wrong and the subpoena issued by the House relating to the presidential impeachment investigation before October 31st never existed? How long is long enough to rest on your excuse that a public court record is just mysteriously unpublished and unavailable to ANYONE? Give me a hard date here. What is a reasonable end life for your dumb excuse for being unable to prove your premise? You mean demanding you abide by the rules of logic and you bear the burden of proof in your claims? My claim is that I think it's extremely likely the subpoena exists. I've already provided all the reasons on why I think what I do. Would you like me to sign a message with an old address to confirm it's really me telling you what I think? It's near impossible to prove something like this is 100% true. We have to work with the evidence that is available and consider it all objectively. Your reasons consist entirely of the fact some one said the word "subpoena". You claim it is "extremely likely" only because some one told you so. Not because you have read the document, not that you know it exists, no nothing at all other than hearsay. I say it is extremely unlikely it ever existed because you nor anyone else here can produce a subpoena which is a matter of public court record in one of the most closely watched and contentious government processes ever. I would say the preponderance of evidence rests on my premise, but you keep telling me about what some one told you. What is a hard date TwitchySeal? When is the date you are willing to admit you are wrong if it passes and you still can't produce a subpoena issued from The House regarding the presidential impeachment investigation prior to October 31st? What is a reasonable end life for your dumb excuse for being unable to prove your premise? |
|
|
|
I knew Bloomberg was rich but didn't realize till now that he's worth over 50 billion. Holy shit.
Unrelated, but I am very impressed with Mayor Pete. (I know his chances are slim to get the nomination) He's rational, willing to admit mistakes without hesitation and able to form coherent sentences.
He'd also make a great VP candidate for the Pete Pence debate alone.
It's worth pondering a bit, that you have just suggested that the one impressive Democratic candidate is one who is ... Rational. Yang is also very rational. I'm not a fan of the rest although I wouldn't classify them as generally irrational. I guess maybe pragmatic is a better word? But honestly never been a bigger fan of a candidate than I am of Pete. Oh yeah, free money for everyone. Totally rational. |
|
|
|
You are mistaken. I don't have to prove anything. This isn't a court, it's an internet forum, were people discuss things. I already said multiple times that we don't have conclusive evidence exists. i never claimed I had access to it. I just think that, considering all the evidence, it's extremely likely that it exists. I also think that the fact you consider evidence that suggests your opinion is wrong irrelevant shows that your thought process is very flawed.
TECSHARE: This letter isn't a subpoena therefore the subpoena doesn't exist.
TECSHARE: This letter isn't a subpoena therefore the subpoena doesn't exist.
TECSHARE: This letter isn't a subpoena therefore the subpoena doesn't exist.
TECSHARE: This letter isn't a subpoena therefore the subpoena doesn't exist.
TECSHARE: This letter isn't a subpoena therefore the subpoena doesn't exist.
Twitchyseal: Nobody claimed that was the subpoena. The subpoena would be a separate document enclosed with the letter.
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA THEN
Twitchyseal: I can't find it. It's not on the internet.
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
Twitchyseal: It's not on the internet, I can't.
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
Twitchyseal: it's not on the internet, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I think it does exist because the House said they sent it, the letter we have references a subpoena and the subject of the subpoena confirmed they received it.
TECSHARE: THATS IRRELEVANT
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
TECSHARE: THE BURDON OF PROOF IS ON YOU
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
TECSHARE: SHOW ME THE SUBPOENA
See how stupid you look? You mean demanding you abide by the rules of logic and you bear the burden of proof in your claims? Yeah logic and proof are dumb aren't they? It would be much better if we just believed whatever we are told and defended it regardless of a total lack of supporting evidence like you wouldn't it? I will ask you the same question I asked Nutilduhhhh... How long do you think it would take for such a document to be published in such a contentious public government function? Days? Weeks? Months? What is an acceptable deadline for you to admit the subpoena never existed if it doesn't appear in your lap as if by magic? Come on, prove me so wrong. ALL you have to do is find one public court record. Come on seal lover you can do it. |
|
|
|
TECSHARE, you're trying to prove the subpoena doesn't exist by ignoring all the evidence that suggests it might, and only focusing on the evidence that suggests it might not.
If Pompeo would've said "they didn't give me a subpoena" this would absolutely be relevant and you'd be using it to support your argument. But he didn't say that. He confirmed that he received the subpoena....and you claim it's irrelevant.
This kind of thought process is what leads to people becoming flat Earthers and anti-vaxxers.
You are mistaken. I don't have to prove anything. YOU claim the subpoenas exist. The burden of proof is YOURS. YOU PROVE it exists. Produce the subpoenas. You cry about flat Earthers and anti-vaxxers while you swear up and down Bigfoot is real, and that the blurry still photo you have is proof of Bigfoot, not Bigfoot's body. Produce the subpoenas. You can't therefore you are wrong. |
|
|
|
Here's the thing: you're not really arguing with me. You're arguing with Mike Pompeo. You are saying that his claims he received a subpoena are bullshit. You should really take it up with him, not me.
Is this what qualifies as clever in your mind? You aren't really talking to me Nutilduhh, you are talking to your own anus because your head is up your ass. I am saying you can not produce the subpoena. You can't prove it exists. The fact that people said a magic word doesn't make a legal document exist. Subpoenas are public legal documents. You have no substantiation to your claims and are using various logical fallacies to shift from your burden of proof. Come on Nutilduhhh, beat me at my own game. Prove me wrong. Produce the subpoena that you are so totally absolutely sure exists because reasons. You can't do it because it never existed. Admit you have no evidence it ever existed. Why is it you can't find a public court record that absolutely positively and totally does actually exist? Assuming of course it totally really does exist seriously guys, how long do you think it would take for such a document to be published in such a contentious public government function? Days? Weeks? Months? What is an acceptable deadline for you to admit the subpoena never existed if it doesn't appear in your lap as if by magic? Come on Nutilduhhh, prove me so wrong. ALL you have to do is find one public court record. Come on goat lover you can do it. |
|
|
|
I'm reading a lot of mixed predictions regarding Bloomberg. Some predict that he's just going to throw so much money at it that he'll replace & beat Biden, therefore winning the primary. The media certainly loves him. But I don't see it. He's apparently going to try running as a "better Biden", but he actually has a weird mixed record containing right-wing, ultra-left-wing, and ultra-authoritarian elements. He can be attacked a lot from both the right and left. I tend to think he'll go nowhere, like Steyer, but my uncertainty on this is high at this point.
A tree stump is better than Biden at this point. |
|
|
|
Nothing has been debunked, except for your ability to produce these subpoenas you swear exist. Just admit they don't exist. Come on, you know its true buttercup. Just say it.
I never said I could produce the subpoena. Why would I say the subpoena doesn't exist when Pompeo (the man receiving said subpoena) admits it exists? That would be ludicrous. I'm not like you. I value reality. Mike Pompeo also talked about Bigfoot. Does Bigfoot exists as a result? I never said you said you could produce the subpoena. I said exactly the opposite. The subpoena doesn't exist, you have no evidence of its existence. You are making the claim it exists, you can't prove it does, thus your argument is baseless. That is reality. |
|
|
|
@ 1982dre, actmyname, addarmstrong, alexrossi, asphyxiate, Astargath, Avirunes, BigBoy89, bL4nkcode, bob123, bones261, cabalism, Captain Corporate, CASIO, ChiBitCTy, crwth, CryptopreneurBrainboss, DaveF, DiamondCardz, DireWolfM14, DreamerBT, eckmar, efialtis, examplens, Foxpup, Hakorede, HCP, Hhampuz, hopenotlate, iasenko, iluvbitcoins, Initscri, jimmyhate, JSRAW, Kalemder, Kevinn22, kruglikov, LeGaulois, LeonGhibli, LFC_Bitcoin, lighpulsar07, Lutpin, marlboroza, mindrust, Mirae, mocacinno, morvillz7z, mosprognoz, mu_enrico, NeuroticFish, nutildah, o_e_l_e_o, Pamoldar, pandukelana2712, PassThePopcorn, passwordnow, RHavar, rhomelmabini, robelneo, Rodeo02, Royse777, ScamViruS, sheenshane, Slow death, squatz1, stompix, subSTRATA, suchmoon, SyGambler, TECSHARE, The Parmasist, TheUltraElite, TMAN, TwitchySeal, whitcher_sense, WinRateCasino, xtraelv, yahoo62278, yazher, yogg, Zwei You publicly support that Game Protect violated a written contract, resulting in damages, around July 2019 h4ns alleges: game-protect violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. game-protect did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around July 2019. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance. Please show the written contract? Please tell at what day and how the scam happened? I am hereby declaring fees for use of my copyright, the name brand TECSHARE. This notice is to inform you of the licensing fee I will from now and perpetually be requiring to use my property "TECSHARE" in public. This fee for use shall only apply to the user known as "game-protect". Every time the user "game-protect" uses my copyright name "TECSHARE", they hereby consent to pay me $1000 in Bitcoin at current market prices, per instance of the use. This fee is to be paid upon demand. Further use of my copyright property "TECSHARE" constitutes acceptance of these terms. Usage of the copyright property "TECSHARE" more than 2 times in any 30 day period will also void all contractual consideration for "game-protect" to use the property and incur an additional fee of $5000 for every instance the copyright property is used after this threshold is breached. All rights reserved. Thank you for confirming that you are not able to show the alleged written contract and that you are not able to tell at what day and how the scam happened!  Thank you for agreeing to my contract. All of your considerations for this contract are now void based on your violation of this agreement. You now owe me $32,000. I am demanding you pay the full amount to: 1Hz3HZT4v8qxtyYiRQ66UHTUSK3dKCnVMW as per your contractual agreement at market rates. Thank you. |
|
|
|
How am I "shifting the argument"? You have about 5 different phrases that you re-use ad nauseam, and this is one of them. What is being shifted? My argument is that Pompeo acknowledging he received a subpoena is compelling evidence that it exists. Yours is its not evidence at all. Nothing has been "shifted."
Speaking about "shifting the argument," this whole thread is supposedly about Biden admitting to bribery to fire a prosecutor investigation his son -- that whole premise has now been thoroughly debunked, and nothing has come of it. You were wrong about that, and now you are wrong about the subpoena not existing.
I think you secretly enjoy being wrong about things. You claim to have a deep understanding of many things but when the surface is scratched it is revealed you don't actually understand much of anything at all.
You claim the subpoena exists. You can not document the existence of the subpoena. The burden of proof is not met. Everything else is shifting the argument. The happenings in Ukraine are very closely related with the Biden accusation seeing as the claim is Trump abused his executive authority for personal political gain. The fact that those subpoenas never existed is proof you were lied to by the media and the Democrat party, and you still cover for them even though you can't prove it. This is all very relevant to the op. All I claim is you can not produce the subpoenas. Nothing has been debunked, except for your ability to produce these subpoenas you swear exist. Just admit they don't exist. Come on, you know its true buttercup. Just say it. |
|
|
|
You've already been proven wrong to everybody who can look at the issue honestly. https://i.imgur.com/P53g4Nh.pngPompeo says the subpoena exists. We don't need for it to be uploaded to the House of Representatives official website in order to know that it exists. Well I mean, I don't - most critically-thinking people don't - maybe you do. Speaking as some one claiming a public court document exists and can't produce them, you should be careful about talking about proof. It is always the same thing, lose an argument and shift to a new topic. How about no. How about you prove your claim. Produce the subpoena. |
|
|
|
OK, so after much silliness finally we have an answer. The answer is you don't know.
Pompeo's acknowledgement of receipt of the subpoena is enough evidence for me to believe it exists. You obviously don't have to take his word for it if you don't want to, though I really don't understand why you wouldn't, other than because you have a pathological need to uphold your winning streak of being right all the time. The answer is it is irrelevant to the fact that you can not provide the subpoena document. This isn't about a "winning streak", it is about showing you as every bit of everything you accuse me of being. You make endless claims that I never admit when I am wrong, but here you are refusing to admit you are wrong, and unable to prove you are not. You make claims all I do is make personal attacks with no logic, here you are refusing to accept the burden of proof of your claims as logic dictates, and as you work in character attacks. Everyone knows you would love nothing more than to prove me wrong on this, so the fact you can't is pretty good evidence it never existed compared with your non-evidence. Come on cupcake. Prove me wrong. Produce the subpoenas. |
|
|
|
Would you be able to produce any subpoena I name, say, within the past 5 years? No. You couldn't. And you also made up the PUBLISHED part. Sad! This isn't just any subpoena. This is a House subpoena allegedly issued in regards to the impeachment process issued before October 31st 2019. It is not a top secret document. It is a public court record of a very important and extremely publicized matter. What about you being unable to produce this document makes any sense other than it never existed? P.S. Courts of public record are published by default. What is sad is you pretend to not know that and make excuses to perpetuate what you know is a lie at this point. The subpoenas never existed and you can't prove they did.
If the subpoena never existed, why would Pompeo say he received it? https://i.imgur.com/P53g4Nh.pngIf a bear shits in the woods, why does Gary Busey shave half his ass every Thursday? I don't know, but I do know you can't produce this legal document you swear exists. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
