Liberal challenge

Hey CJ. How are you doing. Still the lying prick you've always been I see.

Normally people confuse you with a bucket of ****. Not me, I go by a simple rule, one has a bucket the other does not.

Convert to Islam yet? Loser.

No we converted to gas. Tried walking upright yet?

Progressives have adopted the mantra "Where's the evidence?!" when it comes to the scandals associated with this administration. What they mean is the dead-to-rights smoking gun. The servers get wiped, the tapes get destroyed and so, the administrations stonewalls and the president declares executive privilege, so of course there is no absolutely damning evidence, just truckloads of circumstantial evidence.

It goes without saying that this sort of behavior by a Republican administration would have them apoplectic, but as long as there isn't that one memo, that one tape that can't possibly be excused away, they are going to stick with their intellectually dishonest and extremely cynical stance. "Ha Ha you can't catch us!" You can hear the glee in the words of parados.

We can thank the Clinton's for this as it's been their approach to each and every scandal they have faced. Progressives saw how well it worked and adopted it for their own, including the immediate claim of victimhood we see Planned Parenthood currently employing.

If your opponents are willing to lie, cheat and break the law to win, you're likely going to lose. The problem for them and all of us is that they are degrading the process for years to come, and eventually the shoe will be on the other foot. On the one hand it will be satisfying to hear them squeal, but on the other it will simply mean there is no breaking free of this death spiral.

Anyone who can blithely dismiss all of these scandals as a series of unusual coincidences is either a moron or a cynical partisan laughing behind his or her hand. And then there are those who must go to bed at night reading Democrat talking/weasel points so they can spew them in discussions like these. They're doing their bit in the Progressive War against the reactionary forces of evil (and feeling like they are hot **** as well).

You must love being insulted cold joint.

No, there aren't even truckloads of circumstantial evidence. There is a lot of unsubstantiated speculation. Lack of evidence still doesn't count as evidence. Speculation doesn't count as circumstantial evidence.

I guess you never go to Judicial Watch. They have truckloads. And Finn is right, the only thing you have is the administrations ability to cover up or destroy evidence.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-irs-documents-used-donor-lists-to-target-audits/

Truckloads of **** isn't evidence?

Point to this "evidence" you think exists that shows crimes by Obama. We will soon see how it is nothing but speculation.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-dhs-documents-show-260-criminal-illegal-aliens-criminals-released-in-arizona-in-just-three-weeks/

What crime do you allege this shows? Congress cuts the budget and prisoners are released because there will be no money. That isn't a crime. That would be following the law that no money can be spent that isn't appropriated. Calling it an "illegal release" doesn't make it a crime. It makes it hyperbole by JW.

ROFLMAO...

5 donors to organizations were audited. The IRS audits 20% of those with incomes over $5 million. It audits more than 5% of those that make more than $500,000 per year.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-are-the-odds-being-audited.html

5 donors were audited. For this to not be pure chance there must have been less than 100 donors to those organizations.


There is no evidence of anyone being audited because of their donations. We are seeing correlation. Large donors make a lot of money. People that make a lot of money are more likely to be audited. No cause to be found in any of the documents. Selectively citing of documents doesn't make a case. It only makes you a dupe, Pinkie.

But keep on not thinking, Pinkie. It is what you are good at.

And the bucket of **** in the WH is not a president either.

Keep on not thinking, Pinkie. It's what you are good at.

Keep on lying. It is what you are good at.

The new Democratic base. Who knows more about not obeying laws than Democrats?

You mean the donors to 501(c) organizations that were not following the law in respect to gift taxes?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/IRS-Pages-from-May-2015-5408.pdf

Or should we ignore the documents that JW has?


By the way that document also shows that Obama and the WH were not involved in any decision to audit donors. So much for your truckloads of evidence.


Keep on not thinking, Pinkie. It's what you are good at.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/IRS-Pages-from-May-2015-4760-4764.pdf

Gosh, the JW documents show the IRS was specifically targeting people that may have violated tax laws. That doesn't mean those people violated the law but rather it means they were being audited for possible violations. How dare the IRS actually refer possible tax fraud for audits?


Keep on not thinking, Pinkie. It's what you are good at.

Keep on lying. It is what you are good at.