Mueller: No further indictments

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Your claim about Democratic pressure is an opinion, not a fact.

That is incorrect. That the Democrats provided such pressure is a fact.

Setanta wrote:

Once again, you cannot distinguish between opinion and fact.

No one can point out any occurrence where I have ever failed to distinguish between opinion and fact.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

True. You treat opinion and fact as the same thing. You can't tell the difference between them.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Wrong again. I treat opinion and fact as two different things.

And as is amply demonstrated by the fact that no one can point out any occurrence of me confusing the two, I can quite easily tell the difference.

0 Replies

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

Exactly, not much is going to happen.
A continual bombardment of Oversight Committees and push back of non-transparency of contra-American interests..

There will be oversight committees. But they will simply be ignored by the Trump Administration. The oversight committees will make lots of noise, but no one will pay any attention.

The Trump Administration does not represent contra-American interests.

Leftist oversight committees are not guarding against contra-American interests.

neptuneblue wrote:

A scoundrel in the White House, fleecing everybody from their hard earned right to survive. All the while, people like you and me are at odds with each other.

Trump is not fleecing anyone of anything. He is protecting our civil liberties from leftists who wish to violate them for fun.

All I do is point out facts. There is no reason for anyone to be at odds with this.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

You provide no evidence that there were any significant pressure from Democrats, which was unquestionably the reason for the appointment of a special counsel. Therefore, you are as always, offering your opinion as fact, and, as always, without substantiation. I see no reason to accept your silly ipse dixit claims.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You provide no evidence that there were any significant pressure from Democrats,

No one has asked for a cite. Are you asking for one now?

Here are some Democrats pressing for the appointment of an special counsel:
http://www.democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/schumer-calls-for-attorney-general-sessions-to-resign-outlines-three-critical-steps-to-ensure-integrity-of-investigation-into-ties-between-president-trumps-campaign-officials-and-russia

http://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/senators-call-for-independent-prosecutor-to-investigate-trump-officials-collusion-with-russia-and-apparent-white-house-cover-up

Setanta wrote:

Therefore, you are as always, offering your opinion as fact,

That is incorrect. I only present fact as fact.

Setanta wrote:

and, as always, without substantiation.

That is incorrect as well. I have always made it very clear that I will provide cites upon request. And I have always provided cites when requested.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You failed to meet the burden of your claim. Your claim that the special counsel was appointed in response to pressure by Democrats remains unsubstantiated. That Democrats called for such an investigation does not constitute evidence that Sessions recused himself and that the Deputy AG appointed Mueller, because Democrats called for such an investigation. That's the equivalent of the rooster believing the sun rises because he crows. Once again, your inability to distinguish between your opinion and fact is just evidence of the depth of your delusion.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

So a group of prominent politicians creates a drumbeat of pressure demanding that a special counsel be appointed and it's just a coincidence that the justice department then appoints an independent counsel? Didn't you say something earlier about bridges for sale?

The fact that no one can point out any occurrence of me confusing "opinion" with "fact" is evidence that I am quite able to tell the difference.

The fact that no one can point out anything that I am wrong about is evidence that I am far from delusional.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I have pointed out that you are wrong about the alleged pressure from Democrats. You seem to forget how much establishment Republicans loathed Plump in those days. As always, your opinions are not facts, and your opinions are products of your constant delusion.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I have pointed out that you are wrong about the alleged pressure from Democrats.

Yes, but I wasn't wrong. The Democrats did create public pressure for the appointment of a special counsel.

Setanta wrote:

You seem to forget how much establishment Republicans loathed Plump in those days.

I haven't forgotten. I can see placing some of the blame for this on traitor Republicans. But that doesn't absolve the Democrats of their own role in this travesty.

I guess some people call them RINO Republicans. But I think "traitor Republicans" is a more apt term for these turncoats.

Setanta wrote:

As always, your opinions are not facts,

I've never claimed otherwise.

Setanta wrote:

your opinions are products of your constant delusion.

The fact that no one can point out anything that I'm wrong about testifies to my lack of delusion.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

@oralloy,
You provide no evidence that there were any significant pressure from Democrats, which was unquestionably the reason for the appointment of a special counsel. Therefore, you are as always, offering your opinion as fact, and, as always, without substantiation.

What the **** is it with this nearly universal rhetorical behavior right wing voices demonstrate here? Even george, who has a goddamn Ph D. insists on avoiding this simplest of scholarship requirements utterly commonplace in first years courses in damn near any subject area.

I really don't quite get it. Either these people just do not have the educational background to grasp why citations are important/necessary in the pursuit of truth or they are, for whatever set of reason, interested in something other than pursuing truth.

6 Replies

@blatham,

They also, many of them, think that providing a citation makes it a "fact." Oralloy gives a couple of cites that Democrats were calling for an investigation. That doesn't mean that's why Sessions/Rosenstein appointed a special counsel. Thinking is hard!

2 Replies

@blatham,

In one of the science magazines I read there was an article about certain people feeling a need to defend their opinion in the face of fact. The article stated that the more facts presented to these opinionated people the more rigorously they defended their opinion. Something to do with respect for self.

2 Replies

@blatham,

Quote:

interested in something other than pursuing truth.

Stop running, you have caught that bus.

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

What the **** is it with this nearly universal rhetorical behavior right wing voices demonstrate here? Even george, who has a goddamn Ph D. insists on avoiding this simplest of scholarship requirements utterly commonplace in first years courses in damn near any subject area.

I really don't quite get it. Either these people just do not have the educational background to grasp why citations are important/necessary in the pursuit of truth or they are, for whatever set of reason, interested in something other than pursuing truth.

I believe the behavior you so energetically criticize here is every bit as common among "left wing" posters as you allege is among "right wing voices" here. In this you are, without fact or citation, advocating a nonsensical and obviously false proposition.

Citing, as you so frequently do, a source, providing the opinion of a usually biased observer, that is also itself devoid of either facts or citations, is hardly "scholarship" - all your repeated protestations on this point notwithstanding. All form, but no substance: though you appear to believe otherwise.

Actually, mathematics texts and treatises usually include citations only in cases involving either a specific theory or innovation provided by a well-known figure, or to credit an ignored or little known sources the author wishes to credit. The same goes for most scientific works. For the rest they rely on the clarity and consistency of their logical approach.

Citations occur mostly in non scientific fields populated by authors jealous of their own status, and in cases in which the argument from authority is deemed particularly important.

1 Reply

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Even george, who has a goddamn Ph D.

Have you seen his actual credentials, or is this a claim he makes without proof?

2 Replies

A claim that a certain event has happened can be substantiated. Citing a biased source does not substantiate anything. Oralloy has been whining about the Democrats and their alleged witch-hunt. He has not produced a citation which unequivocally shows that a Republican-controlled Congress and a Republican Justice Department acted because of complaints by Democrats. That's the context here, George--try to keep up.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

Quote:

Have you seen his actual credentials, or is this a claim he makes without proof?

Men are to be taken at their word until they prove themselves liars. From what I seen George has managed to avoid that, unlike Blatham.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

alleged witch-hunt.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Yes and yes... thinking is hard if one is trying to do it right. Not sure if you are a fan of David Milch's screenplay work but I've recently been attending to a series of lectures/discussions he has been giving to his interns and others involved in the study of the art (on youtube). One of the most incredible minds I've encountered.

1 Reply

Mueller: No further indictments

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know