Mueller: No further indictments

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

Or maybe I did provide citations and blatham is once again being dishonest.

Yes and yes... thinking is hard if one is trying to do it right.

Unfortunately, that poses something of a problem for me as I commonly do what I probably ought not to do.

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.

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

Citations occur mostly in non scientific fields populated by authors jealous of their own status

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

He has demonstrated again and again he is not to be trusted.

Nearly ever post I write where I cite/link to an outside source will itself contain citations and links to supporting data. You just don't bother to read them or to read with care.

User ignored (view)

That's because you like to run and hide from people who out-think you.

...Yet, we have the President claiming "complete exoneration." Which, btw, is NOT what the report said.

cloud of suspicion for the rest of their lives unless they prove their innocence beyond all doubt.

In our system of justice, people investigated and not charged are considered to be innocent and are not considered to be under a cloud of suspicion for the rest of their lives unless they prove their innocence beyond all doubt.

It means he gets impeached THEN charged.

Quote:

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

I don't deem george a liar. But whatever route he took to his degree must have been pretty damned unusual.