2,456
 

Nov 29 - Trump Planned To Give $50M TT Moscow Penthouse To Putin DURING The Campaign


 
3
most viewed right now
+320  75
145 comments @wild'ish


section   (0 bx goons and 1 bystanders) Share this on Twitter       Share this on Facebook
 

 2 weeks ago '08        #76
flav 2 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$3,868 | Props total: 5725 5725
 Hakim Cobain said
Showing evidence of what? Iíve gone back and forth with you on the evidence that exists. You just choose not to believe it, hence denying reality.
let's play that game.

The premise is that

"Trump and Putin worked together to cheat the elections with the help of Russian Gov't that ultimately led to his win"

right?

Please show me evidence that exists that I chose not to believe

you guys said:

- business transactions
- russian hackers
- russian "trolls"
- russian ads
- secret meetings

^^That's not evidence, especially the 1st claim that never substantiated.


What "evidence" you speak of that I "chose not to believe" ? When you guys screamed "hacking" I was right there saying that hacking does not work like that. I was met with angry posters who interestingly had NO knowledge of programming, computer networking, hacking software or hardware, BUT are so sure of themselves
-3   

 2 weeks ago '04        #77
Hakim Cobain 4 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$6,038 | Props total: 12838 12838
 flav said
let's play that game.

The premise is that

"Trump and Putin worked together to cheat the elections with the help of Russian Gov't that ultimately led to his win"

right?

Please show me evidence that exists that I chose not to believe

you guys said:

- business transactions
- russian hackers
- russian "trolls"
- russian ads
- secret meetings

^^That's not evidence, especially the 1st claim that never substantiated.


What "evidence" you speak of that I "chose not to believe" ? When you guys screamed "hacking" I was right there saying that hacking does not work like that. I was met with angry posters who interestingly had NO knowledge of programming, computer networking, hacking software or hardware, BUT are so sure of themselves

Like I said youíre deny reality.

Wikileaks (which is now a russian cutout) hacked the DNC servers. They communicated this to the trump campaign, in an effort to damage Clinton.

Russian Military conducted psychology warfare in the US, via a targeted media campaign. Fake ads in 3 states (3 states that won trump the election) to damage Clinton.

Thatís what happened, the evidence is in the public record. You choosing not to believe it isnít my problem.
+2   

 2 weeks ago '17        #78
Rich130 107 heat pts107
space
avatar space
space
$2,702 | Props total: 7506 7506
 two-face said
I thought trump was broke lol .
And I thought you had a brain


 2 weeks ago '08        #79
flav 2 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$3,868 | Props total: 5725 5725
 Hakim Cobain said
Like I said you’re deny reality.

Wikileaks (which is now a russian cutout) hacked the DNC servers. They communicated this to the trump campaign, in an effort to damage Clinton.

Russian Military conducted psychology warfare in the US, via a targeted media campaign. Fake ads in 3 states (3 states that won trump the election) to damage Clinton.

That’s what happened, the evidence is in the public record. You choosing not to believe it isn’t my problem.
eh... the "dnc servers hacked" was the result of ya boy podesta answering a phishing email I work with cyber security, believe me you have no idea what you're talking about

check this out

over 570,000 hacking attempts (succesful or not) since 12AM today

you: "you deny reality"

me: nah son, there is no evidence that Trump and Putin worked together to cheat the elections

you: "the 20,000 emails garnered by a hacker from Russia"

That's SMEAR CAMPAIGN. Not elections HACKING


Do you know that since 1940 efforts from foreign entities have been trying to meddle with elections left and right? Why don't you keep the same energy for all the other instances? You're 68 years too late bruh. The technology wasn't there back then so obviously TCP/IP is the channel



please "elaborate" sir

You would be the worse investigator. If that was the premise, it would have been an open/shut case Why is Mueller so invested outwards? He should consult computer IT forensics experts and the investigation would come to a success!!

--> This is what I am saying about your misunderstanding about "hackers cheated the elections"

Russian Military conducted psychology warfare in the US, via a targeted media campaign. Fake ads in 3 states (3 states that won trump the election) to damage Clinton.
eh... CLINTON DID DIRT. It was found and used against her this is a 50+ year old process that has been in existence of a reality that i'm supposedly "denying". Oh and please provide evidence of such, lol


That's the "evidence" that I'm denying? Let's reel back to my original statement:

Regarding the administration, no data whatsoever so far has been evidenced of "russian hacking that led to Trump's win in 2016 put together by joint forcers of Trump himself, Putin and the Russian Gov't" but somehow i'm supposed to believe that?

you failed to substantiate that "reality" of yours. And your answers are

- the 20,000 emails
- smear campaign by foreign entities




Last edited by flav; 11-30-2018 at 06:40 PM..
-2   

 2 weeks ago '06        #80
Skateboard T 43 heat pts43
space
avatar space
space
$23,589 | Props total: 32182 32182
 flav said

Regarding the administration, no data whatsoever so far has been evidenced of "russian hacking that led to Trump's win in 2016 put together by joint forcers of Trump himself, Putin and the Russian Gov't" but somehow i'm supposed to believe that?
You're missing my point, applying obviously different standards, and ignoring all of the actual evidence that can be used to meet the burden of proof in the Trump case.

First, my point is that in both cases, neither one has any sort of direct, irrefutable evidence that explicitly proves the woman murdered the man (killing with malice aforethought) or doesn't have an actual self-defense claim (because there is a possibility that a self-defense claim can get her off, and if I know anything about the legal system it's that cops get off easy).

What about all the meetings and correspondence between Trump team members and members of the Russian government? The lies by those members, the lies by the Trump campaign, the lies or "do not recall"s by Trump and his family etc.

That evidence actually does exactly what the evidence in the Botham Jean case does. Creates a strong likelihood that there was some foul play, but fail to prove with 100% certainty.

You're holding the two cases to different standards. Why? Likely because of the defendant in each case. In one its a person you specifically don't like, in the other it's your orange daddy. MYself, on the other hand, think that both are guilty because both have evidence against them that makes it EXTREMELY likely that some nefarious sh*t went down.

You're obviously caping for Trump, just own it and a.ssume your place in the pantheon of bx Trump trolls. Stop trying to act like you're some objective, especially insightful person who "gets it" more than anybody else. You don't. And you severly overestimate yourself.
+3   

 2 weeks ago '08        #81
flav 2 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$3,868 | Props total: 5725 5725
 Skateboard T said
You're missing my point, applying obviously different standards, and ignoring all of the actual evidence that can be used to meet the burden of proof in the Trump case.

[...]
- someone died. bullets in the victim's body match the gun used
- self defebnse claim will NOT hold. She showed up in the dude's apartment
- I used LOGIc in the reason why her claims don't hold, but sure, you won't take that into account

You're holding the two cases to different standards. Why? Likely because of the defendant in each case. In one its a person you specifically don't like, in the other it's your orange daddy. MYself, on the other hand, think that both are guilty because both have evidence against them that makes it EXTREMELY likely that some nefarious sh*t went down.
eh I'm not there is such a thing as case-by-case basis. You know that, right? I

"I obviously don't like" her?
she k!lled someone in his apartment, claimed she thought that it was her spot. took a life then tried to cover it up. Am I supposed to like her? I don't care about her lmao

"my orange daddy"
LMAO see? You can't help but shifting to a personal attack i guess you "obviously don't like me"

the bolded part is funny.

- she took a life? irrefutable fact
- she tried to cover it up? irrefutable fact
- logically her position doesn't hold
- the door ajar statement visibly debunked according to the investigation goes directly against her attempt at a cover up

Trump:

- He won the election? Irrefutable fact
- Mueller launches an investigation due to the belief that his campaign and russian gov't worked together to cheat the election? speculation


a) on one hand: someone died, fact. Investigation is set on how it happened. Either way there was no [drumroll]... EVIDENCE of attacks from the victim that led to her k!lling him (you know, like dna under the nails, hair pulled, or even blunt force on her body showing she got hit, or even defense wounds on the victim.. that's right... NO EVIDENCE indicates self defense

b) on the other hand: there is a belief that the elections were manipulated with the help of russian Gov't that led to his win in 2016 fact? any actual EVIDENCE that back up the fact?

What about all the meetings and correspondence between Trump team members and members of the Russian government? The lies by those members, the lies by the Trump campaign, the lies or "do not recall"s by Trump and his family etc.
"meetings and correspondence"
"lies by the Trump campaign" (very broad here lol)
"I do not recall"

^^ These are equivalent to hard data that was gathered during the Jean case?

reaching much?

Creates a strong likelihood that there was some foul play
right... but someone died, RIGHT?


in this investigation, the issue is that there is a belief that the elections were cheated by dealings concluded by Trump and Putin
...how does that equate to the fact that the man died, so they are collecting the pieces on how it went about. In the Mueller case, there is a belief that the elections were cheated, and they're putting pieces together to see if it can be proven

a FACT (the guy died by 2 gunshot wounds)

vs

a BELIEF (the elections were won via an orchestrated plan to cheat the elections)



....but i'm "capin" for Trump


You're obviously caping for Trump, just own it and a.ssume your place in the pantheon of bx Trump trolls. Stop trying to act like you're some objective, especially insightful person who "gets it" more than anybody else. You don't. And you severly overestimate yourself.
what was "objective" about your poor attempt in drawing parallels? If the premise was "the elections were hacked, every evidence shows" now let's INVESTIGATE on how it went about, you would have a point

your pseudo intellectual approach needs a LOT of fine-tuning brah





that was WEAK at best
-1   

 2 weeks ago '06        #82
Skateboard T 43 heat pts43
space
avatar space
space
$23,589 | Props total: 32182 32182
 flav said
- someone died. bullets in the victim's body match the gun used
- self defebnse claim will NOT hold. She showed up in the dude's apartment
- I used LOGIc in the reason why her claims don't hold, but sure, you won't take that into account



eh I'm not there is such a thing as case-by-case basis. You know that, right? I

"I obviously don't like" her?
she k!lled someone in his apartment, claimed she thought that it was her spot. took a life then tried to cover it up. Am I supposed to like her? I don't care about her lmao

"my orange daddy"
LMAO see? You can't help but shifting to a personal attack i guess you "obviously don't like me"

the bolded part is funny.

- she took a life? irrefutable fact
- she tried to cover it up? irrefutable fact
- logically her position doesn't hold
- the door ajar statement visibly debunked according to the investigation goes directly against her attempt at a cover up

Trump:

- He won the election? Irrefutable fact
- Mueller launches an investigation due to the belief that his campaign and russian gov't worked together to cheat the election? speculation


a) on one hand: someone died, fact. Investigation is set on how it happened. Either way there was no [drumroll]... EVIDENCE of attacks from the victim that led to her k!lling him (you know, like dna under the nails, hair pulled, or even blunt force on her body showing she got hit, or even defense wounds on the victim.. that's right... NO EVIDENCE indicates self defense

b) on the other hand: there is a belief that the elections were manipulated with the help of russian Gov't that led to his win in 2016 fact? any actual EVIDENCE that back up the fact?



"meetings and correspondence"
"lies by the Trump campaign" (very broad here lol)
"I do not recall"

^^ These are equivalent to hard data that was gathered during the Jean case?

reaching much?


right... but someone died, RIGHT?


in this investigation, the issue is that there is a belief that the elections were cheated by dealings concluded by Trump and Putin
...how does that equate to the fact that the man died, so they are collecting the pieces on how it went about. In the Mueller case, there is a belief that the elections were cheated, and they're putting pieces together to see if it can be proven

a FACT (the guy died by 2 gunshot wounds)

vs

a BELIEF (the elections were won via an orchestrated plan to cheat the elections)



....but i'm "capin" for Trump




what was "objective" about your poor attempt in drawing parallels? If the premise was "the elections were hacked, every evidence shows" now let's INVESTIGATE on how it went about, you would have a point

your pseudo intellectual approach needs a LOT of fine-tuning brah





that was WEAK at best
I'm not reading all of that mess. Learn how to address me in a coherent manner please.

But from what I did read before your writing started to hurt my eyes and brain...Your conclusions of law are false. You don't understand the criminal statutes nor do you understand what it takes to prove murder, manslaughter, or how self-defense claims work. I've literally worked on murder prosecutions and you want to tell me how criminal prosecutions work.

Like I Said, there are no facts that irrefutably prove murder, manslaughter, or that she did not have a reasonable self-defense claim based on a mistake of fact.

I don't believe she does, and I think she's certainly guilty but that's not the point. The point is that in one case you ask for certainty, in another one you are willing to rely on lack of reasonable doubt.

You are simply applying different standards. What do you want me to say?


Last edited by Skateboard T; 11-30-2018 at 08:25 PM..
+3   

 2 weeks ago '17        #83
Class of 2017 10 heat pts10
space
space
space
$2,013 | Props total: 7728 7728
@ You are the biggest gish-galloper/Sea-Lioning troll ive ever seen. You quote as many people as possible create as many simultaneously arguments as possible and put an unreasonable burden of proof onto everyone else, meanwhile nothing anyone says to you is gonna change your mind.

This really how u choose to live life?





Don't bother replying, just thought id give u the heads up that everyone hip to your game now.
+4   

 2 weeks ago '04        #84
Hakim Cobain 4 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$6,038 | Props total: 12838 12838
 flav said
eh... the "dnc servers hacked" was the result of ya boy podesta answering a phishing email I work with cyber security, believe me you have no idea what you're talking about

check this out

over 570,000 hacking attempts (succesful or not) since 12AM today

you: "you deny reality"

me: nah son, there is no evidence that Trump and Putin worked together to cheat the elections

you: "the 20,000 emails garnered by a hacker from Russia"

That's SMEAR CAMPAIGN. Not elections HACKING


Do you know that since 1940 efforts from foreign entities have been trying to meddle with elections left and right? Why don't you keep the same energy for all the other instances? You're 68 years too late bruh. The technology wasn't there back then so obviously TCP/IP is the channel



please "elaborate" sir

You would be the worse investigator. If that was the premise, it would have been an open/shut case Why is Mueller so invested outwards? He should consult computer IT forensics experts and the investigation would come to a success!!

--> This is what I am saying about your misunderstanding about "hackers cheated the elections"



eh... CLINTON DID DIRT. It was found and used against her this is a 50+ year old process that has been in existence of a reality that i'm supposedly "denying". Oh and please provide evidence of such, lol


That's the "evidence" that I'm denying? Let's reel back to my original statement:

Regarding the administration, no data whatsoever so far has been evidenced of "russian hacking that led to Trump's win in 2016 put together by joint forcers of Trump himself, Putin and the Russian Gov't" but somehow i'm supposed to believe that?

you failed to substantiate that "reality" of yours. And your answers are

- the 20,000 emails
- smear campaign by foreign entities


Like I said youíre denying reality. You act like all of this is made up, when this is what the mueller report will say.

 2 weeks ago '08        #85
flav 2 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$3,868 | Props total: 5725 5725
 Class of 2017 said
@ You are the biggest gish-galloper/Sea-Lioning troll ive ever seen. You quote as many people as possible create as many simultaneously arguments as possible and put an unreasonable burden of proof onto everyone else, meanwhile nothing anyone says to you is gonna change your mind.

This really how u choose to live life?





Don't bother replying, just thought id give u the heads up that everyone hip to your game now.

aww how cute

nah son.

logic, critical thinking and most of all: detached from emotions

finally, i literally dismantle the person's statements and quote their own points, somehow that's me using some form of "technique"

GOT IT

 2 weeks ago '08        #86
flav 2 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$3,868 | Props total: 5725 5725
 Hakim Cobain said
Like I said you’re denying reality. You act like all of this is made up, when this is what the mueller report will say.
I "act like it's made up" now

so we're no longer pointing out people's statements or points?
when you run out of ammunition:
- buh buh you "ACT" like ...
- or personal insults

let's get back to the basics shall we?

....time will tell and wait for the damn investigation to completion before jumping the gun innocent until proven guily and like i've been saying: if he did that then i'll keep that same energy

I'm denying reality and "act as if..." but you did not even counter my points. HOW CONVENIENT LMAOOOOOOOOO

how is that a denial of reality? Jesus i'm now a troll supposedly

 2 weeks ago '06        #87
Skateboard T 43 heat pts43
space
avatar space
space
$23,589 | Props total: 32182 32182
 flav said
aww how cute

nah son.

logic, critical thinking and most of all: detached from emotions

finally, i literally dismantle the person's statements and quote their own points, somehow that's me using some form of "technique"

GOT IT


Your logic is almost always lacks soundness. It may be valid argument but it isnít sound which is the problem. Because a valid argument is nothing if it isnít sound.

 2 weeks ago '08        #88
flav 2 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$3,868 | Props total: 5725 5725
 Skateboard T said


Your logic is almost always lacks soundness. It may be valid argument but it isnít sound which is the problem. Because a valid argument is nothing if it isnít sound.
that makes absolutely no sense -____-

you just want to ave the last word at this point. You have been losing grip and traction the deeper we advance in the convo. Then at the end it's the typical cop out

 2 weeks ago '08        #89
flav 2 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$3,868 | Props total: 5725 5725
 Skateboard T said
I'm not reading all of that mess. Learn how to address me in a coherent manner please.

But from what I did read before your writing started to hurt my eyes and brain...Your conclusions of law are false. You don't understand the criminal statutes nor do you understand what it takes to prove murder, manslaughter, or how self-defense claims work. I've literally worked on murder prosecutions and you want to tell me how criminal prosecutions work.

Like I Said, there are no facts that irrefutably prove murder, manslaughter, or that she did not have a reasonable self-defense claim based on a mistake of fact.

I don't believe she does, and I think she's certainly guilty but that's not the point. The point is that in one case you ask for certainty, in another one you are willing to rely on lack of reasonable doubt.

You are simply applying different standards. What do you want me to say?
actually no.

You are just too dense to admit that your example was ridiculously weak. I broke it down in details and now you run away with "uhh too much to read"

and the bolded part: well good for you. The problem again is that your parallel was inaccurate.

One does not need to be a professional in muder cases to tell you how off base your parallel was. I look at it on a case-by-case basis. That's all. You try to conflate the two, somehow "i'm using two standards"

one is a fact: someone died. Bullet in the person's body, no direct evidence of a potential context that may give her reasons to have made the act. The proof is to see how it went about to see if the person committed a murder or if she had reasons to justify her reaction which will influence the length of her sentencing. Right?

The other one is NOT a fact: Russian and Trump Organizations meddling with the elections that led to his win. And the investigation is to prove that the speculation is correct.

Now tell me how "illogical" I was

Your example sucked that's all.

 2 weeks ago '06        #90
Skateboard T 43 heat pts43
space
avatar space
space
$23,589 | Props total: 32182 32182
 Skateboard T said


Your logic is almost always lacks soundness. It may be valid argument but it isnít sound which is the problem. Because a valid argument is nothing if it isnít sound.
 flav said
that makes absolutely no sense -____-

you just want to ave the last word at this point. You have been losing grip and traction the deeper we advance in the convo. Then at the end it's the typical cop out
If it makes no sense, then you literally donít know the first thing about logic. First chapter of most logic textbooks is validity and soundness.

Iíll school you.

Validity = an argument with a conclusion that follows from its premises.
Example:
All green things are frogs
All cats are things that are green
All cats are frogs.

That logically follows based on the argument structure, itís a valid argument, but it isnít a sound argument.

Sound arguments = a valid argument where all the statements are true.
Example:
All Roosevelts who were President were either named Theodore or Franklin(T)
This Roosevelt was President(T)
This Roosevelt is named either Theodore or Franklin (T)

 2 weeks ago '06        #91
Skateboard T 43 heat pts43
space
avatar space
space
$23,589 | Props total: 32182 32182
 flav said
actually no.

You are just too dense to admit that your example was ridiculously weak. I broke it down in details and now you run away with "uhh too much to read"

and the bolded part: well good for you. The problem again is that your parallel was inaccurate.

One does not need to be a professional in muder cases to tell you how off base your parallel was. I look at it on a case-by-case basis. That's all. You try to conflate the two, somehow "i'm using two standards"

one is a fact: someone died. Bullet in the person's body, no direct evidence of a potential context that may give her reasons to have made the act. The proof is to see how it went about to see if the person committed a murder or if she had reasons to justify her reaction which will influence the length of her sentencing. Right?

The other one is NOT a fact: Russian and Trump Organizations meddling with the elections that led to his win. And the investigation is to prove that the speculation is correct.

Now tell me how "illogical" I was

Your example sucked that's all.
There are literally thousands and thousands of bots with tens of millions of followers linked to the Russian government that were constantly spreading objectively, verifiably false propaganda in favor of trump.

There still remains to be seen whether the woman truly believes she was in her apartment (I don’t believe she did but we don’t know for certain yet, you’re just a.ssuming this is false but what fact do you have to prove this?)

Different standards. Case-by-case basis are still required to meet the same burden of proof. You don’t actually properly apply a case-by-case analysis of you ignore fundamental requirements.


Last edited by Skateboard T; 11-30-2018 at 11:03 PM..
+1   

 2 weeks ago '08        #92
flav 2 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$3,868 | Props total: 5725 5725
 Skateboard T said
If it makes no sense, then you literally don’t know the first thing about logic. First chapter of most logic textbooks is validity and soundness.

I’ll school you.

Validity = an argument with a conclusion that follows from its premises.
Example:
All green things are frogs
All cats are things that are green
All cats are frogs.

That logically follows based on the argument structure, it’s a valid argument, but it isn’t a sound argument.

Sound arguments = a valid argument where all the statements are true.
Example:
All Roosevelts who were President were either named Theodore or Franklin(T)
This Roosevelt was President(T)
This Roosevelt is named either Theodore or Franklin (T)
dumbass went the theoretical route to "sound smart"

this is getting ridiculous. Your example si not only using elementary level of LOGIC that is so below that I am actually disappointed

It's like expecting some advanced quantum physics coming from you and you spew the introduction to multiplication

Your "example" is as sh*tty as your original parallel dude, that was weak as hell

based on your elementary 101 introduction to LOGIC (LMAO) you simply defined that not only I am logical but sound


DAMN I'M GOOD

thanks BRAH!
+1   

 2 weeks ago '08        #93
flav 2 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$3,868 | Props total: 5725 5725
 Skateboard T said
[...]

There are literally thousands and thousands of bots with tens of millions of followers linked to the Russian government that were constantly spreading objectively, verifiably false propaganda in favor of trump.
-- oh yeah? Find me 10 of out of those "thousands and thousands" of bots that were as you said: "linked to the Russian government that were constantly spreading objectively, verifiably false propaganda in favor of trump."

Just 10... ok? and these 10 better have metadata that backup your statement here, OH BOY

There still remains to be seen whether the woman truly believes she was in her apartment (I don’t believe she did but we don’t know for certain yet, you’re just a.ssuming this is false but what fact do you have to prove this?)
You had a sh*tty example and now you're trying to line up a murder case in parallel to a case involving several parties and a coordinated plan of attack that was meant to fix (simplifying here, calm down) the elections. Don't try to bang on your defunct example, it's just as sh*tty as it was in the beginning. Idiot, whether she truly believes it or not:

Did her bullets hit the victim coming from her gun or did it not? Did the guy lose his life or dud he not? It is beyond reasonable doubt that she took his life RIGHT? Now the investigation will lead to her getting either a long or shorter-ish sentence.. RIGHT?

Did trump or did he not collude with Putin to fix (woah there. simplification calm down) the elections? YEs/No/Maybe?

How many times do i need to tell you that your sh*tty example holds no water?

Different standards. Case-by-case basis are still required to meet the same burden of proof. You don’t actually properly apply a case-by-case analysis of you ignore fundamental requirements.
I'm starting to doubt your supposed knowledge in that field brah... someone with actual knowledge would be much more versed in arguing these points, your sh*tty example is still sh*tty and your "elaboration" is just as wack as your attempt to define the sound argument Another SUPER basic elementary level....again

GO


TO

BED!
+1   

 2 weeks ago '16        #94
AMG2M4 69 heat pts69
space
avatar space
space
$5,386 | Props total: 9283 9283
What's the story here? Isn't Donald Trump a businessman before he became a President? Why is this 4 pages long? He's friends with Putin is the story?? AGAIN?
-2   

 2 weeks ago '16        #95
AMG2M4 69 heat pts69
space
avatar space
space
$5,386 | Props total: 9283 9283
 flav said
I'm starting to doubt your supposed knowledge in that field brah... someone with actual knowledge would be much more versed in arguing these points, your sh*tty example is still sh*tty and your "elaboration" is just as wack as your attempt to define the sound argument Another SUPER basic elementary level....again


I love his masquerade as a "bx lawyer"

 2 weeks ago '15        #96
amarti9 2 heat pts
space
space
space
$1,069 | Props total: 4483 4483
The photo Mueller's team is staring at.
Look how jealous and envious our so called leader looks. Wishing he was in the middle. Smh



[pic - click to view]


 2 weeks ago '18        #97
Neg Mwen 2 heat pts
space
space
space
$1,551 | Props total: 3207 3207
 Skateboard T said
There are literally thousands and thousands of bots with tens of millions of followers linked to the Russian government that were constantly spreading objectively, verifiably false propaganda in favor of trump.

There still remains to be seen whether the woman truly believes she was in her apartment (I donít believe she did but we donít know for certain yet, youíre just a.ssuming this is false but what fact do you have to prove this?)

Different standards. Case-by-case basis are still required to meet the same burden of proof. You donít actually properly apply a case-by-case analysis of you ignore fundamental requirements.
I love watching BX members with actual attorneys

My favorite instance was when some dude was arguing "bu bu but semantics" when semantics are fundamental to law
+1   

 2 weeks ago '06        #98
Skateboard T 43 heat pts43
space
avatar space
space
$23,589 | Props total: 32182 32182
 flav said
dumbass went the theoretical route to "sound smart"

this is getting ridiculous. Your example si not only using elementary level of LOGIC that is so below that I am actually disappointed

It's like expecting some advanced quantum physics coming from you and you spew the introduction to multiplication

Your "example" is as sh*tty as your original parallel dude, that was weak as hell

based on your elementary 101 introduction to LOGIC (LMAO) you simply defined that not only I am logical but sound


DAMN I'M GOOD

thanks BRAH!
I kept it elementary because itís all that was required. Thereís no point in conducting a higher level logical analysis of an argument that fails to actually BE a logical argument. In order to evaluate logical argument at the VERY least it needs to be logical sound. Yours are neither sound, nor valid based on the a.ssumptions you make. For somebody who constantly says how much they know about logic you sure do seem to know very little about it.

I see youíre leaning on personal attacks, sorry to frustrate you.

Listen man Iím sure youíre GREAT at IT, but why donít you leave the legal analysis to the professionals ok? Have a good Saturday.

Bonus: hereís twitter admitting they purged 50k russian bots
+2   

 2 weeks ago '08        #99
flav 2 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$3,868 | Props total: 5725 5725
 Skateboard T said

blah blah blah
I kept it elementary because itís all that was required.
nah you kept it elementary cause that's all you know LOL




Thereís no point in conducting a higher level logical blah blah blah...
perfect case displayed here when trying to sound knowledgeable goes terribly wrong
when you are well versed in a subject, you should be able to explain the most complicated thing using the most simple and understandable approach. You were incapable of doing so. Called out!





I see youíre leaning on personal attacks, sorry to frustrate you.
ehh... nah son i'm ridiculing your azz, in case you haven't noticed the personal attacks have been coming from the get go on your behalf, sounds like another case of selective memory


Listen man Iím sure youíre GREAT at IT, but why donít you leave the legal analysis to the professionals ok? Have a good Saturday.
You know that applies to you, RIGHT? Let the PROFESSIONALS handle it. Not your dumbass fake CSI self





I checked your link, oh boy:

Remember you said this:
There are literally thousands and thousands of bots with tens of millions of followers linked to the Russian government that were constantly spreading objectively, verifiably false propaganda in favor of trump.

Remember I said this:


-- oh yeah? Find me 10 of out of those "thousands and thousands" of bots that were as you said: "linked to the Russian government that were constantly spreading objectively, verifiably false propaganda in favor of trump."

[pic - click to view]




You provided zero. Like an idiot you posted the 50K russian accounts that have NOT been shown to be "linked to the russian gov't spreading blah blah" Idiot do you realize that it's the reason I asked you for 10 of them?


let me help you: @_GOP was one account. Find me the 9 more with actual evidence. Oh and there is no proven link (yet?) that it was "linked to the russian gov't" (which is very vague on your part)


your link INSIDE says:

The company stressed that the Russian accounts represented a small proportion of the total number using its service.
That's fail #1 on your part, the large portion of them were inactive, fail

And fail #2, u ready? the 50K accounts you speak of are NOT shown to be "linked to the Russian government that were constantly spreading objectively, verifiably false propaganda in favor of trump"

Bruh they posted about the elections



Do you know what else has been happening since 1940?

THE SAME DAMN THING BUT IT WAS NOT VIA THE WEB SINCE THE TECH WASN'T THERE




So riddle me this: Election attempt meddling from foreign nationals have been going on since 1940, cyber attacks are over 500,000 per day on average, but for some magical reason you say that Trump and Putin conspired together to launch such meticulous attack that led to his election win

You keep shifting all over the place to say nothing but i'm "denying reality" huh?


I will keep saying it again until your slow brain picks it up:


wait for the fu*kin investigation to complete with evidence that trump and putin conspired a plan together that led to his win



slow azz

 2 weeks ago '06        #100
Skateboard T 43 heat pts43
space
avatar space
space
$23,589 | Props total: 32182 32182
 flav said
nah you kept it elementary cause that's all you know LOL


perfect case displayed here when trying to sound knowledgeable goes terribly wrong
when you are well versed in a subject, you should be able to explain the most complicated thing using the most simple and understandable approach.
so you say me keeping it elementary is wrong and then want a simple and understandable approach? So which is it?

So, checkmate on THAT point. Moving on.

From twitter: "The company on Friday also disclosed thousands of accounts that it said were a.ssociated with the Kremlin-linked troll farm, the Internet Research Agency (IRA) and the Russian go vernment, adding to numbers that it released to Congress in October."

Now finally, bringing it all back home. You've constantly said that you have irrefutable evidence that the police officer is guilty of murder right?

But what 100% irrefutable evidence do you have that the police officer didn't actually believe she was in her own apartment and acting in self-defense? Mistake of fact is a possible defense, combined with self-defense as a possible excuse IS in fact a way that people can avoid murder charges. Now, you've already sentenced her to death but have yet to provide irrefutable evidence that show she knew she wasn't in her house and wasn't acting in self defense.

Thats how criminal procedure works.

In conclusion, you are without a doubt, applying completely different standards in both cases (perhaps unintentionally). Yes, a man was shot and k!lled by a woman, but that doesn't in itself doesn't prove that she is guilty of murder in the eyes of the law. You need proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it happened, and that her excuses are not bonafide.

What proof do you have to that last point regarding her excuses?

If you want irrefutable proof that's fine, but you don't have irrefutable proof that the officer's story is false.

You have a high likelihood that it's false.

But if you want to say she's guilty of murder because of the inferences you draw from the story, then you have to apply that same standard to Trump.


Last edited by Skateboard T; 12-01-2018 at 12:40 PM..

Home      
  



 
 





most viewed right now
+29online now  39
Article inside Chiko Juan death: Meek Mill affiliate reportedly dead after Atlanta s..
156 comments
1 day ago
@hiphop
most viewed right now
+20online now  35
Video inside Remember when Murder Inc. tried to create there own 50 Cent....
68 comments
1 day ago
@hiphop
most viewed right now
+26online now  20
Video inside If You Decide To Get Married, This Will Be Your Life
163 comments
1 day ago
@wild'ish
most viewed right now
-42online now  13
Video inside Is Drake a gangster?
77 comments
24 hours ago
@hiphop
most viewed right now
+37online now  10
Lol: Oprah responds to the video of her eating dry unseasoned chicken.
62 comments
1 day ago
@wild'ish
most viewed right now
+67online now  7
Image(s) inside May 31, 2019, Legendary Pictures will be DROPPING. BODIES.
49 comments
1 day ago
@movies
most viewed right now
+21online now  6
Image(s) inside First Poster for Jordan Peeleís upcoming film ďUSĒ; trailer drops on C..
42 comments
1 day ago
@movies
most viewed right now
+18online now  5
Dec 13 - Atlanta goons shoot and kill a Police officer and K-9 off Candler Road
186 comments
1 day ago
@news
back to top
register contact Follow BX @ Twitter Follow BX @ Facebook search BX privacy