• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

RussiaGate

Temporarily steps aside... until the House Ethics Committee can white wash his unethical actions.

article said:
"I believe it is in the best interests of the House Intelligence Committee and the Congress for me to have Representative Mike Conaway, with assistance from Representatives Trey Gowdy and Tom Rooney, temporarily take charge of the Committee's Russia investigation while the House Ethics Committee looks into this matter," Nunes, a California Republican, said in a statement.

What is cute is that Rep. Paul Ryan says he trusts Nunes. Yup, public disclosure of confidential intel and rushes to tell Trump what the White House already knew. Yup... you can trust that level of bullshit.
 
I've done nothing wrong and hell no I'm not recusing myself.

Next day: I've recused myself.

You'd think that so early into a new administration that it would be too soon for patterns of behavior to develop. But you'd think wrong. People are fired, removed, and recused with alarming frequency. But hey, at least no one's mentioned Rick Perry in a while. So:

Rick Perry is currently in charge of our nukes.
 
Rick Perry is currently in charge of our nukes.

Fortunately Perry never studied history or Science. He thought duck and cover was a game for boys to see girls panties.

But here's what Rick Perry does know:

1. Jesus
2. Glasses make you smarter

If that doesn't qualify him to oversee the most deadly arsenal ever conceived of by humanity, then your standards are ridiculously high.
 
As I inferred, we need indefeasible evidence.

:hysterical:
You don't always get what you "need". And you have no use for what you say you "need" anyhow. Those who actually need evidence have all they need.
Your position is obviously "indefeasible" (sic).

Of course we need evidence to support a point. Do we convict people on the basis of irrefutable evidence or on a credible source?
 
:hysterical:
You don't always get what you "need". And you have no use for what you say you "need" anyhow. Those who actually need evidence have all they need.
Your position is obviously "indefeasible" (sic).

Of course we need evidence to support a point.

You and the frog in your pocket need evidence to support YOUR point.
Intelligence agencies need evidence to support theirs. They have it. You don't. The fact that you can't see their evidence does not cause it to cease to exist, your delusions notwithstanding.
 
Of course we need evidence to support a point.

You and the frog in your pocket need evidence to support YOUR point.
Intelligence agencies need evidence to support theirs. They have it. You don't. The fact that you can't see their evidence does not cause it to cease to exist, your delusions notwithstanding.

No I don't. The person making the allegations needs to support an assertion. No one has an obligation to disprove an unsupported allegation. I'm not even an atheist but an atheist will tell you, it's not possible to 'prove God exists.'
 
You and the frog in your pocket need evidence to support YOUR point.
Intelligence agencies need evidence to support theirs. They have it. You don't. The fact that you can't see their evidence does not cause it to cease to exist, your delusions notwithstanding.

No I don't.

No you don't WHAT? Need evidence? That's obvious. Your conclusions spring from your confirmation bias.

The person making the allegations needs to support an assertion.

Not to you. Don't like it? Tough shit.
 
No I don't.

No you don't WHAT? Need evidence? That's obvious. Your conclusions spring from your confirmation bias.

The person making the allegations needs to support an assertion.

Not to you. Don't like it? Tough shit.

And to hear this on an Atheist website. So if someone says God exists, the burden of proof is upon the person who can't see this or disagrees.
 
And to hear this on an Atheist website. So if someone says God exists, the burden of proof is upon the person who can't see this or disagrees.

Way to equate belief in magical beings with the existence of evidence adequate to convince 17 different, independent intelligence agencies.
Knowing that you believe in magical space aliens, I find that more than a little ironic. :o

(Hint: Magical space aliens don't exist. Evidence of Russian interference in US elections exists.)

Of course David Miscarriage need only offer "evidence" enough to convince superstitious fools. Intelligence agencies have to convince their rational members. But intelligence agencies have no obligation to convince superstitious members of fringe loony wacko pseudo-religions.
 
And to hear this on an Atheist website. So if someone says God exists, the burden of proof is upon the person who can't see this or disagrees.

Way to equate belief in magical beings with the existence of evidence adequate to convince 17 different, independent intelligence agencies.
Knowing that you believe in magical space aliens, I find that more than a little ironic. :o

(Hint: Magical space aliens don't exist. Evidence of Russian interference in US elections exists.)

Of course David Miscarriage need only offer "evidence" enough to convince superstitious fools. Intelligence agencies have to convince their rational members. But intelligence agencies have no obligation to convince superstitious members of fringe loony wacko pseudo-religions.

By your reasoning I7 witch doctors would concur that a winged goblin at the chief cattle. They would be Ju ju experts in their own society and regarded as totally credible. However what would be lacking is evidence the conclusion is based on locating the facts then analysing them and coming to a logical conclusion
 
Way to equate belief in magical beings with the existence of evidence adequate to convince 17 different, independent intelligence agencies.
Knowing that you believe in magical space aliens, I find that more than a little ironic. :o

(Hint: Magical space aliens don't exist. Evidence of Russian interference in US elections exists.)

Of course David Miscarriage need only offer "evidence" enough to convince superstitious fools. Intelligence agencies have to convince their rational members. But intelligence agencies have no obligation to convince superstitious members of fringe loony wacko pseudo-religions.

By your reasoning I7 witch doctors would concur that a winged goblin at the chief cattle.

Uh, that would be YOUR reasoning, whereby intelligence agencies = witch doctors. Most people who are not victims of fringe looney wacko pseudo-religions, know better.
But not you, nosiree! :hysterical:
 
By your reasoning I7 witch doctors would concur that a winged goblin at the chief cattle.

Uh, that would be YOUR reasoning, whereby intelligence agencies = witch doctors. Most people who are not victims of fringe looney wacko pseudo-religions, know better.
But not you, nosiree! :hysterical:

They are using the logic of witch doctors. The burden of proof stems from English and American laws.
Anyway since Trump authorised the rocket attacks on Syria, it means no more Russian kisses from Putin for a while and vica versa.
 
They are using the logic of witch doctors.

But there is lots of evidence. Much of it hasn't been brought out in public yet, but eventually it will be.

The burden of proof stems from English and American laws.

Generally, that's true. And again, we haven't heard everything. And it's quite possible that all of this Russia stuff will amount to nothing. But the behavior of Republicans and the Trump administration in attempting to withhold, obfuscate, and obstruct the investigation should set off one's bullshit detector. All the administration has to do is fully cooperate and the same goes for the Republicans on the investigatory body. If there's nothing there, then there's nothing there, and Trump would have a tremendous victory with such vindication.

Anyway since Trump authorised the rocket attacks on Syria, it means no more Russian kisses from Putin for a while and vica versa.

Note that Trump has not held Putin responsible for anything. Trump has insulted Australia, the UK, Germany, Mexico, etc. But when it comes to Vladimir Putin, according to Trump, "He's said nice things about me so I'll say nice things about him." The bombing of that Syrian airfield amounted to dick in terms of real damage. Planes took off from it last night/this morning to drop more bombs on the same place that experienced the chemical attack this week.

Russia is certainly talking shit, as is Assad, and even the U.S. State Department via oil tycoon Rex Tillerson are vomiting out a kerfuffle of words over the incident. By Tuesday it'll all have died down and we'll be onto the next idiotic Trump adventure, and this will be much ado about nothing. The point is that this little $40,000,000 fireworks show by the U.S. hasn't changed a substantive thing between the U.S. and Russia.
 
I'm not even an atheist but an atheist will tell you, it's not possible to 'prove God exists.'
You have that backwards. Religious people would be able to prove "god exists" if it did. Atheists point out that it is impossible to prove something does NOT exist.
 
I'm not even an atheist but an atheist will tell you, it's not possible to 'prove God exists.'
You have that backwards. Religious people would be able to prove "god exists" if it did. Atheists point out that it is impossible to prove something does NOT exist.

You're correct. I did mean that but your definition is clearer.

Now Trump learned that to gain popularity as a leader in the USA, just bomb someone. He did this on credible evidence but there was no proof.

What happened? His relationship with Putin ended and it looks like he received some approval from others.
 
Now Trump learned that to gain popularity as a leader in the USA, just bomb someone.

Yeah, I hope his approval ratings stay way up there in the thirties. If they drop into the twenties, he will probably nuke someone.
 
Back
Top Bottom