Pacfanweb said:pineknollshoresking said:He is a senator in Georgia. He has provided this in a Georgia session. You can call it hearsay; however, I DOUBT you have have seen the evidence as he has. Then, again, I shouldn't say that; because, some of you guys are truly tuned into the details more than Senator's from a state...Pacfanweb said:pineknollshoresking said:
Would this be evidence? I don't know. Read it and make your own decisions... This is a Georgia Senator's summation based on the evidence provided. But, really, who is this guy? He wouldn't know anything...
http://www.senatorligon.com/THE_FINAL%20REPORT.PDF?fbclid=IwAR1m71uO3FCgslXHOTrh1kwJC9ObtgzvGgcQKRoK9ZbOV66Fkc2l9-eeJOU
Scanning through it, he basically summarizes all of the hearsay things that have been reported.
Just different things that people said that they saw. Which might well could have turned out to be actual evidence if any of it was ever proven true.
I didn't know the evidence that he had until he presented it in that report. And now I know it. And you can see it for what it is. A bunch of hearsay with no proof backing it up.
It's funny how you are willing to give some random state senator's opinion credibility, yet the actual election directors and the people in charge of the election in that same state who know far more about it than he does, you want to dismiss.
Basically anybody who doesn't say what you want to hear, you question their credibility. But when you find someone who does say something you want to hear and others question THEIR credibility......
I guess all politicians are liars until they say something you want to hear?
Civilized said:pineknollshoresking said:I'm sure you would...Civilized said:Wolfpackrich1 said:I would accept evidence that a judge would allow in court.SupplyChainPack said:Pacfanweb said:Saying it over and over without producing any evidence still doesn't make it true.SupplyChainPack said:Pacfanweb said:SupplyChainPack said:
Barack Obama:
69,000,000 votes
873 counties
Donald Trump:
75,000,000 votes
2,497 counties
Joe Biden:
81,000,000 votes
477 counties
...And we're not allowed to question his "victory"
Perhaps you should understand why those numbers are the way they are first? Pretty simple explanation
Yes, election fraud, particularly in key dem run cities in swing states.
Anyone who can produce actual evidence of fraud, we're all ears like Ross Perot.
You're rejection of mountains of evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You're acceptance of insane statistical absurdities (essentially impossibilities) doesn't mean that they represent reality.
Let's ask this question:. what evidence WOULD you accept as demonstrating that voter fraud had taken place to favor Joe Biden?
Exactly.
I'm pleased to use the courts as my proxy.
Why wouldn't you, is the better question.
Courts cut through the bull**** real quick-like because the threat of perjury hangs over the proceedings.
This aligns the interest of defendants (to not have fake evidence be used against them) and the state (to achieve justice for both parties in the eyes of the law).
What better arena do we have to determine the veracity of claims and evidence, than the courts?
Social media? LOLOLOLOLOLOL
SupplyChainPack said:Pacfanweb said:pineknollshoresking said:He is a senator in Georgia. He has provided this in a Georgia session. You can call it hearsay; however, I DOUBT you have have seen the evidence as he has. Then, again, I shouldn't say that; because, some of you guys are truly tuned into the details more than Senator's from a state...Pacfanweb said:pineknollshoresking said:
Would this be evidence? I don't know. Read it and make your own decisions... This is a Georgia Senator's summation based on the evidence provided. But, really, who is this guy? He wouldn't know anything...
http://www.senatorligon.com/THE_FINAL%20REPORT.PDF?fbclid=IwAR1m71uO3FCgslXHOTrh1kwJC9ObtgzvGgcQKRoK9ZbOV66Fkc2l9-eeJOU
Scanning through it, he basically summarizes all of the hearsay things that have been reported.
Just different things that people said that they saw. Which might well could have turned out to be actual evidence if any of it was ever proven true.
I didn't know the evidence that he had until he presented it in that report. And now I know it. And you can see it for what it is. A bunch of hearsay with no proof backing it up.
It's funny how you are willing to give some random state senator's opinion credibility, yet the actual election directors and the people in charge of the election in that same state who know far more about it than he does, you want to dismiss.
Basically anybody who doesn't say what you want to hear, you question their credibility. But when you find someone who does say something you want to hear and others question THEIR credibility......
I guess all politicians are liars until they say something you want to hear?
I like how you used the word, "random" to try to eliminate his credibility. Why should we assume that boards of elections and directors of elections are not highly partisan and utterly corrupt?
You complain about dismissing what people have to say - but you've been doing exactly that for weeks.
How reliable will the courts be when SCOTUS overturns Roe vs Wade on a 5 - 4 vote?SupplyChainPack said:Civilized said:pineknollshoresking said:I'm sure you would...Civilized said:Wolfpackrich1 said:I would accept evidence that a judge would allow in court.SupplyChainPack said:Pacfanweb said:Saying it over and over without producing any evidence still doesn't make it true.SupplyChainPack said:Pacfanweb said:SupplyChainPack said:
Barack Obama:
69,000,000 votes
873 counties
Donald Trump:
75,000,000 votes
2,497 counties
Joe Biden:
81,000,000 votes
477 counties
...And we're not allowed to question his "victory"
Perhaps you should understand why those numbers are the way they are first? Pretty simple explanation
Yes, election fraud, particularly in key dem run cities in swing states.
Anyone who can produce actual evidence of fraud, we're all ears like Ross Perot.
You're rejection of mountains of evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You're acceptance of insane statistical absurdities (essentially impossibilities) doesn't mean that they represent reality.
Let's ask this question:. what evidence WOULD you accept as demonstrating that voter fraud had taken place to favor Joe Biden?
Exactly.
I'm pleased to use the courts as my proxy.
Why wouldn't you, is the better question.
Courts cut through the bull**** real quick-like because the threat of perjury hangs over the proceedings.
This aligns the interest of defendants (to not have fake evidence be used against them) and the state (to achieve justice for both parties in the eyes of the law).
What better arena do we have to determine the veracity of claims and evidence, than the courts?
Social media? LOLOLOLOLOLOL
It's good to know that the courts are so reliable and trustworthy. They always get it right, and we can always trust them.
One wonders - with all of this erudite wisdom and strict adhearance to true justice - why we would even need any courts beyond the district courts? Appeals courts? Supreme court? Why bother? The black robe tells us that we can fully trust blind justice and unblemished judgement of whatever judge happens to hear the case first.
With such a perfectly trustworthy system, we really should stop wasting our money on all these extra layers of judges.
pineknollshoresking said:Civ, you are an unreasonable person that is misguided by your own ineptness. No need to continue with you as you say things such as: "GTFO" in another thread, then never respond, when I show contrition...Civilized said:pineknollshoresking said:I'm sure you would...Civilized said:Wolfpackrich1 said:I would accept evidence that a judge would allow in court.SupplyChainPack said:Pacfanweb said:Saying it over and over without producing any evidence still doesn't make it true.SupplyChainPack said:Pacfanweb said:SupplyChainPack said:
Barack Obama:
69,000,000 votes
873 counties
Donald Trump:
75,000,000 votes
2,497 counties
Joe Biden:
81,000,000 votes
477 counties
...And we're not allowed to question his "victory"
Perhaps you should understand why those numbers are the way they are first? Pretty simple explanation
Yes, election fraud, particularly in key dem run cities in swing states.
Anyone who can produce actual evidence of fraud, we're all ears like Ross Perot.
You're rejection of mountains of evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You're acceptance of insane statistical absurdities (essentially impossibilities) doesn't mean that they represent reality.
Let's ask this question:. what evidence WOULD you accept as demonstrating that voter fraud had taken place to favor Joe Biden?
Exactly.
I'm pleased to use the courts as my proxy.
Why wouldn't you, is the better question.
Courts cut through the bull**** real quick-like because the threat of perjury hangs over the proceedings.
This aligns the interest of defendants (to not have fake evidence be used against them) and the state (to achieve justice for both parties in the eyes of the law).
What better arena do we have to determine the veracity of claims and evidence, than the courts?
Social media? LOLOLOLOLOLOL
pineknollshoresking said:I'll repeat...Pacfanweb said:pineknollshoresking said:He is a senator in Georgia. He has provided this in a Georgia session. You can call it hearsay; however, I DOUBT you have have seen the evidence as he has. Then, again, I shouldn't say that; because, some of you guys are truly tuned into the details more than Senator's from a state...Pacfanweb said:pineknollshoresking said:
Would this be evidence? I don't know. Read it and make your own decisions... This is a Georgia Senator's summation based on the evidence provided. But, really, who is this guy? He wouldn't know anything...
http://www.senatorligon.com/THE_FINAL%20REPORT.PDF?fbclid=IwAR1m71uO3FCgslXHOTrh1kwJC9ObtgzvGgcQKRoK9ZbOV66Fkc2l9-eeJOU
Scanning through it, he basically summarizes all of the hearsay things that have been reported.
Just different things that people said that they saw. Which might well could have turned out to be actual evidence if any of it was ever proven true.
I didn't know the evidence that he had until he presented it in that report. And now I know it. And you can see it for what it is. A bunch of hearsay with no proof backing it up.
It's funny how you are willing to give some random state senator's opinion credibility, yet the actual election directors and the people in charge of the election in that same state who know far more about it than he does, you want to dismiss.
Basically anybody who doesn't say what you want to hear, you question their credibility. But when you find someone who does say something you want to hear and others question THEIR credibility......
I guess all politicians are liars until they say something you want to hear?
He is a senator in Georgia. He has provided this in a Georgia session. You can call it hearsay; however, I DOUBT you have have seen the evidence as he has. Then, again, I shouldn't say that; because, some of you guys are truly tuned into the details more than Senator's from a state...
Are you saying that you only have a problem with this one Senator?Pacfanweb said:SupplyChainPack said:Pacfanweb said:pineknollshoresking said:He is a senator in Georgia. He has provided this in a Georgia session. You can call it hearsay; however, I DOUBT you have have seen the evidence as he has. Then, again, I shouldn't say that; because, some of you guys are truly tuned into the details more than Senator's from a state...Pacfanweb said:pineknollshoresking said:
Would this be evidence? I don't know. Read it and make your own decisions... This is a Georgia Senator's summation based on the evidence provided. But, really, who is this guy? He wouldn't know anything...
http://www.senatorligon.com/THE_FINAL%20REPORT.PDF?fbclid=IwAR1m71uO3FCgslXHOTrh1kwJC9ObtgzvGgcQKRoK9ZbOV66Fkc2l9-eeJOU
Scanning through it, he basically summarizes all of the hearsay things that have been reported.
Just different things that people said that they saw. Which might well could have turned out to be actual evidence if any of it was ever proven true.
I didn't know the evidence that he had until he presented it in that report. And now I know it. And you can see it for what it is. A bunch of hearsay with no proof backing it up.
It's funny how you are willing to give some random state senator's opinion credibility, yet the actual election directors and the people in charge of the election in that same state who know far more about it than he does, you want to dismiss.
Basically anybody who doesn't say what you want to hear, you question their credibility. But when you find someone who does say something you want to hear and others question THEIR credibility......
I guess all politicians are liars until they say something you want to hear?
I like how you used the word, "random" to try to eliminate his credibility. Why should we assume that boards of elections and directors of elections are not highly partisan and utterly corrupt?
You complain about dismissing what people have to say - but you've been doing exactly that for weeks.
So all those people are corrupt, but there's no chance that some random state senator is as well?
And all that Senator did was condensed all the same old claims that were already developed into one report. That's not evidence, that's just regurgitating the same old stories
You literally just called the entire court system liars a few posts back. For the claims of a stolen election to be true, thousands and thousands of people involved would have to be liars, and the few that are crying about it would have to be truthful.SupplyChainPack said:Are you saying that you only have a problem with this one Senator?Pacfanweb said:SupplyChainPack said:Pacfanweb said:pineknollshoresking said:He is a senator in Georgia. He has provided this in a Georgia session. You can call it hearsay; however, I DOUBT you have have seen the evidence as he has. Then, again, I shouldn't say that; because, some of you guys are truly tuned into the details more than Senator's from a state...Pacfanweb said:pineknollshoresking said:
Would this be evidence? I don't know. Read it and make your own decisions... This is a Georgia Senator's summation based on the evidence provided. But, really, who is this guy? He wouldn't know anything...
http://www.senatorligon.com/THE_FINAL%20REPORT.PDF?fbclid=IwAR1m71uO3FCgslXHOTrh1kwJC9ObtgzvGgcQKRoK9ZbOV66Fkc2l9-eeJOU
Scanning through it, he basically summarizes all of the hearsay things that have been reported.
Just different things that people said that they saw. Which might well could have turned out to be actual evidence if any of it was ever proven true.
I didn't know the evidence that he had until he presented it in that report. And now I know it. And you can see it for what it is. A bunch of hearsay with no proof backing it up.
It's funny how you are willing to give some random state senator's opinion credibility, yet the actual election directors and the people in charge of the election in that same state who know far more about it than he does, you want to dismiss.
Basically anybody who doesn't say what you want to hear, you question their credibility. But when you find someone who does say something you want to hear and others question THEIR credibility......
I guess all politicians are liars until they say something you want to hear?
I like how you used the word, "random" to try to eliminate his credibility. Why should we assume that boards of elections and directors of elections are not highly partisan and utterly corrupt?
You complain about dismissing what people have to say - but you've been doing exactly that for weeks.
So all those people are corrupt, but there's no chance that some random state senator is as well?
And all that Senator did was condensed all the same old claims that were already developed into one report. That's not evidence, that's just regurgitating the same old stories
Because it seems like you've called or implied that an awful lot of people are liars lately.
Yep. All that "report" did was put all the fraud claims from Georgia in one place. They were still the same old claims, which is what King does....he gets debunked, then finds the same information in another place and posts that like it's "new news".IseWolf22 said:Why would this be true? If there is hard evidence that he has and we don't why has it not been made public? There is nothing to gain at this point hiding anything. There is no reason it shouldn't have been submitted in court.pineknollshoresking said:He is a senator in Georgia. He has provided this in a Georgia session. You can call it hearsay; however, I DOUBT you have have seen the evidence as he has. Then, again, I shouldn't say that; because, some of you guys are truly tuned into the details more than Senator's from a state...Pacfanweb said:pineknollshoresking said:
Would this be evidence? I don't know. Read it and make your own decisions... This is a Georgia Senator's summation based on the evidence provided. But, really, who is this guy? He wouldn't know anything...
http://www.senatorligon.com/THE_FINAL%20REPORT.PDF?fbclid=IwAR1m71uO3FCgslXHOTrh1kwJC9ObtgzvGgcQKRoK9ZbOV66Fkc2l9-eeJOU
Scanning through it, he basically summarizes all of the hearsay things that have been reported.
Just different things that people said that they saw. Which might well could have turned out to be actual evidence if any of it was ever proven true.
Right now this just looks like a politician pandering to his base. Saying what they want to hear to get reelected.
pineknollshoresking said:I'm sure you would...Civilized said:Wolfpackrich1 said:I would accept evidence that a judge would allow in court.SupplyChainPack said:Pacfanweb said:Saying it over and over without producing any evidence still doesn't make it true.SupplyChainPack said:Pacfanweb said:SupplyChainPack said:
Barack Obama:
69,000,000 votes
873 counties
Donald Trump:
75,000,000 votes
2,497 counties
Joe Biden:
81,000,000 votes
477 counties
...And we're not allowed to question his "victory"
Perhaps you should understand why those numbers are the way they are first? Pretty simple explanation
Yes, election fraud, particularly in key dem run cities in swing states.
Anyone who can produce actual evidence of fraud, we're all ears like Ross Perot.
You're rejection of mountains of evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You're acceptance of insane statistical absurdities (essentially impossibilities) doesn't mean that they represent reality.
Let's ask this question:. what evidence WOULD you accept as demonstrating that voter fraud had taken place to favor Joe Biden?
Exactly.
I'm pleased to use the courts as my proxy.
Pacfanweb said:You literally just called the entire court system liars a few posts back. For the claims of a stolen election to be true, thousands and thousands of people involved would have to be liars, and the few that are crying about it would have to be truthful.SupplyChainPack said:Are you saying that you only have a problem with this one Senator?Pacfanweb said:SupplyChainPack said:Pacfanweb said:pineknollshoresking said:He is a senator in Georgia. He has provided this in a Georgia session. You can call it hearsay; however, I DOUBT you have have seen the evidence as he has. Then, again, I shouldn't say that; because, some of you guys are truly tuned into the details more than Senator's from a state...Pacfanweb said:pineknollshoresking said:
Would this be evidence? I don't know. Read it and make your own decisions... This is a Georgia Senator's summation based on the evidence provided. But, really, who is this guy? He wouldn't know anything...
http://www.senatorligon.com/THE_FINAL%20REPORT.PDF?fbclid=IwAR1m71uO3FCgslXHOTrh1kwJC9ObtgzvGgcQKRoK9ZbOV66Fkc2l9-eeJOU
Scanning through it, he basically summarizes all of the hearsay things that have been reported.
Just different things that people said that they saw. Which might well could have turned out to be actual evidence if any of it was ever proven true.
I didn't know the evidence that he had until he presented it in that report. And now I know it. And you can see it for what it is. A bunch of hearsay with no proof backing it up.
It's funny how you are willing to give some random state senator's opinion credibility, yet the actual election directors and the people in charge of the election in that same state who know far more about it than he does, you want to dismiss.
Basically anybody who doesn't say what you want to hear, you question their credibility. But when you find someone who does say something you want to hear and others question THEIR credibility......
I guess all politicians are liars until they say something you want to hear?
I like how you used the word, "random" to try to eliminate his credibility. Why should we assume that boards of elections and directors of elections are not highly partisan and utterly corrupt?
You complain about dismissing what people have to say - but you've been doing exactly that for weeks.
So all those people are corrupt, but there's no chance that some random state senator is as well?
And all that Senator did was condensed all the same old claims that were already developed into one report. That's not evidence, that's just regurgitating the same old stories
Because it seems like you've called or implied that an awful lot of people are liars lately.
YOU are the one who's been calling everyone liars. I have only pointed out the inconsistencies of your claims.
Democrats and libtards don't lie. They just act in the best interest of their constituents. Who, mostly, are uneducated sheep that follow the MSM like it's undisputed facts and not left leaning opinions based loosely around some story or rumor. See the posters on here. What's going to crack my ass up is when the SCOTUS, who they are slurping on today, rules against their left wing nut job ideas in the next 4 years. Let's see how many of these loony lefties and let's not forget our "moderate" react. Same clown show different day. If dumbocrats weren't being hypocrites they wouldn't be breathing. Now enjoy..yes.. that was a rant but damn.. look at all the contradictions just on the last four or five pages from the same folks who would argue that the sky was green if the GOP said it was blue. The only thing they want is power and control. Oh... and be told what to do, when to do it, how to do it so they won't have to think for themselves. It's evident with the posts they make that come straight from CNN or MSNBC. And yes... you so called moderate are a prime damn example.SupplyChainPack said:Pacfanweb said:You literally just called the entire court system liars a few posts back. For the claims of a stolen election to be true, thousands and thousands of people involved would have to be liars, and the few that are crying about it would have to be truthful.SupplyChainPack said:Are you saying that you only have a problem with this one Senator?Pacfanweb said:SupplyChainPack said:Pacfanweb said:pineknollshoresking said:He is a senator in Georgia. He has provided this in a Georgia session. You can call it hearsay; however, I DOUBT you have have seen the evidence as he has. Then, again, I shouldn't say that; because, some of you guys are truly tuned into the details more than Senator's from a state...Pacfanweb said:pineknollshoresking said:
Would this be evidence? I don't know. Read it and make your own decisions... This is a Georgia Senator's summation based on the evidence provided. But, really, who is this guy? He wouldn't know anything...
http://www.senatorligon.com/THE_FINAL%20REPORT.PDF?fbclid=IwAR1m71uO3FCgslXHOTrh1kwJC9ObtgzvGgcQKRoK9ZbOV66Fkc2l9-eeJOU
Scanning through it, he basically summarizes all of the hearsay things that have been reported.
Just different things that people said that they saw. Which might well could have turned out to be actual evidence if any of it was ever proven true.
I didn't know the evidence that he had until he presented it in that report. And now I know it. And you can see it for what it is. A bunch of hearsay with no proof backing it up.
It's funny how you are willing to give some random state senator's opinion credibility, yet the actual election directors and the people in charge of the election in that same state who know far more about it than he does, you want to dismiss.
Basically anybody who doesn't say what you want to hear, you question their credibility. But when you find someone who does say something you want to hear and others question THEIR credibility......
I guess all politicians are liars until they say something you want to hear?
I like how you used the word, "random" to try to eliminate his credibility. Why should we assume that boards of elections and directors of elections are not highly partisan and utterly corrupt?
You complain about dismissing what people have to say - but you've been doing exactly that for weeks.
So all those people are corrupt, but there's no chance that some random state senator is as well?
And all that Senator did was condensed all the same old claims that were already developed into one report. That's not evidence, that's just regurgitating the same old stories
Because it seems like you've called or implied that an awful lot of people are liars lately.
YOU are the one who's been calling everyone liars. I have only pointed out the inconsistencies of your claims.
Again - if we can trust the unvarnished judgement of anyone with a black robe on - why do we need appeals court and the Supreme Court?
And yes - there are thousands and thousands and thousands of secular liberals are are more than happy to lie and commit fraud. Godlessness means that your morality resolves down to what you believe you can get away with.
You haven't noticed a pattern of behavior of hardcore, relentless lying with democratic leadership?
SupplyChainPack said:Pacfanweb said:You literally just called the entire court system liars a few posts back. For the claims of a stolen election to be true, thousands and thousands of people involved would have to be liars, and the few that are crying about it would have to be truthful.SupplyChainPack said:Are you saying that you only have a problem with this one Senator?Pacfanweb said:SupplyChainPack said:Pacfanweb said:pineknollshoresking said:He is a senator in Georgia. He has provided this in a Georgia session. You can call it hearsay; however, I DOUBT you have have seen the evidence as he has. Then, again, I shouldn't say that; because, some of you guys are truly tuned into the details more than Senator's from a state...Pacfanweb said:pineknollshoresking said:
Would this be evidence? I don't know. Read it and make your own decisions... This is a Georgia Senator's summation based on the evidence provided. But, really, who is this guy? He wouldn't know anything...
http://www.senatorligon.com/THE_FINAL%20REPORT.PDF?fbclid=IwAR1m71uO3FCgslXHOTrh1kwJC9ObtgzvGgcQKRoK9ZbOV66Fkc2l9-eeJOU
Scanning through it, he basically summarizes all of the hearsay things that have been reported.
Just different things that people said that they saw. Which might well could have turned out to be actual evidence if any of it was ever proven true.
I didn't know the evidence that he had until he presented it in that report. And now I know it. And you can see it for what it is. A bunch of hearsay with no proof backing it up.
It's funny how you are willing to give some random state senator's opinion credibility, yet the actual election directors and the people in charge of the election in that same state who know far more about it than he does, you want to dismiss.
Basically anybody who doesn't say what you want to hear, you question their credibility. But when you find someone who does say something you want to hear and others question THEIR credibility......
I guess all politicians are liars until they say something you want to hear?
I like how you used the word, "random" to try to eliminate his credibility. Why should we assume that boards of elections and directors of elections are not highly partisan and utterly corrupt?
You complain about dismissing what people have to say - but you've been doing exactly that for weeks.
So all those people are corrupt, but there's no chance that some random state senator is as well?
And all that Senator did was condensed all the same old claims that were already developed into one report. That's not evidence, that's just regurgitating the same old stories
Because it seems like you've called or implied that an awful lot of people are liars lately.
YOU are the one who's been calling everyone liars. I have only pointed out the inconsistencies of your claims.
Again - if we can trust the unvarnished judgement of anyone with a black robe on - why do we need appeals court and the Supreme Court?
And yes - there are thousands and thousands and thousands of secular liberals are are more than happy to lie and commit fraud. Godlessness means that your morality resolves down to what you believe you can get away with.
You haven't noticed a pattern of behavior of hardcore, relentless lying with democratic leadership?
Again, this is a Georgia State Senator who wrote the summary. Yes, he included evidence shown previously. Why in the hell would he write this summary, and have multiple Georgia State Senators sign on it if he didn't believe the evidence provided?Pacfanweb said:pineknollshoresking said:I'll repeat...Pacfanweb said:pineknollshoresking said:He is a senator in Georgia. He has provided this in a Georgia session. You can call it hearsay; however, I DOUBT you have have seen the evidence as he has. Then, again, I shouldn't say that; because, some of you guys are truly tuned into the details more than Senator's from a state...Pacfanweb said:pineknollshoresking said:
Would this be evidence? I don't know. Read it and make your own decisions... This is a Georgia Senator's summation based on the evidence provided. But, really, who is this guy? He wouldn't know anything...
http://www.senatorligon.com/THE_FINAL%20REPORT.PDF?fbclid=IwAR1m71uO3FCgslXHOTrh1kwJC9ObtgzvGgcQKRoK9ZbOV66Fkc2l9-eeJOU
Scanning through it, he basically summarizes all of the hearsay things that have been reported.
Just different things that people said that they saw. Which might well could have turned out to be actual evidence if any of it was ever proven true.
I didn't know the evidence that he had until he presented it in that report. And now I know it. And you can see it for what it is. A bunch of hearsay with no proof backing it up.
It's funny how you are willing to give some random state senator's opinion credibility, yet the actual election directors and the people in charge of the election in that same state who know far more about it than he does, you want to dismiss.
Basically anybody who doesn't say what you want to hear, you question their credibility. But when you find someone who does say something you want to hear and others question THEIR credibility......
I guess all politicians are liars until they say something you want to hear?
He is a senator in Georgia. He has provided this in a Georgia session. You can call it hearsay; however, I DOUBT you have have seen the evidence as he has. Then, again, I shouldn't say that; because, some of you guys are truly tuned into the details more than Senator's from a state...
I just read "the evidence he has".
So yes, I know what he has. All he did was condense all the same old claims in to a report. There's nothing new there. Taking all the same information and putting it into one report and then reporting it as news... Is not news. It's just the same old stuff we already knew.
But it's what you want to hear, so you posted it like we all won't notice that we've seen this before.
And once again... Sidney Powell and Trump's other lawyers had access to all of this information.
Doesn't make what he wrote down false, either.Pacfanweb said:
I never said he didn't believe it. He may well. There are a lot of people that seems you honestly believe this stuff, despite evidence to the contrary.
Doesn't make what he wrote down true, though.
No response on this one, huh?pineknollshoresking said:How reliable will the courts be when SCOTUS overturns Roe vs Wade on a 5 - 4 vote?SupplyChainPack said:Civilized said:pineknollshoresking said:I'm sure you would...Civilized said:Wolfpackrich1 said:I would accept evidence that a judge would allow in court.SupplyChainPack said:Pacfanweb said:Saying it over and over without producing any evidence still doesn't make it true.SupplyChainPack said:Pacfanweb said:SupplyChainPack said:
Barack Obama:
69,000,000 votes
873 counties
Donald Trump:
75,000,000 votes
2,497 counties
Joe Biden:
81,000,000 votes
477 counties
...And we're not allowed to question his "victory"
Perhaps you should understand why those numbers are the way they are first? Pretty simple explanation
Yes, election fraud, particularly in key dem run cities in swing states.
Anyone who can produce actual evidence of fraud, we're all ears like Ross Perot.
You're rejection of mountains of evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You're acceptance of insane statistical absurdities (essentially impossibilities) doesn't mean that they represent reality.
Let's ask this question:. what evidence WOULD you accept as demonstrating that voter fraud had taken place to favor Joe Biden?
Exactly.
I'm pleased to use the courts as my proxy.
Why wouldn't you, is the better question.
Courts cut through the bull**** real quick-like because the threat of perjury hangs over the proceedings.
This aligns the interest of defendants (to not have fake evidence be used against them) and the state (to achieve justice for both parties in the eyes of the law).
What better arena do we have to determine the veracity of claims and evidence, than the courts?
Social media? LOLOLOLOLOLOL
It's good to know that the courts are so reliable and trustworthy. They always get it right, and we can always trust them.
One wonders - with all of this erudite wisdom and strict adhearance to true justice - why we would even need any courts beyond the district courts? Appeals courts? Supreme court? Why bother? The black robe tells us that we can fully trust blind justice and unblemished judgement of whatever judge happens to hear the case first.
With such a perfectly trustworthy system, we really should stop wasting our money on all these extra layers of judges.
pineknollshoresking said:Doesn't make what he wrote down false, either.Pacfanweb said:
I never said he didn't believe it. He may well. There are a lot of people that seems you honestly believe this stuff, despite evidence to the contrary.
Doesn't make what he wrote down true, though.
Is it safe to say that he has more insight than you?
WOW!!! I think you need to read the quote, by Thomas Sowell, in my signature below...Pacfanweb said:pineknollshoresking said:Doesn't make what he wrote down false, either.Pacfanweb said:
I never said he didn't believe it. He may well. There are a lot of people that seems you honestly believe this stuff, despite evidence to the contrary.
Doesn't make what he wrote down true, though.
Is it safe to say that he has more insight than you?
No, I don't think it's safe to say that. Since he didn't offer anything that we didn't already know, and that has already been dismissed by the courts, I'd say it's more likely that he does not.
But of course if he put out some kind of information that he had access to that nobody else did, then I'd say maybe he did.
From his report, I'd say probably not, though. He's just regurgitating the same old stories, and hoping someone will listen.
pineknollshoresking said:No response on this one, huh?pineknollshoresking said:How reliable will the courts be when SCOTUS overturns Roe vs Wade on a 5 - 4 vote?SupplyChainPack said:Civilized said:pineknollshoresking said:I'm sure you would...Civilized said:Wolfpackrich1 said:I would accept evidence that a judge would allow in court.SupplyChainPack said:Pacfanweb said:Saying it over and over without producing any evidence still doesn't make it true.SupplyChainPack said:Pacfanweb said:SupplyChainPack said:
Barack Obama:
69,000,000 votes
873 counties
Donald Trump:
75,000,000 votes
2,497 counties
Joe Biden:
81,000,000 votes
477 counties
...And we're not allowed to question his "victory"
Perhaps you should understand why those numbers are the way they are first? Pretty simple explanation
Yes, election fraud, particularly in key dem run cities in swing states.
Anyone who can produce actual evidence of fraud, we're all ears like Ross Perot.
You're rejection of mountains of evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You're acceptance of insane statistical absurdities (essentially impossibilities) doesn't mean that they represent reality.
Let's ask this question:. what evidence WOULD you accept as demonstrating that voter fraud had taken place to favor Joe Biden?
Exactly.
I'm pleased to use the courts as my proxy.
Why wouldn't you, is the better question.
Courts cut through the bull**** real quick-like because the threat of perjury hangs over the proceedings.
This aligns the interest of defendants (to not have fake evidence be used against them) and the state (to achieve justice for both parties in the eyes of the law).
What better arena do we have to determine the veracity of claims and evidence, than the courts?
Social media? LOLOLOLOLOLOL
It's good to know that the courts are so reliable and trustworthy. They always get it right, and we can always trust them.
One wonders - with all of this erudite wisdom and strict adhearance to true justice - why we would even need any courts beyond the district courts? Appeals courts? Supreme court? Why bother? The black robe tells us that we can fully trust blind justice and unblemished judgement of whatever judge happens to hear the case first.
With such a perfectly trustworthy system, we really should stop wasting our money on all these extra layers of judges.
pineknollshoresking said:WOW!!! I think you need to read the quote, by Thomas Sowell, in my signature below...Pacfanweb said:pineknollshoresking said:Doesn't make what he wrote down false, either.Pacfanweb said:
I never said he didn't believe it. He may well. There are a lot of people that seems you honestly believe this stuff, despite evidence to the contrary.
Doesn't make what he wrote down true, though.
Is it safe to say that he has more insight than you?
No, I don't think it's safe to say that. Since he didn't offer anything that we didn't already know, and that has already been dismissed by the courts, I'd say it's more likely that he does not.
But of course if he put out some kind of information that he had access to that nobody else did, then I'd say maybe he did.
From his report, I'd say probably not, though. He's just regurgitating the same old stories, and hoping someone will listen.
That's your analogy. I asked a question and you couldn't answer it. You know how it's going to happen and it will ultimately get to the Supreme Court. So, would the court be reliable in this case?Civilized said:pineknollshoresking said:No response on this one, huh?pineknollshoresking said:How reliable will the courts be when SCOTUS overturns Roe vs Wade on a 5 - 4 vote?SupplyChainPack said:Civilized said:pineknollshoresking said:I'm sure you would...Civilized said:Wolfpackrich1 said:I would accept evidence that a judge would allow in court.SupplyChainPack said:Pacfanweb said:Saying it over and over without producing any evidence still doesn't make it true.SupplyChainPack said:Pacfanweb said:SupplyChainPack said:
Barack Obama:
69,000,000 votes
873 counties
Donald Trump:
75,000,000 votes
2,497 counties
Joe Biden:
81,000,000 votes
477 counties
...And we're not allowed to question his "victory"
Perhaps you should understand why those numbers are the way they are first? Pretty simple explanation
Yes, election fraud, particularly in key dem run cities in swing states.
Anyone who can produce actual evidence of fraud, we're all ears like Ross Perot.
You're rejection of mountains of evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You're acceptance of insane statistical absurdities (essentially impossibilities) doesn't mean that they represent reality.
Let's ask this question:. what evidence WOULD you accept as demonstrating that voter fraud had taken place to favor Joe Biden?
Exactly.
I'm pleased to use the courts as my proxy.
Why wouldn't you, is the better question.
Courts cut through the bull**** real quick-like because the threat of perjury hangs over the proceedings.
This aligns the interest of defendants (to not have fake evidence be used against them) and the state (to achieve justice for both parties in the eyes of the law).
What better arena do we have to determine the veracity of claims and evidence, than the courts?
Social media? LOLOLOLOLOLOL
It's good to know that the courts are so reliable and trustworthy. They always get it right, and we can always trust them.
One wonders - with all of this erudite wisdom and strict adhearance to true justice - why we would even need any courts beyond the district courts? Appeals courts? Supreme court? Why bother? The black robe tells us that we can fully trust blind justice and unblemished judgement of whatever judge happens to hear the case first.
With such a perfectly trustworthy system, we really should stop wasting our money on all these extra layers of judges.
A more accurate analogy would be if one lower court voted to uphold it and like 47 other courts including the Supreme Court voted to overturn it.
If that happened I'd think to myself "Man there must be irrefutable evidence for courts of all partisan makeups to rule so consistently!"
They are perfectly within their power to do so. Liberals would freak out, but this is the flip side of legal victories not backed by legislation.pineknollshoresking said:No response on this one, huh?pineknollshoresking said:How reliable will the courts be when SCOTUS overturns Roe vs Wade on a 5 - 4 vote?SupplyChainPack said:Civilized said:pineknollshoresking said:I'm sure you would...Civilized said:Wolfpackrich1 said:I would accept evidence that a judge would allow in court.SupplyChainPack said:Pacfanweb said:Saying it over and over without producing any evidence still doesn't make it true.SupplyChainPack said:Pacfanweb said:SupplyChainPack said:
Barack Obama:
69,000,000 votes
873 counties
Donald Trump:
75,000,000 votes
2,497 counties
Joe Biden:
81,000,000 votes
477 counties
...And we're not allowed to question his "victory"
Perhaps you should understand why those numbers are the way they are first? Pretty simple explanation
Yes, election fraud, particularly in key dem run cities in swing states.
Anyone who can produce actual evidence of fraud, we're all ears like Ross Perot.
You're rejection of mountains of evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You're acceptance of insane statistical absurdities (essentially impossibilities) doesn't mean that they represent reality.
Let's ask this question:. what evidence WOULD you accept as demonstrating that voter fraud had taken place to favor Joe Biden?
Exactly.
I'm pleased to use the courts as my proxy.
Why wouldn't you, is the better question.
Courts cut through the bull**** real quick-like because the threat of perjury hangs over the proceedings.
This aligns the interest of defendants (to not have fake evidence be used against them) and the state (to achieve justice for both parties in the eyes of the law).
What better arena do we have to determine the veracity of claims and evidence, than the courts?
Social media? LOLOLOLOLOLOL
It's good to know that the courts are so reliable and trustworthy. They always get it right, and we can always trust them.
One wonders - with all of this erudite wisdom and strict adhearance to true justice - why we would even need any courts beyond the district courts? Appeals courts? Supreme court? Why bother? The black robe tells us that we can fully trust blind justice and unblemished judgement of whatever judge happens to hear the case first.
With such a perfectly trustworthy system, we really should stop wasting our money on all these extra layers of judges.
pacwhatever, I took you off ignore; however, I was truly kidding myself thinking you would be reasonable. So, back to ignore you go. I suggest you ignore me as well.Pacfanweb said:pineknollshoresking said:WOW!!! I think you need to read the quote, by Thomas Sowell, in my signature below...Pacfanweb said:pineknollshoresking said:Doesn't make what he wrote down false, either.Pacfanweb said:
I never said he didn't believe it. He may well. There are a lot of people that seems you honestly believe this stuff, despite evidence to the contrary.
Doesn't make what he wrote down true, though.
Is it safe to say that he has more insight than you?
No, I don't think it's safe to say that. Since he didn't offer anything that we didn't already know, and that has already been dismissed by the courts, I'd say it's more likely that he does not.
But of course if he put out some kind of information that he had access to that nobody else did, then I'd say maybe he did.
From his report, I'd say probably not, though. He's just regurgitating the same old stories, and hoping someone will listen.
Nice, more passive-aggressive insults. That quote applies much more appropriately to you. Pretty ironic that it's in your signature.
You just described Trump. Yet you love him for some reason. Your hate of others, liberals, has blinded you to the fox in the henhouseSupplyChainPack said:Pacfanweb said:You literally just called the entire court system liars a few posts back. For the claims of a stolen election to be true, thousands and thousands of people involved would have to be liars, and the few that are crying about it would have to be truthful.SupplyChainPack said:Are you saying that you only have a problem with this one Senator?Pacfanweb said:SupplyChainPack said:Pacfanweb said:pineknollshoresking said:He is a senator in Georgia. He has provided this in a Georgia session. You can call it hearsay; however, I DOUBT you have have seen the evidence as he has. Then, again, I shouldn't say that; because, some of you guys are truly tuned into the details more than Senator's from a state...Pacfanweb said:pineknollshoresking said:
Would this be evidence? I don't know. Read it and make your own decisions... This is a Georgia Senator's summation based on the evidence provided. But, really, who is this guy? He wouldn't know anything...
http://www.senatorligon.com/THE_FINAL%20REPORT.PDF?fbclid=IwAR1m71uO3FCgslXHOTrh1kwJC9ObtgzvGgcQKRoK9ZbOV66Fkc2l9-eeJOU
Scanning through it, he basically summarizes all of the hearsay things that have been reported.
Just different things that people said that they saw. Which might well could have turned out to be actual evidence if any of it was ever proven true.
I didn't know the evidence that he had until he presented it in that report. And now I know it. And you can see it for what it is. A bunch of hearsay with no proof backing it up.
It's funny how you are willing to give some random state senator's opinion credibility, yet the actual election directors and the people in charge of the election in that same state who know far more about it than he does, you want to dismiss.
Basically anybody who doesn't say what you want to hear, you question their credibility. But when you find someone who does say something you want to hear and others question THEIR credibility......
I guess all politicians are liars until they say something you want to hear?
I like how you used the word, "random" to try to eliminate his credibility. Why should we assume that boards of elections and directors of elections are not highly partisan and utterly corrupt?
You complain about dismissing what people have to say - but you've been doing exactly that for weeks.
So all those people are corrupt, but there's no chance that some random state senator is as well?
And all that Senator did was condensed all the same old claims that were already developed into one report. That's not evidence, that's just regurgitating the same old stories
Because it seems like you've called or implied that an awful lot of people are liars lately.
YOU are the one who's been calling everyone liars. I have only pointed out the inconsistencies of your claims.
Again - if we can trust the unvarnished judgement of anyone with a black robe on - why do we need appeals court and the Supreme Court?
And yes - there are thousands and thousands and thousands of secular liberals are are more than happy to lie and commit fraud. Godlessness means that your morality resolves down to what you believe you can get away with.
You haven't noticed a pattern of behavior of hardcore, relentless lying with democratic leadership?
Nope. That was 0bama, Biden, the Clintons, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi , Cuomo, De Blasio, Newsom, Northram - and pratically every other secular liberal with a (D) beside their names.IseWolf22 said:You just described Trump. Yet you love him for some reason. Your hate of others, liberals, has blinded you to the fox in the henhouseSupplyChainPack said:Pacfanweb said:You literally just called the entire court system liars a few posts back. For the claims of a stolen election to be true, thousands and thousands of people involved would have to be liars, and the few that are crying about it would have to be truthful.SupplyChainPack said:Are you saying that you only have a problem with this one Senator?Pacfanweb said:SupplyChainPack said:Pacfanweb said:pineknollshoresking said:He is a senator in Georgia. He has provided this in a Georgia session. You can call it hearsay; however, I DOUBT you have have seen the evidence as he has. Then, again, I shouldn't say that; because, some of you guys are truly tuned into the details more than Senator's from a state...Pacfanweb said:pineknollshoresking said:
Would this be evidence? I don't know. Read it and make your own decisions... This is a Georgia Senator's summation based on the evidence provided. But, really, who is this guy? He wouldn't know anything...
http://www.senatorligon.com/THE_FINAL%20REPORT.PDF?fbclid=IwAR1m71uO3FCgslXHOTrh1kwJC9ObtgzvGgcQKRoK9ZbOV66Fkc2l9-eeJOU
Scanning through it, he basically summarizes all of the hearsay things that have been reported.
Just different things that people said that they saw. Which might well could have turned out to be actual evidence if any of it was ever proven true.
I didn't know the evidence that he had until he presented it in that report. And now I know it. And you can see it for what it is. A bunch of hearsay with no proof backing it up.
It's funny how you are willing to give some random state senator's opinion credibility, yet the actual election directors and the people in charge of the election in that same state who know far more about it than he does, you want to dismiss.
Basically anybody who doesn't say what you want to hear, you question their credibility. But when you find someone who does say something you want to hear and others question THEIR credibility......
I guess all politicians are liars until they say something you want to hear?
I like how you used the word, "random" to try to eliminate his credibility. Why should we assume that boards of elections and directors of elections are not highly partisan and utterly corrupt?
You complain about dismissing what people have to say - but you've been doing exactly that for weeks.
So all those people are corrupt, but there's no chance that some random state senator is as well?
And all that Senator did was condensed all the same old claims that were already developed into one report. That's not evidence, that's just regurgitating the same old stories
Because it seems like you've called or implied that an awful lot of people are liars lately.
YOU are the one who's been calling everyone liars. I have only pointed out the inconsistencies of your claims.
Again - if we can trust the unvarnished judgement of anyone with a black robe on - why do we need appeals court and the Supreme Court?
And yes - there are thousands and thousands and thousands of secular liberals are are more than happy to lie and commit fraud. Godlessness means that your morality resolves down to what you believe you can get away with.
You haven't noticed a pattern of behavior of hardcore, relentless lying with democratic leadership?
I don't even know what 'reliable' means in the context of a court case to adjudicate constitutionality of past rulings.pineknollshoresking said:That's your analogy. I asked a question and you couldn't answer it. You know how it's going to happen and it will ultimately get to the Supreme Court. So, would the court be reliable in this case?Civilized said:pineknollshoresking said:No response on this one, huh?pineknollshoresking said:How reliable will the courts be when SCOTUS overturns Roe vs Wade on a 5 - 4 vote?SupplyChainPack said:Civilized said:pineknollshoresking said:I'm sure you would...Civilized said:Wolfpackrich1 said:I would accept evidence that a judge would allow in court.SupplyChainPack said:Pacfanweb said:Saying it over and over without producing any evidence still doesn't make it true.SupplyChainPack said:Pacfanweb said:SupplyChainPack said:
Barack Obama:
69,000,000 votes
873 counties
Donald Trump:
75,000,000 votes
2,497 counties
Joe Biden:
81,000,000 votes
477 counties
...And we're not allowed to question his "victory"
Perhaps you should understand why those numbers are the way they are first? Pretty simple explanation
Yes, election fraud, particularly in key dem run cities in swing states.
Anyone who can produce actual evidence of fraud, we're all ears like Ross Perot.
You're rejection of mountains of evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You're acceptance of insane statistical absurdities (essentially impossibilities) doesn't mean that they represent reality.
Let's ask this question:. what evidence WOULD you accept as demonstrating that voter fraud had taken place to favor Joe Biden?
Exactly.
I'm pleased to use the courts as my proxy.
Why wouldn't you, is the better question.
Courts cut through the bull**** real quick-like because the threat of perjury hangs over the proceedings.
This aligns the interest of defendants (to not have fake evidence be used against them) and the state (to achieve justice for both parties in the eyes of the law).
What better arena do we have to determine the veracity of claims and evidence, than the courts?
Social media? LOLOLOLOLOLOL
It's good to know that the courts are so reliable and trustworthy. They always get it right, and we can always trust them.
One wonders - with all of this erudite wisdom and strict adhearance to true justice - why we would even need any courts beyond the district courts? Appeals courts? Supreme court? Why bother? The black robe tells us that we can fully trust blind justice and unblemished judgement of whatever judge happens to hear the case first.
With such a perfectly trustworthy system, we really should stop wasting our money on all these extra layers of judges.
A more accurate analogy would be if one lower court voted to uphold it and like 47 other courts including the Supreme Court voted to overturn it.
If that happened I'd think to myself "Man there must be irrefutable evidence for courts of all partisan makeups to rule so consistently!"
Pacfanweb said:
I never said he didn't believe it. He may well. There are a lot of people that seems you honestly believe this stuff, despite evidence to the contrary.
Doesn't make what he wrote down true, though.
SupplyChainPack said:Nope. That was 0bama, Biden, the Clintons, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi , Cuomo, De Blasio, Newsom, Northram - and pratically every other secular liberal with a (D) beside their names.IseWolf22 said:You just described Trump. Yet you love him for some reason. Your hate of others, liberals, has blinded you to the fox in the henhouseSupplyChainPack said:Pacfanweb said:You literally just called the entire court system liars a few posts back. For the claims of a stolen election to be true, thousands and thousands of people involved would have to be liars, and the few that are crying about it would have to be truthful.SupplyChainPack said:Are you saying that you only have a problem with this one Senator?Pacfanweb said:SupplyChainPack said:Pacfanweb said:pineknollshoresking said:He is a senator in Georgia. He has provided this in a Georgia session. You can call it hearsay; however, I DOUBT you have have seen the evidence as he has. Then, again, I shouldn't say that; because, some of you guys are truly tuned into the details more than Senator's from a state...Pacfanweb said:pineknollshoresking said:
Would this be evidence? I don't know. Read it and make your own decisions... This is a Georgia Senator's summation based on the evidence provided. But, really, who is this guy? He wouldn't know anything...
http://www.senatorligon.com/THE_FINAL%20REPORT.PDF?fbclid=IwAR1m71uO3FCgslXHOTrh1kwJC9ObtgzvGgcQKRoK9ZbOV66Fkc2l9-eeJOU
Scanning through it, he basically summarizes all of the hearsay things that have been reported.
Just different things that people said that they saw. Which might well could have turned out to be actual evidence if any of it was ever proven true.
I didn't know the evidence that he had until he presented it in that report. And now I know it. And you can see it for what it is. A bunch of hearsay with no proof backing it up.
It's funny how you are willing to give some random state senator's opinion credibility, yet the actual election directors and the people in charge of the election in that same state who know far more about it than he does, you want to dismiss.
Basically anybody who doesn't say what you want to hear, you question their credibility. But when you find someone who does say something you want to hear and others question THEIR credibility......
I guess all politicians are liars until they say something you want to hear?
I like how you used the word, "random" to try to eliminate his credibility. Why should we assume that boards of elections and directors of elections are not highly partisan and utterly corrupt?
You complain about dismissing what people have to say - but you've been doing exactly that for weeks.
So all those people are corrupt, but there's no chance that some random state senator is as well?
And all that Senator did was condensed all the same old claims that were already developed into one report. That's not evidence, that's just regurgitating the same old stories
Because it seems like you've called or implied that an awful lot of people are liars lately.
YOU are the one who's been calling everyone liars. I have only pointed out the inconsistencies of your claims.
Again - if we can trust the unvarnished judgement of anyone with a black robe on - why do we need appeals court and the Supreme Court?
And yes - there are thousands and thousands and thousands of secular liberals are are more than happy to lie and commit fraud. Godlessness means that your morality resolves down to what you believe you can get away with.
You haven't noticed a pattern of behavior of hardcore, relentless lying with democratic leadership?
They have no moral compass. They have no particular love for their own country. They lust for power - and are willing to do ANYTHING to get it and to hold on to it.
I think you already know this.
SupplyChainPack said:Pacfanweb said:
I never said he didn't believe it. He may well. There are a lot of people that seems you honestly believe this stuff, despite evidence to the contrary.
Doesn't make what he wrote down true, though.
For that matter, the same rule would apply to all of your writings as well, wouldn't it?
pineknollshoresking said:pacwhatever, I took you off ignore; however, I was truly kidding myself thinking you would be reasonable. So, back to ignore you go. I suggest you ignore me as well.Pacfanweb said:pineknollshoresking said:WOW!!! I think you need to read the quote, by Thomas Sowell, in my signature below...Pacfanweb said:pineknollshoresking said:Doesn't make what he wrote down false, either.Pacfanweb said:
I never said he didn't believe it. He may well. There are a lot of people that seems you honestly believe this stuff, despite evidence to the contrary.
Doesn't make what he wrote down true, though.
Is it safe to say that he has more insight than you?
No, I don't think it's safe to say that. Since he didn't offer anything that we didn't already know, and that has already been dismissed by the courts, I'd say it's more likely that he does not.
But of course if he put out some kind of information that he had access to that nobody else did, then I'd say maybe he did.
From his report, I'd say probably not, though. He's just regurgitating the same old stories, and hoping someone will listen.
Nice, more passive-aggressive insults. That quote applies much more appropriately to you. Pretty ironic that it's in your signature.
Good luck to you...
Pacfanweb said:SupplyChainPack said:Pacfanweb said:
I never said he didn't believe it. He may well. There are a lot of people that seems you honestly believe this stuff, despite evidence to the contrary.
Doesn't make what he wrote down true, though.
For that matter, the same rule would apply to all of your writings as well, wouldn't it?
Sure. But the things I have said can be backed up with facts and evidence.
You cannot say the same
That was a word (I think) previously to describe the courts; so, I used it...Civilized said:I don't even know what 'reliable' means in the context of a court case to adjudicate constitutionality of past rulings.pineknollshoresking said:That's your analogy. I asked a question and you couldn't answer it. You know how it's going to happen and it will ultimately get to the Supreme Court. So, would the court be reliable in this case?Civilized said:pineknollshoresking said:No response on this one, huh?pineknollshoresking said:How reliable will the courts be when SCOTUS overturns Roe vs Wade on a 5 - 4 vote?SupplyChainPack said:Civilized said:pineknollshoresking said:I'm sure you would...Civilized said:Wolfpackrich1 said:I would accept evidence that a judge would allow in court.SupplyChainPack said:Pacfanweb said:Saying it over and over without producing any evidence still doesn't make it true.SupplyChainPack said:Pacfanweb said:SupplyChainPack said:
Barack Obama:
69,000,000 votes
873 counties
Donald Trump:
75,000,000 votes
2,497 counties
Joe Biden:
81,000,000 votes
477 counties
...And we're not allowed to question his "victory"
Perhaps you should understand why those numbers are the way they are first? Pretty simple explanation
Yes, election fraud, particularly in key dem run cities in swing states.
Anyone who can produce actual evidence of fraud, we're all ears like Ross Perot.
You're rejection of mountains of evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You're acceptance of insane statistical absurdities (essentially impossibilities) doesn't mean that they represent reality.
Let's ask this question:. what evidence WOULD you accept as demonstrating that voter fraud had taken place to favor Joe Biden?
Exactly.
I'm pleased to use the courts as my proxy.
Why wouldn't you, is the better question.
Courts cut through the bull**** real quick-like because the threat of perjury hangs over the proceedings.
This aligns the interest of defendants (to not have fake evidence be used against them) and the state (to achieve justice for both parties in the eyes of the law).
What better arena do we have to determine the veracity of claims and evidence, than the courts?
Social media? LOLOLOLOLOLOL
It's good to know that the courts are so reliable and trustworthy. They always get it right, and we can always trust them.
One wonders - with all of this erudite wisdom and strict adhearance to true justice - why we would even need any courts beyond the district courts? Appeals courts? Supreme court? Why bother? The black robe tells us that we can fully trust blind justice and unblemished judgement of whatever judge happens to hear the case first.
With such a perfectly trustworthy system, we really should stop wasting our money on all these extra layers of judges.
A more accurate analogy would be if one lower court voted to uphold it and like 47 other courts including the Supreme Court voted to overturn it.
If that happened I'd think to myself "Man there must be irrefutable evidence for courts of all partisan makeups to rule so consistently!"
How do you define 'reliable' in that context?
I also don't think Roe gets overturned, FWIW.
