LogFAQs > #909644542

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, Database 4 ( 07.23.2018-12.31.2018 ), DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Making sexual harassment claims that are over 30 years old.
darkknight109 09/29/18 1:57:04 AM #223:	OhhhJa posted... If they "botch" simple procedure, why should we request them for important investigations Because there's no evidence they actually screwed up the end result. Again, if there was undeniable proof that Clinton escaped charges because some FBI agent had already written up a report declaring her innocent and didn't want to go back and re-write it, yes, that would obviously be a gross perversion of justice and a major scandal besides. But it does not look like that happened here; all this looks like to me is that the Republicans can't stand that their repeated investigations of Clinton turned up nothing that would send her to a courtroom and now they're looking for whatever irregularities they can so they can save some sort of face and possibly rile up their base ahead of the midterms. So yeah, let's investigate her again! Sure, the first 21 investigations didn't come up with anything, but 22nd time's the charm! OhhhJa posted... I can think of many other potential reasons too such as Clinton having closer ties to the FBI in Washington Speculative. If you want me to believe that, you'll have to prove it and nothing in that article suggests that's the case. OhhhJa posted... Hey, at least I'm subtle unlike your immediate emotionally charged, "lol you're a conservative or another "left leaning centrist" rebuttal Ignoring that I never said "lol you're a conservative", in what way is calling someone conservative "emotionally charged"? I pointed that out when you first tried to smear me, as I asked you why being called "conservative" would be slanderous or an attack on character, and you never answered. OhhhJa posted.. I've clarified how many of my views dont line up at all with republicans though I'd believe that, except I can't recall a single time where you supported a left-leaning view rather than a right-leaning one. My views on religion, evolution, abortion, climate change, and well... more than I can even list differ wildly from any conservative I highly doubt they differ from "any" conservative. More to the point, none of those topics you just listed, with the exception of abortion, have much of anything to do with any form of conservatism. -Religion is a personal view; based on Pew Research polling, (http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/party-affiliation/) 23% of atheists are conservative/Republican; strong majorities of both parties believe in God or a god (90% of conservatives/Republicans are "fairly or absolutely certain" vs. 76% of liberals/Democrats); and, believe it or not, greater shares of all religious groups are more liberal than conservative, aside from Mormons, Evangelical Protestants (both of which lean strongly Republican) and Mainline Protestants (in which conservatives just barely edge out liberals, 44% to 40%). -Evolution and climate change are both matters of fact, rather than political affiliation. While it is true that most evolution- and climate change-skeptics are conservatives, not all conservatives are evolution- or climate-change skeptics by a long shot. ~35-40% of conservatives accept that climate change is real, and similar numbers believe in evolution (for reference, liberals are surprisingly close in those numbers - 48% of Republicans vs. 27% of Democrats believe that humans have never evolved). -As mentioned, abortion is the only thing you brought up where there is a distinct liberal/conservative split, with conservatives being pro-life; that being said, it is absolutely possible to be a pro-choice conservative (especially if we're delineating between social conservatism and other forms of conservatism). --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:909644542] in Making sex... [t:77020198]...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote> If they "botch" simple procedure, why should we request them for important investigations</quote> Because there's no evidence they actually screwed up the end result. Again, if there was undeniable proof that Clinton escaped charges because some FBI agent had already written up a report declaring her innocent and didn't want to go back and re-write it, yes, that would obviously be a gross perversion of justice and a major scandal besides. But it does not look like that happened here; all this looks like to me is that the Republicans can't stand that their repeated investigations of Clinton turned up nothing that would send her to a courtroom and now they're looking for whatever irregularities they can so they can save some sort of face and possibly rile up their base ahead of the midterms. So yeah, let's investigate her again! Sure, the first 21 investigations didn't come up with anything, but 22nd time's the charm! <cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>I can think of many other potential reasons too such as Clinton having closer ties to the FBI in Washington </quote> Speculative. If you want me to believe that, you'll have to prove it and nothing in that article suggests that's the case. <cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>Hey, at least I'm subtle unlike your immediate emotionally charged, "lol you're a conservative or another "left leaning centrist" rebuttal</quote> Ignoring that I never said "lol you're a conservative", in what way is calling someone conservative "emotionally charged"? I pointed that out when you first tried to smear me, as I asked you why being called "conservative" would be slanderous or an attack on character, and you never answered. <cite>OhhhJa posted..</cite> <quote> I've clarified how many of my views dont line up at all with republicans though</quote> I'd believe that, except I can't recall a single time where you supported a left-leaning view rather than a right-leaning one. <quote>My views on religion, evolution, abortion, climate change, and well... more than I can even list differ wildly from any conservative </quote> I highly doubt they differ from "any" conservative. More to the point, none of those topics you just listed, with the exception of abortion, have much of anything to do with any form of conservatism. -Religion is a personal view; based on Pew Research polling, (http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/party-affiliation/) 23% of atheists are conservative/Republican; strong majorities of both parties believe in God or a god (90% of conservatives/Republicans are "fairly or absolutely certain" vs. 76% of liberals/Democrats); and, believe it or not, greater shares of all religious groups are more liberal than conservative, aside from Mormons, Evangelical Protestants (both of which lean strongly Republican) and Mainline Protestants (in which conservatives just barely edge out liberals, 44% to 40%). -Evolution and climate change are both matters of fact, rather than political affiliation. While it is true that most evolution- and climate change-skeptics are conservatives, not all conservatives are evolution- or climate-change skeptics by a long shot. ~35-40% of conservatives accept that climate change is real, and similar numbers believe in evolution (for reference, liberals are surprisingly close in those numbers - 48% of Republicans vs. 27% of Democrats believe that humans have never evolved). -As mentioned, abortion is the only thing you brought up where there is a distinct liberal/conservative split, with conservatives being pro-life; that being said, it is absolutely possible to be a pro-choice conservative (especially if we're delineating between social conservatism and other forms of conservatism). --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1