Posted on 02/28/2023 7:45:28 AM PST by fightin kentuckian
“Not by a court of law it couldn’t. There are standards for that and this doesn’t meet them by a long shot.”
Legal Standards??? How have you never heard of OJ Simpson?
If you have to say, “I’m not stupid!” you are.
Brandon is half right. That's is as good as it gets for him.
At least black history month is over today.
“How have you never heard of OJ Simpson?”
Citing one stupid jury decision isn’t really an argument.
“Citing one stupid jury decision isn’t really an argument.”
That’s a rebuttal? haha. So you’re suggesting that was the ONLY “stupid” jury decision, EVER, and that “stupid” jury decisions, judgements, instructions to the jury, and outright perversion of laws NEVER happens.
What a Wonderful World you live in.;)
Without actually being positive what Biden may have said or what was said about him...I think he should be thrown out of office with never being permitted to run for public office ever again, and also some sort of punishment so he would remember it for a long time.
“That’s a rebuttal?”
No, it’s not. I save rebuttals for people who make actual arguments, and as I said, you didn’t really make one.
“So you’re suggesting that was the ONLY “stupid” jury decision, EVER...”
No, I didn’t say or suggest that. But it’s the only one you cited.
What? Realy? That was indeed a rebuttal just as my rebuttal was a rebuttal. Just because I cited only one of thousands of known crazy jury decisions doesn’t make my answer invalid.
Now you’re making up rules to win. Your attempt to say my rebuttal wasn’t a rebuttal and that your rebuttal wasn’t a rebuttal is hilarious, “I can’t think of anything smart to say, and you didn’t win because we weren’t arguing the right way” is essentially what you’ve said. haha
“Just because I cited only one of thousands of known crazy jury decisions doesn’t make my answer invalid.”
Well, citing a crazy criminal jury decision when first amendment case law is decided by judges in federal or the supreme court does make it invalid.
Lol we just covered that. So your rebuttal is that there are NO crazy, weird, unusual judgements made by judges? So you’re making new rules. That’s what 5 year olds do to win. Are you going to double dog dare me next?
“So your rebuttal is that there are NO crazy, weird, unusual judgements made by judges?”
You keep trying to put words in my mouth that I didn’t say. I guess you can’t actually argue with the words I have said then.
You’re not saying it explicitly you’re definitely implying it with your statement. Its a logical extension however logic is lost on you.
And there’s the Double Dog Dare. hahahaha
“You’re not saying it explicitly you’re definitely implying it with your statement.”
So if strawmanning isn’t working you resort to mindreading.
Wow, you jumped to the TRIPLE Dog Dare. Bold move.
I heard this. I immediately said,”Bet?”
He is a pandering obnoxious arrogant offensive lying demagogue.
He won’t live a long time.
And I don’t mean that as a threat, he’s old and doesn’t seem very healthy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.