LWW
Loc: Banana Republic of America
JohnFrim wrote:
You really have trouble with reading comprehension. The issue was whether or not Mueller was tasked to look for collusion, whether he found collusion, and whether he concluded there was no collusion. The answer is no, no, no.
Actually it was yes, no, yes.
This has been explained to you but you refuse to understand it.
JohnFrim
Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.
LWW wrote:
Actually it was yes, no, yes.
This has been explained to you but you refuse to understand it.
I challenge you to support those two "yes" answers. Saying it has been "explained" is a copout. And for those of us who are "thick" or "intellectually challenged", why not help us out by showing us the evidence yet again.
LWW
Loc: Banana Republic of America
JohnFrim wrote:
I challenge you to support those two "yes" answers. Saying it has been "explained" is a copout. And for those of us who are "thick" or "intellectually challenged", why not help us out by showing us the evidence yet again.
I have, I just can’t stupid it down enough for a loyal agent of Xi Vlad Un to understand.
JohnFrim wrote:
Dennis, it does not matter how many times you say Mueller was looking for collusion and found none, nor how many opinions you cite that express this, nor how many articles use the word "collusion" in describing Trump's interactions with the Russians, the TRUTH is that:
1) Mueller was never tasked to look for "collusion";
2) Mueller explains why he did not look into "collusion" because it is not a criminal activity;
3) Mueller never said the words "no collusion" as claimed by Barr and Trump; and
4) Mueller did not exonerate Trump on anything.
You can continue pushing this rope uphill if you want, but the facts are as stated above, and any other interpretation that refers to collusion is merely interpretation/rewording/opinion. Just man-up and admit the truth; you will feel better for it and regain some respect. You will demonstrate that you are better than Trump in that regard.
Dennis, it does not matter how many times you say ... (
show quote)
John we're done. You can state what you like hoping someone will take your word for it. I know what I have read and that is good enough for me. Have a great day.
Last time I said you were full of shit I was suspended so I won't say that this time.
Dennis
JohnFrim wrote:
You really have trouble with reading comprehension. The issue was whether or not Mueller was tasked to look for collusion, whether he found collusion, and whether he concluded there was no collusion. The answer is no, no, no.
My thoughts on whether there was collusion or not were not part of the discussion. But we know what you believe on that issue.
So, there was no kkkolusion then.
JohnFrim
Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.
dennis2146 wrote:
John we're done. You can state what you like hoping someone will take your word for it. I know what I have read and that is good enough for me. Have a great day.
Last time I said you were full of shit I was suspended so I won't say that this time.
Dennis
Dennis, you stated quite clearly that you have not read the Mueller Report, so you "word" on what it contains is less than useless. I'm glad that is good enough for you.
For the record, if you were suspended for saying that about me then I must have a guardian angel looking out for me, because I sure as hell did not report you. You can call me anything you want... even BFF and I won't report you.
Cheers... for now, I'm sure. TTYL.
JohnFrim
Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.
Angmo wrote:
So, there was no kkkolusion then.
Sure. Have it your way if that is what it takes to drop this insanity.
JohnFrim
Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.
LWW wrote:
I have, I just can’t stupid it down enough for a loyal agent of Xi Vlad Un to understand.
So do it again. It should be easy for you to find the smart "non-stupided-down" explanation. But I know the problem is that there ain't any way to substantiate your position.
As I said to MoMo above, have it your way if that is the only way to close of this nonsense discussion... Mueller was tasked to find collusion (a non-criminal activity), he found none, and said "No Collusion" in his report. I must have missed that in the redacted part that you clearly had access to.
But you know, for a supposed intelligent well-read smart-ass like you I find it incredible that you can't search the document for the word "collusion" and see the context in which it is used.
JohnFrim wrote:
So do it again. It should be easy for you to find the smart "non-stupided-down" explanation. But I know the problem is that there ain't any way to substantiate your position.
As I said to MoMo above, have it your way if that is the only way to close of this nonsense discussion... Mueller was tasked to find collusion (a non-criminal activity), he found none, and said "No Collusion" in his report. I must have missed that in the redacted part that you clearly had access to.
But you know, for a supposed intelligent well-read smart-ass like you I find it incredible that you can't search the document for the word "collusion" and see the context in which it is used.
So do it again. It should be easy for you to find ... (
show quote)
So after all this there was still no kkkolusion, kkkomarade.
Time for a BBQ.
[quote=dennis2146]
Dennis said:
Well read away Bucko. Just remember not everyone you talk to is an idiot and is not capable of understanding what you are posting. Let's remember this is the first time you have noticed I have said numerous times the Left was as biased as you claim the Right was. How the hell did you miss that important announcement? While you are not answering maybe you and John Frim can do some reading comprehension practice. Start with something easy like the old Dick and Jane novels. See if you can find Spot.
—————
I explained to you why progressives are biased against right wingers. You did not reciprocate. I assume you are either unable to explain the right wingers positions, incapable of it, don’t know what they are, have no reason but have been told to oppose anything progressive, it makes no sense or......whatever. Instead you came back with insults and denigrating comments.
When a person comes back with personal attacks and innuendo instead of addressing the issue, it usually means they are defeated
and unwilling to admit it. I think your response fits that description.
JohnFrim wrote:
So do it again. It should be easy for you to find the smart "non-stupided-down" explanation. But I know the problem is that there ain't any way to substantiate your position.
As I said to MoMo above, have it your way if that is the only way to close of this nonsense discussion... Mueller was tasked to find collusion (a non-criminal activity), he found none, and said "No Collusion" in his report. I must have missed that in the redacted part that you clearly had access to.
But you know, for a supposed intelligent well-read smart-ass like you I find it incredible that you can't search the document for the word "collusion" and see the context in which it is used.
So do it again. It should be easy for you to find ... (
show quote)
No matter how many times you say it, these right wing lemmings won’t get it. It has to come from a right wing radio hack, like Limbo, Slick Hannity, Loser Ingraham or some other talking robot.
Frosty wrote:
No matter how many times you say it, these right wing lemmings won’t get it. It has to come from a right wing radio hack, like Limbo, Slick Hannity, Loser Imgram or some other talking robot.
You require dumbed down news - just so, on a really good day, you might understand 20% of it. So you’re left propaganda driven lying evil leftie dem fake news.
LWW
Loc: Banana Republic of America
JohnFrim wrote:
So do it again. It should be easy for you to find the smart "non-stupided-down" explanation. But I know the problem is that there ain't any way to substantiate your position.
As I said to MoMo above, have it your way if that is the only way to close of this nonsense discussion... Mueller was tasked to find collusion (a non-criminal activity), he found none, and said "No Collusion" in his report. I must have missed that in the redacted part that you clearly had access to.
But you know, for a supposed intelligent well-read smart-ass like you I find it incredible that you can't search the document for the word "collusion" and see the context in which it is used.
So do it again. It should be easy for you to find ... (
show quote)
In an attempt to enlighten you ... what is the difference between collusion and conspiracy.
JohnFrim
Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.
LWW wrote:
In an attempt to enlighten you ... what is the difference between collusion and conspiracy.
Why would you enlighten me by asking me to enlighten you with an explanation?
But instead of leaving a question answered by a question, one important difference is that conspiracy is a crime, and that is why Mueller chased down conspiracy and not collusion.
For me there is little practical difference. As far as I am concerned Trump is guilty of both.
Angmo wrote:
You require dumbed down news - just so, on a really good day, you might understand 20% of it. So you’re left propaganda driven lying evil leftie dem fake news.
You must really be limited in thought processes since you just write variations of the same things over and over. Boring.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.