I've already been given a warning in this thread.I'm trying to suck up to you, but your completely immune to humor.
Perhaps you don't like truth.
I've already been given a warning in this thread.I'm trying to suck up to you, but your completely immune to humor.
You are correct on that one. But not for the reasons you intend.I've already been given a warning in this thread.
Perhaps you don't like truth.
Does anyone actually agree with that?You are correct on that one. But not for the reasons you intend.
If I went around blindly accepting truth I would have nothing for my imagination to blissfully run off to.
And if I focus on all "truth and lies" a vast swell of unease pervades.
Does anyone actually agree with that?
Please don't respond unless it is true.No, we just tolerate it because it would somehow be unfair if we didn't.
Well, then I'm tasteless.I guess that it is true
There is no accounting for taste
............................
though
I rather enjoy Eugen Joseph Weber's lectures
Q:Then, by all means, use the article to not only show the summary was wrong, but also show you were right. You've done neither, all I see from you is denial and innuendo.
Well:Well, then I'm tasteless.
Q:
Why are we having this correspondence?
You read the article that you posted.
You know that the sentence I questioned: "The proceedings unfold in the form of a trial, with each side having the right to call witnesses and perform cross-examinations. ..."
is not in nor from that article.
We both know that it is a fabrication.
SO
Why are we having this idiotic conversation?
What is it that you hope to get out of it?
Is this a joke or something? You do know what a summary is, right?
Summary - a brief statement or account of the main points of something.
Hopefully, you can figure out the rest, but somehow I doubt it.
Didn't the bi-partial watchdog indicate Trump had made a crime?This "summary" does not meet that requirement.
One expects a summery from any educated and moral person would be derived from the subject material.
This "summary" does not meet that requirement.
The sentence in question was wholly made up from the summarizer's prejudice.
One does not summarize the crimean war by claiming a connection to the sinking of the titanic.
Then don't accept it blindly. Open your eyes - and then accept truth.You are correct on that one. But not for the reasons you intend.
If I went around blindly accepting truth I would have nothing for my imagination to blissfully run off to.
lolAgain, I have to ask if this is some kind of joke? Or, is denial your forte on discussion forums? Or, you still haven't read the article?
If you have read it, I can only conclude your reading comprehension skills are seriously lacking. Sorry, can't help you with that problem.
News breaking here:
US president trump has been acquitted on both articles. 8.33 am - 6th.Feb.2020
It will be interesting to see how Trumps behavior reflects his impunity to impeachment.
USA is now officially a fascist nation. Let the tyranny begin!
he made history. it was apparently the first time a member of the impeached presidents party voted to convict. given trumps hard on for vengence and the complete spinelessness of the gop the extent of his courage cannot be understated.I have a whole new respect for Mitt Romney. He da man with a conscience.
He's playing a bet that Trump will fall on his sword, embarrass all those who supported him and the Repubs will need a solid candidate to run for president I reckon...he made history. it was apparently the first time a member of the impeached presidents party voted to convict. given trumps hard on for vengence and the complete spinelessness of the gop the extent of his courage cannot be understated.