Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Is that even possible?I hope you die in hell.
Don't use triggered if you are merely offended. It is offensive to people who are actually triggered.Outrage. Triggered.
Forget it, Joe. You just aren't capable of participating in a rational discussion on any subject related to Donald Trump. This is an excellent example. The thread didn't mention Flynn, and in fact, I wasn't thinking of him when I started it; you acted as if it was all about Flynn. You just don't understand.As I'd pointed out in your other thread: My Post (#4) in that thread convincingly proved the answer was "yes". Because it didn't mention Trump. And it addressed that the propaganda about "Flynn being mistreated" was patently false.
I have several other posts in the same thread that likewise point out the same. Not sure if I'd mentioned Trump in any of them (perhaps one out of 10 or more).
I even posted a National Review editorial which describes the allegations that the FBI was 'out of bounds' in the Flynn case as 'nonsensical'.
So, yes, there can be honest debate. But LC can continue to ignore that debate until someone falls in line 100% with "his opinion"....
Forget it, Joe. You just aren't capable of participating in a rational discussion on any subject related to Donald Trump.
This is an excellent example. The thread didn't mention Flynn, and in fact, I wasn't thinking of him when I started it; you acted as if it was all about Flynn. You just don't understand.
Joe, trying to talk to you in simple English is tantamount to discussing theology with a fencepost. I can go on until I'm exhausted without making the slightest impression.But the question did not relate to "Donald Trump", and I did not mention him in my posts regarding the FBI and Flynn.
Ergo: you seem to have fallen off the rails (again).
I asked if it were possible to discuss the activities of the DOJ/FBI without going down the Trump rabbit hole. You immediately set off down the hole
Why are you talking about Flynn?No. I did not. And I've pointed out that I haven't mentioned "Trump" in my replies. I referred to a specific and very recent example of "allegations of FBI misconduct", regarding Flynn. And I debunked it. That was "reasonable debate".
Somehow, you contort that into being "about Trump". Even a National Review article that supports my post (#4 in the thread) is apparently not an example of "reasonable debate".
Ergo, it seems the only "reasonable debate" acceptable to you is someone giving you a bootlicking response and saying "OMG, you're SO RIGHT, DUDE!"
Not sure I ever called it a witch hunt. I'm sure I never said it should be discontinued. And even if it's a witch hunt, it's being conducted in a world where witches exist.Appropriate answer if the question is "Is the investigation a witch hunt?". Good job on finally giving in to your rational side LC.
Why are you talking about Flynn?