- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 8/6/21 at 9:28 am to RiverCityTider
Well the UN is trying to block his transmission of this event so……must wonder why the UN is jumping head first into this now
Posted on 8/6/21 at 10:10 am to Tesla
quote:While boosie gave some bad examples, there are many statements that can't be disproven. For example, I could say that one time I did breathe water and survived. You can't prove that I didn't. I don't know how I did it, and I don't know if I can do it again, but I did it. A fetus goes months with fluid filled lungs, why couldn't I?
You can absolutely disprove something. In fact, I can disprove the notion that you can breathe water and survive .. You go ahead and try to breathe water and get back to me.
Another example is you can't prove that bigfoot doesn't exist. In many cases, omniscience is required to disprove something, and even then you couldn't prove that you are omniscient.
So in this case, Lindell claims to have data that is not verifiable. Packets only exist on the wire for an instant, so in order to disprove that someone captured legit data you would need perfect knowledge of every network transmission. This is not possible.
Posted on 8/6/21 at 10:18 am to RiverCityTider
Posted on 8/6/21 at 10:26 am to Eurocat
Why did they remove his wares from stores like Bed, Bath & Beyond? Did they think his pillows were laced with chemicals that would make people believe in election fraud?? Whatever the reason, I think we can all breathe a deep sigh of relief now that they took his pillows off the shelves. That was a close call!!
Posted on 8/6/21 at 10:34 am to au4you
quote:
au4you
Ah, yes. The #MuhGrifter card. Honestly, I expected it to be played sooner.
Posted on 8/6/21 at 10:36 am to xGeauxLSUx
quote:
Whether or not Mike keeps his word is not what we're talking about.
Mike Lindell is the modern day example of what the Founders meant when they said:
quote:
We Mutually Pledge To Each Other Our Lives, Our Fortunes And Our Sacred Honor
Posted on 8/6/21 at 10:45 am to dawgfan24348
quote:t.
You know what this massive fallout of the GE has been? It's the absolute refusal for people to admit they are wrong. Their minds simply refuse to accept that they man they voted for los
This statement applies to all you 'progressive' lemmings, malefactors, detractors, authoritarians.
Your 'guy' was humiliated in the actual vote that counts - the EC. Screw your 'popular vote' which is the equivalent of 7th grade vote for 'cutest guy.'
To deny that the DEM party does not have a massive vote fraud operation going for the past 50 years - that I am aware of - is pure purposeful ignorance.
To look at all voting norms that were absurdly violated in this past election suggests the entire nation did a 180 deg flip in the period of 8 months. These kinds of cultural/economic reversals take decades if not centuries.
To completely ignore the magnitudes of voting irregularities (even grossly more obvious than "normal" DEM voting fraud) that happened at exactly the same time in 5 separate local areas that produced ALL of the margin of EC 'victory' is meaningful intellectual dishonesty.
To be unable to point to ONE campaign issue that you can point to that would even hint to support a Biden/Harris ticket is complete absurdity.
To examine the DEMs own response to their 'victory' is to highlight their own understanding that their victory was NOT an honest reflection of the voters' intent. IF they thought they won 'fair and square' they would WELCOME the examination of their victory details ==> nothing to hide here!!
Additionally, if the DEMs thought their message/candidates actually carried the day in the last election honestly, they would not be in such a panic to enshrine the "EMERGENCY MEASUREs" in violating voting procedures as a PERMANENT FEATURE in EVERY state of the union gong forward. They KNOW their 'victory' is hollow and they are PANICING at the thought of having to compete in an HONEST election next time.
NOTHING about the 2020 election was 'normal.' It was ALL fraudulent = beginning from the billions of dollars worth of illicit pro-DEM propaganda pumped out 24/7 by the news media and the collaboration with the hi-tech/social-media cabal that stamped out any semblance of honest discussion of actual issues. It was a total SHAM.
Any one of the above points is enough to brand this 'election' as highly suspect if not credible evidence of fraud.
Taken altogether, it is an inescapable rational conclusion that this election MUST be forensically audited by an HONEST examination to determine if there is ANY rational to accept its conclusion.
Point to one reason why the election should NOT be viewed with suspicion.
try it
not to mention the deep state efforts to 'protect Biiden' or to 'take out Trump" by the FBI, DOJ, corrupt legislators, et al that went on for a full 4 years of Trump tenure.
This post was edited on 8/6/21 at 10:50 am
Posted on 8/6/21 at 10:45 am to VoxDawg
quote:
Mike Lindell is the modern day example of what the Founders meant when they said:
More like the boy that cried wolf. I’m sure you’ll have some excuses when he fails to deliver yet again.
Posted on 8/6/21 at 10:55 am to Esquire
And how will you determine that he failed to deliver? You going to watch the symposium? Or will you wait to see Don Lemon's idiotic take?
Posted on 8/6/21 at 10:56 am to Esquire
quote:
More like the boy that cried wolf. I’m sure you’ll have some excuses when he fails to deliver yet again.
you mean when CNN and their cohorts fail to mention it - and the social media throttles any discussion of it - and the DOJ threatens to 'investigate' anyone who dares try to get information - or the radical courts who will claim 'no standing' and ignore - or BLM radicals take to the streets to physically threaten anyone who shows support??
Posted on 8/6/21 at 10:57 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
you mean when CNN and their cohorts fail to mention it
The fallback position of liberals when they have no answer: "If it were really happening, then it would be on the news."
Posted on 8/6/21 at 11:01 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
Disprove gravity. Disprove the space/time continuum
You’re such a stupid fricking loser
imagine being such a brainlet that your understanding of the world is based in legal terms and not logic ETA: just to be clear, the legal precedent is “burden of proof” rather than “burden of disproof” because you’re innocent until proven guilty in the United States and that’s how we maintain a fair legal system, not because it’s impossible to disprove things. Mother fricker you’re an idiot
This post was edited on 8/6/21 at 11:04 am
Posted on 8/6/21 at 11:01 am to davyjones
quote:
Why did they remove his wares from stores like Bed, Bath & Beyond? Did they think his pillows were laced with chemicals that would make people believe in election fraud?? Whatever the reason, I think we can all breathe a deep sigh of relief now that they took his pillows off the shelves. That was a close call!!
I don't know, I don't work there.
Posted on 8/6/21 at 11:17 am to Forever
quote:
ETA: just to be clear, the legal precedent is “burden of proof” rather than “burden of disproof” because you’re innocent until proven guilty in the United States and that’s how we maintain a fair legal system, not because it’s impossible to disprove things. Mother fricker you’re an idiot
And does maintaining a fair legal system hinge on the logic involved in proving something versus affirmatively disproving it?
quote:
Mother fricker you’re an idiot
Probably so, but not because I’m pointing out the fallacy of requiring “disproof”.
This post was edited on 8/6/21 at 11:21 am
Posted on 8/6/21 at 11:29 am to boosiebadazz
Bro in the law, you know that there are shifting burdens of proof within some of the mechanisms of the legal system, civil in particular. The big one that immediately comes to mind is Motion for Summary Judgment wherein the burden is on the moving party to show there is no evidence to support the non-moving party's case, i.e. no genuine issue of material fact. Not that I'm telling you anything that you probably don't already know.
Posted on 8/6/21 at 11:39 am to RiverCityTider
quote:
And how will you determine that he failed to deliver?
Biden and Camel-toe still in office
Posted on 8/6/21 at 11:41 am to Esquire
As one of the maintainers of the steady drumbeat of "Nothing is going to happen" and "Only impeachment can remove Asterisk & Vice-Asterisk", are you admitting to an impossible standard of Lindell being able to deliver?
Based on your own definitions?
Based on your own definitions?
Posted on 8/6/21 at 11:42 am to davyjones
I filed an opposition memo just yesterday. I’m familiar. But the burden of proof still resides with the plaintiff. The defendant doesn’t have to disprove anything.
Even at summary judgment (at least in La.), you have a defined universe of evidence and the defendant (usually who is filing in my practice) is saying within that defined universe, the Plaintiff is missing something critical to proving their case and will therefore be unable to do so warranting dismissal.
There’s not an affirmative disproval mechanism anywhere in the law that I’m aware of.
Posted on 8/6/21 at 12:04 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
And does maintaining a fair legal system hinge on the logic involved in proving something versus affirmatively disproving it?
No, it hinges on human nature and the long history of “guilty until proven innocent” legal systems being an absolute humanitarian disaster and easily exploitable. It has nothing to do with proof vs. disproof or which is more logical.
quote:
Probably so, but not because I’m pointing out the fallacy of requiring “disproof”.
It’s not a fallacy. I’m not even sure how to communicate with someone with a sub-100 IQ on something that you just have to have the mental capacity to understand, but you can disprove things.
You’re just another example of a prerequisite to having left-leaning political views being a total lack of historical knowledge of governmental systems and a total lack of understanding of how the world works
Page 4 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News