What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Hunter Biden Laptop Story True - UPDATE: Zuck tells Rogan the FBI "advised" him to block it (8/25/22) (1 Viewer)

Hunter Biden is unique in that it's one of the few times we can't dismiss it with the silly "Bof Sides!" defense. It's a good example of the combination of the corruption on the political left, the lies in the leftist media, and the suppression by Big Tech. I can't think of any example where the media is lying to mislead about conservative corruption and then gets cover from Big Tech.

 
BladeRunner said:
If you believed in the Russian dossier and the allegations against Kavanaugh, for example, then that would be an instance where you, personally, didn't demand evidence.
This is bull####, like 99.9% if your posts. We had an investigation regarding Russia because we demanded evidence…. Regarding Kavanaugh we also demanded an investigation based on the evidence we had, but the GOP didn’t want to hear it. 

 
dkp993 said:
When discussing sides and hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance, careful with the stone throwing.  Glass houses and such.  In this regard the “sides” are indistinguishable. 
Of all the people to lecture us on hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance….

 
BladeRunner said:
If you believed in the Russian dossier and the allegations against Kavanaugh, for example, then that would be an instance where you, personally, didn't demand evidence.

We know that most of your side did though. And pretty much any thing on Twitter as well as long as it was anti Trump or GOP.
You're welcome to search for posts of mine related to either of those things.  In fact, if I remember correctly, I offered you $50 if you could find such a post related to Kavanaugh.

 
This is bull####, like 99.9% if your posts. We had an investigation regarding Russia because we demanded evidence…. Regarding Kavanaugh we also demanded an investigation based on the evidence we had, but the GOP didn’t want to hear it. 


Oh, give me a break with your fake outrage.  The whole investigation was started because of the Dossier.  JFC, are you serious?

There was ZERO evidence with Kavanaugh besides 40 year old allegations that were actually disproved by Blasey Ford's own friend.

You just don't want to face the truth.  That has to be it.  You can't be that gullible, can you?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You're welcome to search for posts of mine related to either of those things.  In fact, if I remember correctly, I offered you $50 if you could find such a post related to Kavanaugh.


Again, you haven't answered my question.  Did you or did you not believe the Dossier and allegations against Kavanaugh?

 
Oh, give me a break with your fake outrage.  The whole investigation was started because of the Dossier.  JFC, are you serious?

There was ZERO evidence with Kavanaugh besides 40 year old allegations that were actually disproved by Blasey Ford's own friend.

You just don't want to face the truth.  That has to be it.  You can't be that gullible, can you?
The bolded has been shown as false many times over.  Including just yesterday again.  
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/21/us/politics/fact-check-trump-russia-investigation-steele-dossier.amp.html

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Again, you haven't answered my question.  Did you or did you not believe the Dossier and allegations against Kavanaugh?
I'm not sure what is meant by "Russian dossier", to be honest.  Give me the specific allegation and I'll tell you whether I believe it.  Re: Kavanaugh, I don't have the faintest idea.  I mean, it seems reasonably clear that he was a hard-partying frat-type guy.  It seems plausible that the two of them had drunken relations.  Whether it was explicitly consensual?  Who the hell knows.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh, give me a break with your fake outrage.  The whole investigation was started because of the Dossier.  JFC, are you serious?

There was ZERO evidence with Kavanaugh besides 40 year old allegations that were actually disproved by Blasey Ford's own friend.

You just don't want to face the truth.  That has to be it.  You can't be that gullible, can you?
So there was evidence

 
So there was evidence


I see where your problem is:  allegations <> evidence.  You literally have to prove allegations to be evidence.

I had to tell you this?  Really?  You really thought allegations was hard evidence?  Wow.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
she testified.  that's evidence.  once again, you're incapable of making a fact-based argument.  


That's not evidence - that's one person's 40 year old word.  None of it was proven.

If Blasey Ford word was proof, then we certainly can agree then that the Biden laptop was proof of both Biden's peddling influence too.   Hey - I'm just going by your standard - not mine.  :shrug:

You guys have been believing everything said on Twitter for so long you have no idea was facts and proof are.  You think it's just somebody's random tweet.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's not evidence - that's one person's 40 year old word.  None of it was proven.

If Blasey


Ford


word was proof, then we certainly can agree then that the Biden laptop was proof of both Biden's peddling influence too.   Hey - I'm just going by your standard - not mine.  :shrug:

You guys have been believing everything said on Twitter for so long you have no idea was facts and proof are.  You think it's just somebody's random tweet.
Evidence, testimony, proof, allegations. Those all mean different things

 
Cool. So you agree that evidence isn't proof then? 


Huh?  Wut?  :lol:

We're discussing the behavior of the left between 2016-2020 where there was no need for evidence, proof or testimony.  Allegations, "I heard from someone who heard from someone", "anonmyous person close to X said...", Twitter and fake Russian Dossiers were all that were needed.

Now, today, NONE of that will suffice?  GTHO.  :)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's not evidence - that's one person's 40 year old word.  None of it was proven.

If Blasey Ford word was proof, then we certainly can agree then that the Biden laptop was proof of both Biden's peddling influence too.   Hey - I'm just going by your standard - not mine.  :shrug:

You guys have been believing everything said on Twitter for so long you have no idea was facts and proof are.  You think it's just somebody's random tweet.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony

In the law, testimony is a form of evidence that is obtained from a witness who makes a solemn statement or declaration of fact. 

 
Hunter Biden is unique in that it's one of the few times we can't dismiss it with the silly "Bof Sides!" defense. It's a good example of the combination of the corruption on the political left, the lies in the leftist media, and the suppression by Big Tech. I can't think of any example where the media is lying to mislead about conservative corruption and then gets cover from Big Tech.
Well to play devil's advocate, neither side has a monopoly on corruption, nepotism, or PR spin. In this case, one side got cover from Big Tech. In other cases, a side may get silent cover from Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, or Big whatever. 

More recently, one side along with the FCC Chairman was spinning myths about Net Neutrality as facts and completely misleading the public. The irony is both sides constantly screw over the American people. And somehow we end up with the worst of both worlds such as Big Tech censorship along with higher prices and slower speeds from ISPs. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh, give me a break with your fake outrage.  The whole investigation was started because of the Dossier.  JFC, are you serious?

There was ZERO evidence with Kavanaugh besides 40 year old allegations that were actually disproved by Blasey Ford's own friend.

You just don't want to face the truth.  That has to be it.  You can't be that gullible, can you?
I don’t think you understand what “disproved” means.  

 
Awaiting reply.
See my previous post.

I love it how you guys parse words and pretend that things don't mean what they actually mean. :lol:

You know exactly what we're talkin about here.  You know exactly what the left did from 2016 to 2020. 

I'm asking you to keep that standard and accept anything as evidence and 100% proof of guilt. Like you did the previous four years.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
See my previous post.

I love it how you guys parse words and pretend that things don't mean what they actually mean. :lol:

You know exactly what we're talkin about here.  You know exactly what the left did from 2016 to 2020. 

I'm asking you to keep that standard and accept anything as evidence and 100% proof of guilt. Like you did the previous four years.
We’re asking you to use words correctly.  Evidence is a pretty basic one. 

 
There is evidence that Hunter Biden is a sleazy dude who has struggled with addiction for years. There is also evidence that he tried to use his name and that of his dad for personal gain. 

Is that what you wanted to hear? Is any of that in dispute?

 
We’re asking you to use words correctly.  Evidence is a pretty basic one. 
I'm asking you to hold yourself to the standards you did from 2016 to 2020, which was no evidence or proof was needed. Only allegations were one hundred percent proof of guilt.  No questions asked.

Stop parsing words, throwing up smoke screens and distractions and moving goal posts trying to search for gotcha.

 
Those weren’t the standards then either.

Hell, there were multiple conversations of proof vs evidence then.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm asking you to hold yourself to the standards you did from 2016 to 2020, which was no evidence or proof was needed. Only allegations were one hundred percent proof of guilt.  No questions asked.

Stop parsing words, throwing up smoke screens and distractions and moving goal posts trying to search for gotcha.
The irony in this post is fantastic.   

 
The deflection and hypocrisy in yours is also fantastic.

Thanks for proving my point.  :thumbup:  
Read back the exchange.  Who changed the topic again? You went with your greatest hit:  but what about four years ago?!!!!!!!!

I simply pointed out you don’t appear to understand the definition of evidence.  Which you have continually demonstrated on this forum over and over again. Then you started spinning like a top. 

 
Read back the exchange.  Who changed the topic again? You went with your greatest hit:  but what about four years ago?!!!!!!!!

I simply pointed out you don’t appear to understand the definition of evidence.  Which you have continually demonstrated on this forum over and over again. Then you started spinning like a top. 


Thanks, yet again, for actually reinforcing my point.  :thumbup:

It's like you can't stop stepping on yourself.  Good work.

 
she testified.  that's evidence.  once again, you're incapable of making a fact-based argument.  


I guess I don`t understand why Ford was believed and had a chance to testify while Tara Reade`s sexual misconduct claims against Joe Biden were dismissed very quickly.

Would a Dem congress be so gentle questioning Reade as they were with Ford?    

The answer is no and vice versa.

 
I guess I don`t understand why Ford was believed and had a chance to testify while Tara Reade`s sexual misconduct claims against Joe Biden were dismissed very quickly.

Would a Dem congress be so gentle questioning Reade as they were with Ford?    

The answer is no and vice versa.
I don't really know anything about the veracity of Ford or Reade's claims.  That said, I don't think Congress had an opportunity to question Reade, did they?  You can hold hearings and bring witnesses during a SCOTUS confirmation.  You can't do the same for a POTUS nomination.

 
she testified.  that's evidence.  once again, you're incapable of making a fact-based argument.  


This is rich.  :doh:

You'll have to forgive most of us when we don't believe any lefty talking about facts, logic or "fact-based arguments" after all of that was thrown out the window the previous 4 years by your side in order to "GET TRUMP!!!".

Unbelievable.  :lol:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is rich.  :doh:

You'll have to forgive most of us when we don't believe any lefty talking about facts, logic or "fact-based arguments" after all of that was thrown out the window the previous 4 years by your side in order to "GET TRUMP!!!".

Unbelievable.  :lol:
None of what you wrote has anything to do with what rover typed.

 
I don't really know anything about the veracity of Ford or Reade's claims.  That said, I don't think Congress had an opportunity to question Reade, did they?  You can hold hearings and bring witnesses during a SCOTUS confirmation.  You can't do the same for a POTUS nomination.


Exactly. Although if Congress could have held hearing and brought witnesses for a POTUS nomination in 2020, it would have been a lot of fun to have watched he who shall not be named

 
I don't really know anything about the veracity of Ford or Reade's claims.  That said, I don't think Congress had an opportunity to question Reade, did they?  You can hold hearings and bring witnesses during a SCOTUS confirmation.  You can't do the same for a POTUS nomination.
Of course you can.  You can call hearings for any number of reasons.  Not just confirmation hearings.

 
I don't think anyone is claiming that Hunter is involved in any way with the administration.  There are questionable (albeit probably not unique-to-Biden-family) self enrichment issues that go back to gaining Chinese invesment financing for a hedge fund Hunter is associated with (while visiting China with then former VP Biden), his appointment to Burisma, etc.  You can simply write that off as the kid trading on his old man's name and thats the end of it-you are probably correct.  But if the emails are real-and contrary to what we were told prior to the election, it appears that they are not Russian disinformation but are in fact genuine, then there are references to holding large quantities of funds for the "big guy" for instance.  Taken on face value, that could mean nothing or it could smell bad.  I think people's general resentment for all of this is the complete lack of interest in what *could* be corruption.  Again, that is not proof of anything, but usually if you do some picking at these things, more info shakes out.  No one in the press seems interested in doing so.  If Donald Trump Jr's emails were hacked and there were conversations with foreign business entities talking about reserving 20% of the money for the big guy, there would be a chiron four feet high on CNN. 

 
I don't think anyone is claiming that Hunter is involved in any way with the administration.  There are questionable (albeit probably not unique-to-Biden-family) self enrichment issues that go back to gaining Chinese invesment financing for a hedge fund Hunter is associated with (while visiting China with then former VP Biden), his appointment to Burisma, etc.  You can simply write that off as the kid trading on his old man's name and thats the end of it-you are probably correct.  But if the emails are real-and contrary to what we were told prior to the election, it appears that they are not Russian disinformation but are in fact genuine, then there are references to holding large quantities of funds for the "big guy" for instance.  Taken on face value, that could mean nothing or it could smell bad.  I think people's general resentment for all of this is the complete lack of interest in what *could* be corruption.  Again, that is not proof of anything, but usually if you do some picking at these things, more info shakes out.  No one in the press seems interested in doing so.  If Donald Trump Jr's emails were hacked and there were conversations with foreign business entities talking about reserving 20% of the money for the big guy, there would be a chiron four feet high on CNN.
All we conservatives are asking is that things are played fair across the board. It is clear that this is not happening with media and big Tech and that is what rankles us the most. 

I'm all behind going after corrupt politicians whether they are from the right or the left oh, but that's not what's happening. The outrage and ire is only directed at Republicans.

The media could correct itself and actually go back to being Watch Dogs for the people then I think we would not be as divided as we are. But when guys like me see the massive imbalance, then I'll defend conservatives regardless.  And I'll defend them because I want things to be fair. If you're going to let Democrats get off and not pay attention to them when they're corrupt, then you need to do the same to Republicans.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
All we conservatives are asking is that things are played fair across the board. It is clear that this is not happening with media and big Tech and that is what rankles us the most. 

I'm all behind going after corrupt politicians whether they are from the right or the left oh, but that's not what's happening. The outrage and ire is only directed at Republicans.

The media could correct itself and actually go back to being Watch Dogs for the people then I think we would not be as divided as we are. But when guys like me see the massive imbalance, then I'll defend conservatives regardless.  And I'll defend them because I want things to be fair. If you're going to let Democrats get off and not pay attention to them when they're corrupt, then you need to do the same to Republicans.
Where this all falls apart BR is acting like there is any accountability happening for anyone. It's not like the yelling and screaming from the MSM accomplishes anything. So yes while the MSM may cluck cluck over what happens on the right louder then they do for the left NO ONE is being held accountable.  The grift and enrichment happens regardless.  All these career politicians end up multi-millionaires' on jobs that make low 6 figures. It's insane. So in the end who cares what CNN or MSNBC says.  It's all white noise anyway.  All you're fighting for is for the white noise to be "equal", when the truth is the only thing "equal" is both sides getting away with it.

 
Father and son, both with their names on a....... bank account. 

Wake up Sheeple. I don't know what kind of crime syndicate these thugs were running, but to repeat:

A father and son were both on the same bank account. 😱

 
Father and son, both with their names on a....... bank account. 

Wake up Sheeple. I don't know what kind of crime syndicate these thugs were running, but to repeat:

A father and son were both on the same bank account. 😱


Yes most 51 year olds have a joint bank account with their dad so they can have all their expenses funded tax free. Nothing to see here. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top