• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mueller Investigation pt4

Status
Not open for further replies.
plague311 said:
Standalone? Without any corroborating evidence at all? I'd be interested in seeing that.
Click to expand...
Sure, of course it's decent evidence you have a nickel, presuming that you know whether or not you have a nickel and I have reason to believe you wouldn't lie.

That second point may be a serious issue with Meadows.
 
phiwum said:
Actually, by and large, your testimony about having a nickel is not bad evidence. It's not conclusive, but we accept appeal to reliable authority all the time.
Click to expand...
Depending on the circumstance, but I didn't specify any circumstance. Lacking any special conditions, I could just as easily have a nickel in my pocket right now as not.

You don't know me, you don't know what I bought with cash today, you don't know if I keep change in my pockets, etc., etc. Given that, if I say I have a nickel in my pocket right now, what are the odds that you'll be correct if you say I'm telling the truth, or not? I don't see much way to make it anything but 50/50.

Now, the circumstances (or lack thereof) that make it 50/50 that I have a nickel in my pocket don't apply to the congressman who says he has evidence that M. & S. altered the 302s, so I think it's not 50/50 in that regard. It's more like 80/20. But don't ask me which way, I don't know! :D
 
acbytesla said:
I agree. Paul has the patience of a saint.
Click to expand...
Shucks. [lightly kicks instep of one foot with the other while looking downwards]

But, as I said, I take it as an exercise in logic. Also, as an exercise in writing plainly and succinctly.

And, if I forget for a moment the dystopian nightmare that our democracy is hurdling toward, no patience is required, actually.
 
Paul2 said:
Depending on the circumstance, but I didn't specify any circumstance. Lacking any special conditions, I could just as easily have a nickel in my pocket right now as not.

You don't know me, you don't know what I bought with cash today, you don't know if I keep change in my pockets, etc., etc. Given that, if I say I have a nickel in my pocket right now, what are the odds that you'll be correct if you say I'm telling the truth, or not? I don't see much way to make it anything but 50/50.

Now, the circumstances (or lack thereof) that make it 50/50 that I have a nickel in my pocket don't apply to the congressman who says he has evidence that M. & S. altered the 302s, so I think it's not 50/50 in that regard. It's more like 80/20. But don't ask me which way, I don't know! :D
Click to expand...
I would tend to believe a stranger who claims to have a nickel, but a deeply partisan congressman like Meadows is indeed another matter when speaking about the investigation.

So I'll concede that point. My concern was about your analogy, not your deeper point.
 
"In my pocket, I have a nickel."
I'll take your word for it.

"In my pocket, I have the nuclear launch codes."
Could be, but I'll need some evidence.

"In my pocket, I have a plea agreement for a crime that isn't actually illegal."
Oh, come on now! Only a fool would believe that!
 
In these situations, I resort to an important source of wisdom: Andy Griffith

In the Andy Griffith Show episode, "The Darlings are Coming!", Briscoe Darling (Denver Pyle) and his family come to Mayberry. They get a room a the Mayberry Inn, but it is only supposed to be for one person. However, the whole family stays in the room, and the innkeeper is trying to catch them.

Andy comes to the room and the Darlings are playing a bluegrass tune, but when Andy knocks, it all stops. Briscoe Darling comes to the door, and Andy explains that the room is supposed to be only for him, and he needs to pay for additional people. The exchange is something like this

BD: No, it's just me here.
AG: But I heard music playing.
BD: That's just me playing my jug.
AG: But I heard banjo music.
BD: You don't think I can make banjo sounds come out of my jug?
AG: To be honest, Mr. Darling, no, I don't.
BD: Man's entitled to his opinion.

This exchange is so good on so many levels, but it works in this case in this way: Is Briscoe Darling's claim that he can make his jug sound like a banjo evidence that he can do it?

Unfortunately, this episode does not include Earnest T. Bass.
 
Paul2 said:
Shucks. [lightly kicks instep of one foot with the other while looking downwards]

But, as I said, I take it as an exercise in logic. Also, as an exercise in writing plainly and succinctly.

And, if I forget for a moment the dystopian nightmare that our democracy is hurdling toward, no patience is required, actually.
Click to expand...

I don't have that kind of patience when I'm dealing with someone who plays games on the thread and is what I consider to be intellectually dishonest. I tend to get POed.

I admire those who can keep it on an even keel.
 
pgwenthold said:
In these situations, I resort to an important source of wisdom: Andy Griffith

In the Andy Griffith Show episode, "The Darlings are Coming!", Briscoe Darling (Denver Pyle) and his family come to Mayberry. They get a room a the Mayberry Inn, but it is only supposed to be for one person. However, the whole family stays in the room, and the innkeeper is trying to catch them.

Andy comes to the room and the Darlings are playing a bluegrass tune, but when Andy knocks, it all stops. Briscoe Darling comes to the door, and Andy explains that the room is supposed to be only for him, and he needs to pay for additional people. The exchange is something like this

BD: No, it's just me here.
AG: But I heard music playing.
BD: That's just me playing my jug.
AG: But I heard banjo music.
BD: You don't think I can make banjo sounds come out of my jug?
AG: To be honest, Mr. Darling, no, I don't.
BD: Man's entitled to his opinion.

This exchange is so good on so many levels, but it works in this case in this way: Is Briscoe Darling's claim that he can make his jug sound like a banjo evidence that he can do it?

Unfortunately, this episode does not include Earnest T. Bass.
Click to expand...

Now that there is a lesson that our correspondents would be well advised to take to heart.

There is evidence of x.
well that evidence is not sufficient evidence, so that is not evidence.
Actual critical thinkers and actual skeptics heads ******* explode.

Folks, your opinions are not evidence and your opinion that actual evidence aint sufficient aint worth the time of day.

Thus endeth the lesson, and god damn I envy you folks for learning from the best.

TBD out
 
I Am The Scum said:
"In my pocket, I have a nickel."
I'll take your word for it.

"In my pocket, I have the nuclear launch codes."
Could be, but I'll need some evidence.

"In my pocket, I have a plea agreement for a crime that isn't actually illegal."
Oh, come on now! Only a fool would believe that!
Click to expand...

Once again, totally with you.
 
The Big Dog said:
Now that there is a lesson that our correspondents would be well advised to take to heart.

There is evidence of x.
well that evidence is not sufficient evidence, so that is not evidence.
Actual critical thinkers and actual skeptics heads ******* explode.

Folks, your opinions are not evidence and your opinion that actual evidence aint sufficient aint worth the time of day.

Thus endeth the lesson, and god damn I envy you folks for learning from the best.

TBD out
Click to expand...

Saying there is evidence of X is of course a massive exaggeration. What there is a wild statement from a single very partisan representative. Critical thinkers and skeptics heads do not ******* explode, they merely say, 'is that all you got?' And maybe, 'provide more or move the **** on.'

Time to go back to school TBD.
 
acbytesla said:
Saying there is evidence of X is of course a massive exaggeration. What there is a wild statement from a single very partisan representative. Critical thinkers and skeptics heads do not ******* explode, they merely say, 'is that all you got?' And maybe, 'provide more or move the **** on.'

Time to go back to school TBD.
Click to expand...
I read your quoted post you were replying to in the voice of Frank Gallagher from Shameless, and pictured him on a barstool saying it. Makes it work beautifully for full comedic effect.

I do believe the Trump administration is taking legal advice from our local self-proclaimed expert.
 
Trump Tweets


Jerome Corsi: ”This is not justice, this is not America. This is a political prosecution. The Special Prosecutor (Counsel), to get this plea deal, demanded I lie and violate the law. They’re the criminals.” He is not alone. 17 Angry Dems. People forced to lie. Sad! @Trish_Regan

Trish_Regan: “Did the FBI follow protocol to obtain the FISA warrant? I don’t think so. The Dossier was opposition research funded by opponents. Don’t use Government resources to take down political foes. Weaponizing Government for gain.” Is this really America? Witch Hunt!
 
Trump Tweets a huge (for him) statement on the investigation.

Robert Mueller and Leakin’ Lyin’ James Comey are Best Friends, just one of many Mueller Conflicts of Interest. And bye the way, wasn’t the woman in charge of prosecuting Jerome Corsi (who I do not know) in charge of “legal” at the corrupt Clinton Foundation? A total Witch Hunt...

....Will Robert Mueller’s big time conflicts of interest be listed at the top of his Republicans only Report. Will Andrew Weissman’s horrible and vicious prosecutorial past be listed in the Report. He wrongly destroyed people’s lives, took down great companies, only to be........

.....overturned, 9-0, in the United States Supreme Court. Doing same thing to people now. Will all of the substantial & many contributions made by the 17 Angry Democrats to the Campaign of Crooked Hillary be listed in top of Report. Will the people that worked for the Clinton....

....Foundation be listed at the top of the Report? Will the scathing document written about Lyin’ James Comey, by the man in charge of the case, Rod Rosenstein (who also signed the FISA Warrant), be a big part of the Report? Isn’t Rod therefore totally conflicted? Will all of....

...the lying and leaking by the people doing the Report, & also Bruce Ohr (and his lovely wife Molly), Comey, Brennan, Clapper, & all of the many fired people of the FBI, be listed in the Report? Will the corruption within the DNC & Clinton Campaign be exposed?..And so much more!
 
Karen and I just finished listening to “Bag Man” by Rachel Maddow. It’s a deep dive into the fall of Spiro Agnew, Vice President of the United States. Highly recommended.

The parallels between the events of the mid-70’s and now are unmistakable. Once an investigation uncovers illegal acts, there’s nothing to do but attack the process by which those illegal acts were uncovered.

Trump is following a playbook. One that did not work for Agnew. I suspect it won’t work now, but one never knows.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets a huge (for him) statement on the investigation.

Robert Mueller and Leakin’ Lyin’ James Comey are Best Friends, just one of many Mueller Conflicts of Interest. And bye the way, wasn’t the woman in charge of prosecuting Jerome Corsi (who I do not know) in charge of “legal” at the corrupt Clinton Foundation? A total Witch Hunt...

....Will Robert Mueller’s big time conflicts of interest be listed at the top of his Republicans only Report. Will Andrew Weissman’s horrible and vicious prosecutorial past be listed in the Report. He wrongly destroyed people’s lives, took down great companies, only to be........

.....overturned, 9-0, in the United States Supreme Court. Doing same thing to people now. Will all of the substantial & many contributions made by the 17 Angry Democrats to the Campaign of Crooked Hillary be listed in top of Report. Will the people that worked for the Clinton....

....Foundation be listed at the top of the Report? Will the scathing document written about Lyin’ James Comey, by the man in charge of the case, Rod Rosenstein (who also signed the FISA Warrant), be a big part of the Report? Isn’t Rod therefore totally conflicted? Will all of....

...the lying and leaking by the people doing the Report, & also Bruce Ohr (and his lovely wife Molly), Comey, Brennan, Clapper, & all of the many fired people of the FBI, be listed in the Report? Will the corruption within the DNC & Clinton Campaign be exposed?..And so much more!
Click to expand...

It's really getting to him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom