towermonkey wrote: Do you have a reference for any of that? Apparently we have to back up our assertions now as opinions are not valid.
ramage wrote: This scenario is preferable:
Opener: Tom Brady is the worst quaterback of all time.
Responder: No response. or "Oh, yeah, well I think he's the greatest of all time."
The obligation is on the part of the responder to refute the statement. By not offering any substantiation, the responder, in effect, show they have no argument.
Rick wrote: I’d honestly love to debate that one too. That’s why I’m here.
The first thing I did as soon as I read that was a search for "drone" here on MMT and the wealth of topics and comments came up was invaluable (and also, the conversations back then were a lot more toxic and nasty, and I'm thankful they are much improved - thank you all for helping make that happen). They show that there were liberals here (I didn't see a comment from homeagain at that time, nor from me, fwiw) who both approved and condemned the policy, articles cited that we could go back and read (NY Times and WashPo even), and even conservative members of Congress who approved of the program (and those who didn't). The point being that you can't put people in a box and having the articles helps provide additional information and provides historical perspective if we go back to search years later.
You are acting very partisan HA. Did you condemn President Obama's drone war that was waged without congressional approval of each and every strike?
I disagree because Comey, the FBI Director at the time, is, in my opinion, the person who put the nail in the coffin of Hillary's campaign by announcing shortly before the election date that she was under investigation for her emails (yet again). And he did so because he felt pressure from the threat that agents in the Southern District of NY were going to leak that information because they hated her and preferred Trump win.
The top people at the FBI abused their power in an attempt to take out Trump.
It is, and instead of making what seems to be a snarky, implied insult that a.) those outlets haven't covered it or b.) that no liberals have bothered to read it, you could simply do a google search and post them yourself and ask for others to weigh in. We'd all have better conversations if we'd discuss the issues rather than simply assuming what others have or haven't done and taking the opportunity to slam those with whom we don't agree. Personally, I have seen the headlines, but I haven't had time to read the report itself so I can weigh in with an informed opinion. Last week was sort of an insane week for political goings-on.
ramage wrote: TM,
You beat me to the punch. Yes, I also assumed that the DOJ report was common knowledge. I guess not if you rely on CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, etc.
I just changed the title. Is that acceptable to the Courthouse?
ScienceChic wrote: “The Left”
I’m going to immediately veer right off topic because this topic is an example of what I don’t want to see here in the Courthouse. Your title started with labeling (in a demeaning manner) and moved right to an absolute, which isn’t reality.