I'm frothing at the mouth.
That's funny, I am basically mildly amused at your grasps to discredit me, much the same way a 2 year old making shit up on the spot is unbelievable to the adults in the room.
So what is proof? What is hearsay?
There is no way for any of us to prove anything, you need proper chain of custody, you need a courtroom to present it, and you need a judge to accept it as fact. Therefore nothing we talk about is proof. Demanding proof on an anonymous internet forum is impossible, and that fact is known by all. Anyone that demands proof, is like demanding proof that a random goldfish had a specific dream last night. Impossible and you know it. Demanding proof only means you are attempting to steer a narrative into something more favorable, because you know that nothing is provable in this arena. It is a technique used to discredit the messenger who is delivering a common sense statement.
If I referenced a propaganda argument on the internet that supported my assertion, that wouldn't be proof. If I referenced the surgeon's background and his bank statements, that also would not be proof, it would be evidence. But moshie, you already know that, hence your demand for "proof".
Why are you working so hard to discredit my opinion that Joan was killed becuase she exposed Big Mike?
I didn't demand proof. I said "coincidence is not proof". You 'extrapolated' (using your words here) that simple statement into me demanding proof. You could have handled this way better than you did, but you chose to be a dumb ass dipshit about it. Now you're just making yourself look increasingly moronic by the second by suggesting there is no such thing as proof of anything online. If there's not proof of anything outside of a courtroom, then your original assertion is nothing more than hearsay and conjecture. You have now died on the hill that was nothing at all. Good work, genius.
Funny how you said "and you need a judge to accept it as fact" in your argument here. You really didn't think that statement through because liberal judges accept all kinds of things as fact even when they are not true. Liberal judges have accepted as fact that the 2020 election was fair and not stolen. You don't believe that though. See how that works? Are you done proving your ignorance yet or will you double down once again on being retarded?
Well, I certainly didn't see any proof the 2020 election was stolen. Show me proof then we can continue.
(post is archived)