See, we all thought that.
Turns out the problem wasn't that they committed genocide. It's that the genocide was directed at the Jewish people.
And as Netanyahu would have you believe, if you're against Israel, you're against the Jewish people. So that makes you a Nazi.
Flawless logic, clearly.
/s
At this point I can only understand it if I know who's saying it.
That is the most frustrating thing about discussion these days. Everyone using the same words but speaking an entirely different language.
When you don't agree on the definitions of words anymore, or you don't hold yourself to using them in good faith, then you take discussion off the table. You're no longer debating; now you are just arguing. It's one step away from violence.
There are no bad dogs. Only bad dog owners.
Karma is just debt for morality.
The Brood War remaster was actually pretty good, too. It was the last Blizzard product I bought.
Don't you put that evil on me, Ricky Bobby!
Hmm, I see, I see... But, pray tell...
The GOP logic seems to go like this.
So, obstruction of justice is legal now, so long as you succeed. Got it. Thanks.
Also, fuck off. I'm not reading another reply. You are unwilling to discuss this topic in good faith, or you lack the brain cells to do so.
If you think growing up in a conservative household guarantees a kid becomes conservative, you didn't grow up in a conservative household.
Insufficient evidence to prove a crime? Maybe. I disagree, but I'm neither a lawyer nor a judge.
But "collusion" itself isn't a crime, and the evidence clearly showed evidence of collusion between the GOP and Russia.
The number of connections between the GOP and Russia, financially and ideologically, and Russia's proven interference in 2016 and since (not to mention the GOP visit to Moscow on July 4th) are evidence enough to show there is "collusion".
The problem is our laws on campaign finance and foreign political influence are Swiss cheese.
And then they turn around and act like, "Well, he didn't get convicted of a crime, so clearly it was all a hoax."
No. It wasn't a hoax. There was evidence. Just not enough to do anythong about it, apparently. (And I still argue only because of the amount of interference run on the investigation.)
EDIT: And just in case you want to come back and obtusely repeat your argument, here's the report in full. After 181 pages of evidence, here's the conclusion.
IV. CONCLUSION Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
Its in black and white: they had already determined that they would not make a "prosecutorial judgment" (recommendation to charge Trump with a crime), since Barr said that should be left to the Impeachment process. But despite that, the report makes clear, in no unclear terms...
Persistent rumors that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia over the election became the catnip that drove reporting. [...]
But when the Mueller report found no credible evidence of collusion [...]
Aaaaand I stopped reading.
The Mueller Report absolutely found credible evidence of collusion, despite heavy-handled interference by Trump, Barr, and the rest of the GOP. It unfortunately failed to result in any prosecution (in no small part due to Barr), and failed to pressure Republicans to vote to remove Trump when he was impeached.
As disappointing as it is to see it end, 5 seasons is a decent run, and I'd rather it end before they "jump the shark" or just fizzle out.
Something tells me Bill is saying that publicly, then discreetly paying lobbyists to oppose such moves.