*cinema *comics *scifi

Oops. I forgot to submit this. I failed.

Oh Bob, comparing apples to turd sandwiches again I see.

Let's see the other video comparing the Republican's position in 98 to their position today....oops, I guess you forgot they were insistent that it ALL be public when it was about Clinton, including destroying uncharged individuals like Lewinsky, grand jury testimony, finances, taxes, etc. Back then it was unconscionable that any snippet of information Starr found be kept private, the public had a right to know everything they can about the president, today they argued the Barr report was the end all, no need to open the redacted Mueller report at all, forget letting anyone see it all even in closed session and absolutely not the public, ever....and the unredacted report should probably be destroyed before it leaks.

Just duh, Bob. You're grasping again.

oops

Oops....no, we aren't.
I mistakenly thought this comment was about the Ellen Hunk Tac Toe video posted at the same time.
My mistake, sorry.

Afraid it's a *dupof=https://videosift.com/video/Once-in-a-Lifetime-Talking-Heads

(edit) oops seems i forgot that e

1) Yes they are...they are his and his group's interpretations of other people's studies (unsupported interpretations the studies authors almost always disagree with)...I just saw a video of him shouting it at people on the street. His, and his cohorts that also lie about health issues to convert the gullible to their cause.
You see, it's exactly as I warned long ago, when you use statements from known liars to back up proven lies, no one trusts what you claim or those you reference to corroborate you at all anymore.

2) If they aren't his claims, then why post a video of him with a crowd shouting them....why mention him and his dishonest groups at all? Edit: oops, forgot you didn't post this one, but you do post him all the time.

3) Nope. Not trolling. Contradicting knowingly false statements....with scientific evidence and math on my side. I understand you are trying to insult, guilt, and shame people away from examining and debunking your claims, for myself, that only makes me want to examine more closely to see how deep the misunderstanding and misstatement of facts goes, exposing it so it doesn't spread.

Have you dropped the insane claim that risk increases 18% for every single slice of bacon consumed? (Yes, that's what you claimed) You stopped defending it, so i think so, but you never admit your misstatements, so who knows?

Interesting you ignored the second paragraph completely, since it proves your miraculous cancer claims are fantasy.

Perhaps you are ignorant of the fact that the vast majority cross where walls already exist. To answer your question, nearly all of them would still try. Do you really think a fence is deterrence when the alternative is go home and see your family raped to death before you're decapitated? Would you just say "oops, sorry, didn't mean to trigger you....let me just take my daughter back to the narcos for a life of sex slavery and just die then, so sorry."?

A better immigration policy that makes it easier to get a work visa or asylum at ports of entry instead of making illegal entry easier, simpler, cheaper, and faster would discourage people from taking the easier, but illegal path. We are moving the other direction, which is why illegal immigration is on the rise under Trump after falling steadily for decades.

This doesn't cost America except for fighting it, they make us money with cheap labor, taxation without representation or access to government assistance, and by lowering the per capita crime rates by being far less criminal on average than Americans. You want to deport a group that's well above average in criminality, that would be Republican politicians and or Trump associates...no one will miss a single one.

A $50 billion wall (Trump's never built anything that wasn't at least 100% over budget) that can be evaded with a ladder, shovel, car, truck, saw, torch, boat, plane, and in many many places, absolutely nothing (it's no longer a single solid wall from coast to gulf, it's now a fence in a few more places for your $50 billion.) is not just vastly more expensive, it's also uselessly wasting that money for almost zero return, the few places it might help will just see the migrant paths move a few miles over.

If we had a 40+ ft high, 20 ft deep, 4+ft thick reinforced concrete wall coast to coast that was somehow ladder proof, it still wouldn't stop most illegal immigration or drug trafficking, because the vast majority of both come through ports of entry. The wall is a useless solution to a non existent problem that's been solving itself for decades....side note: what do you think it was like in the good old days when America was "great"? Contrary to Chump's claims, operation wetback (that he wants to reimplement) was a failure....
https://www.cato.org/blog/enforcement-didnt-end-unlawful-immigration-1950s-more-visas-did

It's funny how sure people sound that they know what happened based on a few "media reports"(oops, turns out he's not a Vietnam Vet!). There's video out there, educate yourself people! The drummers did walk into the crowd of teenagers purposefully. The kids likely didn't even know he was part of a protest, just that he was getting in their faces and banging his drum. Some even sang along with him.

The description here "decided to surround and block, taunt, and threaten a native American veteran performing a ceremony" is all false.

Somewhat belated, but thanks I've just discovered where my missing notifications had been going... oops... I didn't realise my mail program wouldn't download them if they were in the junk folder. I've given it a stern talking to.

Oops....guess he forgot about Trump tower Moscow, which was in the works until mid summer 2016....or that every person working for his campaign was hand picked by the Kremlin while they dangled that project in front of Trump.
What a maroon.

Oops. That information is NOT presented anywhere.

What I was thinking, and didn't say, is that legally there is no case.

Consent at the beginning is not consent at the end. A man can rape his wife. That wasn't possible for most of human history -- it is now.

So although there is plenty of evidence that she gave consent at the beginning -- video proof of consent -- that doesn't mean that he didn't do something later that the university looked at and said -- apparently, since they expelled him -- constituted sexual intercourse without consent.

How they arrived at that conclusion, we don't know. It is missing from what is reported here.

It is absolutely not clear to me that he is "clearly innocent".

Because a man can rape his wife. Right? Do you agree, @Mordhaus?

That lovely video showing that consent is like offering tea lays out the logic pretty clearly. Saying yes to tea at one point is not the same as saying yes to tea when you are passed out.

i am NOT saying that the university did the correct thing. I don't have any knowledge of what they based their decision to expel upon.

And nor does anyone here, as far as I can tell.

(edit) oops was suppose go up there ^

Oops, *kill