1) you're wrong. None have said they personally heard Trump explicitly tie the aid to his demands, but many have said he himself tied the white house meeting to his demand for a political gift, which is a crime, and just as many have said it was clear the funding was tied too, and never did anyone at the Whitehouse contradict that in any way, even when asked directly, until they knew they were under investigation.
2) trump himself released the summary transcript in which he ties the funding to the investigations of political rivals and nothing else. Even your stage 5 cranial rectosis can't shield you from that inconvenient truth.

A majority still say he should not only be impeached, but removed from office.

*facepalm. The lack of direct witnesses is because of Trump's obstruction, telling subordinates to ignore subpoenas. That alone is impeachable.
You probably mean they can call unrelated red herrings like Biden who has zero bearing on the charges.
1/2 the republican question time was wasted by them giving whining speeches about how they can't ask questions, and 1/4 spent whining that they can't use this time to investigate Biden....who has never been accused of anything illegal you might note. Edit: ....and the whistleblower, because clearly it's important to know who they are in order to destroy their lives, but not for any other possible reason.
Using impeachment to investigate political rivals and harass whistleblowers instead of investigating the president isn't going to help win independents, the only voters in play. Lose the Senate, which is likely, and Trump will be the first president to be impeached twice if he remains in office.

Oh Bobby, who cried the last two election nights? Not Democrats. I wasn't even surprised Trump won. I called that in spring 2016 when the DNC was caught helping Clinton and screwing Sanders.

You are right on one point, when the Turtle gets the case, he's going to tank it and Trump won't even get a slap on the wrist, but only because party loyalty is far more important to Republicans than national loyalty or rule of law, not because he didn't commit more crimes. In that sense, Democrats have lost. We all have.

But I don't write to you, it's for others who maybe wouldn't watch Trump rape and murder young boys then defend him. There is literally nothing he could do to make you stop riding his dick. Absolutely nothing. I'm not trying to convince you. You're a lost cause....and likely a Russian troll.

MAGA=Making Attorneys Get Attorneys

Congratulations! Your video, Daily Mail Gets A Boot Up Its Fetid Vagina on Question Time, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 36 Badge!

Russell deconstructs his appearances on Morning Joe and Question Time:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2013/jun/28/russell-brand-morning-joe-question-time

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2013/jun/28/russell-brand-morning-joe-question-time

Canadian Question Time beats Australian Question Time hands down.

>> ^messenger:
I have watched a lot of Hitch videos, and he did sweat and stammer a lot. In this debate, objectively, I think he was drunk of his gourd, the way he rambled off on tangents, and that may mean he "lost" the debate for wasting a good chunk of Craig's question time. A lot of what Hitch said was nonsense, but when he was talking on point, he didn't miss anything. It was Craig who kept missing the point that what atheists are saying is that we accept none of the theistic stories, that weak atheism is a not a strong position or a belief.

OR, if your and Craig's claim is that so-called "atheists" are redefining the word and making it mean something wrong, I still don't see what the problem is. We're telling you what we believe (or don't). There wasn't a label for what we are until it became necessary to have one that identified people with a unique faith system (a lack of one). If we're not using the word according to what you believe the original meaning is, so what. It's just a label. When most modern atheists use it, it's a shorthand for, "There is no religious faith system or description of God that I believe is correct." Note that this doesn't exclude any possibility. It only states that right now, I don't believe it.

If you don't know then you're agnostic. If you do know, then youre an atheist. There is no position inbetween I know and I don't know. It's that simple. That's why Hitchens had to admit "I do not therefore believe that God exists". The attempted redefinition of atheism simply a tactic to avoid any burden of proof.

>> ^messenger:
To your million dollar story, if you actually said those exact words to me, and as per your example, many others were in the habit of making the same promises which had always turned up empty, I would probably lump you in with the others and lose the opportunity, and so be it. If I didn't, I'd spend half my life digging up people's gardens. And yes, looking like an ass in public would be an additional penalty I'd work into the calculations.

Judging my decision as wrong based on the negative outcome is a logical fallacy, just as making a statistically incorrect play in poker, but still winning on a fluke doesn't make the decision correct. So if I make a logical decision -- the same one you made in your life many times before your numinous experiences started -- based on the information I have, it is the logical one.

My point had nothing to do with statistics. The point was how ridiculous it is to spend so much time doing everything you can to rule the claim out except to actually test it directly. Especially considering that there is nothing to lose in testing it, and everything to gain. So no, it isn't logical, and since you can pray in your room, you don't have to embarass yourself doing it.

>> ^messenger:
On another note: how can you assure me that what happened to you will also happen to me? Do you have personal experience that shows that everyone with no faith or numinous experience who tries opening their hearts to Jesus succeeds in being entered by the Holy Spirit? You never had to do so, so how would you know it always works?

What Jesus is interested in, foremost, is sincerity. Ask yourself these questions; if Jesus is God, would you turn your life over to Him? Would you serve Him the rest of your days? Would you place your entire faith and trust in Him alone? If you can answer yes to those questions, and you sincerely want to know if Jesus really is God, then there is no doubt He will answer your prayer. It may not come immediately, but it will come, and it will be undeniable.

I have watched a lot of Hitch videos, and he did sweat and stammer a lot. In this debate, objectively, I think he was drunk of his gourd, the way he rambled off on tangents, and that may mean he "lost" the debate for wasting a good chunk of Craig's question time. A lot of what Hitch said was nonsense, but when he was talking on point, he didn't miss anything. It was Craig who kept missing the point that what atheists are saying is that we accept none of the theistic stories, that weak atheism is a not a strong position or a belief.

OR, if your and Craig's claim is that so-called "atheists" are redefining the word and making it mean something wrong, I still don't see what the problem is. We're telling you what we believe (or don't). There wasn't a label for what we are until it became necessary to have one that identified people with a unique faith system (a lack of one). If we're not using the word according to what you believe the original meaning is, so what. It's just a label. When most modern atheists use it, it's a shorthand for, "There is no religious faith system or description of God that I believe is correct." Note that this doesn't exclude any possibility. It only states that right now, I don't believe it.

To your million dollar story, if you actually said those exact words to me, and as per your example, many others were in the habit of making the same promises which had always turned up empty, I would probably lump you in with the others and lose the opportunity, and so be it. If I didn't, I'd spend half my life digging up people's gardens. And yes, looking like an ass in public would be an additional penalty I'd work into the calculations.

Judging my decision as wrong based on the negative outcome is a logical fallacy, just as making a statistically incorrect play in poker, but still winning on a fluke doesn't make the decision correct. So if I make a logical decision -- the same one you made in your life many times before your numinous experiences started -- based on the information I have, it is the logical one.

On another note: how can you assure me that what happened to you will also happen to me? Do you have personal experience that shows that everyone with no faith or numinous experience who tries opening their hearts to Jesus succeeds in being entered by the Holy Spirit? You never had to do so, so how would you know it always works?>> ^shinyblurry:

I think any objective observer would have to admit that Christopher just completely folded..he was stammering and unsure of himself, a rare thing for him, but there it is on video.

Dumb question time: how do the lions know it's his last day?

>> ^Matthu:

@NetRunner
What about AV?


If by AV you mean Alternative Vote/Instant Run-off Voting, I like it. Wish we could implement it here, along with real proportional representation, abolishing the Senate, making the President have to submit to question time, being able to have votes of no confidence, etc.

Here's the opening statement he made prior to the Question Time: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/35147119#35147119

This was a farce.

They should have renamed this edition of Question Time "The Nick Griffin Character Assassination Hour".

I totally love this shit. Aussie Question Time has its moments, but this is completely off the show.

>> ^Fletch:
Peter's a prick.


Hes the question-time nazi.

"NO QUESTIONS FOR YOU!!"

Watched the whole thing on TV the other night and it was pretty compelling.

FYI, the complete programme can be watched here...

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3624855936690261630&q=question+time