Milwaukee riots

[MadNyeTheHydroGuy]

i already showed you a conviction.

are you fucking retarded?

You showed me a picture. A picture of a man. I can sjow you a hundred pictures of hillary but that doesnt make anything i say any more or less credible. Despite the fact that many of her crimes and immoral behavior are public knowledge, and many records exist supporting her conduct, you were adamant that a lack of a conviction excused it all and made it not relevant. When presented with the same challenge, you have not presented a source for a conviction, a court record, anything. More importantly in keeping with your own standards, this source must be from a completely politically neutral provider.

Unless, of course, you would care to admit that a conviction isnt always proof of wrongdoings, and the fact that hillary or her associates havent been formally dragged into court (yet) and convicted doesnt discredit any of her current (or past) crimes and immoral conduct...?

 

[UncleBuck]

You showed me a picture. A picture of a man.

yeah, and he was convicted for his role in the 9/11 terrorist plot.

are you fucking stupid?

a conviction isnt always proof of wrongdoings

but, according to you, a complete and utter lack of convictions is.

just stop trying.

you have no friends, a tiny penis, and cannot win.

 

[MadNyeTheHydroGuy]

yeah, and he was convicted for his role in the 9/11 terrorist plot.

are you fucking stupid?

So for the umpteenth time, where is the conviction? And for that matter, where is the conviction for his associates? And the conviction for his organization? Link the source to his conviction. Or is there a complete and utter lack of conviction?

you have no friends, a tiny penis, and cannot win.

Attempt to link with unsavory sub-cultures.
Attack the man, not his ideas.

Uh oh, falling back on this old trick again, huh? Cant back up your arguments, cant even back up your own line of 'reasoning' so fall back on good ole plan b? My dick is getting soft over here waiting on you to back yourself up, which is wierd because this feels pretty good.

Oh im winning my friend, in fact..... Ive already won.... Muahhahahaa

 

[UncleBuck]

So for the umpteenth time, where is the conviction?

cram beef jerky up your asshole.

 

[MadNyeTheHydroGuy]

cram beef jerky up your asshole.

Do not engage directly in debate! This leaves you open to attack, and having holes poked in your argument. Dance around topics, and do not answer questions or challenges posed to you!
Repetition Repetition Repetition!


So those convictions...?

P.S. you ever get around to figuring out how banks and credit unions work?

 

[UncleBuck]

you should not have actually crammed beef jerky up your asshole. i was being sarcastic.

 

[MadNyeTheHydroGuy]

you should not have actually crammed beef jerky up your asshole. i was being sarcastic.

So what you are saying is you CANT source convictions.

 

[UncleBuck]

So what you are saying is you CANT source convictions.

yep.

nope.

maybe.

i don't know.

 

[MadNyeTheHydroGuy]

yep.

nope.

maybe.

i don't know.

So what your saying is that a conviction, while being a solid form of proof, isnt necessarily the only way to tell if an event happened, and under certain circumstances there may never be a conviction, due to political forces and complexities. Furthermore, you are saying there may be other forms of evidence such as eyewitness testimony and public records that suggest to those that can take an impartial stance that something happened and the full story isnt being revieled.

 

[UncleBuck]

So what your saying is that...under certain circumstances there may never be a conviction

for example, if the person you want to convict is dead.

is it really this hard for you to follow along on how wrong you are?