General Discussion

Beastly Boy

(13,283 posts)

60. Then, should I take it that you need to be proven wrong?

Sun Sep 17, 2023, 12:20 PM

Sep 2023

"I eagerly await you proving me wrong". That's you talking, not me.

And what possible vested interest can I have in proving you wrong, when I stated that there is nothing in your post to be proven wrong? Didn't I make it, to borrow the phrase, pellucidly clear?

And the portion of my post you bolded is actually a matter of record. You can verify it yourself by tracing back your own posts about Garland.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

88 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Now That DOJ Is Running Fact Checks On Gun Applications [View all] gab13by13 Sep 2023 OP

I'm pretty sure they will find tons of false information on gun applications.................... Lovie777 Sep 2023 #1

Will they be indicted for 3 felonies? gab13by13 Sep 2023 #2

That would depend on the circumstances of each inquiry, now wouldn't it? Beastly Boy Sep 2023 #27

So Hunter's case was more serious than Patrick Daniel's? gab13by13 Sep 2023 #35

That is up to the jury to decide, not me or you. And not Garland or Weiss. Beastly Boy Sep 2023 #48

A vulnerability of theirs that we should use to the hilt. wnylib Sep 2023 #5

+1 2naSalit Sep 2023 #20

A MOST interesting suggestion! calimary Sep 2023 #49

The idea was inspired by what I learned about the Salem witch trials. wnylib Sep 2023 #77

Hah! "Spectral evidence". calimary Sep 2023 #86

Have you ever seen the play or movie, The Crucible? wnylib Sep 2023 #88

I would love to see this. qwlauren35 Sep 2023 #58

Is this another bash DoJ/AG Garland thread? MarineCombatEngineer Sep 2023 #3

It doesn't seem that way to me radical noodle Sep 2023 #9

Fair enough, MarineCombatEngineer Sep 2023 #10

It's a great comeback when talking to MAGAts radical noodle Sep 2023 #12

EXCELLENT!!! calimary Sep 2023 #51

It works almost as well radical noodle Sep 2023 #83

Perfect! MorbidButterflyTat Sep 2023 #65

And she seems to own more than one firearm. sl8 Sep 2023 #14

To me, it seems like stretching an analogy to ridiculous extent in order to create yet another Beastly Boy Sep 2023 #29

Do you think that Hunter Biden was treated fairly by DOJ? gab13by13 Sep 2023 #11

I have no idea if he was treated fairly by the Garland's DoJ, MarineCombatEngineer Sep 2023 #13

So what are you following? Posters who think Garland was wrong to appoint a partisan hack like Weiss Autumn Sep 2023 #15

We can wait until the cows come home gab13by13 Sep 2023 #17

People who think Garland was wrong to appoint Weiss tend to be Beastly Boy Sep 2023 #32

100+. MarineCombatEngineer Sep 2023 #36

"every little thing he did as an AG" Sky Jewels Sep 2023 #37

That is implied in my post. Beastly Boy Sep 2023 #50

careful, Sky Jewels Skittles Sep 2023 #79

You're right. Sky Jewels Sep 2023 #81

he is definitely "central" Skittles Sep 2023 #82

Yes, the palatable pick that would have appeased the right, Sky Jewels Sep 2023 #84

Is this post a defense of Garland? gab13by13 Sep 2023 #39

All of a sudden? Beastly Boy Sep 2023 #52

Quit reading what I didn't say. I eagerly await you proving me wrong Autumn Sep 2023 #40

What is there in your post to be proven you are wrong? Beastly Boy Sep 2023 #54

I don't need to be proven right, you seem to have a need to prove people wrong. Autumn Sep 2023 #56

Then, should I take it that you need to be proven wrong? Beastly Boy Sep 2023 #60

Now you are stretching the discussion. Autumn Sep 2023 #61

There is no need to stretch the discussion. It only shows what I pointed out the first time around. Beastly Boy Sep 2023 #63

You said I and others would be proved wrong. We won't be. Autumn Sep 2023 #64

I didn't say you WOULD be proven wrong. I said you WERE proven wrong. Beastly Boy Sep 2023 #69

I must have slept though it and missed being proven wrong. Autumn Sep 2023 #74

I directed you to your own past posts and responses to them. Beastly Boy Sep 2023 #76

+1. pretty much sums it up stopdiggin Sep 2023 #71

You called me a Garland basher. gab13by13 Sep 2023 #16

Why not? They got away with it when Hillary was about to win. housecat Sep 2023 #25

so why isn't the NRA defending Hunter? azureblue Sep 2023 #33

"I have no idea", On its face that's horrible in and of itself uponit7771 Sep 2023 #22

Hunter should have made a plea deal that stuck RandomNumbers Sep 2023 #41

Once again, it is the jury that convicted Daniels Beastly Boy Sep 2023 #47

and we just had to sneak in Merrick Garland there somewhere stopdiggin Sep 2023 #70

Deservedly so, a politically driven SC for a gun charge is disgusting on its face ... period end of uponit7771 Sep 2023 #21

If Hunter had committed a crime with the gun he lied to get, prosecute. Freethinker65 Sep 2023 #4

+1000 wnylib Sep 2023 #6

100+. MarineCombatEngineer Sep 2023 #7

+1 uponit7771 Sep 2023 #24

there was also chatter azureblue Sep 2023 #34

+1000. Own it and get it over with. nt. RandomNumbers Sep 2023 #42

I'm betting malaise Sep 2023 #8

Joe should pardon not out of politics but because it is the compassionate thing to do usonian Sep 2023 #18

The Richard Painter tweet referenced in the article: sl8 Sep 2023 #19

Maybe she was Rebl2 Sep 2023 #23

Maybe Garland shouldn't appoint a special counsel in this case. Beastly Boy Sep 2023 #26

Weed is legal as is alcohol, so who cares if she was under the influence? intheflow Sep 2023 #28

100+. nt MarineCombatEngineer Sep 2023 #30

It's still illegal federally. sl8 Sep 2023 #31

She was in Denver where it's legal. intheflow Sep 2023 #38

It's illegal in the United States, including Denver. sl8 Sep 2023 #44

.... MarineCombatEngineer Sep 2023 #45

That's not how jurisdictions work. W_HAMILTON Sep 2023 #68

This message was self-deleted by its author stopdiggin Sep 2023 #72

I think federal law still applies in Denver -(nt)- stopdiggin Sep 2023 #73

It is not. ColinC Sep 2023 #43

Good lord, you want to go after her for smoking weed, intheflow Sep 2023 #46

You might be missing the point which is that the doj opened up a can of worms ecstatic Sep 2023 #59

Not "going after" her would be preferential treatment ColinC Sep 2023 #62

Weed is against federal law. Mr.Bill Sep 2023 #87

Thom Hartmann laid it all out gab13by13 Sep 2023 #53

Well, if you insist on going in circles: Beastly Boy Sep 2023 #55

+1. the 'gun app' charge stopdiggin Sep 2023 #75

I want Don Jr tested immediately. nt ecstatic Sep 2023 #57

Junior. KentuckyWoman Sep 2023 #66

Don't forget about that Madison Cawthorn guy... W_HAMILTON Sep 2023 #67

Well, maybe AncientOfDays Sep 2023 #78

K&R for visibility Blue Owl Sep 2023 #80

Except they aren't. FBaggins Sep 2023 #85