DFT

Hmmm... Trump is a racist or a pervert. Can you produce at least 2 cases where he has been found guilty of such? To make such a claim, one would undoubtedly be able to show the court proceedings where he has been charged (and found guilty) in a court of law for a hate crime or molestation...

Outstanding and well deserved. We’re finally starting to drift back to the reality of one “earning “ the award instead of it just being handed to them because of reasons other than peaceful accomplishments. If I’m on the left, I attack this with all I’ve got because it destroys my narrative that Trump is a racist anti-military dictator who created a virus in his home. Watch them flock to it...

You want me to show the end results of a potential investigation? Like... You want me to tell you who’s guilty before the investigation is even concluded? Hmm... That sounds dangerously un-American, even for a socialist such as yourself. Oh C-section... That’s where your slow thread pull lead??? I’m very disappointed that you couldn’t be a little more creative. Let’s let your attorney general take the lead on your request to specifically name at least “2” generals that are presently guilty of treasonous acts. You see, we have a judicial system designed to investigate matters like these. Once they discover, I’m sure they’ll disclose. I understand your nervousness though. Up until the last few years, I wouldn’t have trusted them much myself. May your day be filled with Jesus! Last I checked side means a position to the left or right? So if we’re speaking about bi-partisan political aisles, are we to ignore the independent vote? Because that would mean 3. Those darned alternative facts. Again, I’ve enjoyed your slow road to nowhere, C. Back to the “herpe filter” with you.

Hoaxes and boats!

Fake news! If I wanted to copy a lib, I’d strap on my pink helmet, scream at the sky and accuse you of being a racist, you lyin dog-faced pony soldier. And there are 4 sides of an aisle when you count the entry and exit.. you’d make a terrible Jedi. Thank god for antifa’s low standards.

Hoax! I think both said pretty plainly that there are many guilty parties on every side of the aisle.

By your intentional absence of logic there’s no such thing as war profiteering then. Just a made up term, right? Lockheed Martin isn’t a 40+ Billion dollar supplier of all things war for America. There’s no way they’d be incentivized to facilitate war mongering among politicians and high-ranking military officials who despite earning a streamlined salary, now represent the wealthiest and most powerful in America somehow. Let’s lob in a softball, shall we? One that shows this isn’t a partisan issue but a bi-partisan act of corruption in the swamp... Dick Cheney.

Funny... Her actions are actually worse than her words, according to her record and how quickly she dropped out as a presidential candidate.

In her 2009 book, “Smart on Crime,” she wrote that “if we take a show of hands of those who would like to see more police officers on the street, mine would shoot up,” adding that “virtually all law-abiding citizens feel safer when they see officers walking a beat.” Earlier this summer, in the wake of the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, she told The New York Times that “it is status-quo thinking to believe that putting more police on the streets creates more safety. That’s wrong. It’s just wrong.” guess you forgot to carry the “1”...

“I'll be back when Biden wins. Until then, sayonara all.” - Make Honestly Great Again

“I'll be back when Biden wins. Until then, sayonara all.” - Mostly truthful fibber

“I'll be back when Biden wins. Until then, sayonara all.” - code of lies

“I'll be back when Biden wins. Until then, sayonara all.“ - Liar

Hey!!!! But the boaters distract from the voters!!!!

“ And I would’ve got away with it too, if it wasn’t for you darn polls!!!!” If Joe would have just come out with an honest intent on his running platform of, “I’m not sure what I’m for or against yet, until the polls tell me what to be for or against”, we could all have so much more harmony amongst us! Boaters gonna boat, though!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2020/08/09/joe-bidens-doubletalk-on-defund-the-police/amp/ The truth shall always set you free!

I haven’t seen a walk back like that since Biden’s... Mask mandate Defund the police promise No fracking policy Not condemning riots Gonna be a good day!!!

One of the best extensions Buffalo has ever done. Proud of this organization and especially Tre!

It could absolutely happen. Goedert is waiting in the wings. I think what’s understated though is the Bills affinity for Knox. But it could happen, definitely.

I can relate very much to these sentiments. When you see it Up close for what it is, you cannot unsee it. My epiphany was from seeing something first hand, then hearing how it was broadcasted Completely untruthfully. I was shocked. I knew who was there and trusted that media source. I remember being excited to hear their report and instead being mortified by their complicit deceit. That’s why I truly feel bad for those that haven’t seen it personally, because I completely understand how easy it is to WANT to believe what you’re seeing on tv is truthful. But it isn’t, unfortunately. And once you know and begin to look deeper beyond your own apparent understanding, what you find is shocking.

I know that MANY people wouldn’t give a court a DNA sample without an order, but that doesn’t prove guilt. Our society becomes both very different and dangerous when we allow our perceptions to become indictable realities beyond our courts. And to my point that I offered, What are your thoughts (and if you don’t feel like sharing, no harm or foul). “so Billstime, my question is (after reviewing your own history posting here), would you believe a Buffalo Bills draft/FA rumor without credibility or proof? Would this board tolerate it, or would it be labeled a “rumor” or be closed due to disinformation? I think we can all follow the conclusion that threads claiming factual information without any incline of proof, evidence or a source are severely unacceptable on a football-driven website. So why is football conversation held to a higher standard than a conversation held around a president, or even more plainly, a human being? Why would we expect standards be met when discussing rumors of little actual importance, but we remove those standards for what’s truly important?”

First, thank you sincerely for your service. I’m sorry I never gave you that respect before. lastly, I also think there’s good with Trump, but for different reasons (knowing him before his becoming president and what he did for the Kelly’s as one example). But I can’t stand willingly and call him a “good man”. For me, it’s stepping back and believing that his flaws are transparent, something none of us are used to in a sitting president. But I don’t condone his language and other things that know URL’s his opposition. My personal beliefs dictate those feelings. all that said, in my career, with what I’ve witnessed personally, I can say for sure that the media is projecting in many cases a falsity. How stark it contrasts is even more concerning. So for me at least, knowing there’s tremendous dishonesty that’s beyond doubt (having seen it personally), I believe his being the person we see through Twitter is not a mistake. It’s intentional for the purpose of showing the massive opposition he faces, that he won’t shy from it. But I’ll never condone what we all know to be his human weaknesses. That said (and just being human), I find myself wondering how I would react if I were him. My history on this forum has shown that when I am faced with an opposing view and I lose my own composure, I tend to stray from the person I want to be. just my thoughts on the matter though.

Her article: “Griffin cited two anonymous former “senior” U.S. officials in her reporting, saying they confirmed “key parts” of The Atlantic‘s story. However, she added that the sources could not confirm “the most salacious” part.“ the President’s concern: “Jennifer Griffin of Fox News Did Not Confirm ‘Most Salacious‘ Part of Atlantic Story https://breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/09/04/jennifer-griffin-of-fox-news-did-not-confirm-most-salacious-part-of-atlantic-story/… via @BreitbartNews All refuted by many witnesses. Jennifer Griffin should be fired for this kind of reporting. Never even called us for comment. @FoxNews is gone!” so my question is, why if your sources are unimpeachable, would you not ask the group the story is about? Why would you not present the facts to the person to hear their side? Why would anyone have an issue with a sitting president speaking about the dangers of unsubstantiated claims? You have posts on this very forum where posters have accused you of such that you refer to them as baseless, yet you yourself are firing off at the president for doing what you’ve demonstrably done yourself; Accuse liars who can’t produce evidence, of lying. help me understand, Kemp.

I appreciate your supplying constant opinion-based rebuffs to all things Trump. But clicking on your link, (I thought you were drawing the group to new facts.) it’s clear that even the sources you’re quoting can’t show a shred of evidence beyond their opinion. For instance, reviewing the source you quoted, her feed reads hateful of Men, Republicans, Caucasians and other things that are really unfortunate. Also, if you review her affiliations, she’s a member of several groups that aligned against Trump before these things came to a head. In fact, her timeline of events shows she is moving from place to place to spread her hatred. All of that aside, she still doesn’t produce anything remotely evidentiary. Just “sources”. so Billstime, my question is (after reviewing your own history posting here), would you believe a Buffalo Bills draft/FA rumor without credibility or proof? Would this board tolerate it, or would it be labeled a “rumor” or be closed due to disinformation? I think we can all follow the conclusion that threads claiming factual information without any incline of proof, evidence or a source are severely unacceptable on a football-driven website. So why is football conversation held to a higher standard than a conversation held around a president, or even more plainly, a human being? Why would we expect standards be met when discussing rumors of little actual importance, but we remove those standards for what’s truly important? my hope is only to understand what I’m told can’t be understood. I want to see your perspective and try myself to better respect them. So this is your moment, to show the board you are better than how you present yourself. I’m trying to do the same. Let’s discuss if you wouldn’t mind. My thanks in advance.

“Michelle Obama has entered the chat”