Jump to content

The Red King

Members
  • Content Count

    708
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

538 Excellent

1 Follower

About The Red King

  • Rank
    RFA

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Silver Creek, NY

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I never once used the word 'crime' in this post. So...thanks for showing your bias, and lack of basic reading skills.
  2. Who said anything about a crime? Now I don't think you're even readng my replies.
  3. See, you're still not getting it. I'm not saying whether or not there was collusion, only that claiming the report said 'no collusion' is inaccurate. If the police say they do not have enough evidence to accuse 'suspect x' of a crime, does that suspect say 'See? The police said I didn't do it! They cleared me!". Of course not. Yet that's the leap you're trying to make. For the record, I think there was signifigant Russian interference in the election. I don't, however, think there was collusion. So no, I am not biased here. But again, to anyone that says outright the report says "No collusion", I say show me where. You're certainly allowed to come to any conclusion you want, but that is something you say, not the report. "Did not establish" is not the same as conclusively saying it did not happen.
  4. You can say 'The report did not find enough evidence to support collusion', and you would be accurate. But that is not the same thing as saying 'The report said no collusion.' The former suggests there is not enough evidence to support a conclusion. The latter suggests a definitive conclusion was reached, and it wasn't. Hell, the most accurate statement would be "The report did not find enough evidence to support collusion', which again isn't quite the same.
  5. Biting rebutal. Let's see if I can reply at your level. Um...you're a poo-poo head!
  6. When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me. What am I biased against, facts? The fact is, there were not enough facts to deny or establish collusion. At no point in my post did I say or even suggest there was collusion. Next time you read into my post, try actually reading it. Irony is, you showed your bias pretty well. Like the kid and a cookie jar example I gave, the report said there was not enough evidence to prove collusion. Nowhere in the report does it specifically state there was no collusion. This isn't opinion, it's concrete fact. Seriously, show me where in the report it specifically says 'no collusion'. Go on, I'll wait..
  7. The thread title is misleading. At no point did the report determine or state there was no collusion. Rather, it was their conclusion that there was not enough evidence to prove or disprove collusion. So, the report's answer to "Was there collusion?" is simply, "I dunno. Maybe?". And with all the time and effort invested, that's in some ways even more frustrating then a clear, decisive yes or no. At the same time, it is vexing to hear Trump and some Republicans repeatedly saying the Report confirmed no collusion when they damn well know that's a lie. Saying you didn't get a good enough look so you can't really say if a boy stole a cookie or not does not mean the kid didn't take one. It doesn't exonorate him. Yet that's exactly what Trump and the Republicans are claiming, despite knowing full well it is an outright lie. And they're doing so trusting many Americans won't actually read the report and as a result might actually buy the manure they're peddling.
  8. Two things here. First, it's understandable for sites to say the Bills suck until they don't. Only way they're getting respect is if they earn it. At the same time, calling them the fourth worst in the league is a display of ignorance that throws any credibility they had out the window, then ran it over with car for good measure. This isn't analytics. It's bagging on the Bills because it's safe and easy. That's just lazy writing.
  9. Lost respect for him two years back when he literally said the Bills' season was over before it started...and then the Bills went on to end the drought. 🤣
  10. Issues? This guy has subscriptions...anthologies, even! He's one incident from an afterschool special. 🤪
  11. ...and this is why I'm done with this thread. People skim, rather then read, then blindly fire off a reply. Reread what I said, the part you bolded, and the sentence following. Your entire reply is based off misreading mine. But you were just chomping at the bit, so fired up, that you had to reply without paying attention and end up looking the fool. Here, let me help... "I'm not saying they can't possibly be as good as..." To which you reply "Why not?" ...sooo...you want me to say they can't possibly be as good as the Pats and Chargers then? The rest of your post suggests otherwise. Next time, actually take time to fully read a reply, rather then skimming, assuming, and firing off a knee-jerk reply that makes you look foolish.
  12. My point is, it's not that it isn't possible, on paper it is. My point is, such claims are premature. This is an organization that went 1-31 before going 7-9-1. There were a lot of people saying they were a playoff team leading into last season. How well did those predictions play out? Talks of them being a playoff team this season are reasonable. But on par with the Pats and Chargers? Sorry, going to need to see a few games first.
  13. I guess time will tell. But if they're not every bit as good as the Pats and Chargers this season, I reserve the right to laugh my ass off at anyone on this post who's already declaring they are without a single down played. Remember, not just improved, but on par with the Pats and Chargers.
  14. Alright, since some are still missing the point, lemmie try again... I am not saying the Browns can't be a better team. I'm not saying they can't possibly end up as good as the Pats or Chargers. Not saying that at all. My problem is, they went 7-8-1 last season, a losing record. They made some changes that make them look good on paper alone. Yet, despite all that, people are already willing to put them on par with the Pats and Chargers before a single snap is played. That's where I take issue. The potential is there, yes, but maybe wait and see how all the parts actually work together for a game or two before crowning them best of the AFC.
×
×
  • Create New...