Mueller testimony

He will win.

Peter Strzok has filed a wrongful termination suit on the FBI and DOJ.

This should be special.

Banks have been handing over thousands of pages of documents related to business ties between Russians and Trump to congressional committees investigating the President, while other banks have been producing information to New York state investigators probing the Trump org.

LOL

Another self-aware comment...

Not really. I usually end with that after you've already sunk to name calling and I'm done with that particular topic.

You always come back to that.

It is the comfort food of your responses to me.

LOL

.....fat man, stuck in the middle again.

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right...

Tbr.... you might want to try a little more thinking before pointing that finger. When you use an all inclusive term like “all” you have nowhere to hide. You are wrong. But you’ll never admit that because you don’t have the fortitude or humility.

LOL.

I thought you were the scientist...

Unless you know a source has 0% reliability, you're an idiot, or blinded by bias, if you dismiss it without verifying it.

If your car only starts one out of 100 times, it's not reliable. When you need it in an emergency you'd be a fool not to try it.

Those are extremes used to make the point that TBR dismissing FoxNews as a source is ridiculous and is only due to his bias.

Stop trying to think.

You suck at it.

Tbr.... you are correct about “reliability”. However, you only said that after your original statement of all. Stop moving the goalpost. All you had to do was admit your choice of words was too limiting and that you were wrong in your original statement. Then move on to your point on reliability. On the reliability point, I would have and do agree.

Reliability has a definition.

I suggest you both look it up.

What do you do when your car only starts one out every hundred times you turn the key?

Humans do not have the capability to be unbiased.

All organizations are run by humans.

You do the math...

Tbr....”If the Enquirer gets 1 out of a thousand stories right, you would be a fool to think of them as a reliable source.”

But ONE is all it takes when you say “all”. I was actually backing you up until I looked back at your post. If you said most or the majority, you would surely have been correct.

Perf.... yes, he did say “all” sources are biased and it is all inclusive statements like that which are the downfall of an argument. The problem is that even with a statement like that which gives no room for even one unbiased source, he will throw some bullshit “theory” out there like it is as proven as gravity and he win claim he is correct.

LOL.

You are increasingly ridiculous.

If the Enquirer gets 1 out of a thousand stories right, you would be a fool to think of them as a reliable source.

But we know the answer to that.

You'd be wrong.

Even the National inquirer gets a story right now and then. To dismiss a story based on the source alone, even though that source has been correct before, shows you have no critical thinking. It shows your bias controls you. It means you actually made a good decision going into the school of Arts instead of Science.

LOL.

I would think you should probably leave the critical thinking to others...

"Dude, wouldn’t that mean that he thought the source was biased? You are confirming his assertion. "

But he said ALL sources were biased. duh! That means there is no source worth quoting.

Perf....”I have seen you many times dismiss something because of the source.”

Dude, wouldn’t that mean that he thought the source was biased? You are confirming his assertion.

LOL.

Pot, meet kettle...

I have seen you many times dismiss something because of the source.

Have you ever, in over ten years, seen me post that there are unbiased sources?