Neil N. Blowme
Verified User
Show me."Both men were eventually acquitted of Gibson's murder by a federal jury"
Show me."Both men were eventually acquitted of Gibson's murder by a federal jury"
I just did.Show me.
You're a liar.Is reading hard for you? From the link...
Both men were eventually acquitted of Gibson's murder by a federal jury, but they were convicted on the drug charges.
You're a liar.I just did.
I just did.
Fox News.You're a liar.
Youngkin, Miyares react to Biden granting clemency to 'cop killers': 'Utter disbelief'
Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin slams President Biden for granting clemency to two men who are in prison for drug charges in connection to the 1998 death of a police officer.www.foxnews.com
Youngkin, Miyares react to Biden granting clemency to 'cop killers': 'Utter disbelief'
Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin slams President Biden for granting clemency to two men who are in prison for drug charges in connection to the 1998 death of a police officer.www.foxnews.com
Oh... I guess I should have told the truth and said it is impossible for you to read.You're a liar.
Youngkin, Miyares react to Biden granting clemency to 'cop killers': 'Utter disbelief'
Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin slams President Biden for granting clemency to two men who are in prison for drug charges in connection to the 1998 death of a police officer.www.foxnews.com
Dude, you're a loser on a loser mission.We haven't even got to the embarrassing claims you made in the fourth paragraph. You might want to do some actual research next time.
Thoughts based on false facts aren't worth much. When you reach conclusions based on hope and denial and not reality, you are more than likely going to reach the wrong conclusion. I haven't proclaimed education. I am just smart enough to know when I don't know things so I try to find out the facts. Then I have learned that trying to fit the facts to a desired conclusion are likely to result in failure.
You creatures are habitual liars. You lie as natural as breathing. Go and gaslight some naive college kids.Oh... I guess I should have told the truth and said it is impossible for you to read.
You are presenting a subtle grammatical argument, that is just wrong. Basically, the claim is that because a sentence is supposed to be a complete thought, it contains only one attack. If there is a non-ad hominem attack in the sentence, it assumes that ad hominem attacks are in some way negated.
You are presenting a subtle grammatical argument, that is just wrong. Basically, the claim is that because a sentence is supposed to be a complete thought, it contains only one attack. If there is a non-ad hominem attack in the sentence, it assumes that ad hominem attacks are in some way negated.
There can be multiple attacks in a single sentence, and those attacks can be a mix of ad hominem and non-ad hominem attacks. I can even mix support with ad hominem attacks. An example would be to say, "you are right about your argument, but you are still a Nazi slut."
Says the guy that believes things to be true when they clearly aren't true.Dude, you're a loser on a loser mission.
Only you can fix that.
The poor child still hasn't proven he can read unlike even naive college kids.You creatures are habitual liars. You lie as natural as breathing. Go and gaslight some naive college kids.
Citation?But he did Blanche. He did pardon a cop killer. How did you not know that? How are you not starting threads about it? Posting this after you get called out on your duplicity doesn't cut it.
Go look it up. It is 2025. You should know how to search for something. Your thread is a joke.Citation?
So you got nothing, I figured.Go look it up. It is 2025. You should know how to search for something. Your thread is a joke.
wrongSo you got nothing, I figured.
He pardoned 0 cop killers.
Liewrong
Wrong