Because it was irrelevant to the conversation. Did Trump send government officials to conduct surveillance and spy on his adversaries while simultaneously violating their 4th amendment? Because sending a business associate on a fishing expedition isn’t that.

You're technically correct. But even though this is not in the Constitution, it's usually illegal for one person to follow another person everywhere they go.  You know that, right?

---

The statements of the ukrainians exculpate the president of the current charges.  If you charge him with murdering someone whose still demonstrably alive then theres no evidence that can trump the guys pulse.  

Ukraine's president will say anything to make his country and his regime seem strong.
And in any case, he can't be brought in to testify under oath.

Lol...  so the president of Ukraine is lying, the transcript that cooperates his testimony is lying, the democratic witnesses who all testified they had no knowledge that the ukrainians knew the aid was even on hold are lying....  lol.  Has the world gone stark raving mad.

---

You're technically correct. But even though this is not in the Constitution, it's usually illegal for one person to follow another person everywhere they go.  You know that, right?

---

Ukraine's president will say anything to make his country and his regime seem strong.
And in any case, he can't be brought in to testify under oath.

1. Did you follow Giuliani (?) to know he followed someone (?) everywhere? If not you, who did? Or did Schiff just make that up too?

2. Do you personally know that Zelensky would "say anything to make his country and regime seem strong?" Or maybe Schiff made up that whopper too? In any case, Zelensky loses nothing by claiming that Trump threatened to withhold funds so your statement is ridiculous. He already got the funds, and the Dems in the House would probably send him $10B next year if he took down Trump.

Mike this is a perfect example of why I call you disingenuous. I don't think you're a liar, but I was going to point out the same objections as Malabar. Your bias skews the argument completely outside the realm of the defensible. The bolded parts above are stated like they are facts, when they are not. It's completely presumptuous for you to present them that way. Who can argue against the made-up intent you inject into the discussion? You should retract it, figure out where your'e inserting your bias into the discussion, and stop it.
 
I know for a fact that the Ukraine president considers honesty the preeminent virtue. He would NEVER tell a lie, no matter what. Interesting fact: he also thinks you're a moron.

---

Because it was irrelevant to the conversation. Did Trump send government officials to conduct surveillance and spy on his adversaries while simultaneously violating their 4th amendment? Because sending a business associate on a fishing expedition isn’t that.

You're technically correct. But even though this is not in the Constitution, it's usually illegal for one person to follow another person everywhere they go.  You know that, right?

---

The statements of the ukrainians exculpate the president of the current charges.  If you charge him with murdering someone whose still demonstrably alive then theres no evidence that can trump the guys pulse.  

Ukraine's president will say anything to make his country and his regime seem strong.
And in any case, he can't be brought in to testify under oath.

You can follow people anywhere so long as it’s in public. You know that, right?

Are you suggesting that people were now followed everywhere they go by Trump associates?

---

You're technically correct. But even though this is not in the Constitution, it's usually illegal for one person to follow another person everywhere they go.  You know that, right?

---

Ukraine's president will say anything to make his country and his regime seem strong.
And in any case, he can't be brought in to testify under oath.

1. Did you follow Giuliani (?) to know he followed someone (?) everywhere? If not you, who did? Or did Schiff just make that up too?

2. Do you personally know that Zelensky would "say anything to make his country and regime seem strong?" Or maybe Schiff made up that whopper too? In any case, Zelensky loses nothing by claiming that Trump threatened to withhold funds so your statement is ridiculous. He already got the funds, and the Dems in the House would probably send him $10B next year if he took down Trump.

---

MB, I have no doubt your ire for the Kavanaugh hearings, you've clearly & eloquently stated it before. I understand and can appreciate that perspective. I, like Brett, like beer too. 

But the latter part of your statement leads to another question: Do you believe the witnesses democrats want to call would fabricate lies?

Is the Pope Catholic?

OK, maybe not the best response these days. Please substitute the one about the bear.

So it's your opinion that not just Bolton, but Pompeo, Mulvaney, Perry and Trump (to name a few of the sought-after witnesses) would be untruthful under oath? 

No pun intended, but I find that (your opinion) hard to believe.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

1. Did you follow Giuliani (?) to know he followed someone (?) everywhere? If not you, who did? Or did Schiff just make that up too?

2. Do you personally know that Zelensky would "say anything to make his country and regime seem strong?" Or maybe Schiff made up that whopper too? In any case, Zelensky loses nothing by claiming that Trump threatened to withhold funds so your statement is ridiculous. He already got the funds, and the Dems in the House would probably send him $10B next year if he took down Trump.

---

Is the Pope Catholic?

OK, maybe not the best response these days. Please substitute the one about the bear.

So it's your opinion that not just Bolton, but Pompeo, Mulvaney, Perry and Trump (to name a few of the sought-after witnesses) would be untruthful under oath? 

No pun intended, but I find that (your opinion) hard to believe.

Not all of them, but you didn't ask that.

Some have grudges against Trump, so it's possible that they'd lie to spite him. I'd expect at least one of those you listed to lie, after all they're politicians and deep staters.

But even if the odds are only 10%, the risk of a lie is real. The Dems have lost the chance to call belated witnesses by their belated lies in the Kavanaugh hearing.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

1. Did you follow Giuliani (?) to know he followed someone (?) everywhere? If not you, who did? Or did Schiff just make that up too?

2. Do you personally know that Zelensky would "say anything to make his country and regime seem strong?" Or maybe Schiff made up that whopper too? In any case, Zelensky loses nothing by claiming that Trump threatened to withhold funds so your statement is ridiculous. He already got the funds, and the Dems in the House would probably send him $10B next year if he took down Trump.

Mike this is a perfect example of why I call you disingenuous. I don't think you're a liar, but I was going to point out the same objections as Malabar. Your bias skews the argument completely outside the realm of the defensible. The bolded parts above are stated like they are facts, when they are not. It's completely presumptuous for you to present them that way. Who can argue against the made-up intent you inject into the discussion? You should retract it, figure out where your'e inserting your bias into the discussion, and stop it.
 
I know for a fact that the Ukraine president considers honesty the preeminent virtue. He would NEVER tell a lie, no matter what. Interesting fact: he also thinks you're a moron.

So you're saying the idea that Lev Parnas or one of his associates surveilled the Ukraine ambassador is merely an opinion?

And the idea that Presidents of other countries are going to err on the side of appearing to be above foreign influence, that's opinion too? But you say Zelensky is honest, and that's a fact?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Mike this is a perfect example of why I call you disingenuous. I don't think you're a liar, but I was going to point out the same objections as Malabar. Your bias skews the argument completely outside the realm of the defensible. The bolded parts above are stated like they are facts, when they are not. It's completely presumptuous for you to present them that way. Who can argue against the made-up intent you inject into the discussion? You should retract it, figure out where your'e inserting your bias into the discussion, and stop it.
 
I know for a fact that the Ukraine president considers honesty the preeminent virtue. He would NEVER tell a lie, no matter what. Interesting fact: he also thinks you're a moron.

So you're saying the idea that Lev Parnas or one of his associates surveilled the Ukraine ambassador is merely an opinion?

And the idea that Presidents of other countries are going to err on the side of appearing to be above foreign influence, that's opinion too? But you say Zelensky is honest, and that's a fact?

1. You said "everywhere they go." Are you claiming that as a fact? How could you possibly know that?

2. Claiming that he was demanded a quid pro quo and refused to bend to the threat would have been a better "proof" that he was above foreign influence.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

So you're saying the idea that Lev Parnas or one of his associates surveilled the Ukraine ambassador is merely an opinion?

And the idea that Presidents of other countries are going to err on the side of appearing to be above foreign influence, that's opinion too? But you say Zelensky is honest, and that's a fact?

1. You said "everywhere they go." Are you claiming that as a fact? How could you possibly know that?

2. Claiming that he was demanded a quid pro quo and refused to bend to the threat would have been a better "proof" that he was above foreign influence.

1. It's an expression.  If you just follow someone for a few blocks, it's nothing.  If wait outside and then continue following them when they come out, that's more like following them "everywhere they go". Whatever they did was enough to be noticed.

2. Pushing a narrative where he "stood up" to the US President would be brave, yes, but not in his national interest to make an enemy of the most powerful man in the world, don't you agree?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

1. You said "everywhere they go." Are you claiming that as a fact? How could you possibly know that?

2. Claiming that he was demanded a quid pro quo and refused to bend to the threat would have been a better "proof" that he was above foreign influence.

1. It's an expression.  If you just follow someone for a few blocks, it's nothing.  If wait outside and then continue following them when they come out, that's more like following them "everywhere they go". Whatever they did was enough to be noticed.

2. Pushing a narrative where he "stood up" to the US President would be brave, yes, but not in his national interest to make an enemy of the most powerful man in the world, don't you agree?

1. I've never heard it used except when meant literally. Even if the ambassador was followed at times your claim was a huge exaggeration. It's not against US law to track someone in a foreign country, especially if there is suspicion that the person is working against the US.

2. Not the most powerful man if he's kicked out of office. In any case Zelensky should know by now that Trump can't block any aid approved by Congress.

Finally, although I have not read Bolton's book, I have read that it states that Trump truly believed that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election. Under that circumstance any action he proposed to investigate Ukraine or have Ukraine explain its role in the 2016 election is 100% justified.

Game Over!

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

1. It's an expression.  If you just follow someone for a few blocks, it's nothing.  If wait outside and then continue following them when they come out, that's more like following them "everywhere they go". Whatever they did was enough to be noticed.

2. Pushing a narrative where he "stood up" to the US President would be brave, yes, but not in his national interest to make an enemy of the most powerful man in the world, don't you agree?

1. I've never heard it used except when meant literally. Even if the ambassador was followed at times your claim was a huge exaggeration. It's not against US law to track someone in a foreign country, especially if there is suspicion that the person is working against the US.

2. Not the most powerful man if he's kicked out of office. In any case Zelensky should know by now that Trump can't block any aid approved by Congress.

Finally, although I have not read Bolton's book, I have read that it states that Trump truly believed that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election. Under that circumstance any action he proposed to investigate Ukraine or have Ukraine explain its role in the 2016 election is 100% justified.

Game Over!

1) right, a lot of US laws don't apply outside the US.  But Ukrainian laws do apply in Ukraine. Parnas and friends did something wrong. How wrong, we'll find out. This investigation *was* announced. Ukraine and US both investigating different crimes.

2) Zelensky doesn't understand our system that well.  No one does. Not even us. He wants to stay out of our poop and not make enemies.  It's the only smart play for him.

3) Trump appointed Christopher Wray to know about that kind of thing.  Wray says Ukraine did not interfere nearly as much as Russia did. Why is Trump not trusting the people he appointed? And even if Ukraine interfered in our 2016 election  similar to how Russia did, what does that have to do with Hunter Biden?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

1. I've never heard it used except when meant literally. Even if the ambassador was followed at times your claim was a huge exaggeration. It's not against US law to track someone in a foreign country, especially if there is suspicion that the person is working against the US.

2. Not the most powerful man if he's kicked out of office. In any case Zelensky should know by now that Trump can't block any aid approved by Congress.

Finally, although I have not read Bolton's book, I have read that it states that Trump truly believed that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election. Under that circumstance any action he proposed to investigate Ukraine or have Ukraine explain its role in the 2016 election is 100% justified.

Game Over!

1) right, a lot of US laws don't apply outside the US.  But Ukrainian laws do apply in Ukraine. Parnas and friends did something wrong. How wrong, we'll find out. This investigation *was* announced. Ukraine and US both investigating different crimes.

2) Zelensky doesn't understand our system that well.  No one does. Not even us. He wants to stay out of our poop and not make enemies.  It's the only smart play for him.

3) Trump appointed Christopher Wray to know about that kind of thing.  Wray says Ukraine did not interfere nearly as much as Russia did. Why is Trump not trusting the people he appointed? And even if Ukraine interfered in our 2016 election  similar to how Russia did, what does that have to do with Hunter Biden?

1. What investigation was announced? And by whom?

2. You think Zelensky had reason to lie (or you're parroting a Dem talking point). I've shown that it's reasonable to assume that he wasn't lying. Since you (or Schiff) don't have a definitive answer here there is no reason to claim that Trump ever threatened to withhold military funds until he received anything in return.

3. So (say) 10% of the assumed Russia interference is not worthy of investigation? We spent over a year on the Mueller investigation of Russian interference, surely Ukraine was worth a month or so.

Hunter Biden was only mentioned in passing in the phone call. But you know that, and continue to lie about it. It was on par with "I hear your brother in law had sex with his mother. Any truth to that?" Trump's main request (not demand or bargaining point) was about Crowdstrike, which was a Democratic Party asset and very well may have interfered in the 2016 election (and if so the Russian interference would have been overstated).

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Mike this is a perfect example of why I call you disingenuous. I don't think you're a liar, but I was going to point out the same objections as Malabar. Your bias skews the argument completely outside the realm of the defensible. The bolded parts above are stated like they are facts, when they are not. It's completely presumptuous for you to present them that way. Who can argue against the made-up intent you inject into the discussion? You should retract it, figure out where your'e inserting your bias into the discussion, and stop it.
 
I know for a fact that the Ukraine president considers honesty the preeminent virtue. He would NEVER tell a lie, no matter what. Interesting fact: he also thinks you're a moron.

So you're saying the idea that Lev Parnas or one of his associates surveilled the Ukraine ambassador is merely an opinion?

And the idea that Presidents of other countries are going to err on the side of appearing to be above foreign influence, that's opinion too? But you say Zelensky is honest, and that's a fact?

You are so dense, dude. I was mocking you by making that claim. I didn't mean it, although I have reason to suspect he would, indeed, think you're a moron. As to the bolded part, if you worded it in such a way as to be a possibility, it would not come across nearly as arrogant. You biases were clearly present in the post that I questioned. Instead of acknowledging it, you deflect. Have some integrity and back off your position. This is a good start if you want to be taken seriously.

---

So you're saying the idea that Lev Parnas or one of his associates surveilled the Ukraine ambassador is merely an opinion?

And the idea that Presidents of other countries are going to err on the side of appearing to be above foreign influence, that's opinion too? But you say Zelensky is honest, and that's a fact?

You are so dense, dude. I was mocking you by making that claim. I didn't mean it, although I have reason to suspect he would, indeed, think you're a moron. As to the bolded part, if you worded it in such a way as to be a possibility, it would not come across nearly as arrogant. You biases were clearly present in the post that I questioned. Instead of acknowledging it, you deflect. Have some integrity and back off your position. This is a good start if you want to be taken seriously.

You dislike my posts because you disagree.
No one else here qualifies their point of view with, "I think..." You certainly don't.
Yet you demand that I become the first to do so.
This is not the only time and place that I've discussed politics.
I have gone in other places with the tone that you are demanding. It comes across as mealy mouthed and unworthy of attention. and when I see other people getting so deferential with so many qualifying clauses in their sentences, that's the way it comes across to me.
If you agreed with my posts, if you agreed with my overall point of view, you would find nothing to complain about in terms of my grammar or tone. The person who first brought up Zelinski saying that he had no idea the money was missing ended his post with "case closed." Was that unbiased? Was that modest? Of course it wasn't. But you didn't push back on that guy. I pushed back on him, then you pushed back on me.
I'm not mad at you for disagreeing. But I'm surprised after all your claims to be more intelligent than me that you can't just say"I disagree" and leave it at that. Instead you dangle out these carrots of possible respect that you'll never actually grant, as if I want your respect anyway.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

So it's your opinion that not just Bolton, but Pompeo, Mulvaney, Perry and Trump (to name a few of the sought-after witnesses) would be untruthful under oath? 

No pun intended, but I find that (your opinion) hard to believe.

Not all of them, but you didn't ask that.

Some have grudges against Trump, so it's possible that they'd lie to spite him. I'd expect at least one of those you listed to lie, after all they're politicians and deep staters.

But even if the odds are only 10%, the risk of a lie is real. The Dems have lost the chance to call belated witnesses by their belated lies in the Kavanaugh hearing.

I'm interested, mainly, in hearing the testimony of those who were blocked by the WH from speaking - and I'd also like to hear what the Bidens, Pelosis, Clintons, etc. of the world have to say under oath. Those were who I was referring to in my question to you regarding who the democrats want to subpoena are the ones who have yet to testify but were told not to - even though supposedly what they have to say would otherwise exonerate the president. To me, this all looks, smells and feels like a smoking gun - blocking testimony and withholding documentation does nothing more than fan the flames of the general public's suspicion. The president has every right to invoke Executive Privilege with regard to just about everyone save for Bolton - since he talked about his conversations with him on Twitter. I'm just saying it's not a good look, in the eyes of the general public (not just those with OMB syndrome)

Going from your perspective, why have anyone testify under oath if there's a 10% chance they're not truthful? Are you also saying that you'd be in favor of witness testimony if the Kavanaugh situation never occurred? 

The attempts to restrain documentation, to restrain witnesses from testifying under oath, and then complain that there's no new info as some kind of flaw with the prosecution, are (in my opinion) at the heart of why calls for witness testimony have increased in volume (quantity) and volume (dB) - as well as why several GOP senators are breaking with the partisan narrative (i.e. Collins, Romney, etc.) and tanking poll numbers. My gut feeling is that the results of this trial won't matter nearly as much to GOP senators' futures as what they say/do during the process.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

Not all of them, but you didn't ask that.

Some have grudges against Trump, so it's possible that they'd lie to spite him. I'd expect at least one of those you listed to lie, after all they're politicians and deep staters.

But even if the odds are only 10%, the risk of a lie is real. The Dems have lost the chance to call belated witnesses by their belated lies in the Kavanaugh hearing.

I'm interested, mainly, in hearing the testimony of those who were blocked by the WH from speaking - and I'd also like to hear what the Bidens, Pelosis, Clintons, etc. of the world have to say under oath. Those were who I was referring to in my question to you regarding who the democrats want to subpoena are the ones who have yet to testify but were told not to - even though supposedly what they have to say would otherwise exonerate the president. To me, this all looks, smells and feels like a smoking gun - blocking testimony and withholding documentation does nothing more than fan the flames of the general public's suspicion. The president has every right to invoke Executive Privilege with regard to just about everyone save for Bolton - since he talked about his conversations with him on Twitter. I'm just saying it's not a good look, in the eyes of the general public (not just those with OMB syndrome)

Going from your perspective, why have anyone testify under oath if there's a 10% chance they're not truthful? Are you also saying that you'd be in favor of witness testimony if the Kavanaugh situation never occurred? 

The attempts to restrain documentation, to restrain witnesses from testifying under oath, and then complain that there's no new info as some kind of flaw with the prosecution, are (in my opinion) at the heart of why calls for witness testimony have increased in volume (quantity) and volume (dB) - as well as why several GOP senators are breaking with the partisan narrative (i.e. Collins, Romney, etc.) and tanking poll numbers. My gut feeling is that the results of this trial won't matter nearly as much to GOP senators' futures as what they say/do during the process.

I'm sorry.  Ignorance I'd the reason people are inclined to hear more testimony.  About what exactly?  We know the aid was paused.  U wanna call it an abuse of the ICA fine.  Take the vote.  

We know the president asked zellensky about Joe Biden firing a prosecutor.  We have Biden bragging about it on tape.  We have records of meetings vp Biden had with Devon archer, the calls he made to former president of the Ukraine etc.  We also have the court documents Shokin filed on 2-2-16 securing the assets of Hunter Bidens employer.  

The president contends that meets the probable cause standard.  If you dont that's fine.  Take the vote.  

If this were a criminal as l proceeding, the minute the state department IG volunteered Giuliani's dossier this would have been thrown out.  It is incumbent on the dems to prove that the president acted with corrupt intent.  Documentary evidence that demonstrates a reasonable person would investigate is EXCULPATORY.  

Please, for every witness you want to compel to testify, please illustrate how their testimony can change any of the documentary evidence I just cited.

---

I'm interested, mainly, in hearing the testimony of those who were blocked by the WH from speaking - and I'd also like to hear what the Bidens, Pelosis, Clintons, etc. of the world have to say under oath. Those were who I was referring to in my question to you regarding who the democrats want to subpoena are the ones who have yet to testify but were told not to - even though supposedly what they have to say would otherwise exonerate the president. To me, this all looks, smells and feels like a smoking gun - blocking testimony and withholding documentation does nothing more than fan the flames of the general public's suspicion. The president has every right to invoke Executive Privilege with regard to just about everyone save for Bolton - since he talked about his conversations with him on Twitter. I'm just saying it's not a good look, in the eyes of the general public (not just those with OMB syndrome)

Going from your perspective, why have anyone testify under oath if there's a 10% chance they're not truthful? Are you also saying that you'd be in favor of witness testimony if the Kavanaugh situation never occurred? 

The attempts to restrain documentation, to restrain witnesses from testifying under oath, and then complain that there's no new info as some kind of flaw with the prosecution, are (in my opinion) at the heart of why calls for witness testimony have increased in volume (quantity) and volume (dB) - as well as why several GOP senators are breaking with the partisan narrative (i.e. Collins, Romney, etc.) and tanking poll numbers. My gut feeling is that the results of this trial won't matter nearly as much to GOP senators' futures as what they say/do during the process.

I'm sorry.  Ignorance I'd the reason people are inclined to hear more testimony.  About what exactly?  We know the aid was paused.  U wanna call it an abuse of the ICA fine.  Take the vote.  

We know the president asked zellensky about Joe Biden firing a prosecutor.  We have Biden bragging about it on tape.  We have records of meetings vp Biden had with Devon archer, the calls he made to former president of the Ukraine etc.  We also have the court documents Shokin filed on 2-2-16 securing the assets of Hunter Bidens employer.  

The president contends that meets the probable cause standard.  If you dont that's fine.  Take the vote.  

If this were a criminal as l proceeding, the minute the state department IG volunteered Giuliani's dossier this would have been thrown out.  It is incumbent on the dems to prove that the president acted with corrupt intent.  Documentary evidence that demonstrates a reasonable person would investigate is EXCULPATORY.  

Please, for every witness you want to compel to testify, please illustrate how their testimony can change any of the documentary evidence I just cited.

I think we're going to find out.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

You are so dense, dude. I was mocking you by making that claim. I didn't mean it, although I have reason to suspect he would, indeed, think you're a moron. As to the bolded part, if you worded it in such a way as to be a possibility, it would not come across nearly as arrogant. You biases were clearly present in the post that I questioned. Instead of acknowledging it, you deflect. Have some integrity and back off your position. This is a good start if you want to be taken seriously.

You dislike my posts because you disagree.
No one else here qualifies their point of view with, "I think..." You certainly don't.
Yet you demand that I become the first to do so.
This is not the only time and place that I've discussed politics.
I have gone in other places with the tone that you are demanding. It comes across as mealy mouthed and unworthy of attention. and when I see other people getting so deferential with so many qualifying clauses in their sentences, that's the way it comes across to me.
If you agreed with my posts, if you agreed with my overall point of view, you would find nothing to complain about in terms of my grammar or tone. The person who first brought up Zelinski saying that he had no idea the money was missing ended his post with "case closed." Was that unbiased? Was that modest? Of course it wasn't.  But you didn't push back on that guy. I pushed back on him, then you pushed back on me.
I'm not mad at you for disagreeing. But I'm surprised after all your claims to be more intelligent than me that you can't just say"I disagree" and leave it at that. Instead you dangle out these carrots of possible respect that you'll never actually grant, as if I want your respect anyway.

I disagree.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You dislike my posts because you disagree.
No one else here qualifies their point of view with, "I think..." You certainly don't.
Yet you demand that I become the first to do so.
This is not the only time and place that I've discussed politics.
I have gone in other places with the tone that you are demanding. It comes across as mealy mouthed and unworthy of attention. and when I see other people getting so deferential with so many qualifying clauses in their sentences, that's the way it comes across to me.
If you agreed with my posts, if you agreed with my overall point of view, you would find nothing to complain about in terms of my grammar or tone. The person who first brought up Zelinski saying that he had no idea the money was missing ended his post with "case closed." Was that unbiased? Was that modest? Of course it wasn't.  But you didn't push back on that guy. I pushed back on him, then you pushed back on me.
I'm not mad at you for disagreeing. But I'm surprised after all your claims to be more intelligent than me that you can't just say"I disagree" and leave it at that. Instead you dangle out these carrots of possible respect that you'll never actually grant, as if I want your respect anyway.

I disagree.

+1 fly boy

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I disagree with lots of posters on this board. You're not special. You're just dense.

I take issue with the way you ARGUE. It's not intellectually honest. You don't have a consistent standard. You move the goal posts. You start with your conclusion, then twist all your premises to fit. It's a backwards way of thinking. I used to spend time showing you how you used faulty logic, but even that's a waste of time.

---

I disagree with lots of posters on this board. You're not special. You're just dense.

I take issue with the way YOU argue. It's not intellectually honest. You don't have a consistent standard. You move the goal posts. You start with your conclusion, then twist all your premises to fit. It's a backwards way of thinking. I used to spend time showing you how you used faulty logic, but even that's a waste of time.

He also conveniently forgets arguments u make for months on end when he finds it convenient.

---