Comments by "Mark Armage" (@markarmage3776) on "Judge blocks asylum ban for migrants who enter illegally" video.
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
@Cynna1065 Fine, do you have any prove that those people didn't vote? Where's your prove for that?
The source? Well, images of illegal immigrants fleeing from law enforcement, the existence of ICE itself is the evidence showing that those illegal aliens are committing crimes and do not wish to stop. Therefore they have the motive not supporting the people who are capturing them. And that's the motive. Where's the proof for that? Call the FBI and ask them how they narrow down their suspects.
This is a theory, very likable theory based on how nobody can disprove it, but half of the country is disallowing proving it.
You're just ignoring facts because you're short sighted, pal.
It's not my instinct, it's logic. Learn it. Kid.
You can't disprove it. We're prohibited from proving it due to the corrupt nature of the Democrats, disallowing voting registration requirements.
There, those are the facts. If you can't see, you're very blind.
You can't show and prove something that is hidden, kid. You know what it's called
Investigating, thinking, logic.
It's also how democracy was formed. Ideology that has never been seen before put into application due to logic.
There. Your version of show and prove is not much more than a show and tell of a third grader, can only be applied with very trivial stuff. If you want to argue, pal, I suggest learn how to think by using what you see, not just reciting what you see however it was given to you.
Pathetic!
1
-
@Cynna1065
Okay, kid, you're just embarrassing yourself. You have no idea what you're talking about concerning law school, Columbia Law here, want to meet?
You're just ignoring information and demand proof before anything can be proven, that kind of thinking would lead you to believe that the moon landing is fake, and something mysterious happened in Roswell, here's a piece of advice, if something can't be prove or disprove, we, by law are required to act based on the presumption of innocence, but it doesn't mean that information can be ignored just because they're not directly linked, idiot.
That's how thesis, theory is formed. You want to ignore that, fine. Keep living in that bubble if you want to. I did show what I had found, kid. It's a case, which has really obvious evidence, number of illegal immigrants, by definition is criminal, millions of them, will be prosecuted and arrested if the policies against illegal immigrants are passed. So if you don't consider that as valid motive, then maybe you should ignore witness protection, because there is no proof whatsoever that the criminals will "harm" the witness, right? Where did you go to school, Ixtapa?
There are 2 kinds of prove, idiot. Direct proof, and indirect proof, the direct proof is used to convict someone, but the indirect ones are used, when the direct ones aren't available, they're used to make a case against something, such as criminal records, motive. That's how people got investigated before being arrested. You're seeing the situation as whether something is absolutely proved or it is false, which is ignorant. Clear?
Disproving or proving something in an absolute way requires hard evidence. Which are usually not available because most criminals aren't that stupid, they're smarter than you. But we're also more clever, we have the right to suspect somebody of something, as in how the police department have the right to suspect anybody and listed anybody related into the investigation if they don't have solid alibi, and even when they have alibi, the police still have the right to suspect that something happened, because out of all possible situation, there are more situation that something happened indirectly than nothing happened at all. So given the information above, it's reasonable to assume that something is happening and demand an investigation into the matter, but we can't. Those illegal immigrants are being protected by the same senators, representative that they support and committed crimes to vote for, information, kid, learn it. Where would people learn that? Law school, kid, they even taught that in college, maybe you should go there.
There isn't proof, because if there was proof, the majority of Democrats would be impeached, like I said, it's not absolute, we're in the process of investigating.
You're really delusional, aren't you. Copying words without even thinking what they meant. The proving and disproving something is only required in the court of law, why? Because it's in that court of law that the government will use their tremendous power to exercise those judgement, and that requires a relatively correct judgement. But when discussing about a case that isn't in a court of law, for example, like this one. You need to give information to make a case. Otherwise we can't catch any murderer if they're not caught at the scene, why? Because you can't suspect anyone because there are no hard proof. So, learn to read, and then learn to think about what you read. Because you're just embarrassing yourself
An old Chinese saying for you: If you know, say that you know, if you don't know, say that you don't know, that's how you know. You don't know anything, kid. Go back to school, pathetic!
1
-
1