General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDoes this shift the burden of proof somehow: "wiretapping"?
So what if he meant "general surveillance", doesn't he still have to provide proof?
I can't believe I am actually trying to argue against republican logic...
wcmagumba
(2,879 posts)Obama put them there to "surveil" the drumph...ha ha, and also google earth, they spotted that tower...
WhiteTara
(29,692 posts)is exhausting and futile. Somehow you just have to start a new conversation.
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)WhiteTara
(29,692 posts)ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)A new conversation altogether? Wait five minutes, and there will be cause for a new one!
WhiteTara
(29,692 posts)gotten in edgewise between the gishing and the galloping.
Turbineguy
(37,281 posts)Republican logic is unfathomable to the normal mind. They disobey the laws of physics. At least try to. Every time. Without learning.
WhiteTara
(29,692 posts)ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)being interpreted is as a demand for Obama to prove he didn't have him under general surveillance. Sort of like proving the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist. Until you offer concrete evidence that it doesn't exist, I'm going to keep believing it does.