Does this shift the burden of proof somehow: "wiretapping"?

[ProudLib72]

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]

1. Well there are those traffic cams outside TT...

Obama put them there to "surveil" the drumph...ha ha, and also google earth, they spotted that tower...

[WhiteTara]

2. Trying to refute a gish-gallop

is exhausting and futile. Somehow you just have to start a new conversation.

[Wellstone ruled]

4. Right on!!!!

[WhiteTara]

5. Thanks

[ProudLib72]

7. Exhausting, yes. Futile, maybe.

A new conversation altogether? Wait five minutes, and there will be cause for a new one!

[WhiteTara]

8. I was hoping for a sane word or two

gotten in edgewise between the gishing and the galloping.

[Turbineguy]

3. You'll drive yourself crazy.

Republican logic is unfathomable to the normal mind. They disobey the laws of physics. At least try to. Every time. Without learning.

[WhiteTara]

6. So true, so true. nt

[ProudLib72]

9. The way that I imagine this

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.