Note that "Crimes Against Children" is mentioned SEPERATELY from sexting.
This is proof that resident shill Are We Sure and his buddy KnightsOfHubris are liars. The Anthony Weiner Laptop really does have incriminating shit on it. Be sure to endlessly taunt them about it.
Crime by itself can be a plural actually.. for instance a wave of crime has hit the city.. we found evidence of crime.
Plural of crime when used as a noun? Sure that's crimes.
But crime is also used as a verb as it is in this case.
For instance
Crime doesn't pay. This is a verb and is speaking of multiple crimes.
Crime against children comes of as the verb version of the word. You wouldnt say crimes doesn't pay, or crimes don't pay. You say crime doesn't pay.
So if he meant it as a verb then crime against children can be multiple crimes. Rather than as a noun, a single crime against children.
The giveaway is this....
If it's a single child and a single crime, he would say. Crime against a child. But he uses the word children. Which immediately makes it a plural since there and more than one child it's more than one crime.
So clearly he meant it as a verb, crime against children, and act of multiple crimes.
Otherwise a single noun used against a plural children really doesn't make sense.
Well thanks for proving my point. That crime is a plural. It doesn't matter because the notes say CRIME. Not CRIMES. and really you're agruing against your own point. Ahahhaaa
What's dumber is you make the claim that the report makes it clear. So you use the utmost of skepticism on anything else and then the utmost of liberal on this one point. That shows you have an agenda and it's the opposite of being sure. Being sure means you pursue every lead until it's proven otherwise. Your agenda is the opposite. Ignore every lead unless it's proven. The ig report does not make that clear the only thing being made clear is just how much of a shill you are. You're not sure about anything. And you don't care to be sure. You immediately find any way you can discredit anything no matter if its even less likely or no more likely than what people are looking at. Dude that's definitely not being sure. It's being sure to shill the fuck out. clearly you're being paid, nobody would waste their time this much... Discussing with people who have time and time again exposed you as a shill unless they were getting paid or just plain stupid. Which I think you have proven you're not stupid, so clearly you have an agenda to protect the truth from being exposed. I mean really worst case for the people on here being wrong? Their wrong and they wasted time. Worst case for you being wrong? You prolonged the torture and murder and rape of innocent children and worked day and night against their rescue.
So dude go get your paycheck and take a night off and celebrate your master shilling. Fuck man tell me where to send 20 bucks and I'll pay for your shill ass dinner, because you're definitely not doing this for the children...
Well thanks for proving my point. That crime is a plural. It doesn't matter because the notes say CRIME. Not CRIMES. and really you're agruing against your own point. Ahahhaaa
I said this was true-ish. It's not a plural noun, it's a collective noun. Collective nouns take the singular verb.
and really you're agruing against your own point. Ahahhaaa
No. Um when I get new facts, I update my arguments. And this argument does not undermine my point. The IG report is quite clear that these are two separate investigations requiring two separate warrants. Nothing about the warrant against Clinton invovled sex crimes.
Read the full chapter 9 of the report and there's no honest way to believe that the IG report supports the clinton-sex-crime-evidence-on-Weiner's-laptop-hoax. It's impossible.
view the rest of the comments →
darkknight111 ago
Note that "Crimes Against Children" is mentioned SEPERATELY from sexting.
This is proof that resident shill Are We Sure and his buddy KnightsOfHubris are liars. The Anthony Weiner Laptop really does have incriminating shit on it. Be sure to endlessly taunt them about it.
Are_we_sure ago
https://media.tenor.com/images/22d9689453caf1cd8e4da60495038966/tenor.gif
You're delusional. And you can't even get a three word quote correct. Are you just incompetent or being dishonest again?
dtneslo ago
Are you saying crime instead of crimes? Why wouldnt crime against children also be damning...there is nothing funny about any of this
Fateswebb ago
Crime by itself can be a plural actually.. for instance a wave of crime has hit the city.. we found evidence of crime.
Plural of crime when used as a noun? Sure that's crimes.
But crime is also used as a verb as it is in this case.
For instance
Crime doesn't pay. This is a verb and is speaking of multiple crimes.
Crime against children comes of as the verb version of the word. You wouldnt say crimes doesn't pay, or crimes don't pay. You say crime doesn't pay.
So if he meant it as a verb then crime against children can be multiple crimes. Rather than as a noun, a single crime against children.
The giveaway is this....
If it's a single child and a single crime, he would say. Crime against a child. But he uses the word children. Which immediately makes it a plural since there and more than one child it's more than one crime.
So clearly he meant it as a verb, crime against children, and act of multiple crimes.
Otherwise a single noun used against a plural children really doesn't make sense.
And yes I'm sure.
Are_we__sure ago
True....ish.... Technically this would be a collective noun and take the singular verb.
but it's very, very clear in the IG report that Crime Against Children refers to the Anthony Weiner warrant. and not Clinton.
They had not examined the content of the Clinton emails at the time of this note because the warrant they had did not permit it.
Fateswebb ago
Well thanks for proving my point. That crime is a plural. It doesn't matter because the notes say CRIME. Not CRIMES. and really you're agruing against your own point. Ahahhaaa
What's dumber is you make the claim that the report makes it clear. So you use the utmost of skepticism on anything else and then the utmost of liberal on this one point. That shows you have an agenda and it's the opposite of being sure. Being sure means you pursue every lead until it's proven otherwise. Your agenda is the opposite. Ignore every lead unless it's proven. The ig report does not make that clear the only thing being made clear is just how much of a shill you are. You're not sure about anything. And you don't care to be sure. You immediately find any way you can discredit anything no matter if its even less likely or no more likely than what people are looking at. Dude that's definitely not being sure. It's being sure to shill the fuck out. clearly you're being paid, nobody would waste their time this much... Discussing with people who have time and time again exposed you as a shill unless they were getting paid or just plain stupid. Which I think you have proven you're not stupid, so clearly you have an agenda to protect the truth from being exposed. I mean really worst case for the people on here being wrong? Their wrong and they wasted time. Worst case for you being wrong? You prolonged the torture and murder and rape of innocent children and worked day and night against their rescue.
So dude go get your paycheck and take a night off and celebrate your master shilling. Fuck man tell me where to send 20 bucks and I'll pay for your shill ass dinner, because you're definitely not doing this for the children...
Are_we_sure ago
I said this was true-ish. It's not a plural noun, it's a collective noun. Collective nouns take the singular verb.
No. Um when I get new facts, I update my arguments. And this argument does not undermine my point. The IG report is quite clear that these are two separate investigations requiring two separate warrants. Nothing about the warrant against Clinton invovled sex crimes.
Read the full chapter 9 of the report and there's no honest way to believe that the IG report supports the clinton-sex-crime-evidence-on-Weiner's-laptop-hoax. It's impossible.
Cc1914 ago
Upvoat
dtneslo ago
Oh you're good!
Vindicator ago
Great analysis. :-)