Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just now, Bus Driver said:

Not sure that means what it sounds like you want it to mean.  

Regardless, we are far from done with this and you post shit like this as if it has some definitive meaning.  If you are doing so because you object to "the experts on PA" doing it, well, you clearly don't mind engaging in that to which you object.

Mark K posted the article I just pulled some interesting points from his linked story.  That you and others get upset over actual quotes is a pretty clear indication of where you want this to go regardless of what the DOJ actually charged and what it means.   The whole spin on 1/6 presented on PA reminds me of the Drip drip drip thread.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Mark K posted the article I just pulled some interesting points from his linked story.  That you and others get upset over actual quotes is a pretty clear indication of where you want this to go regardless of what the DOJ actually charged and what it means.   The whole spin on 1/6 presented on PA reminds me of the Drip drip drip thread.  

There were lots of guilty pleas and convictions from drip-drip. So, in that way they are the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Mark K posted the article I just pulled some interesting points from his linked story.  That you and others get upset over actual quotes is a pretty clear indication of where you want this to go regardless of what the DOJ actually charged and what it means.   The whole spin on 1/6 presented on PA reminds me of the Drip drip drip thread.  

I do think you are engaging in a bit of projection.

I am not upset.  I am pointing out you may be a bit premature on your prediction that conditions today will resonate in 9-10 months.

Maybe they will.  But, if things improve, this will be old news.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

There were lots of guilty pleas and convictions from drip-drip. So, in that way they are the same.

Not really.  All the hype turned out to be just that hype. 

 

1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

I do think you are engaging in a bit of projection.

I am not upset.  I am pointing out you may be a bit premature on your prediction that conditions today will resonate in 9-10 months.

Maybe they will.  But, if things improve, this will be old news.

I think this was for the other thread. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

There were lots of guilty pleas and convictions from drip-drip. So, in that way they are the same.

Never mind Liddle Marco’s Committee Report. Bullshitters have a very difficult time remembering that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Never mind Liddle Marco’s Committee Report. Bullshitters have a very difficult time remembering that. 

Note how the small town lawyer is avoiding the actual details of the charges and how narrow those charges are.   Drip drip drip and you suckers fall for it every time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Note how the small town lawyer is avoiding the actual details of the charges and how narrow those charges are.   Drip drip drip and you suckers fall for it every time. 

Movin those goalposts. Movin Movin Movin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mrleft8 said:

You really are as stupid as you appear! ASTOUNDING!

Even astounding is inadequate.

The language lacks an appropriate superlative to describe The Jerkoff's level of intellectual challenge.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Movin those goalposts. Movin Movin Movin.

Not moving  thing.  Just pointing out that the charges of Seditious Conspiracy were narrow and by the experts opinion in the article indicate that those charges will apply to a small group of people and as written appear that those charged have no connection to the politicians you and your Elk have claimed are involved.  Could they be involved in separate cases absolutely, but based on the article linked not as part of the Oathkeepers case. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Joker said:

 The whole spin on 1/6 presented on PA reminds me of the Drip drip drip thread.  

Same here.  My reminder was people being convicted and going to prison. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Yeah, what about them?  Are you using that as an excuse or because you aren't allowed to talk about them?

Who's "them"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

That's a lot of ham sammiches.

Baloney!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, benwynn said:

Same here.  My reminder was people being convicted and going to prison. 

Yep who was charged with anything having to do with working with the Russians?    That was what the endless claims being made daily.   Drip drip drip was supposed to end in solid convictions of Trump, his administration and his family for working  directly with the Russians.  None of which happened.  

Charges

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

That's a lot of ham sammiches.

Yep more evidence presented by the small town Florida  lawyer to dazzle the willing sycophants.  No doubt a grand jury was empaneled it would be a travesty if it was not empaneled.  Clearly by releasing  it now it is the oathkeeper case.   It doesn’t change anything the article I quoted stated.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Joker said:

Not moving  thing.  Just pointing out that the charges of Seditious Conspiracy were narrow and by the experts opinion in the article indicate that those charges will apply to a small group of people and as written appear that those charged have no connection to the politicians you and your Elk have claimed are involved.  Could they be involved in separate cases absolutely, but based on the article linked not as part of the Oathkeepers case. 

The OP asked if it was an insurrection, why wasn’t anyone charged with insurrection. Just another own goal by Saorsa. Now, you make it sound like the charges are targeted and not broad based. Well, who said they weren’t? Most charging documents do seem to be limited to the person being charged.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Joker said:

Yep who was charged with anything having to do with working with the Russians? 

This may be the oddest thing I've ever read on this forum.  And I go back to Carl, Polaris the Clown, and some dipshit in Tahoe that makes wooden bowls.  You pose the question above along with a link which lists charges having to do with people working with the Russians.

 Go to your link, print it, grab a cup of coffee, and find someone older than 12 or so to read it to you. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Yeah, what about them?  Are you using that as an excuse or because you aren't allowed to talk about them?

Dafuq are you even talking about?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Olsonist said:
12 hours ago, Pertinacious Tom said:

Actually, I was going to complain about leaving out the radical Tea Party guys who voted to impeach Trump, like Justin Amash, but I'm not sure what they are called. Is a Fakebertarian a Tea Partier who voted to impeach Trump, or what's the proper label?

I was thinking more of your boy Rand, also a Tea Partayer, also a Republican. But I don't recall your boy Rand voting to impeach your boy Shitstain. I'll have to look that up.

You think a lot about Rand for someone who can't see that the most libertarian thing about him is his opposition to the Reagan/Biden asset looting program that drug warriors like Biden continue to love.

But I didn't ask about Rand. You seem to like to put a label on people. Put one on Justin Amash. Is a Fakebertarian a Tea Partier who voted to impeach Trump, or what's the proper label?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The Joker said:

Yep who was charged with anything having to do with working with the Russians?    That was what the endless claims being made daily.   Drip drip drip was supposed to end in solid convictions of Trump, his administration and his family for working  directly with the Russians.  None of which happened.  

Charges

Read thru your link and see how many times the word "Russia" appears.

I bet you can't count that high, even with your shoes off.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Read thru your link and see how many times the word "Russia" appears.

I bet you can't count that high, even with your shoes off.

- DSK

Oh Steam Liar is making a funny.  

Even you should be able to count how many Americans were charged by the investigation.  In order to save you from removing your shoes and socks I’ll help you out.   It was seven and of those charged zero were charged with working with the Russians to interfere with the election.  NONE ZERO NADDA 

Now the reason Russia appears so often  in that link is because 26 RUSSIANS were actually charged by the SC 
 

The Special Counsel initiated criminal proceedings against 34 people—seven U.S. nationals, 26 Russian nationals, and one Dutch national—and three Russian organizations. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Raz'r said:

The OP asked if it was an insurrection, why wasn’t anyone charged with insurrection. Just another own goal by Saorsa. Now, you make it sound like the charges are targeted and not broad based. Well, who said they weren’t? Most charging documents do seem to be limited to the person being charged.

Yup… and they aren’t done charging.
Yoo-hoo, bullshitters. Get it all posted now, let us know exactly where you stand. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Yup… and they aren’t done charging.
Yoo-hoo, bullshitters. Get it all posted now, let us know exactly where you stand. 

Any stand they take now can and will be adjusted as more charges get filed. 
 

Principles are malleable. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Oh Steam Liar is making a funny.  

Even you should be able to count how many Americans were charged by the investigation.  In order to save you from removing your shoes and socks I’ll help you out.   It was seven and of those charged zero were charged with working with the Russians to interfere with the election.  NONE ZERO NADDA 

Now the reason Russia appears so often  in that link is because 26 RUSSIANS were actually charged by the SC 
 

The Special Counsel initiated criminal proceedings against 34 people—seven U.S. nationals, 26 Russian nationals, and one Dutch national—and three Russian organizations. 

 

And how does this support your bizarro ranting:

10 hours ago, The Joker said:

Yep who was charged with anything having to do with working with the Russians?    That was what the endless claims being made daily.   Drip drip drip was supposed to end in solid convictions of Trump, his administration and his family for working  directly with the Russians.  None of which happened.  
 

Clearly, it did happen.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bus Driver said:
14 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Yup… and they aren’t done charging.
Yoo-hoo, bullshitters. Get it all posted now, let us know exactly where you stand. 

Any stand they take now can and will be adjusted as more charges get filed. 
 

Principles are malleable. 

And when their flexible and transparent "principles" just pop like a soap bubble under the strain, tehy can always fall back on flat-out lies, delusional denial, and doublespeak.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steam Flyer said:

And when their flexible and transparent "principles" just pop like a soap bubble under the strain, tehy can always fall back on flat-out lies, delusional denial, and doublespeak.

- DSK

Not to mention “whataboutism” and just moving the goal posts. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Pertinacious Tom said:

You think a lot about Rand for someone who can't see that the most libertarian thing about him is his opposition to the Reagan/Biden asset looting program that drug warriors like Biden continue to love.

But I didn't ask about Rand. You seem to like to put a label on people. Put one on Justin Amash. Is a Fakebertarian a Tea Partier who voted to impeach Trump, or what's the proper label?

Former congressman 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

And how does this support your bizarro ranting:

Clearly, it did happen.

- DSK

Nope the Drip Drip Drip thread was all about The Trump administration colluding with the Russians   No one denied that the Russians interfered, that happens in every election.  Just like the US interferes with elections in other countries.  But as to charging and arresting Americans for Russian collusion no one was charged let alone sent to prison for that claim.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Yup… and they aren’t done charging.
Yoo-hoo, bullshitters. Get it all posted now, let us know exactly where you stand. 

You know that how?   I have no claim to know one way or the other, but it would be nice to understand if you have actual proof or if this is your personal expectation.

I'll post exactly what I have been saying since 1/6  - anyone that broke the law should be charged and if convicted sentenced appropriately.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Nope the Drip Drip Drip thread was all about The Trump administration colluding with the Russians   No one denied that the Russians interfered, that happens in every election.  Just like the US interferes with elections in other countries.  But as to charging and arresting Americans for Russian collusion no one was charged let alone sent to prison for that claim.  

moving-goal-posts-500x375.jpg

There's not a crime named "collusion" but a bunch of Trumpettes conspired, cooperated, and confabbed with the Russians. Shucks, his pick for National Security Advisor was on the Russian's payroll

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

moving-goal-posts-500x375.jpg

There's not a crime named "collusion" but a bunch of Trumpettes conspired, cooperated, and confabbed with the Russians. Shucks, his pick for National Security Advisor was on the Russian's payroll

- DSK

He can't read.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

moving-goal-posts-500x375.jpg

There's not a crime named "collusion" but a bunch of Trumpettes conspired, cooperated, and confabbed with the Russians. Shucks, his pick for National Security Advisor was on the Russian's payroll

- DSK

Bullshit not a single Trumpettes as you call them was charged with what you claim.  We are dealing with reality not what you fantasized happened 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, benwynn said:

He can't read.

I can read fine.  Please post the charges, convictions and prison time for any American  that interfered with the 2016 election through the Russians.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mike in Seattle said:

Thanks, I had been wondering the number actually involved.

" ,,,On the basis of these allegations, all 11 of the defendants were charged,,,"

 

 

Careful some of those on this site have real have issues with that article 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Joker said:

I can read fine.  Please post the charges, convictions and prison time for any American  that interfered with the 2016 election through the Russians.  

Why bother? You can't even get the facts from your own cites correct, and you'll keep moving the goalposts every time somebody shows the world what a dishonest partisan shill you are.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Why bother? You can't even get the facts from your own cites correct, and you'll keep moving the goalposts every time somebody shows the world what a dishonest partisan shill you are.

- DSK

You really are a idiot. Nothing in my cite backs up your claim.  I haven't moved the goal posts.  Actually that’s what you and Benny are attempting to do.  
Now go argue with yourself I’m done responding to your uninformed,  lying babble. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mike in Seattle said:

Thanks, I had been wondering the number actually involved.

" ,,,On the basis of these allegations, all 11 of the defendants were charged,,,"

 

 

11 in that batch, 7 in another batch, the hits keep coming.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Joker said:

I can read fine.  Please post the charges, convictions and prison time for any American  that interfered with the 2016 election through the Russians.  

You're going to say it's indirect, but whatever. Manafort was charged in relation to his work with the pro-Russian Victor Yanukovitch of Ukraine.

Yah, I get that it's Ukraine and not Russia. But Yanukovitch was in league with Putin, and was Putin's choice as leader of Ukraine. After Yanukovitch lost, Manafort - still on the probably-Putin-funded payroll of Yanukovitch - came to work for the Trump campaign. 

Manafort was charged, indicted and sentenced to 90 months in prison. Then Trump pardoned him. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Nice! said:

You're going to say it's indirect, but whatever. Manafort was charged in relation to his work with the pro-Russian Victor Yanukovitch of Ukraine.

Yah, I get that it's Ukraine and not Russia. But Yanukovitch was in league with Putin, and was Putin's choice as leader of Ukraine. After Yanukovitch lost, Manafort - still on the probably-Putin-funded payroll of Yanukovitch - came to work for the Trump campaign. 

Manafort was charged, indicted and sentenced to 90 months in prison. Then Trump pardoned him. 

Nice try. None of his convictions had anything to do with the 2016 election and certainly nothing to do with Russia   I am impressed with the friend of a friend of a friend angle. 

Manafort was found guilty on eight counts (covering filing false tax returns, bank fraud, and failing to disclose a foreign bank account), 

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Nice try. None of his convictions had anything to do with the 2016 election and certainly nothing to do with Russia   I am impressed with the friend of a friend of a friend angle. 

Manafort was found guilty on eight counts (covering filing false tax returns, bank fraud, and failing to disclose a foreign bank account), 

Where did he hold those bank accounts? What was the bank fraud related to? Manafort also pled guilty to two counts of conspiracy to defraud the United States and witness tampering. All related to the Russia investigation.

But this is all a distraction from the seditious conspiracy charges that have been filed against some of the folks involved in J6, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Nice! said:

Where did he hold those bank accounts? What was the bank fraud related to? Manafort also pled guilty to two counts of conspiracy to defraud the United States and witness tampering. All related to the Russia investigation.

But this is all a distraction from the seditious conspiracy charges that have been filed against some of the folks involved in J6, right?

Not my distraction I simply pointed out that the hype with every new revelation reminded me of the Drip drip drip thread

Then others chimed in with false claims about that thread.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Not my distraction I simply pointed out that the hype with every new revelation reminded me of the Drip drip drip thread

Then others chimed in with false claims about that thread.  

:lol:

Because Trump and all his closest buddies have been proven TOTALLY INNOCENT especially of anything related to Russia... Trump was toughest on Russia of ANY President! etc etc

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Mike in Seattle said:

Where is your cite

 

Quote

Eight other individuals affiliated with the Oath Keepers, all previously charged in the investigation, remain as defendants in two related cases. All defendants – except Rhodes and Vallejo – previously were charged in a superseding indictment. The superseding indictment has now effectively been split into three parts: the 11-defendant seditious conspiracy case, a seven-defendant original case, and a third case against one of the previously charged defendants.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/leader-oath-keepers-and-10-other-individuals-indicted-federal-court-seditious-conspiracy-and

Official enough for you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2022 at 12:30 PM, The Joker said:

You know that how?   I have no claim to know one way or the other, but it would be nice to understand if you have actual proof or if this is your personal expectation.

I'll post exactly what I have been saying since 1/6  - anyone that broke the law should be charged and if convicted sentenced appropriately.  

Sol is reputed to be a lawyer.  A profession which relies on bullshit to establish reasonable doubt.  Unfortunately you only need to do this once someone has been arrested and charged based on reasonable suspicion.  For the last 5 years or more the left has been intent on using bullshit to get indictments, prosecuting based on the bullshit, and failing to get a conviction.

I used to find this place amusing watching people calling Nazi, shitstain, racist, etc. in the belief that they were actually making a point.

Now I see our FL Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services (D) calling the Governor (R) a Nazi.  I see our POTUS (D) linking Republicans to Bull Connor (D), Jefferson Davis (D) or George Wallace (D).

Who needs the Bush(R) league in PA?

I made no statement which said that a bunch of clowns assaulting the capital shouldn't be punished.

The process though seem reasonably suspect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Sol is reputed to be a lawyer.  A profession which relies on bullshit to establish reasonable doubt.  Unfortunately you only need to do this once someone has been arrested and charged based on reasonable suspicion.  For the last 5 years or more the left has been intent on using bullshit to get indictments, prosecuting based on the bullshit, and failing to get a conviction.

I used to find this place amusing watching people calling Nazi, shitstain, racist, etc. in the belief that they were actually making a point.

Now I see our FL Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services (D) calling the Governor (R) a Nazi.  I see our POTUS (D) linking Republicans to Bull Connor (D), Jefferson Davis (D) or George Wallace (D).

Who needs the Bush(R) league in PA?

I made no statement which said that a bunch of clowns assaulting the capital shouldn't be punished.

The process though seem reasonably suspect.

Well, bless your little heart.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Sol is reputed to be a lawyer.  A profession which relies on bullshit to establish reasonable doubt.  Unfortunately you only need to do this once someone has been arrested and charged based on reasonable suspicion.  For the last 5 years or more the left has been intent on using bullshit to get indictments, prosecuting based on the bullshit, and failing to get a conviction.

I used to find this place amusing watching people calling Nazi, shitstain, racist, etc. in the belief that they were actually making a point.

Now I see our FL Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services (D) calling the Governor (R) a Nazi.  I see our POTUS (D) linking Republicans to Bull Connor (D), Jefferson Davis (D) or George Wallace (D).

Who needs the Bush(R) league in PA?

I made no statement which said that a bunch of clowns assaulting the capital shouldn't be punished.

The process though seem reasonably suspect.

hahahahaha

 

fucking bullshitters gotta bullshit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Saorsa said:

...    ...   I made no statement which said that a bunch of clowns assaulting the capital shouldn't be punished.

The process though seem reasonably suspect.

Yeah?

Which process, the assaulting the Capitol (sp), or the prosecution?

If it was up to TeamR! then the latter would not be happening at all, so of course TO YOU it's suspect. The Party Of Law & Order does not prosecute these kinds of crime.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2022 at 6:35 PM, The Joker said:

Interesting tidbit I’m assuming very few on here will enjoy reading 

When it comes to Trump, in fact, the indictment includes a message from Rhodes that actually seems to cut against any potential entanglement by the former president in the conspiracy. At 1:30 p.m. on Jan. 6, just after rioters began storming the Capitol, Rhodes texted on Signal, “All I see Trump doing is complaining. I see no intent by him to do anything. So the patriots are taking it into their own hands. They’ve had enough.” This certainly doesn’t sound like a message from someone who had been plotting with Trump or was waiting for his signal to start smashing windows. 

I don't think a single message by a single conspirator who has been charged with seditious conspiracy can be used to exonerate other members of the conspiracy. First off, there was no duty by Rhodes to be truthful in this message, perhaps it was just a leader motivating his troops. "Need to know" and all that.

Secondly, Rhodes obviously expected more of Trump. 

Why?

Conspiracies do not always work, but Rhodes certainly seems to have an expectation that Trump would respond favorably to a violent assault on the Capitol, dovetailing his presidential efforts with those of the Oath Keepers. It speaks volumes that the leader of a squad engaged in domestic terrorism did not expect to be rapidly and forcefully opposed by the President of the United States.

Rhodes was DISAPPOINTED by Trump's inaction and complaints. The leader of the seditious conspirators didn't think he was getting enough support from the president!

Joker isn't at all perturbed by this dereliction of duty, he's just ignoring it, and he's observing that there is, as yet, no direct evidence yet made public that the groups were actively coordinating efforts.

Fuck you, Joker, for giving the ex-president a pass on failing to defend our nation, and being pretty much ok with a terrorist being disappointed by his failure to take timely advantage of the insurrection.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

I don't think a single message by a single conspirator who has been charged with seditious conspiracy can be used to exonerate other members of the conspiracy. First off, there was no duty by Rhodes to be truthful in this message, perhaps it was just a leader motivating his troops. "Need to know" and all that.

Secondly, Rhodes obviously expected more of Trump. 

Why?

Conspiracies do not always work, but Rhodes certainly seems to have an expectation that Trump would respond favorably to a violent assault on the Capitol, dovetailing his presidential efforts with those of the Oath Keepers. It speaks volumes that the leader of a squad engaged in domestic terrorism did not expect to be rapidly and forcefully opposed by the President of the United States.

Rhodes was DISAPPOINTED by Trump's inaction and complaints. The leader of the seditious conspirators didn't think he was getting enough support from the president!

Joker isn't at all perturbed by this dereliction of duty, he's just ignoring it, and he's observing that there is, as yet, no direct evidence yet made public that the groups were actively coordinating efforts.

Fuck you, Joker, for giving the ex-president a pass on failing to defend our nation, and being pretty much ok with a terrorist being disappointed by his failure to take timely advantage of the insurrection.

That’s from an article linked by Mark K. Complain to the authors for hurting your feelings. 
 

Love how you want to pick and choose the validity of released messages. 
no duty to be truthful?   I’ll remember that when you are having an orgasm over a released message that favors your conspiracy  of the day. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Joker said:

That’s from an article linked by Mark K. Complain to the authors for hurting your feelings. 
 

Love how you want to pick and choose the validity of released messages. 
no duty to be truthful?   I’ll remember that when you are having an orgasm over a released message that favors your conspiracy  of the day. 

So: Trump waited for hours, while the Capitol and Congress and his Vice President was under assault and threat of deadly violence by a mob that he spoke to.

Failure to carry out his duty as President? Remember, he took a solemn oath.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

So: Trump waited for hours, while the Capitol and Congress and his Vice President was under assault and threat of deadly violence by a mob that he spoke to.

Failure to carry out his duty as President? Remember, he took a solemn oath.

- DSK

Only to “the best of my ability”. Which we now know, isn’t much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2022 at 6:35 PM, The Joker said:

Interesting tidbit I’m assuming very few on here will enjoy reading 

When it comes to Trump, in fact, the indictment includes a message from Rhodes that actually seems to cut against any potential entanglement by the former president in the conspiracy. At 1:30 p.m. on Jan. 6, just after rioters began storming the Capitol, Rhodes texted on Signal, “All I see Trump doing is complaining. I see no intent by him to do anything. So the patriots are taking it into their own hands. They’ve had enough.” This certainly doesn’t sound like a message from someone who had been plotting with Trump or was waiting for his signal to start smashing windows. 

This is EXACTLY what I am referring to when I say you are loyal in your defense of the defeated ex-President.  You go out of your way to find ways to minimize, downplay, dismiss, and gloss over any criticism.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Raz'r said:
21 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

So: Trump waited for hours, while the Capitol and Congress and his Vice President was under assault and threat of deadly violence by a mob that he spoke to.

Failure to carry out his duty as President? Remember, he took a solemn oath.

Only to “the best of my ability”. Which we now know, isn’t much.

Right. And we also know that the insurrectionists themselves are all pissed off at him for being a lazy coward and not helping them. I'm sure one could make a plea that NOT HELPING the insurrection (merely conspiring to launch it) is the same thing as "defending the Constitution" but it really doesn't seem valid... to me, at least.

It's clear that Trump had channels of communication to the various 'militia' leaders. He could have messaged them at any time, something along the lines of "turn it down a little, less cop-killing" or ANYthing resembling a dissuasion from full-on trial by combat. Could have, but didn't.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

So: Trump waited for hours, while the Capitol and Congress and his Vice President was under assault and threat of deadly violence by a mob that he spoke to.

Failure to carry out his duty as President? Remember, he took a solemn oath.

- DSK

Watch how fast our bullshitters learn the word “Misprision”. Eventually, bullshitter media will advise them how to bullshit around it  

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/4

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Joker said:

That’s from an article linked by Mark K. Complain to the authors for hurting your feelings. 
 

Love how you want to pick and choose the validity of released messages. 
no duty to be truthful?   I’ll remember that when you are having an orgasm over a released message that favors your conspiracy  of the day. 

You can endorse the musings of a man accused of seditious conspiracy, I remain skeptical.

And I see that you remain unperturbed by the Oath Keepers feeling betrayed by the former President’s failure to support them more vigorously.

Also, you don’t say why you think my feelings were hurt when you quoted that article. Did you try to  hurt feelings when you wrote that post, were you doing your best to “own a lib”?

I’m just surprised you think you can have an emotional impact on others by quoting a domestic terrorist expressing disappointment in Trump’s timidity to fulfill plans to overthrow the government.

Seems both you and the terrorists are pretty much consumed by emotional confusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Nincomcoup Was Pitifully Inept And Ineffectual
 

Quote

 

...

The plan, evidently, was to "scare the shit" out of Congress with a show of force that would persuade legislators to reject electoral votes for Biden. But in the end, the Oath Keepers merely joined a riot that was already in progress, and the riot itself accomplished nothing but an interruption that delayed ratification of Biden's victory until that night.

It obviously could have been much worse. If Oath Keepers had attacked the Capitol with guns, there could have been bloodshed on both sides, although that still would not have compelled Congress to do what Rhodes wanted.

The sedition charges do not require that the defendants had any realistic hope of success. Assuming the allegations are true, Rhodes et al. did indeed conspire to use force to "prevent, hinder, or delay" the execution of Congress' constitutional and statutory obligations to certify the election results. And in addition to the sedition counts, which are punishable by up to 20 years in prison, the defendants face various other charges, including conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, assault, destruction of government property, interference with law enforcement, and tampering with evidence (mainly by erasing incriminating data on their cellphones).

The Justice Department estimates that as many as 2,500 people may ultimately face charges in connection with the Capitol riot. Most of them will be more like Gonzalez, the "Capitol Doobie Smoker," than Rhodes and his followers, who had ambitious but inept plans that ultimately amounted to little more than a sideshow in a much broader spasm of vandalism and violence that was itself utterly futile. When former President Jimmy Carter claims the assault on the Capitol "almost succeeded in preventing the democratic transfer of power," he is giving blowhards like Rhodes way too much credit.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2022 at 10:38 AM, phillysailor said:

I’m just surprised you think you can have an emotional impact on others by quoting a domestic terrorist expressing

The moniker 'domestic terrorist' has lost all meaning since the left began using it to describe parents expressing their views at school board meetings about teaching their own kids.

When Democrats label a riot as being worse than 9/11, Pearl Harbor, WWII, and the Civil War then they have lost all credibility with anyone but other LWNJs.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Surfer7 said:

The moniker 'domestic terrorist' has lost all meaning since the left began using it to describe parents expressing their views at school board meetings about teaching their own kids. ...

by threatening to shoot the school board

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

by threatening to shoot the school board

- DSK

You conveniently leave out context.

ONE parent was careless with her words. Like Biden was when talking about Russia invading Ukraine. And like Biden, she quickly clarified her intended meaning.

So you paint ALL parents as domestic terrorists?

From: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/virginia-school-board-gun-threat-face-mask-dispute/
"A Virginia mother was charged Friday after she said at a school board meeting that she would 'bring every single gun loaded and ready' to fight mask requirements for her children. Amelia King later emailed the board to apologize for her choice of words, saying she was not referring to 'actual firearms.'

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Surfer7 said:
23 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

by threatening to shoot the school board

 

You conveniently leave out context.

It's far more than one incident, hell it's happened a couple of times in the past year in my county alone.

And context? When is it appropriate to threaten to shoot a school board member, or express the intent to use explosives against the school, or otherwise commit deadly violence against VOLUNTEER public servants?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Surfer7 said:

I didn't bother reading the rest of your nonsensical post.

No, you just claimed I said ALL parents are "domestic terrorists"

And just so you can't deny it and call me a liar (you will anyway)

25 minutes ago, Surfer7 said:

So you paint ALL parents as domestic terrorists?

Such is life among the RWNJ snowflakes

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Surfer7 said:

Amelia King later emailed the board to apologize for her choice of words, saying she was not referring to 'actual firearms.'

Don’t bring a squirt gun to a mask fight.

Or something like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Surfer7 said:

You conveniently leave out context.

ONE parent was careless with her words. Like Biden was when talking about Russia invading Ukraine. And like Biden, she quickly clarified her intended meaning.

So you paint ALL parents as domestic terrorists?

From: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/virginia-school-board-gun-threat-face-mask-dispute/
"A Virginia mother was charged Friday after she said at a school board meeting that she would 'bring every single gun loaded and ready' to fight mask requirements for her children. Amelia King later emailed the board to apologize for her choice of words, saying she was not referring to 'actual firearms.'

Yep.  When she said she would "bring every single gun loaded and ready", she didn't mean actual guns that are actually loaded.

Jesus, what other meaning did she intend?  I know when I talk about "resources", I don't call them "guns".

Seriously, make a threat like that and try that excuse.  Go on.  Prove all of us wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

Yep.  When she said she would "bring every single gun loaded and ready", she didn't mean actual guns that are actually loaded.

Jesus, what other meaning did she intend?  I know when I talk about "resources", I don't call them "guns".

Seriously, make a threat like that and try that excuse.  Go on.  Prove all of us wrong.

I second BD's recommendation to give it a try. I'll even suggest that the TSA checkpoint at the airport would be a convenient location to give it a whirl. Please. Let us know how it goes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ishmael said:

Holy shit, Smurf7 is stupid. What a fucking idiot.

He reads like a Vermin or Jerkoff sock

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olsonist said:

Tom will be along shortly to say that she didn’t actually shoot the school board member with the gun she allegedly owned.

When considering the nincomcoup, as with every other political issue, it's important to recognize that I sometimes say bad things about TeamD gun bans and confiscation programs, so thanks for bringing that into the discussion again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Pertinacious Tom said:

When considering the nincomcoup, as with every other political issue, it's important to recognize that I sometimes say bad things about TeamD gun bans and confiscation programs, so thanks for bringing that into the discussion again.

Couldn't you have worked some of those cute dollar sign$ into your response?

They never fail to.......well,......whatever it is they do.  But, you be you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, animeproblem said:

I dunno about that, I'm getting a strong Happy/Malarky vibe.

Did he finally manage to crawl out of his sewer?

See, this is why we need high-flow toilets.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, animeproblem said:

I dunno about that, I'm getting a strong Happy/Malarky vibe.

Any mention of MIT, a microbiologist daughter, cruises, or objection to a re-telling of The Aristocrats will be definitive proof.

Link to post
Share on other sites