196
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 13 Jan, 2021 09:03 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
that statement is untrue. and your posts do in fact run heavily toward bilge and run away from truth.

You are a phony and a fraud. You cannot back up your empty claims by pointing out a single untrue statement in any of my posts.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 13 Jan, 2021 09:06 pm
@Wilso,
Wilso wrote:
Internet iq test. 170 would make him smarter than Einstein, which he obviously isn't.

You are too stupid to understand what IQ measures.


Wilso wrote:
His ability to reason, and simplistic use of language suggest that a two digit actually iq is far more probable.

You are lying about my language and reason. You and izzythepush are the only "double digiters" currently around.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  3  
Reply Wed 13 Jan, 2021 09:39 pm
Further, his maniacal need to continuously post his bilge is suggestive of a potentially dangerous personality disorder.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 13 Jan, 2021 10:01 pm
@Wilso,
You're a phony too. You cannot back up your empty claims by providing examples of untrue statements from my posts.

Not to mention the fact that I don't post any more than most other regulars.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  4  
Reply Wed 13 Jan, 2021 10:03 pm
Good god. If I see one more discussion on that guy's IQ I'm going to barf. Who gives a **** about what he says or believes about this.
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Wed 13 Jan, 2021 10:05 pm
Here's something to warm your cockles, folks...

Quote:
Trump has instructed aides not to pay Giuliani’s legal fees, two officials said, and has demanded that he personally approve any reimbursements for the expenses Giuliani incurred while traveling on the president’s behalf to challenge election results in key states. They said Trump has privately expressed concern with some of Giuliani’s moves and did not appreciate a demand from Giuliani for $20,000 a day in fees for his work attempting to overturn the election.
WP

I presume the account is accurate not least because... Trump.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Jan, 2021 10:29 pm
@oralloy,
bilge/
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 13 Jan, 2021 11:07 pm
@MontereyJack,
You're a phony and a fraud. You talk big, but your talk is empty. You cannot back up your empty talk with examples of an untrue statement from any of my posts.
Below viewing threshold (view)
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Jan, 2021 11:34 pm
@oralloy,
<rolls eyes> <rolls eyes again>. You aren't very god at reading people's states of mind or reasons for acting either, are you <rolls eyes a third time>
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Wed 13 Jan, 2021 11:38 pm
@oralloy,
untrue. everything you've said about blm is false and illogical, as i have pointed out several times. Your whold schtick about pistol grips is nonsense. your poosts particularly the whole chris and amy cooper sequence and likening an attmpet to get an unlicensed dog put back on a leash which you kilkened to racist ax murder was racist. that's just for starters. We post them and make trhe case and you flart out ignore them and pretend they never existed. You are phony. Pathetic in the undeserved self-preening.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 13 Jan, 2021 11:53 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
untrue. everything you've said about blm is false and illogical, as i have pointed out several times.

Everything that I say about BLM is completely true.


MontereyJack wrote:
Your whole schtick about pistol grips is nonsense.

You cannot provide any alternative motivation for outlawing pistol grips other than the fact that progressives enjoy the violating people's civil liberties.


MontereyJack wrote:
your posts particularly the whole chris and amy cooper sequence and likening an attmept to get an unlicensed dog put back on a leash which you likened to racist ax murder was racist.

It's not racist to say that women have a right to be fearful when black thugs threaten them in public parks.


MontereyJack wrote:
that's just for starters. We post them and make the case

Your case falls apart immediately as soon as I address your claims and defend myself.


MontereyJack wrote:
and you flat out ignore them and pretend they never existed.

Wrong. When you make claims like this against me, I address your claims and prove them wrong.


MontereyJack wrote:
You are phony.

Unlike you I can and do back up my claims.


MontereyJack wrote:
Pathetic in the undeserved self-preening.

My preening is entirely deserved.
vikorr
 
  3  
Reply Wed 13 Jan, 2021 11:56 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
It doesn't seem to ever work out that way. It's always progressives who declare holy war on anyone who doesn't agree with them.

- Building a wall to keep outsiders out is conservative
- Storming a palace when a new emperor takes over is conservative
- wanting everyone to worship the God of your country is conservative
- Protecting your own with overwhelming force is conservative (and often at the expense of others)
- Fighting for the Status Quo that keeps your race in power (over another) is conservative
- Insisting that all women dress head to toe is conservative (in particular countries)
...and I could keep going on.

Many would consider the above bad, and perhaps some of them even evil, and many denounce the conservatives fighting for such. There is nothing inherently good or bad in either progressiveness or conservatism. Neither is better than the other. They both have their strengths and weaknesses...and when it comes to whether an idea is right or not, the idea can stand on its own merits (even if any given idea will attract one side more than the other)

That is to say, your view has a rather large blindspot.
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2021 12:01 am
@vikorr,
What you listed are alleged conservative policy views.

Listing alleged conservative policy views does not mean that conservatives are intolerant towards people who don't agree with them.
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2021 12:18 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
Listing alleged conservative policy views does not mean that conservatives are intolerant towards people who don't agree with them.
A conservatives view conserves the status quo, or tradition, etc. If it is outside of that, it is progressive. It's not alleged policy views - it is examples of conservatism.

Many of the examples are intolerant. Many that I didn't bother mentioning are tolerant. As for the right to express your ideas - it seems to me as many conservatives as progressives are intolerant towards people who don't agree with them. There is a likelihood that a slightly greater percentage of conservatives are tolerant of differences of opinion (but I doubt it would be by much)
0 Replies
 
Region Philbis
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2021 04:30 am

Home Depot cofounder Ken Langone says he feels ‘betrayed’
by Trump following Capitol Hill riot

(forbes)
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2021 04:40 am
@oralloy,
What you call "proofs" are as illogical and counter-factual as the claims you made originally, which they are supposedly justification for. It is the total simple-mindedness of those claims that cause us to question your alleged intelligence. Reiterating dumb arguments does not make them seem smart.
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2021 05:00 am
@blatham,
Quote:
If I see one more discussion on that guy's IQ I'm going to barf.

I hear you. Maybe we could have one unmoderated "Public Punching Bag" thread for those sorts of discussions. It's incredible how many pages have been devoted to this pointless activity over the years. Most of us have been guilty of some of this at times but it would be really nice to give it a long rest.
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2021 07:54 am
@hightor,
The rest feature is called "Ignore"
revelette3
 
  7  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2021 07:59 am
Quote:
A House Republican wanted proof of incitement. Here are four rioters who came to D.C. because of Trump.

Hours into the debate over impeaching President Trump for inciting the violence that erupted in Washington last week, Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.) stood up to make a point he felt had been overlooked.

“I rise with a very simple question,” Mast began. “On Jan. 6, thousands broke the law by taking siege of our Capitol here with us inside. Has any one of those individuals who brought violence on this Capitol been brought here to answer whether they did that because of our president?”

He paused for effect, awaiting an answer he knew would not come.

“It appears I will receive no answer,” he said after about 30 seconds. He stepped away from the lectern.

Mast’s point was apparently twofold: first, that there had been no witness testimony preceding the impeachment vote and, second, that there was not evidence that Trump’s actions had, in fact, incited the violence that occurred.

The first argument is accurate. The second is debatable.

During a speech from outside the White House shortly before the Capitol was overrun, Trump did call on the people in attendance to march down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol and claimed both that he sought peaceful protest and encouraged his listeners repeatedly to “fight” on his behalf. There has not been documentation that those who were in attendance and entered the Capitol did so explicitly because they felt that Trump wanted them to, but there is documentation that the effort to breach the Capitol began shortly after Trump’s speech concluded.

There is also documentation that multiple people who stormed the Capitol were only in Washington because Trump had called for them to be.

The best known is Jacob Chansley, or the “QAnon Shaman,” who appeared in the Capitol wearing fur and a hat with horns. When Chansley, who’s been arrested and charged in connection with the riot, was interviewed by the FBI (at his initiation), he told investigators that “he came as a part of a group effort, with other ‘patriots’ from Arizona, at the request of the President that all ‘patriots’ come to D.C. on January 6, 2021.”

Trump made that request repeatedly, including with multiple tweets on Jan. 1. (“January 6th. See you in D.C.,” one said.) His first mention of it on Twitter came on Dec. 19, when he elevated a document alleging rampant voter fraud and told his followers that there would be a “ig protest in D.C. on January 6th.”

“Be there,” he added, “will be wild!”

How seriously was that taken? One of the people being sought by the FBI for having invaded the Capitol had the phrase emblazoned on a T-shirt as seen in a wanted poster from the Bureau.

Brandon Fellows, another rioter who illegally entered the Capitol, told Bloomberg News that he came to Washington specifically because of that tweet.

“We were there for one common cause,” Fellows said, “which is making a statement that the government is crushing down on us.”

Douglas Sweet, who was arrested and charged with unlawful entry, told the television station WTKR that he went to the Capitol because “Trump asked all the patriots to show up, so I did.”

“I didn’t go with any malice or intention of malice of those that committed those the fights — the tear gas and just, you know, throwing stuff at police,” he told the station. “That wasn’t in my game plan at all.”

One of the more infamous participants during the riot was Larry Brock, who was photographed on the floor of the Senate wearing military gear and holding flex cuffs, a form of zip-tie designed to serve as handcuffs. Brock, who was also arrested and charged in the riot, is an Air Force veteran and spoke with the New Yorker’s Ronan Farrow.

“The President asked for his supporters to be there to attend, and I felt like it was important, because of how much I love this country, to actually be there,” Brock told Farrow. He also claimed that he “assumed he was welcome to enter the building,” a claim that seems hard to believe given his equipment and the obvious chaos through which he made his way.

Again, none of these individuals is testifying under oath before the House that they were incited specifically to engage in the violent occupation of the Capitol because of Trump. Each of them, though, is saying that they were in Washington because of Trump, and each ended up being part of the crowd that did storm the Capitol.

It’s unlikely that this will change Mast’s view of the impeachment effort.


wp
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.42 seconds on 01/18/2021 at 11:02:28