Joe Biden: The inflation, vacation and scandal President

[Animal]

for the record, dupity dot, i have seen pictures of the moon landing. so i feel pretty certain that one happened. you really suck at coming up with similar examples. at least my big foot example is spot on. its a hoax and there has never even been one proven photo to exist to prove they exist.

Except Idgaf about Bigfoot. Because you're the one with the nutter butter conspiracy theory. You're not gonna find me arguing that Bigfoot does or does not exist, I literally do not care. And as much as you want to deny it, you are arguing parallel to what a moon landing denier would argue. If you don't like that, choose better hills to die on.

but the nutters continue to believe it. a nutter similar to dupity dot could probably post me 2 milion "credible" news stories that prove bigfoot is real. none with any authenticated pictures, but, you know. that doesn't matter, it only matters if they wrote about it.

like the nutters that believe schumer's aide story that spread like wildfire through the nutter news, but no one took a picture of it. why is that? Oh, maybe its because there wasn't anything to take a picture of. face it, stupid. you know as good as i do that if there had been shit smeared walls, there would be pictures of that all over the news stories that covered it. fortunately for them they have screwballs like you to keep the fires burning on their ridiculous stories that would be more suited for the National Enquirer, which is what these news sources have become.

See, the thing is, it's only you that says it didn't happen. You have yet to provide any contrary reporting to the fact that it happened. Meanwhile, every news source and reporting confirms and concurs. Do you get how impossible that is outside of facts in a polarized alternative facts media era? And when you finally dared to reveal where you got the idea, you clearly didn't realize it was an internet Q&A database where anyone can post anything on any subject. Furthermore, you didn't even realize that evidence disproving your theory was contained in the very same source. As much as you want everyone else to be the conspiracy theorist, I'm afraid your good "instincts" failed you on this. You got played, and you have no one to blame but yourself.

And that is another instance of where you are wrong. I am NOT the only person that thinks it didn't happen. And, YES, I did give you a contrary report to the fact that it happened. I gave you an extremely detailed and non biased news report that covered every aspect of that day in the capitol and provided documented pictures of each thing that they found with detailed descriptions. Here it is again.

https://www.businessinsider.com/photos- ... oup-2021-1

Go to it and read every page. Go through every single picture. They documented it all. Down to every detail. And not one picture of any shit smeared walls. Because it didn't happen. It was a rumor that downs duped dumbfucks like you want to believe. find one picture, dupey.

[dot]

And that is another instance of where you are wrong. I am NOT the only person that thinks it didn't happen.

An internet comment is not contrary reporting. I told you before, with your self-promoted good "instincts," do better.

And, YES, I did give you a contrary report to the fact that it happened. I gave you an extremely detailed and non biased news report that covered every aspect of that day in the capitol and provided documented pictures of each thing that they found with detailed descriptions. Here it is again.

https://www.businessinsider.com/photos- ... oup-2021-1

Go to it and read every page. Go through every single picture. They documented it all. Down to every detail. And not one picture of any shit smeared walls. Because it didn't happen. It was a rumor that downs duped dumbfucks like you want to believe. find one picture, dupey.

Do you actually believe that absence of refutation is evidence of refutation? Business Insider in a recap of the insurrection dated on the 2023 anniversary of it does not say there was no human excrement smeared on the walls, it simply gives a snapshot of various points of the aftermath, and by no means in totality. But hey, I'll tell you what, let's both assume that Business Insider is telling the truth. You're willing to believe them now right?

https://www.businessinsider.com/capitol ... sts-2021-1

'It was degrading': Black Capitol custodial staff talk about what it felt like to clean up the mess left on January 6 by violent pro-Trump white supremacists

After the mob of President Donald Trump's supporters attacked the Capitol last week, it was largely Black and brown people tasked with cleaning up the mess.
The overwhelmingly white rioters left behind shards of broken glass and ripped-apart furniture, blood, empty bottles, and even feces smeared on the walls.
Many of the janitorial staff and employees are Black and Latino and were aware of the racial animus held by many of those — including white supremacists — who turned the Capitol upside down.
It was "degrading," one Black employee said days afterward. Workers also said it was difficult to watch the mob seem to get treated with kid gloves by the police.
"If it was Black people, we never would have made it, but I think we know better not to attack the Capitol," a 28-year veteran of the Capitol told Insider.

Just days after a violent attack by a mob of President Donald Trump's supporters, the hallways of Congress were quiet and nearly spotless.

Black and brown people, many of them keenly aware of the racial dynamics of that event, had cleaned up after the overwhelmingly white rioters.

The Trump supporters who broke into the Capitol left behind shards of broken glass and ripped-apart furniture, blood, empty bottles, and even feces smeared on the walls.

The custodial staff cleaned up in places where people were bludgeoned and in one instance fatally shot, and where dozens of Capitol Police officers were wounded.

"It felt bad. It's degrading," said one custodial employee in his 30s, who works for the Architect of the Capitol's labor division.

You know when that was published? January 13, 2021. Not a two year later broad recap with no refutation that you needed for your theory to work, but days later confirming the existence of the aftermath which works directly against your theory. There's more to the article, and while it doesn't help this aspect of your conspiracy theory, I don't feel like piling on because you clearly are overburdened enough without adding more to the fact that this was an insurrection. So which is it, bud? When do you start believing the reporting and when do you stop? We both settled on trusting Business Insider right? Well, you got an article that does not refute your theory. I got an article that confirms the reality of that day. Guess which one is gonna be more relevant, the one that says it did happen or the one that doesn't mention it at all one way or the other? Even your own Q&A primary source had contrary evidence to your theory, but you ignored it. Admit it, you played yourself, and no amount of supposed good "instincts" can get you out of this hole.

[dot]

And just so you are absolutely clear about this, because you clearly understand how absence of refutation works:

Biker's funny when he goes to great lengths to show us that he doesn't understand how communicable diseases are spread.

So... you believe "6' social distancing" actually works and is a valid mitigation technique, still, after ~4 years?

(Hate to tell you, but actual science confirms it's not.)

i know how important it is to you to dispute every single thing Fauci ever said, but that report doesn't dispute the effectiveness of maintaining 6 feet. How many times were people social distancing in the wind? My god. This was for standing in line at Home Depot or Piggly Wiggly, where the wind is typically not that much.

and it takes no more science than common sense to know that when you have a disease that is passed on from one person to another, then keeping those people from coming in direct contact is smart. Which is probably where it went over your head.

Food for thought for the next time you want to claim something is contrary reporting.

[Animal]

And that is another instance of where you are wrong. I am NOT the only person that thinks it didn't happen.

An internet comment is not contrary reporting. I told you before, with your self-promoted good "instincts," do better.

And, YES, I did give you a contrary report to the fact that it happened. I gave you an extremely detailed and non biased news report that covered every aspect of that day in the capitol and provided documented pictures of each thing that they found with detailed descriptions. Here it is again.

https://www.businessinsider.com/photos- ... oup-2021-1

Go to it and read every page. Go through every single picture. They documented it all. Down to every detail. And not one picture of any shit smeared walls. Because it didn't happen. It was a rumor that downs duped dumbfucks like you want to believe. find one picture, dupey.

Do you actually believe that absence of refutation is evidence of refutation? Business Insider in a recap of the insurrection dated on the 2023 anniversary of it does not say there was no human excrement smeared on the walls, it simply gives a snapshot of various points of the aftermath, and by no means in totality. But hey, I'll tell you what, let's both assume that Business Insider is telling the truth. You're willing to believe them now right?

https://www.businessinsider.com/capitol ... sts-2021-1

'It was degrading': Black Capitol custodial staff talk about what it felt like to clean up the mess left on January 6 by violent pro-Trump white supremacists

After the mob of President Donald Trump's supporters attacked the Capitol last week, it was largely Black and brown people tasked with cleaning up the mess.
The overwhelmingly white rioters left behind shards of broken glass and ripped-apart furniture, blood, empty bottles, and even feces smeared on the walls.
Many of the janitorial staff and employees are Black and Latino and were aware of the racial animus held by many of those — including white supremacists — who turned the Capitol upside down.
It was "degrading," one Black employee said days afterward. Workers also said it was difficult to watch the mob seem to get treated with kid gloves by the police.
"If it was Black people, we never would have made it, but I think we know better not to attack the Capitol," a 28-year veteran of the Capitol told Insider.

Just days after a violent attack by a mob of President Donald Trump's supporters, the hallways of Congress were quiet and nearly spotless.

Black and brown people, many of them keenly aware of the racial dynamics of that event, had cleaned up after the overwhelmingly white rioters.

The Trump supporters who broke into the Capitol left behind shards of broken glass and ripped-apart furniture, blood, empty bottles, and even feces smeared on the walls.

The custodial staff cleaned up in places where people were bludgeoned and in one instance fatally shot, and where dozens of Capitol Police officers were wounded.

"It felt bad. It's degrading," said one custodial employee in his 30s, who works for the Architect of the Capitol's labor division.

You know when that was published? January 13, 2021. Not a two year later broad recap with no refutation that you needed for your theory to work, but days later confirming the existence of the aftermath which works directly against your theory. There's more to the article, and while it doesn't help this aspect of your conspiracy theory, I don't feel like piling on because you clearly are overburdened enough without adding more to the fact that this was an insurrection. So which is it, bud? When do you start believing the reporting and when do you stop? We both settled on trusting Business Insider right? Well, you got an article that does not refute your theory. I got an article that confirms the reality of that day. Guess which one is gonna be more relevant, the one that says it did happen or the one that doesn't mention it at all one way or the other? Even your own Q&A primary source had contrary evidence to your theory, but you ignored it. Admit it, you played yourself, and no amount of supposed good "instincts" can get you out of this hole.

I'm not flying some flag in favor of the reporting techniques of Business Insider. I am posting their story because those pictures were taken moments after the attack. the same day or the next day. they are documented pictures from one end of the building to the other. Not one picture of a shit smeared wall. if you find one, post it. because until then its all just, um, bigfoot stories.

[dot]

I'm not flying some flag in favor of the reporting techniques of Business Insider. I am posting their story because those pictures were taken moments after the attack. the same day or the next day. they are documented pictures from one end of the building to the other. Not one picture of a shit smeared wall. if you find one, post it. because until then its all just, um, bigfoot stories.

And do you think that means it's the totality of everything done that day? And where does it confirm any of what you're claiming didn't happen? Do you yet understand that the absence of a refutation is not evidence of refutation? Do you understand how the same source confirms what you're claiming did happen days after the insurrection rather than a recap two years later?

Your "instincts" are failing you.

[Animal]

I'm not flying some flag in favor of the reporting techniques of Business Insider. I am posting their story because those pictures were taken moments after the attack. the same day or the next day. they are documented pictures from one end of the building to the other. Not one picture of a shit smeared wall. if you find one, post it. because until then its all just, um, bigfoot stories.

And do you think that means it's the totality of everything done that day? And where does it confirm any of what you're claiming didn't happen? Do you yet understand that the absence of a refutation is not evidence of refutation? Do you understand how the same source confirms what you're claiming did happen days after the insurrection rather than a recap two years later?

Your "instincts" are failing you.

i am saying that pictures are stronger evidence than written words by a click bait journalist. show me a picture or admit its all just made up.
Just based on statistical probability, out of all of the hundreds of journalists and thousands of MAGA haters that took pictures of the aftermath, one would have at least accidentally taken a picture of a shit stained wall. Yet nothing.

[dot]

i am saying that pictures are stronger evidence than written words by a click bait journalist.

Except you're willing to cite at least one source of journalism that doesn't even say it didn't happen in your one cited instance. The same source previously when it was fresh reporting confirms it did. So once again, where does your acceptance of reporting start and where does it end? Do you only believe things you can see? Do you believe in God? Do you believe in science? Do black holes exist? Does the Loch Ness monster exist? Did the holocaust happen? Was JFK shot by only Lee Harvey Oswald? Do you believe the 2020 election was stolen? Was it legitimate? Again, why is this hill the one you're willing to die on?

[Animal]

i am saying that pictures are stronger evidence than written words by a click bait journalist.

Except you're willing to cite at least one source of journalism that doesn't even say it didn't happen in your one cited instance. The same source previously when it was fresh reporting confirms it did. So once again, where does your acceptance of reporting start and where does it end? Do you only believe things you can see? Do you believe in God? Do you believe in science? Do black holes exist? Does the Loch Ness monster exist? Did the holocaust happen? Was JFK shot by only Lee Harvey Oswald? Do you believe the 2020 election was stolen? Was it legitimate? Again, why is this hill the one you're willing to die on?

what i'm saying is that i can show you hundreds or thousands of pictures of Jan 6th aftermath and not a single one has any shit smeared walls. Every single one of those pictures is proof that it didn't happen. Now, if you can just show me one picture that shows it did happen, then that would prove me wrong.

[dot]

what i'm saying is that i can show you hundreds or thousands of pictures of Jan 6th aftermath and not a single one has any shit smeared walls. Every single one of those pictures is proof that it didn't happen. Now, if you can just show me one picture that shows it did happen, then that would prove me wrong.

Is there some reason you don't want to say what the tipping point for journalism is for you? Are you afraid to identify when it is you regularly become Conspiracy Theorist Animal? You keep dancing around when it is you believe and stop believing. Do you only believe pictures? Do you discredit all words? Take your recent pandemic protocol arguments as an example. You can't see Covid particulates, but you believe the science that you can't actually see. You take their words. You got your vaccine, and boosters, I believe. But you can't see it working, you just take the scientists at their word. And hey, don't get me wrong. I believe you in that regard, with the health of my family at stake, it was cost effective to get vaccinated to put them at lesser risk even if it meant getting a shot in the arm of a previously unknown and previously not widely tested protective measure. But why is it you will take their words for it when you can't see the evidence? What is the difference between believing scientists who pretty much universally agree that the Covid vaccine was safe and it works versus the journalists who actually are universal in telling you this incident happened and there are none telling you it didn't? Just help us all understand why you are willing to die on this hill.

[Animal]

believe it or not, its not very easy to take a picture of a vaccine working. that may come as a shock.

what might not come as a shock is how simple it is to take a picture of shit smeared walls. especially if you are going to lead with that in an article about it. instead of showing pictures of other stuff that isn't shit smeared walls to accompany your story about shit smeared walls.

[dot]

believe it or not, its not very easy to take a picture of a vaccine working. that may come as a shock.

But you still believe it. You don't have a picture of the vaccine at work, so why is it you believe it without visual proof?

what might not come as a shock is how simple it is to take a picture of shit smeared walls. especially if you are going to lead with that in an article about it. instead of showing pictures of other stuff that isn't shit smeared walls to accompany your story about shit smeared walls.

So it's about ease of reporting? Is that your threshold? If it's easy to report, that means it's believable? But only pictures? You cannot trust the written word? Why is that, and what makes it untrustworthy? Help us understand the mind of a resident conspiracy theorist.

[Animal]

believe it or not, its not very easy to take a picture of a vaccine working. that may come as a shock.

But you still believe it. You don't have a picture of the vaccine at work, so why is it you believe it without visual proof?

what might not come as a shock is how simple it is to take a picture of shit smeared walls. especially if you are going to lead with that in an article about it. instead of showing pictures of other stuff that isn't shit smeared walls to accompany your story about shit smeared walls.

So it's about ease of reporting? Is that your threshold? If it's easy to report, that means it's believable? But only pictures? You cannot trust the written word? Why is that, and what makes it untrustworthy? Help us understand the mind of a resident conspiracy theorist.

if you want me to believe either one of your hoaxes, bigfoots or shit smeared walls in the capitol, all you have to do is bring me an authenticated picture of either one. its really that simple.

[dot]

if you want me to believe either one of your hoaxes, bigfoots or shit smeared walls in the capitol, all you have to do is bring me an authenticated picture of either one. its really that simple.

I've already accepted that you regularly deny reality. Long time ago, before your insurrection apologies and even before your fraud faceplant. Look no further than you still inserting Bigfoot into this like it's a factor when only you care about it. For this thread, I'm more interested in what triggers your denial of reality. Clearly it's not just universal reporting because you accept other things with such wide confirmations. Clearly it's not visual learning because you take things at their spoken and written word in other subjects. So far the only thing established here that triggers you denying reality is a Pizzagate level of authenticity internet comment. And even that had to be dragged out of you. You can disclose what makes you believe or not, as clearly you have a problem with being honest. If you do, then we'll understand how someone's mind becomes so tainted to be a conspiracy theorist. If not, it'll be one more thing you'll become known for to your detriment. The choice is yours.

[Animal]

if you want me to believe either one of your hoaxes, bigfoots or shit smeared walls in the capitol, all you have to do is bring me an authenticated picture of either one. its really that simple.

I've already accepted that you regularly deny reality. Long time ago, before your insurrection apologies and even before your fraud faceplant. Look no further than you still inserting Bigfoot into this like it's a factor when only you care about it. For this thread, I'm more interested in what triggers your denial of reality. Clearly it's not just universal reporting because you accept other things with such wide confirmations. Clearly it's not visual learning because you take things at their spoken and written word in other subjects. So far the only thing established here that triggers you denying reality is a Pizzagate level of authenticity internet comment. And even that had to be dragged out of you. You can disclose what makes you believe or not, as clearly you have a problem with being honest. If you do, then we'll understand how someone's mind becomes so tainted to be a conspiracy theorist. If not, it'll be one more thing you'll become known for to your detriment. The choice is yours.

I'm happy just be be known for pointing out how stupid you are. And, for the record, I wasn't the one that brought up Bigfoot. That was you trying to compare me to a bigfoot believer and comparing this hoax to that hoax. And I still laugh at how that blew up in your face because the are exactly the same, just not like they sounded in your vacuum skull. They are both hoaxes that have been created from rumors and stories and magnified into "factual" events by large audiences. No proof to back either of them up other than printed stories repeated by the dupetards (like you) who want to believe them so badly that they require no proof.

Maybe the more comical of your analogies is to compare the belief in shit smeared walls to the belief in God. Which sounds about right that you would bow down before the shit smeared walls and pledge your life to spreading the word about them.

[dot]

I'm happy just be be known for pointing out how stupid you are.

By pointing out how you're a conspiracy theorist? Good luck with that.

And, for the record, I wasn't the one that brought up Bigfoot. That was you trying to compare me to a bigfoot believer and comparing this hoax to that hoax.

I brought up a lot of things to point out how you are behaving on this matter. But it's not because I believe in any particular one of them or even which way I fall, it's to showcase what you sound and look like:

And I still laugh at how that blew up in your face because the are exactly the same, just not like they sounded in your vacuum skull. They are both hoaxes that have been created from rumors and stories and magnified into "factual" events by large audiences.

Except at no point was I ever arguing that Bigfoot was a factual event, it was to point out how a conspiracy theorist looks to the outside world. And since you're clearly not registering reality right now, we're talking about you.

No proof to back either of them up other than printed stories repeated by the dupetards (like you) who want to believe them so badly that they require no proof.

Maybe the more comical of your analogies is to compare the belief in shit smeared walls to the belief in God. Which sounds about right that you would bow down before the shit smeared walls and pledge your life to spreading the word about them.

This is all a lot of words to get away from you having to disclose what your threshold is. And I get it, you got embarrassed because you relied on an anonymous internet Q&A site for your "facts" while ignoring the contrary info in the same source. But hey, don't let that discourage you from flying your conspiracy theorist flag high. Tell us, when do you start to question reality?

[Animal]

I'm happy just be be known for pointing out how stupid you are.

By pointing out how you're a conspiracy theorist? Good luck with that.

And, for the record, I wasn't the one that brought up Bigfoot. That was you trying to compare me to a bigfoot believer and comparing this hoax to that hoax.

I brought up a lot of things to point out how you are behaving on this matter. But it's not because I believe in any particular one of them or even which way I fall, it's to showcase what you sound and look like:

And I still laugh at how that blew up in your face because the are exactly the same, just not like they sounded in your vacuum skull. They are both hoaxes that have been created from rumors and stories and magnified into "factual" events by large audiences.

Except at no point was I ever arguing that Bigfoot was a factual event, it was to point out how a conspiracy theorist looks to the outside world. And since you're clearly not registering reality right now, we're talking about you.

No proof to back either of them up other than printed stories repeated by the dupetards (like you) who want to believe them so badly that they require no proof.

Maybe the more comical of your analogies is to compare the belief in shit smeared walls to the belief in God. Which sounds about right that you would bow down before the shit smeared walls and pledge your life to spreading the word about them.

This is all a lot of words to get away from you having to disclose what your threshold is. And I get it, you got embarrassed because you relied on an anonymous internet Q&A site for your "facts" while ignoring the contrary info in the same source. But hey, don't let that discourage you from flying your conspiracy theorist flag high. Tell us, when do you start to question reality?

just one single picture of the shit smeared walls is all you have to come up with. I can provide thousands of other pictures of anything you would be interested in. Frankly, if they had told me there was a buffalo man there that day I probably wouldn't have believed it, but the weird thing is that they actually took a picture of him. Lots of pictures of him. I guess since they knew that would be a big story. Unlike the shit stained walls, which they all wrote about, but no one seems to have any pictures of.

[dot]

just one single picture of the shit smeared walls is all you have to come up with. I can provide thousands of other pictures of anything you would be interested in. Frankly, if they had told me there was a buffalo man there that day I probably wouldn't have believed it, but the weird thing is that they actually took a picture of him. Lots of pictures of him. I guess since they knew that would be a big story. Unlike the shit stained walls, which they all wrote about, but no one seems to have any pictures of.

So we're back to visuals only. But again, why are you visual on this one thing when you aren't visual in others? Conversely, you disbelieve the written word here but accept it in other cases. So what is the threshold? What triggers your denial of reality, when you refuse to believe reporting?

[Animal]

just one single picture of the shit smeared walls is all you have to come up with. I can provide thousands of other pictures of anything you would be interested in. Frankly, if they had told me there was a buffalo man there that day I probably wouldn't have believed it, but the weird thing is that they actually took a picture of him. Lots of pictures of him. I guess since they knew that would be a big story. Unlike the shit stained walls, which they all wrote about, but no one seems to have any pictures of.

So we're back to visuals only. But again, why are you visual on this one thing when you aren't visual in others? Conversely, you disbelieve the written word here but accept it in other cases. So what is the threshold? What triggers your denial of reality, when you refuse to believe reporting?

Did you know that you can see the Great Wall of China from space? Its been reported thousands of times. Lots of stories of the Apollo astronauts being able to see the great wall out their window. No pictures of the wall from space though. Why is that? Think of the hundreds of people that have gone to space and yet not one of them has taken a picture of the Great Wall, this famous saying that we have all heard. Why aren't there any pictures of it from space?

It turns out that you can't see (with the unaided eye) the great wall from space.

[dot]

Did you know that you can see the Great Wall of China from space? Its been reported thousands of times. Lots of stories of the Apollo astronauts being able to see the great wall out their window. No pictures of the wall from space though. Why is that? Think of the hundreds of people that have gone to space and yet not one of them has taken a picture of the Great Wall, this famous saying that we have all heard. Why aren't there any pictures of it from space?

It turns out that you can't see (with the unaided eye) the great wall from space.

That was quite the stretch even for you and still doesn't answer when your denial of reality kicks in. But I will point out that arguing you can't see the Great Wall of China from space and then acknowledging it's still there doesn't exactly help your conspiracy theory since it's still universally reported that both the Great Wall of China and the January 6 feces murals exist. Maybe you should've gone with a better example, but that would be embarrassingly ironic given your past posts, right?

When do you start believing the universal reporting and when do you stop? Still waiting for that disclosure.

[Animal]

Did you know that you can see the Great Wall of China from space? Its been reported thousands of times. Lots of stories of the Apollo astronauts being able to see the great wall out their window. No pictures of the wall from space though. Why is that? Think of the hundreds of people that have gone to space and yet not one of them has taken a picture of the Great Wall, this famous saying that we have all heard. Why aren't there any pictures of it from space?

It turns out that you can't see (with the unaided eye) the great wall from space.

That was quite the stretch even for you and still doesn't answer when your denial of reality kicks in. But I will point out that arguing you can't see the Great Wall of China from space and then acknowledging it's still there doesn't exactly help your conspiracy theory since it's still universally reported that both the Great Wall of China and the January 6 feces murals exist. Maybe you should've gone with a better example, but that would be embarrassingly ironic given your past posts, right?

When do you start believing the universal reporting and when do you stop? Still waiting for that disclosure.

I generally stop when it sounds like click bait and there is no proof (other than other click bait). If you can provide a picture, I am more than happy to acknowledge that it actually happened. Until then I feel 100% certain that it was a made up rumor that dupes like you latched onto and perpetrated.

People have learned to recognize clickbait titles for what they are, so articles with them are often met by a great deal of skepticism.

If your titles are too obvious or overly exaggerated, then no one’s going to bother clicking on it. Audiences have been overexposed to sensationalist titles and are fed up with being duped.

Overcoming that obstacle can be a challenge for those who haven’t refined their title ideation skills yet. People like dumb dupey dot.

[dot]

I generally stop when it sounds like click bait and there is no proof (other than other click bait).

So "MAGA mob rioters smeared their own feces throughout the Capitol and 'tracked brown footprints' in several hallways during violent siege" is where you raise a dubious eyebrow, but "My Marxist son INSISTS feces was smeared by Trump supporters in the Capitol on 1/6. I can find no evidence to support this. Is this true?" gets a "sounds credible, let's not read further into it" from you? I mean I can paste all the various ways it was reported from sensationalist to matter of fact, but the one thing I can't do is paste the news headlines that say it didn't happen. Does that give you pause at all? After all, how often does the New York Post concur with The Atlantic? The Daily Mail and the New York Times? How deep does the conspiracy go, for everyone but you to confirm reality? Is the conspiracy in the room with you right now?

[Animal]

I generally stop when it sounds like click bait and there is no proof (other than other click bait).

So "MAGA mob rioters smeared their own feces throughout the Capitol and 'tracked brown footprints' in several hallways during violent siege" is where you raise a dubious eyebrow, but "My Marxist son INSISTS feces was smeared by Trump supporters in the Capitol on 1/6. I can find no evidence to support this. Is this true?" gets a "sounds credible, let's not read further into it" from you? I mean I can paste all the various ways it was reported from sensationalist to matter of fact, but the one thing I can't do is paste the news headlines that say it didn't happen. Does that give you pause at all? After all, how often does the New York Post concur with The Atlantic? The Daily Mail and the New York Times? How deep does the conspiracy go, for everyone but you to confirm reality? Is the conspiracy in the room with you right now?

i simply quoted the reddit (or whatever it was) link because the guy had quoted something and you asked where i got what i posted. there's lot of other people, like him, that think that story is a 100 miles of bullshit concocted by the hand wringing Karen's like you. face it, dupey. if it had really happened then at least one of those hundreds of journalists would have taken a picture of it. you can bet your ass on that. yet there are zero.

[dot]

i simply quoted the reddit (or whatever it was) link because the guy had quoted something and you asked where i got what i posted. there's lot of other people, like him, that think that story is a 100 miles of bullshit concocted by the hand wringing Karen's like you.

By a lot, do you mean 3 or 4 other commenters that were far outnumbered by those offering actual contrary reporting to their conspiracy claims that were absent any evidence?

face it, dupey. if it had really happened then at least one of those hundreds of journalists would have taken a picture of it. you can bet your ass on that. yet there are zero.

And if it hadn't happened, someone, anyone at all, would have published a tell-all on something more reputable than an internet Q&A site. Right?

[Animal]

i simply quoted the reddit (or whatever it was) link because the guy had quoted something and you asked where i got what i posted. there's lot of other people, like him, that think that story is a 100 miles of bullshit concocted by the hand wringing Karen's like you.

By a lot, do you mean 3 or 4 other commenters that were far outnumbered by those offering actual contrary reporting to their conspiracy claims that were absent any evidence?

face it, dupey. if it had really happened then at least one of those hundreds of journalists would have taken a picture of it. you can bet your ass on that. yet there are zero.

And if it hadn't happened, someone, anyone at all, would have published a tell-all on something more reputable than an internet Q&A site. Right?

where are all of the reputable stories that have been published about how you can't see the Great Wall of China from space? Right?

[Animal]

i simply quoted the reddit (or whatever it was) link because the guy had quoted something and you asked where i got what i posted. there's lot of other people, like him, that think that story is a 100 miles of bullshit concocted by the hand wringing Karen's like you.

By a lot, do you mean 3 or 4 other commenters that were far outnumbered by those offering actual contrary reporting to their conspiracy claims that were absent any evidence?

face it, dupey. if it had really happened then at least one of those hundreds of journalists would have taken a picture of it. you can bet your ass on that. yet there are zero.

And if it hadn't happened, someone, anyone at all, would have published a tell-all on something more reputable than an internet Q&A site. Right?

Here's another really good, in-depth report about the aftermath and cleanup after Jan 6. By USA Today. They talk about broken glass, damaged doors, american flags, furniture, etc. Guess what they do not mention or have any photographs of? Yep. feces. MYTH BUSTED!!!

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/fac ... 346608001/