For all the MAGAt Trumpeteers and Lie-brul commies to post their wearisome screeds.
The board admins are not responsible for any items posted from Biker's FaceBook feed.
Anyone posting Ben Garrison comics gets a three-day vacation.
Animal wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 9:48 pm
it makes you look like you are just throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. that's never a good look. and its part of the reason none of this is slowing Trump down. In fact, its doing just the opposite.
Sorry, I couldn't hear you over the apology tour you're now conducting. By all means, if you want to dispute each and every charge of his overthrowing democracy conspiracy, be my guest. Go ahead and tell us all how asking for votes to be manufactured out of thin air isn't a crime. Tell us how ordering states to throw out votes isn't a crime. Luckily, you don't have to tell us his cases for voter fraud were false, because every single one of them failed to have merit, so that is on the record. You're already admitting the fake electors is disqualifying. You've already had to concede the insurrection was an insurrection by your own definition. I am sure you hope that I don't have to get into the minutiae of his indictments to parse out things I generalized here, your workload is already pretty packed with this new burden you're taking on.
Did it occur to you that maybe it's not throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks, but rather it's that he served up a smorgasbord of criminal activity against this country and its citizens? Instead of taking issue with the people who identify the crimes, maybe it's time you take issue with the criminal himself.
I'm convinced that people like you are paid trolls and people can't be this stupid. Is Russia paying you to appear this stupid? I mean why else would you willingly want to appear so fucking dumb?
Its why he gets on a subject and cant do anything else. Hes like the "special" kid that has to have 6 chicken nuggets or a meltdown will ensue.
Hes a one trick pony that never comments on anything other than politics. No sense of humor, no posted pics, defends Dems no matter what and has never shared even the slightest bit of personal information. Hell, I can tell you how old, some minor personal tidbit and where most everyone on this board is from but I have no clue of anything regarding Dodgin' Dot. If I had to guess I think he slipped up ONE time and mentioned something about Texas.
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
Animal wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 9:48 pm
it makes you look like you are just throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. that's never a good look. and its part of the reason none of this is slowing Trump down. In fact, its doing just the opposite.
Sorry, I couldn't hear you over the apology tour you're now conducting. By all means, if you want to dispute each and every charge of his overthrowing democracy conspiracy, be my guest. Go ahead and tell us all how asking for votes to be manufactured out of thin air isn't a crime. Tell us how ordering states to throw out votes isn't a crime. Luckily, you don't have to tell us his cases for voter fraud were false, because every single one of them failed to have merit, so that is on the record. You're already admitting the fake electors is disqualifying. You've already had to concede the insurrection was an insurrection by your own definition. I am sure you hope that I don't have to get into the minutiae of his indictments to parse out things I generalized here, your workload is already pretty packed with this new burden you're taking on.
Did it occur to you that maybe it's not throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks, but rather it's that he served up a smorgasbord of criminal activity against this country and its citizens? Instead of taking issue with the people who identify the crimes, maybe it's time you take issue with the criminal himself.
I'm convinced that people like you are paid trolls and people can't be this stupid. Is Russia paying you to appear this stupid? I mean why else would you willingly want to appear so fucking dumb?
Its why he gets on a subject and cant do anything else. Hes like the "special" kid that has to have 6 chicken nuggets or a meltdown will ensue.
Hes a one trick pony that never comments on anything other than politics. No sense of humor, no posted pics, defends Dems no matter what and has never shared even the slightest bit of personal information. Hell, I can tell you how old, some minor personal tidbit and where most everyone on this board is from but I have no clue of anything regarding Dodgin' Dot. If I had to guess I think he slipped up ONE time and mentioned something about Texas.
necronomous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2024 4:04 pm
I'm convinced that people like you are paid trolls and people can't be this stupid. Is Russia paying you to appear this stupid? I mean why else would you willingly want to appear so fucking dumb?
CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 3:05 am
Its why he gets on a subject and cant do anything else.
If it's so stupid, then why can't either of you or any of you defend the actions of a traitor inciting insurrection upon our country because he lost his election? Why can't you refute the evidence of what he did? The reason we're on the subject in this thread is because no one would actually address it, instead choosing to argue anything and everything but that.
It's not that I can't do anything else, it's that everything else is your path to not talking about the subject. I didn't force you to take the stance that you did, defending a traitorous criminal conman, you chose to do that, dupe mark hack.
necronomous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2024 4:04 pm
I'm convinced that people like you are paid trolls and people can't be this stupid. Is Russia paying you to appear this stupid? I mean why else would you willingly want to appear so fucking dumb?
CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 3:05 am
Its why he gets on a subject and cant do anything else.
If it's so stupid, then why can't either of you or any of you defend the actions of a traitor inciting insurrection upon our country because he lost his election? Why can't you refute the evidence of what he did? The reason we're on the subject in this thread is because no one would actually address it, instead choosing to argue anything and everything but that.
It's not that I can't do anything else, it's that everything else is your path to not talking about the subject. I didn't force you to take the stance that you did, defending a traitorous criminal conman, you chose to do that, dupe mark hack.
Aw, widdle Dodgin' Dot got his fee fees hurt.
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 8:46 pm
Aw, widdle Dodgin' Dot got his fee fees hurt.
If that's what you need to tell yourself to continue to dodge the subject, go right ahead, hack.
Ive addressed every question youve ever asked. Thats because unlike you I am not a coward.
Youre the one known for dodging, bud.
To wit:
Are the Biden Brand shell companies real?
How do you feel about many NATO countries not honoring their agreements?
Did the DOJ make a mistake in their investigations and resulting conclusion?
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
necronomous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2024 4:04 pm
I'm convinced that people like you are paid trolls and people can't be this stupid. Is Russia paying you to appear this stupid? I mean why else would you willingly want to appear so fucking dumb?
CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 3:05 am
Its why he gets on a subject and cant do anything else.
If it's so stupid, then why can't either of you or any of you defend the actions of a traitor inciting insurrection upon our country because he lost his election? Why can't you refute the evidence of what he did? The reason we're on the subject in this thread is because no one would actually address it, instead choosing to argue anything and everything but that.
It's not that I can't do anything else, it's that everything else is your path to not talking about the subject. I didn't force you to take the stance that you did, defending a traitorous criminal conman, you chose to do that, dupe mark hack.
It's funny you should say that he did that, but hasn't been tried for it by an actual court. So what is there to defend. If someone actually incited an insurrection, they would be arrested and tried for treason in an actual court of law, but that didn't happen because an insurrection is not what happened. We all know that, but only some, like you, pretend it did. In fact, no one has been charged with insurrection. Which, if it occurred, would surely be easily proved. So what am I trying to defend against? A crime that no one was charged for because it's bullshit? Yeah, you're that fucking stupid. Oh and telling me a bunch of puppet left wingers impeaching him is proof, you're a bigger idiot than I thought.
Last edited by necronomous on Tue Mar 05, 2024 4:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
necronomous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2024 4:04 pm
I'm convinced that people like you are paid trolls and people can't be this stupid. Is Russia paying you to appear this stupid? I mean why else would you willingly want to appear so fucking dumb?
CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 3:05 am
Its why he gets on a subject and cant do anything else.
If it's so stupid, then why can't either of you or any of you defend the actions of a traitor inciting insurrection upon our country because he lost his election? Why can't you refute the evidence of what he did? The reason we're on the subject in this thread is because no one would actually address it, instead choosing to argue anything and everything but that.
It's not that I can't do anything else, it's that everything else is your path to not talking about the subject. I didn't force you to take the stance that you did, defending a traitorous criminal conman, you chose to do that, dupe mark hack.
It's funny you should say that he did that, but hasn't been tried for it by an actual court. So what is there to defend. If someone actually incited an insurrection, they would be arrested and tried for treason in an actual court of law, but that didn't happen because an insurrection is not what happened. We all know that, but only some , like you pretend it did. In fact, no one has been charged with insurrection. Which if it occurred should surely easily be proved. So what am I trying to defend against? A crime that no one was charged for because it's bullshit? Yeah, you're that fucking stupid. Oh and telling me a bunch of puppet left wingers impeaching him is proof, you're a bigger idiot than I thought.
Dodgin' Dot thinks he understands "insurrection" better than the DOJ.
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
its so weird that the Supreme Court had such an easy under hand pitch to acknowledge that an insurrection had taken place. all they had to do was agree with Colorado supreme court and yet they decided that an insurrection had not occurred and that the State of Colorado (like poor Dumb Dot) was wrong. No insurrection had taken place on Jan 6th. Only a riot.
Now dumb Dot will probably say that the Supreme Court doesn't understand his definition.
CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:22 pm
Ive addressed every question youve ever asked.
You never even started, hack.
necronomous wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 12:16 am
It's funny you should say that he did that, but hasn't been tried for it by an actual court.
Except an actual court did find that he did, and that finding has not been disputed. Not by anyone here, not even by the Supreme Court. Try again, Both Sides™.
Animal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 1:18 am
courts and charges don't matter to Dot. the only thing that matters is how Dot interprets the definition of words.
CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 2:44 am
Dodgin' Dot thinks he understands "insurrection" better than the DOJ.
You're both still welcome to argue what happened that day, but you curiously refuse to do so. Or at least, refuse again to do so. Midget at least gave it a try. Hack has no balls to even start the discussion.
Animal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 3:27 pm
its so weird that the Supreme Court had such an easy under hand pitch to acknowledge that an insurrection had taken place. all they had to do was agree with Colorado supreme court and yet they decided that an insurrection had not occurred and that the State of Colorado (like poor Dumb Dot) was wrong. No insurrection had taken place on Jan 6th. Only a riot.
Now dumb Dot will probably say that the Supreme Court doesn't understand his definition.
Citizens For Responsibility and Ethics in Washington saw a silver lining in the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling Monday.
“There is not a single sentence in the Supreme Court’s (ruling) that disagrees with the finding that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection on January 6, 2021,” the nonprofit said on social media. “They could have easily cleared him. They chose not to. That’s a big deal.
Do you ever get tired of kicking your own ass, mental midget?
CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:22 pm
Ive addressed every question youve ever asked.
You never even started, hack.
necronomous wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 12:16 am
It's funny you should say that he did that, but hasn't been tried for it by an actual court.
Except an actual court did find that he did, and that finding has not been disputed. Not by anyone here, not even by the Supreme Court. Try again, Both Sides™.
Animal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 1:18 am
courts and charges don't matter to Dot. the only thing that matters is how Dot interprets the definition of words.
CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 2:44 am
Dodgin' Dot thinks he understands "insurrection" better than the DOJ.
You're both still welcome to argue what happened that day, but you curiously refuse to do so. Or at least, refuse again to do so. Midget at least gave it a try. Hack has no balls to even start the discussion.
Animal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 3:27 pm
its so weird that the Supreme Court had such an easy under hand pitch to acknowledge that an insurrection had taken place. all they had to do was agree with Colorado supreme court and yet they decided that an insurrection had not occurred and that the State of Colorado (like poor Dumb Dot) was wrong. No insurrection had taken place on Jan 6th. Only a riot.
Now dumb Dot will probably say that the Supreme Court doesn't understand his definition.
Citizens For Responsibility and Ethics in Washington saw a silver lining in the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling Monday.
“There is not a single sentence in the Supreme Court’s (ruling) that disagrees with the finding that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection on January 6, 2021,” the nonprofit said on social media. “They could have easily cleared him. They chose not to. That’s a big deal.
Do you ever get tired of kicking your own ass, mental midget?
Except, no there wasn't a court that did. None. That's why he's not in jail for treason. Have a good day. And cleared him from. What? He wasn't found guilty in a court of law for insurrection, so how could they clear it? Fucking idiot.
"Argue what happened that day" has been done for 3 years by legal professionals and people smarter than you. You just dont like their conclusion.
I agree with the legal professionals; you dont. its that simple. Do you think they are wrong in their conclusion in literally hundreds of investigated and prosecuted cases?
You should contact the DOJ and tell them they're wrong.
Here is their contact info:
1-202-514-2000 ; Email. AskDOJ@usdoj.gov ...
Last edited by CHEEZY17 on Tue Mar 05, 2024 9:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
necronomous wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 8:01 pm
Except, no there wasn't a court that did. None.
Yup, there was. You're free to disagree with their factual finding, but you aren't free to disregard its existence.
Animal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 8:53 pm
poor dumb dot needs to show us all of the sentences the Supreme Court used that did include the word insurrection.
CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 8:32 pm
"Argue what happened that day" has been done for 3 years by legal professionals and people smarter than you.
More of the same, neither of you can argue the facts, so you both refuse to engage on the subject. And I get it, if I was forced by my ideology to support a traitorous criminal conman, I'd be reluctant to admit what he did too. But I didn't choose that for y'all, you did.
necronomous wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 8:01 pm
Except, no there wasn't a court that did. None.
Yup, there was. You're free to disagree with their factual finding, but you aren't free to disregard its existence.
Animal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 8:53 pm
poor dumb dot needs to show us all of the sentences the Supreme Court used that did include the word insurrection.
CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 8:32 pm
"Argue what happened that day" has been done for 3 years by legal professionals and people smarter than you.
More of the same, neither of you can argue the facts, so you both refuse to engage on the subject. And I get it, if I was forced by my ideology to support a traitorous criminal conman, I'd be reluctant to admit what he did too. But I didn't choose that for y'all, you did.
He committed treason, but he's free? Can you show me this miracle?
necronomous wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 8:01 pm
Except, no there wasn't a court that did. None.
Yup, there was. You're free to disagree with their factual finding, but you aren't free to disregard its existence.
Animal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 8:53 pm
poor dumb dot needs to show us all of the sentences the Supreme Court used that did include the word insurrection.
CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 8:32 pm
"Argue what happened that day" has been done for 3 years by legal professionals and people smarter than you.
More of the same, neither of you can argue the facts, so you both refuse to engage on the subject. And I get it, if I was forced by my ideology to support a traitorous criminal conman, I'd be reluctant to admit what he did too. But I didn't choose that for y'all, you did.
The facts have been argued. You just dont like the answer. Any of the facts that you want to discuss or argue are well known to everyone; including your precious definition. I will happily stay on the side of the people smarter than you and the legal professionals. Theyve "argued the facts". Theyve "discussed what happened that day". They "engaged the subject" in hundreds of cases, 3 years of investigation, interviews and testimonies and thousands of hours of video and countless texts and emails. Sorry bud, the people that are smarter than you came to a different conclusion than you did. I'm confident and happy to be on their side. You are clearly butt hurt because you think you know their job better than they do.
I suggest giving them a call and telling them your concerns about the definition.
Here is their contact info:
United States Department of Justice
1-202-514-2000 ; Email. AskDOJ@usdoj.gov
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2024 12:56 am
He committed treason, but he's free? Can you show me this miracle?
So you can't dispute the facts, therefore you'll just ignore them. You do you, Both Sides™, your reds thank you for your loyalty.
CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2024 2:45 am
The facts have been argued.
Not by you or anyone here except once and it didn't go well for him. Grow some balls, hack.
Again, what do you want to discuss?
The texts?
The riot?
The videos?
All of those things, and anything else you want to discuss, are known by people smarter than you.
Do you have some new information?
I suggest giving them a call and telling them your concerns and show them how they are wrong.
Here is their contact info:
United States Department of Justice
1-202-514-2000 ; Email. AskDOJ@usdoj.gov
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2024 8:24 pm
Again, what do you want to discuss?
And again, only you have had to ask for parameters when the sole person brave enough to address the facts of the events on January 6 did so without caveats. If Animal can try to discuss it(albeit then fail to defend), then the subject is clear. You have refused to even start because we both know your only tactic is to change the subject, cowardly duped partisan hack.
CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2024 8:24 pm
Again, what do you want to discuss?
And again, only you have had to ask for parameters when the sole person brave enough to address the facts of the events on January 6 did so without caveats. If Animal can try to discuss it(albeit then fail to defend), then the subject is clear. You have refused to even start because we both know your only tactic is to change the subject, cowardly duped partisan hack.
Good Lord, there is literally no caveat. None. Zero. Start anywhere you'd like. How is that a caveat?
Its not my fault that I'm on the side of the legal professionals and you are not. Thats probably why when pressed you wont actually do anything. Well, its already been established that youre a coward but thanks for proving it again.
Do you think the legal professionals are wrong in their conclusions regarding "the events of that day"?
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2024 8:24 pm
Again, what do you want to discuss?
And again, only you have had to ask for parameters when the sole person brave enough to address the facts of the events on January 6 did so without caveats. If Animal can try to discuss it(albeit then fail to defend), then the subject is clear. You have refused to even start because we both know your only tactic is to change the subject, cowardly duped partisan hack.
Good Lord, there is literally no caveat. None. Zero. Start anywhere you'd like. How is that a caveat?
Its not my fault that I'm on the side of the legal professionals and you are not. Thats probably why when pressed you wont actually do anything. Well, its already been established that youre a coward but thanks for proving it again.
Do you think the legal professionals are wrong in their conclusions regarding "the events of that day"?
I guess dot is admitting that our judicial system is flawless and never gets anything wrong. There goes their argument for systemic racism.
necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2024 11:18 pm
There is no court case. You said there is. I said show me it. That is literally trying to discuss the facts. You just aren't providing any
Is the disingenuity spreading? You just refusing to operate in good faith now? You are fully aware of the facts, but you're having to pretend you're not being provided any. Anderson v. Griswold, what is the factual finding that was not refuted, that has already been noted here in this thread? Now you already know this, so I'm just curious why Mr. Both Sides™ is hell bent on denying it.
CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 1:58 am
Good Lord, there is literally no caveat. None. Zero. Start anywhere you'd like.
That's the thing, it's in your court. If there's no caveat, then why haven't you begun already? Like I said, Animal didn't need to hem and haw like you do. This disingenuous shtick is of your doing, I'm not keeping you from engaging. Begin or sit down, hack.
necronomous wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 2:16 pm
I guess dot is admitting that our judicial system is flawless and never gets anything wrong. There goes their argument for systemic racism.
Disingenuous it is. Looks like the hack has someone gunning for his title.
necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2024 11:18 pm
There is no court case. You said there is. I said show me it. That is literally trying to discuss the facts. You just aren't providing any
Is the disingenuity spreading? You just refusing to operate in good faith now? You are fully aware of the facts, but you're having to pretend you're not being provided any. Anderson v. Griswold, what is the factual finding that was not refuted, that has already been noted here in this thread? Now you already know this, so I'm just curious why Mr. Both Sides™ is hell bent on denying it.
CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 1:58 am
Good Lord, there is literally no caveat. None. Zero. Start anywhere you'd like.
That's the thing, it's in your court. If there's no caveat, then why haven't you begun already? Like I said, Animal didn't need to hem and haw like you do. This disingenuous shtick is of your doing, I'm not keeping you from engaging. Begin or sit down, hack.
necronomous wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 2:16 pm
I guess dot is admitting that our judicial system is flawless and never gets anything wrong. There goes their argument for systemic racism.
Disingenuous it is. Looks like the hack has someone gunning for his title.
So as I have said, there is no case where he has been charged and convicted of insurrection.
And I'm using YOUR logic about the criminal system. You are saying Trump can't possibly be innocent of fraud because the judge said so. We've stated it's trumped up charges and you're like no, it's flawless. As if the system can never be wrong. So your claim has to be, it can be wrong or its only wrong when you deem it to be wrong.either way, you're wrong or a hypocrite. Take your pick.
