UJRefugees.net

Reservoir Dog wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 3:34 am Interesting choice of word.

Telltale even.

Reservoir Dog wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 3:34 am

Cassandros wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 3:05 am

dot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 9:46 pm

Antknot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 9:43 pm https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023 ... parations/


On the reparations bandwagon now.

He must've gotten the memo from Fox that he was appealing more to Trump voters and would siphon off votes from him rather than Biden.

It was likely a PAC or Super PAC who directed him and not fox. >.>

But semantics aside --> the end result is the same.

2024 is going to be one hell of a circus. And when the dust settles, trump will be king.

Interesting choice of word.

Accurate choice of words.

The game is rigged, and both sides are playing their part.

Anyone who thinks either party gives a fuck about them, or the Constitution, this late in the game --> is a fucking moron.

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 5:01 am Accurate choice of words.

The game is rigged, and both sides are playing their part.

Anyone who thinks either party gives a fuck about them, or the Constitution, this late in the game --> is a fucking moron.

Doom and gloom or fingers crossed with your prediction?

dot wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 5:23 am

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 5:01 am Accurate choice of words.

The game is rigged, and both sides are playing their part.

Anyone who thinks either party gives a fuck about them, or the Constitution, this late in the game --> is a fucking moron.

Doom and gloom or fingers crossed with your prediction?

I definitely don't want to see people suffer and tyrants rise.

But here we are.

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 5:34 am I definitely don't want to see people suffer and tyrants rise.

But here we are.

Doom and gloom then. Further clarification, do you really think both options will result in a tyrant regardless of who wins?

dot wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 5:43 am

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 5:34 am I definitely don't want to see people suffer and tyrants rise.

But here we are.

Doom and gloom then. Further clarification, do you really think both options will result in a tyrant regardless of who wins?

If RFK won, that would be enough to shake things up and potentially move this ships course. (Assuming he is honest in his rhetoric, of course).

But realistically George Carlin said it best decades ago:

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 6:12 am If RFK won, that would be enough to shake things up and potentially move this ships course. (Assuming he is honest in his rhetoric, of course).

Not to be confrontational, but he's not. But more importantly, that's not an answer to the question. We're already in your doom and gloom hypothesis, I'm just asking you to clarify how your doom and gloom prediction gets to the end. Do both candidates result in a tyrant? Embedding one of the late Carlin's routines, while still entertaining despite being not his best work at all, it doesn't answer the question. Does neither primary political party candidate avert your doom and gloom prediction of a dictatorship?

Dodgin dot complaining about not answering a question!

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 12:53 pm Dodgin dot complaining about not answering a question!

I asked him to clarify his prediction. You change the subject to argue something else entirely. Sit down, hack.

dot wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 5:54 pm

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 12:53 pm Dodgin dot complaining about not answering a question!

I asked him to clarify his prediction. You change the subject to argue something else entirely. Sit down, hack.

Youre the one with the reputation for not answering questions you coward.

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 7:47 pm Youre the one with the reputation for not answering questions you coward.

Says the hack who has yet to address the facts of the insurrection and changes the argument every time.

dot wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 10:13 pm

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 7:47 pm Youre the one with the reputation for not answering questions you coward.

Says the hack who has yet to address the facts of the insurrection and changes the argument every time.

The DOJ has already argued the facts of the insurrection for me. I agree with their conclusion.

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 2:58 am The DOJ

And there it is again. No balls hack.

dot wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 6:05 am

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 2:58 am The DOJ

And there it is again. No balls hack.

You expect me to argue better than the legal authority of the United States Government?
Youre the one at odds with them, bud. Not me.

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 6:43 am You expect me to argue better than the legal authority of the United States Government?

In actuality, I don't, because you've shown you're incapable of honest discussion. That is why you hinge your argument on charges being filed when we both know that charges not being filed does not erase the crime from existence. So in all honesty, no, I don't expect you to argue better because I don't expect you to argue at all. And so far, I've been proven right. The hack is gonna hack.

dot wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 7:27 am

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 6:43 am You expect me to argue better than the legal authority of the United States Government?

In actuality, I don't, because you've shown you're incapable of honest discussion. That is why you hinge your argument on charges being filed when we both know that charges not being filed does not erase the crime from existence. So in all honesty, no, I don't expect you to argue better because I don't expect you to argue at all. And so far, I've been proven right. The hack is gonna hack.

The Legal authorities have argued the facts internally for 3 years and they decided your definition doesnt fit. We agree with them. Why in the world would I try to argue something that legal professionals have already decided? Think about that last statement: YOU are the one trying to re-argue something that the legal authorities have already decided.

dot wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 6:37 am

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 6:12 am If RFK won, that would be enough to shake things up and potentially move this ships course. (Assuming he is honest in his rhetoric, of course).

Not to be confrontational, but he's not. But more importantly, that's not an answer to the question. We're already in your doom and gloom hypothesis, I'm just asking you to clarify how your doom and gloom prediction gets to the end. Do both candidates result in a tyrant? Embedding one of the late Carlin's routines, while still entertaining despite being not his best work at all, it doesn't answer the question. Does neither primary political party candidate avert your doom and gloom prediction of a dictatorship?

A) Of course RFK is not going to win. He's meant to be the spoiler so the blue M&Ms have a reason to explain away their impending loss. It wasn't that biden was horrible president that ruined the economy, forced mandates on people, and has allowed a flood of illegals to pour into the Country, 'it's all RFKs fault.'

B) The correct analyst of "what I am" is simple: I'm observant and honest. And I never "picked a side", because politics is not a fucking team sport.

C) Since you seem too daft to see I did answer your question... I guess I will have to do it again, but more direct.

Does neither primary political party candidate avert your doom and gloom prediction of a dictatorship?

We have already seen 4 years of biden and 4 years of trump...

Obviously the answer is: no.

And the most fucked up part of this is --> The blue M&Ms paved the way for King trump. Their 100% responsible for his win in November, and his subsequent abuse of power. They are the ones that said its OK for Presidential decrees to subvert the Constitution and weaponizing the DoJ against political enemies. And because they supported it, the red M&Ms will not think twice about sinking to their level and returning the favor.

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 12:29 pm The Legal authorities

And there it is again. Argue the facts of January 6, not whether charges were filed. Cowardly hack.

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 2:36 pm A) Of course RFK is not going to win. He's meant to be the spoiler so the blue M&Ms have a reason to explain away their impending loss. It wasn't that biden was horrible president that ruined the economy, forced mandates on people, and has allowed a flood of illegals to pour into the Country, 'it's all RFKs fault.'

B) The correct analyst of "what I am" is simple: I'm observant and honest. And I never "picked a side", because politics is not a fucking team sport.

A & B both don't address the question. But they do reveal some flawed logic. We'll get into that.

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 2:36 pm C) Since you seem too daft to see I did answer your question... I guess I will have to do it again, but more direct.

Does neither primary political party candidate avert your doom and gloom prediction of a dictatorship?

We have already seen 4 years of biden and 4 years of trump...

Obviously the answer is: no.

Thank you. You didn't answer before, but you did now. So according to you, both of them will end up with a dictator, a tyrant in your words.

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 2:36 pm And the most fucked up part of this is --> The blue M&Ms paved the way for King trump. Their 100% responsible for his win in November, and his subsequent abuse of power. They are the ones that said its OK for Presidential decrees to subvert the Constitution and weaponizing the DoJ against political enemies. And because they supported it, the red M&Ms will not think twice about sinking to their level and returning the favor.

And this is why I'm asking. Because according to you, holding a traitorous conman accountable for his actions in violating the Constitution by applying said Constitution is an abuse of power. This is the fallacy that most cultists like Cheez fall into. He already broke the law, how do you rationalize holding him accountable as an abuse of power? Seems to me you're the one daft if you pretend accountability is tyrannical, just like you're daft if you act like you're not playing politics like it's a team sport. You are just one of those that pretend you're above it. So that being said, you're clearly admitting Trump will result in a dictatorship. How is it that Biden leads to becoming a dictator? And let's see if you can do it without playing team sports.

dot wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 6:46 pm

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 2:36 pm And the most fucked up part of this is --> The blue M&Ms paved the way for King trump. Their 100% responsible for his win in November, and his subsequent abuse of power. They are the ones that said its OK for Presidential decrees to subvert the Constitution and weaponizing the DoJ against political enemies. And because they supported it, the red M&Ms will not think twice about sinking to their level and returning the favor.

And this is why I'm asking. Because according to you, holding a traitorous conman accountable for his actions in violating the Constitution by applying said Constitution is an abuse of power. This is the fallacy that most cultists like Cheez fall into. He already broke the law, how do you rationalize holding him accountable as an abuse of power? Seems to me you're the one daft if you pretend accountability is tyrannical, just like you're daft if you act like you're not playing politics like it's a team sport. You are just one of those that pretend you're above it. So that being said, you're clearly admitting Trump will result in a dictatorship. How is it that Biden leads to becoming a dictator? And let's see if you can do it without playing team sports.

I am always amazed at how remarkably stupid single-party voters are. /facepalm

***

Look kiddo, honoring Due Process and taking trump to court over perceived crimes is fine, and if/when found guilty --> punish accordingly.

But, that's not what's happening, is it? By punishing trump before he is properly convicted all you are doing is empowering the next guy to the same.

And biden has already proven he's an unaccountable king when he enforced the myriad of mandates across the nation and when he used Federal power to force States from protecting their borders. But, sadly, you drink copious amounts of blue kool-aid, so I fully expect this to go right over your head.

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 8:57 pm I am always amazed at how remarkably stupid single-party voters are. /facepalm

So far you haven't demonstrated any intellectual superiority over what you consider a "single party voter", and you're about to clinch the absence of that. But I'll let you continue to pretend.

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 8:57 pm Look kiddo, honoring Due Process and taking trump to court over perceived crimes is fine, and if/when found guilty --> punish accordingly. But, that's not what's happening, is it?

And that's the process taking place, and the crimes are not perceived. The crimes were committed. Denying it is indicative of the remarkable stupidity you want to find everywhere else but in what you're proclaiming. Trump's in the trial and pre-trial phases, even went through closing arguments in one. That is what is happening. So let's get on to the political sports team playing that you want to be above but somehow participate in.

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 8:57 pm By punishing trump before he is properly convicted all you are doing is empowering the next guy to the same.

How is he being punished yet? By denying him his phantom former presidential immunity? It doesn't exist. Biden is the next guy already. Where is it that he's punishing Trump prematurely? Take all the time you need to invent it to argue. After all, if Biden really wanted to punish Trump, he could just kill him right? Dispatch Seal Team Six and end it right now. That's what Trump is arguing he could do and can do again if you want your doom and gloom to come to fruition. Biden's an unaccountable king according to you in quoting I haven't gotten to yet. If Biden is king already, what's stopping him from your endgame doom and gloom? But make no mistake, I'm more interested in what he's done now to have you so committed that either Trump or Biden, we end up with a dictator.

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 8:57 pm And biden has already proven he's an unaccountable king when he enforced the myriad of mandates across the nation and when he used Federal power to force States from protecting their borders. But, sadly, you drink copious amounts of blue kool-aid, so I fully expect this to go right over your head.

Please let it be that you're referring to Governor Wheels McAsshole wanting to kill people for crossing the border. I'd love for you to go from prematurely punishing Trump to extrajudicial killing of brown people. That'd be remarkably stupidly inconsistent of you. Mandates I'll grant that Biden had to do something you clearly don't like, but it's telling that you're more pissed about being told to wear a mask than you are of downplaying and mishandling a virus that ended up killing millions of people worldwide. That you're more pissed about being told to get a shot and locking down than the ineptitude of a response that led to the widespread deadly infection in this country. But I get the sense you don't care about worldwide deaths, and that's little comfort to the many who did die here in this country.

So I know you want to pretend you're above the red and blue M&Ms sports teams line that you want to roll out every time, but you really do only get animated about the blues. Not the reds. Maybe it's time to just be honest and admit you're not above the political gamesmanship that you proclaim. Or you can let it continue to allow you to make remarkably stupid commentary like this. The ball's in your court on that.

dot wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 6:46 pm
And there it is again. Argue the facts of January 6, not whether charges were filed. Cowardly hack.

The fact is NO ONE was charged.

Antknot wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 12:41 am The fact is NO ONE was charged.

Which changes nothing about the commission of the crime. Your excuse is tried, refuted, discarded. Using it again is meaningless.

dot wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 1:29 am

Antknot wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 12:41 am The fact is NO ONE was charged.

Which changes nothing about the commission of the crime. Your excuse is tried, refuted, discarded. Using it again is meaningless.

YOU refuting it is meaningless. THATS whe whole point here. YOUR evaluation means diddly squat.
The legal authorities dont agree with you and they are the only ones that matter, bud.

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 5:35 am

And yet, it was refuted, not by me, by facts. You cannot argue that a crime is erased if it is not charged. That's the only way your argument would hold water. It doesn't, and therefore it's refuted time and time again. Subpoenas are still ignored that even you say should have been honored, therefore the crime is still committed despite no charges. So given that, why do you have such a hard time addressing the facts? So many posts and you have yet to even attempt it. I mean, I know why. Because you can't argue the facts. But feel free to keep making that clear to everyone reading.

dot wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:50 am

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 5:35 am

And yet, it was refuted, not by me, by facts. You cannot argue that a crime is erased if it is not charged. That's the only way your argument would hold water. It doesn't, and therefore it's refuted time and time again. Subpoenas are still ignored that even you say should have been honored, therefore the crime is still committed despite no charges. So given that, why do you have such a hard time addressing the facts? So many posts and you have yet to even attempt it. I mean, I know why. Because you can't argue the facts. But feel free to keep making that clear to everyone reading.

Your dumb comparison has already been shown to be dumb so you can keep making it all you want because its not helping you.
You have no authority or legal ground so your refutation is meaningless.
You cant reconcile the fact that the legal authorities know your definition, used your definition and other legal standards and evidence and decided insurrection didnt fit. That makes you incredibly butt hurt and whiny.
Too bad, bud. I'll continue for as long as needed until you can understand that according to the legal authorities that day was not an insurrection.