Liberal Forum

R.Suave » 22 Dec 2023, 12:58 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 12:58 pm

Ok...my turn...

How much of the Jan 6th hearings did you watch?

I have no idea. The problem you have is that any neutral judicial proceedings would not look on 'evidence' pulled together by highly partisan meatheads who have been driven by blatant political animus towards the subject, ever since the subject of their 'investigation' came to political prominence, as any sort of evidence that was even admissible. Conflicting interests.. 
 
 

JustinSane » 22 Dec 2023, 1:06 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 1:06 pm

I have no idea. The problem you have is that any neutral judicial proceedings would not look on evidence pulled together by highly partisan meatheads who have been driven by blatant political animus ever since the subject of their 'investigation' came to political prominence, as any sort of evidence that was even admissible. Conflicting interests..

No, don't bluff.

You want answers from me, don't even think about being clever...

I'll get cruel. You won't like it.

Try again.
 

R.Suave » 22 Dec 2023, 1:08 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 1:08 pm

No, don't bluff.

You want answers from me, don't even think about being clever...

I'll get cruel. You won't like it.

Try again.

lol... My answer's pretty clear. Let's say it was somewhere between 5 minutes and half an hour. Make up your iown figure - it doesn't affect my argument, whatever figure you choose.. jesus bloody wept, threatening people though a keyboard... lol

JustinSane » 22 Dec 2023, 1:15 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 1:15 pm

lol... My answer's pretty clear. Let's say it was somewhere between 5 minutes and half an hour. Make up your iown figure - it doesn't affect my argument, whatever figure you choose.. jesus bloody wept, threatening people though a keyboard... lol

No...answer the question, honestly.

You saw clips..

Where?
 

R.Suave » 22 Dec 2023, 1:18 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 1:18 pm

No...answer the question, honestly.

You saw clips..

Where?

It's the old 'what's your source' question... **** if I know - the internet.. Obviously you feel this is important to your argument, so make up the worst scenario you can think of regarding what I watched and apply that

JustinSane » 22 Dec 2023, 1:23 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 1:23 pm

It's the old 'what's your source' question... **** if I know - the internet.. Obviously you feel this is important to your argument, so make up the worst scenario you can think of regarding what I watched and apply that

Ok...so you're lying, and too ashamed to acknowledge your sources....I see it all the time..

If you

Don't understand the law

Averted your eyes from the evidence


why be promiscuous with your uninformed opinion?
 

R.Suave » 22 Dec 2023, 1:26 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 1:26 pm

Ok...so you're lying, and too ashamed to acknowledge your sources....I see it all the time..

If you

Don't understand the law

Averted your eyes from the evidence

why be promiscuous with your uninformed opinion?

What we see all the time is you avoid discussing a the topic of a thread by whining about people's sources.  You aint got ****, old man.

R.Suave » 22 Dec 2023, 1:26 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 1:26 pm

Ok...so you're lying, and too ashamed to acknowledge your sources....I see it all the time..

If you

Don't understand the law

Averted your eyes from the evidence

why be promiscuous with your uninformed opinion?

I think what you actually see is people responding in the right way to that question - i.e. - I'm **** if I know, I don't keep a catalogue of this stuff in my head, I'm not bloody autistic.. At a guess, it was probably on YouTube where I spend a great deal of time - being broadcast live by CNN or MSNBC or someone like that.

I gave you the opportunity to paint the worst picture - but YouTube is the most likely place

JustinSane » 22 Dec 2023, 1:36 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 1:36 pm

I think what you actually see is people responding in the right way to that question - i.e. - I'm **** if I know, I don't keep a catalogue of this stuff in my head, I'm not bloody autistic.. At a guess, it was probably on YouTube where I spend a great deal of time - being broadcast live by CNN or MSNBC or someone like that.

I gave you the opportunity to paint the worst picture - but YouTube is the most likely place

Why do you persist in this bluff?


 

GHETTOBLASTER » 21 Dec 2023, 11:02 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 11:02 pm

R.Suave » 55 minutes ago » wrote: ↑
55 minutes ago
. But using a straightforward incitement test, the court determined that his speech was not protected. Because “(1) the speech explicitly or implicitly encouraged the use of violence or lawless action; (2) the speaker intended that the speech would result in the use of violence or lawless action; and (3) the imminent use of violence or lawless action was the likely result of the speech,” Trump had done nothing less than issue a call to arms.

This statement  is an all out lie.
I posted Trump's speech word for word earlier.
This panel of Liberal Judges is using their own wishful thinking and supposition to put words into Trump's mouth.
He never issued any sort of a "Call To Arms" and these mother **** deserve to be disbarred for stating [under oath  of office no less]  that Trump did.
Black Vegetable is also a mother **** Compulsive Serial Liar and it comes as no surprise to many of us that he would side with the Pack Of Liars that make up Colorado's Supreme Court.

they were mad as hell
https://youtu.be/pleNc54qssQ?si=j3ldjEIZ4JbvnKgn

Huey » 22 Dec 2023, 1:34 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 1:34 pm

What we see all the time is you avoid discussing a the topic of a thread by whining about people's sources.  You aint got ****, old man.

There's little point in wasting time with people who insist on privileging their tender fee-fees over facts....who ask questions but don't answer them.

FOX watchers in short.

R.Suave » 22 Dec 2023, 1:42 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 1:42 pm

There's little point in wasting time with people who insist on privileging their tender fee-fees over facts....who ask questions but don't answer them.

FOX watchers in short.

And there is little point in debating a person who never takes a stand on an issue so later, in cowardly fashion, he can claim he didn't support something.

Huey » 22 Dec 2023, 1:44 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 1:44 pm

And there is little point in debating a person who never takes a stand on an issue so later, in cowardly fashion, he can claim he didn't support something.

Everyone applauds your confession, 2Stand.

R.Suave » 22 Dec 2023, 1:40 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 1:40 pm

Why do you persist in this bluff?

It should be obvious why I persist in it. I'm giving you the open opportunity to paint this in the worst way you can think of - and I'm doing that because the answer to your 'what's your sources?' weasel question - irrespective of what that answer is - doesn't affect my argument one iota. You're persisting in drilling me for this trivial data so you can have your safe-zone moment of ridiculing my sources.

Here's the problem: it's a cheap-*** argumentation tactic because of course, all sources can be ridiculed and everyone is capable of carrying out ridicule. The real problem for you is, I've actually now provided what I'm pretty certain is the truth.. It's far from being the first time I've watched such channels broadcasting hearings and legal proceedings etc live - as it's live, it doesn't matter who it's broadcast through

None of this is relevant to anything because we know the Jan 6th Committee was as partisan as it could possibly be. And we have seen the intense animus directed at Trump ever since he came to political prominence. And what do you know, the hearing found everything to be true that they wanted to be true. To call it low-quality data is being incredibly, and undeservedly generous
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 21 Dec 2023, 11:02 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 11:02 pm

R.Suave » 55 minutes ago » wrote: ↑
55 minutes ago
. But using a straightforward incitement test, the court determined that his speech was not protected. Because “(1) the speech explicitly or implicitly encouraged the use of violence or lawless action; (2) the speaker intended that the speech would result in the use of violence or lawless action; and (3) the imminent use of violence or lawless action was the likely result of the speech,” Trump had done nothing less than issue a call to arms.

This statement  is an all out lie.
I posted Trump's speech word for word earlier.
This panel of Liberal Judges is using their own wishful thinking and supposition to put words into Trump's mouth.
He never issued any sort of a "Call To Arms" and these mother **** deserve to be disbarred for stating [under oath  of office no less]  that Trump did.
Black Vegetable is also a mother **** Compulsive Serial Liar and it comes as no surprise to many of us that he would side with the Pack Of Liars that make up Colorado's Supreme Court.

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/96639684 ... ment-trial

JustinSane » 22 Dec 2023, 1:55 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 1:55 pm

It should be obvious why I persist in it. I'm giving you the open opportunity to paint this in the worst way you can think of - and I'm doing that because the answer to your 'what's your sources?' weasel question - irrespective of what it is - doesn't affect my argument one iota. You're persisting in drilling me for this trivial data so you can have your safe-zone moment of ridiculing my sources.

Here's the problem: it's a cheap-*** argumentation tactic because of course, all sources can be ridiculed and everyone is capable of carrying out ridicule. The real problem for you is, I've actually now provided what I'm pretty certain is the truth.. It's far from being the first time I've watched such channels broadcasting hearings and legal proceedings etc live - as it's live, it doesn't matter who it's broadcast through

None of this is relevant to anything because we know the Jan 6th Committee was as partisan as it could possibly be. And we have seen the intense animus directed at Trump ever since he came to political prominence. And what do you know, the hearing found everything to be true that they wanted to be true. To call it low-quality data is being incredibly, and undeservedly generous

Please, stop.

By your reluctant admission you "cherry picked" clips for a vague but insignificant amount of time. You then proceed to characterize the entire process.

Don't...I watched 95% of it. Accordingly, I know much more than you do.
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 21 Dec 2023, 11:02 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 11:02 pm

R.Suave » 55 minutes ago » wrote: ↑
55 minutes ago
. But using a straightforward incitement test, the court determined that his speech was not protected. Because “(1) the speech explicitly or implicitly encouraged the use of violence or lawless action; (2) the speaker intended that the speech would result in the use of violence or lawless action; and (3) the imminent use of violence or lawless action was the likely result of the speech,” Trump had done nothing less than issue a call to arms.

This statement  is an all out lie.
I posted Trump's speech word for word earlier.
This panel of Liberal Judges is using their own wishful thinking and supposition to put words into Trump's mouth.
He never issued any sort of a "Call To Arms" and these mother **** deserve to be disbarred for stating [under oath  of office no less]  that Trump did.
Black Vegetable is also a mother **** Compulsive Serial Liar and it comes as no surprise to many of us that he would side with the Pack Of Liars that make up Colorado's Supreme Court.

Reschenthaler accurately quoted a line from Trump, when the president told supporters “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”But throughout his remarks, Trump spoke of the need to “fight,” to be angry, to stop President-elect Joe Biden from taking office.— “We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”— “We want to go back, and we want to get this right because we’re going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed, and we’re not going to stand for that.”— “Nobody knows what the hell is going on. There’s never been anything like this. We will not let them silence your voices. We’re not going to let it happen. Not going to let it happen.” The crowd repeatedly chanted “Fight for Trump!” “Thank you,” Trump said.He assailed “weak,” “pathetic” Republicans who were not standing with him in his push to overturn the election results, and said “there’d be hell all over the country” if Democrats had been robbed of an election win.“But just remember this,” he went on. “You’re stronger, you’re smarter. You’ve got more going than anybody, and they try and demean everybody having to do with us, and you’re the real people. You’re the people that built this nation. You’re not the people that tore down our nation.”—"We will not be intimidated into accepting the hoaxes and the lies that we’ve been forced to believe over the past several weeks.”He told his refuted stories of “ballot harvesting” and thousands of dead people voting.—"And we got to get rid of the weak congresspeople, the ones that aren’t any good, the Liz Cheneys of the world, we got to get rid of them. We got to get rid of them.

R.Suave » 22 Dec 2023, 1:59 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 1:59 pm

Please, stop.

By your reluctant admission you "cherry picked" clips for a vague but insignificant amount of time. You then proceed to characterize the entire process.

Don't...I watched 95% of it. Accordingly, I know much more than you do.

Really.. because you certainly aren't talking like you do. In fact, it doesn't even look like you've followed the discussion taking place here.
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 22 Dec 2023, 9:46 am » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 9:46 am

GHETTOBLASTER » Yesterday, 8:31 pm » wrote: ↑
Yesterday, 8:31 pm
R.Suave » 55 minutes ago » wrote: ↑
55 minutes ago

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-t ... 8e653ed08d\


WASHINGTON (AP) — The House impeachment debate on Wednesday heard a distorted account of President Donald Trump’s remarks to his supporters a week ago when he exhorted them to “fight like hell” before they swarmed the Capitol.REP. GUY RESCHENTHALER, R-Pa.: “At his rally, President Trump urged attendees to, quote, unquote, peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. There was no mention of violence, let alone calls to action.”THE FACTS: Trump’s speech was a call to action — a call to fight and save the country.“Our country has had enough,” he told those who went on to stage the violent siege of the Capitol.“We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about. To use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal.”
 

JustinSane » 22 Dec 2023, 2:08 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 2:08 pm

Really.. because you certainly aren't talking like you do. In fact, it doesn't even look like you've followed the discussion taking place here.

No...this is only part 1 of demonstrating how uninformed, and therefor irrelevant, your opinion is.

We can now move on to cover your profound ignorance of the matter in particular.