Actually....i'm a little bit confused and i'd like a little bit more clarification if you don't mind.Civilized said:cowboypack02 said:I would argue that your historical perspective seems to be skewed...Civilized said:Steve Videtich said:
"wholly propagated by the words of the POTUS"
This is where you lose me every time. First off, it was a bad day. But, it's not even the worst day the capital has ever experienced. That is a narrative continually propagated a corrupt media and folks like yourself, who have an emotional bias against Trump for not being "presidential" enough for your high standards.
You keep bringing up this point, even when nothing is relevant to it. Why are you so hung up on Jan 6? Why is it that you don't bring up any other riots that happened around the country, in the year leading up to Jan 6? You know the riots where the rioters killed people and police officers and did millions of dollars in damages. The same riots where our media stood in front of a burning building and said it was mostly peaceful. And the same riots that governed official, including the current VP, actually cheered and applauded, and told us they weren't going to and shouldn't stop. Why don't you bring those up?
Please, tell us why!
How big a misrepresentation, really, is saying January 6 was the worst day the capital has experienced? The only way to minimize January 6 is to focus on the riot itself and not the circumstances that led to it happening. We've had other riots in this country before, right comrades? The rad-libs riot every time a cop kills a black person! They can't have it both ways, amirite, we've seen this before!!1
Really? We've had that before?
We've had riots incited by an outgoing and self-absorbed President, who for months had maintained he may not accept the results of the election and who was ultimately refusing to do exactly that, all because he was too little of a man to admit he got beat?
Riots where the outgoing President was literally on the phone while the riot was happening, pressuring his Vice President to overturn the results of the American presidential election?
Strictly from a historical perspective, how does that compare to past Presidential conduct in our history? Have we ever seen anything remotely resembling a President threatening not to transfer power, and then encouraging rioters and lobbying the Vice President on his behalf?
What makes January 6 so egregious is that it wasn't outsiders encouraging the riots and overthrowing the election results. It wasn't a foreign army in 1814. It was our own sitting President.
How people want to continue minimizing the literal and symbolic importance of that key distinction is beyond me.
Republican congressmen being shot by a worker for a democrat political candidate
FBI agents who supported the democrats spying on a political candidate of the minority party
FBI agents who supported the democrats using made up political dirt to get a FISA warrant to spy on a president of the opposition party
Highest elected members of the democrat party saying that the president is not legitimate for years after his election, going so far as to say that he colluded with a foreign power to cheat in the election and refusing to work with him on that basis
Washington DC being set on fire by democrats due to riots during the inauguration of Trump, complete with speakers at the political rally saying that they want to blow up the White House.
Democrat members of Congress telling people that they should go after members of the administration
The President of the United States having to be moved to a bunker under the White House while democrat protestors assaulted secret service members and tried to tear down a fence protecting the white house.
Republicans who were leaving the White House being assaulted by Democrats after Trump accepting the nomination to run for President again.
Democrat members of Congress (and a future VP) paying bail funds for people who were trying to burn down cities and federal court houses.
I can keep going if you would like...
There's no need for you to go on.
You already proved my point by continuing to compare the actions of the single most powerful politician in the world to random Americans or much less powerful politicians that demonstrably didn't cause insurrections.
We've never had anything remotely resembling a President threatening to not transfer power or lobbying his VP to overturn the election.
Good lord... that sure was good for a laugh this morning!Werewolf said:
At the SOTU, Resident Xiden said "Go get him!"
At that same SOTU, Pelosi made a very odd hand gesture during a point in the speech that certainly didn't call for such a gesture.
Thanks to @AngelAura11, and @JuliansRum, sign language enters the picture.
The gesture she made is the gesture for "bath". (Think 'wet'.)
Wikileaks revealed that Podesta sent an email calling for some "Wetworks". 4 days later, Scalia was dead.
Just last night, we heard Lindsay Graham literally call for Putin's assassination.
Hand Gesture = Bath = Wetworks.
Joe's quote….
Lindsay's quote….
My point? Nancy's hand gesture wasn't random or benign. I believe she was putting in a comm for "wetworks" on Putin.
From a Patriot friend
caryking said:
For the folks that lack knowledge. No one ever asked Pence to overturn the election. Pence had letters from at least one state asking for a 10 day review of the election. The request was to hold off on the certification vote so that these States could resolve a few open questions, as requested by these State(s).
For that, Pence said he couldn't and continued the vote. There are Constitutional lawyers that said his received advice was weak.
So, the very notion of people, media, etc saying Trump asked Pence to overturn the elections is factually untrue!!!
hokiewolf said:caryking said:
For the folks that lack knowledge. No one ever asked Pence to overturn the election. Pence had letters from at least one state asking for a 10 day review of the election. The request was to hold off on the certification vote so that these States could resolve a few open questions, as requested by these State(s).
For that, Pence said he couldn't and continued the vote. There are Constitutional lawyers that said his received advice was weak.
So, the very notion of people, media, etc saying Trump asked Pence to overturn the elections is factually untrue!!!
I love this gif...hokiewolf said:caryking said:
For the folks that lack knowledge. No one ever asked Pence to overturn the election. Pence had letters from at least one state asking for a 10 day review of the election. The request was to hold off on the certification vote so that these States could resolve a few open questions, as requested by these State(s).
For that, Pence said he couldn't and continued the vote. There are Constitutional lawyers that said his received advice was weak.
So, the very notion of people, media, etc saying Trump asked Pence to overturn the elections is factually untrue!!!
hokiewolf said:
"Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us. If he doesn't, that will be a sad day for our country because you're sworn to uphold our Constitution"
Trump, January 6th
"If the Vice President had 'absolutely no right' to change the Presidential Election results in the Senate, despite fraud and many other irregularities, how come the Democrats, and RINO Republicans, like Wacky Susan Collins, are desperately trying to pass legislation that will not allow the Vice President to change the results of the election? Actually, what they are saying is that Mike Pence did have the right to change the outcome, and they now want to take that right away. Unfortunately, he didn't exercise that power, he could have overturned the Election!"
Also Donald Trump
The mental gymnastics that you have to go through to think that he did not tell Mike Pence what he wanted him to do or pressure him to do on January 6th is somewhat fascinating to me.
hokiewolf said:
About the January 6th riot, here is my confusion:
Anytime this is brought up the response is to divert and condemn liberal hypocrisy, also sprinkling in a bit of rumors that Antifa or some other nefarious plot was really responsible. I've never understood the moral logic that says the riot was bad if Antifa or the deep state provoked it, but no big deal if it was just a spontaneous uprising?
If Antifa or the deep state were the real culprits, that would be very bad. But they weren't. And how was the riot just a tourist visit gone awry if they weren't pulling the strings? Either it's bad to bring bear spray, zip ties, and paramilitary gear to storm the Capitol, smear feces around its halls, chant "Hang Mike Pence," and look to take hostages or it's not.
Similarly, if you are very angry about the BLM riots as I was, how does that make January 6 okay? Violent mobs are bad, period. A law and order conservatism that many of your espouse to be that says, "As long as liberals fail to condemn thuggish violence for their side, we feel no obligation to condemn thuggish violence on our side," cares neither about law and order nor conservatism.
LOL. Yeah, those "sauces" of yours. These the same ones that assured -- absolutely assured you -- that AZ was being overturned?caryking said:hokiewolf said:
"Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us. If he doesn't, that will be a sad day for our country because you're sworn to uphold our Constitution"
Trump, January 6th
"If the Vice President had 'absolutely no right' to change the Presidential Election results in the Senate, despite fraud and many other irregularities, how come the Democrats, and RINO Republicans, like Wacky Susan Collins, are desperately trying to pass legislation that will not allow the Vice President to change the results of the election? Actually, what they are saying is that Mike Pence did have the right to change the outcome, and they now want to take that right away. Unfortunately, he didn't exercise that power, he could have overturned the Election!"
Also Donald Trump
The mental gymnastics that you have to go through to think that he did not tell Mike Pence what he wanted him to do or pressure him to do on January 6th is somewhat fascinating to me.
Hokie, context matters! He absolutely told Pence what he wanted him to do! Not denying that. Where we differ is in what the ask was. Follow options given to him, based on history, and allow the State(s) do what they were asking.
It's the same argument people have made about the Georgia Secretary of State phone call as well as the call with Zelinsky. The biggest issue I see is your uneducated bias…
I've actually listened to the lawyers involved in the Pence deal. They have shown documents and expressed what was being asked.
Hokie, before you go any further, you might want to hear directly from the horses mouth…
LOL -- tell us who on here has ever swept Ferguson, MPLS or even Charlotte under the rug. And don't just make it up -- but back it up with real evidence. This should be great.caryking said:hokiewolf said:
About the January 6th riot, here is my confusion:
Anytime this is brought up the response is to divert and condemn liberal hypocrisy, also sprinkling in a bit of rumors that Antifa or some other nefarious plot was really responsible. I've never understood the moral logic that says the riot was bad if Antifa or the deep state provoked it, but no big deal if it was just a spontaneous uprising?
If Antifa or the deep state were the real culprits, that would be very bad. But they weren't. And how was the riot just a tourist visit gone awry if they weren't pulling the strings? Either it's bad to bring bear spray, zip ties, and paramilitary gear to storm the Capitol, smear feces around its halls, chant "Hang Mike Pence," and look to take hostages or it's not.
Similarly, if you are very angry about the BLM riots as I was, how does that make January 6 okay? Violent mobs are bad, period. A law and order conservatism that many of your espouse to be that says, "As long as liberals fail to condemn thuggish violence for their side, we feel no obligation to condemn thuggish violence on our side," cares neither about law and order nor conservatism.
Again, hokie, you just don't know what you're talking about. Nobody is saying that the people that acted illegally should be left off the hook.
All people are saying that there are too many open ended question about who was actually doing the illegal things. Whether they are Trump supporters or not.
The reason people bring up other incidents are because they were, in some eyes, swept under the rug by people on here. So, yes, they call out what they see as hypocritical…
If you were to see hypocritical thinking, would you call it out?
I'll bet so…
You want someone to go back and find quotes from then???? LOL. This is freaking great.Packchem91 said:LOL -- tell us who on here has ever swept Ferguson, MPLS or even Charlotte under the rug. And don't just make it up -- but back it up with real evidence. This should be great.caryking said:hokiewolf said:
About the January 6th riot, here is my confusion:
Anytime this is brought up the response is to divert and condemn liberal hypocrisy, also sprinkling in a bit of rumors that Antifa or some other nefarious plot was really responsible. I've never understood the moral logic that says the riot was bad if Antifa or the deep state provoked it, but no big deal if it was just a spontaneous uprising?
If Antifa or the deep state were the real culprits, that would be very bad. But they weren't. And how was the riot just a tourist visit gone awry if they weren't pulling the strings? Either it's bad to bring bear spray, zip ties, and paramilitary gear to storm the Capitol, smear feces around its halls, chant "Hang Mike Pence," and look to take hostages or it's not.
Similarly, if you are very angry about the BLM riots as I was, how does that make January 6 okay? Violent mobs are bad, period. A law and order conservatism that many of your espouse to be that says, "As long as liberals fail to condemn thuggish violence for their side, we feel no obligation to condemn thuggish violence on our side," cares neither about law and order nor conservatism.
Again, hokie, you just don't know what you're talking about. Nobody is saying that the people that acted illegally should be left off the hook.
All people are saying that there are too many open ended question about who was actually doing the illegal things. Whether they are Trump supporters or not.
The reason people bring up other incidents are because they were, in some eyes, swept under the rug by people on here. So, yes, they call out what they see as hypocritical…
If you were to see hypocritical thinking, would you call it out?
I'll bet so…
And "open ended questions about who was actually doing the illegal things".....open only if you want it to be so.
Didn't call it an insurrection, called it a riot.packgrad said:
Anybody that calls January 6 an insurrection should not be taken seriously, and just ignored.
Didn't say you did.hokiewolf said:Didn't call it an insurrection, called it a riot.packgrad said:
Anybody that calls January 6 an insurrection should not be taken seriously, and just ignored.
It is absurd, i agree -- no more so than someone saying people on here have swept those things under the rug. It just shows you can (and Cary did here) say anything you want to say because, to your point, all you have to do when confronted is argue, "well, i don't have time to go find it". Well of course not, because it didn't happen.packgrad said:You want someone to go back and find quotes from then???? LOL. This is freaking great.Packchem91 said:LOL -- tell us who on here has ever swept Ferguson, MPLS or even Charlotte under the rug. And don't just make it up -- but back it up with real evidence. This should be great.caryking said:hokiewolf said:
About the January 6th riot, here is my confusion:
Anytime this is brought up the response is to divert and condemn liberal hypocrisy, also sprinkling in a bit of rumors that Antifa or some other nefarious plot was really responsible. I've never understood the moral logic that says the riot was bad if Antifa or the deep state provoked it, but no big deal if it was just a spontaneous uprising?
If Antifa or the deep state were the real culprits, that would be very bad. But they weren't. And how was the riot just a tourist visit gone awry if they weren't pulling the strings? Either it's bad to bring bear spray, zip ties, and paramilitary gear to storm the Capitol, smear feces around its halls, chant "Hang Mike Pence," and look to take hostages or it's not.
Similarly, if you are very angry about the BLM riots as I was, how does that make January 6 okay? Violent mobs are bad, period. A law and order conservatism that many of your espouse to be that says, "As long as liberals fail to condemn thuggish violence for their side, we feel no obligation to condemn thuggish violence on our side," cares neither about law and order nor conservatism.
Again, hokie, you just don't know what you're talking about. Nobody is saying that the people that acted illegally should be left off the hook.
All people are saying that there are too many open ended question about who was actually doing the illegal things. Whether they are Trump supporters or not.
The reason people bring up other incidents are because they were, in some eyes, swept under the rug by people on here. So, yes, they call out what they see as hypocritical…
If you were to see hypocritical thinking, would you call it out?
I'll bet so…
And "open ended questions about who was actually doing the illegal things".....open only if you want it to be so.
Naahhhh, it wasn't an insurrection....it was, I've learned here now, just "a bad day". LOL. A bad day. Do you also ignore and not take seriously people who just consider it a bad day?packgrad said:Didn't say you did.hokiewolf said:Didn't call it an insurrection, called it a riot.packgrad said:
Anybody that calls January 6 an insurrection should not be taken seriously, and just ignored.
cowboypack02 said:Actually....i'm a little bit confused and i'd like a little bit more clarification if you don't mind.Civilized said:cowboypack02 said:I would argue that your historical perspective seems to be skewed...Civilized said:Steve Videtich said:
"wholly propagated by the words of the POTUS"
This is where you lose me every time. First off, it was a bad day. But, it's not even the worst day the capital has ever experienced. That is a narrative continually propagated a corrupt media and folks like yourself, who have an emotional bias against Trump for not being "presidential" enough for your high standards.
You keep bringing up this point, even when nothing is relevant to it. Why are you so hung up on Jan 6? Why is it that you don't bring up any other riots that happened around the country, in the year leading up to Jan 6? You know the riots where the rioters killed people and police officers and did millions of dollars in damages. The same riots where our media stood in front of a burning building and said it was mostly peaceful. And the same riots that governed official, including the current VP, actually cheered and applauded, and told us they weren't going to and shouldn't stop. Why don't you bring those up?
Please, tell us why!
How big a misrepresentation, really, is saying January 6 was the worst day the capital has experienced? The only way to minimize January 6 is to focus on the riot itself and not the circumstances that led to it happening. We've had other riots in this country before, right comrades? The rad-libs riot every time a cop kills a black person! They can't have it both ways, amirite, we've seen this before!!1
Really? We've had that before?
We've had riots incited by an outgoing and self-absorbed President, who for months had maintained he may not accept the results of the election and who was ultimately refusing to do exactly that, all because he was too little of a man to admit he got beat?
Riots where the outgoing President was literally on the phone while the riot was happening, pressuring his Vice President to overturn the results of the American presidential election?
Strictly from a historical perspective, how does that compare to past Presidential conduct in our history? Have we ever seen anything remotely resembling a President threatening not to transfer power, and then encouraging rioters and lobbying the Vice President on his behalf?
What makes January 6 so egregious is that it wasn't outsiders encouraging the riots and overthrowing the election results. It wasn't a foreign army in 1814. It was our own sitting President.
How people want to continue minimizing the literal and symbolic importance of that key distinction is beyond me.
Republican congressmen being shot by a worker for a democrat political candidate
FBI agents who supported the democrats spying on a political candidate of the minority party
FBI agents who supported the democrats using made up political dirt to get a FISA warrant to spy on a president of the opposition party
Highest elected members of the democrat party saying that the president is not legitimate for years after his election, going so far as to say that he colluded with a foreign power to cheat in the election and refusing to work with him on that basis
Washington DC being set on fire by democrats due to riots during the inauguration of Trump, complete with speakers at the political rally saying that they want to blow up the White House.
Democrat members of Congress telling people that they should go after members of the administration
The President of the United States having to be moved to a bunker under the White House while democrat protestors assaulted secret service members and tried to tear down a fence protecting the white house.
Republicans who were leaving the White House being assaulted by Democrats after Trump accepting the nomination to run for President again.
Democrat members of Congress (and a future VP) paying bail funds for people who were trying to burn down cities and federal court houses.
I can keep going if you would like...
There's no need for you to go on.
You already proved my point by continuing to compare the actions of the single most powerful politician in the world to random Americans or much less powerful politicians that demonstrably didn't cause insurrections.
We've never had anything remotely resembling a President threatening to not transfer power or lobbying his VP to overturn the election.
Your saying that the democrats setting DC, which is the seat of power for our government, on fire three times in four years because they don't like the president doesn't move the needle for you?
Democrats, who had enough power to impeach a president twice are less powerful?
Nancy Pelosi, who is the democrat speaker of the house, working with military officials while Trump was president to not allow him to use his presidential powers as he sees fit, isn't powerful?
Chuck Schumer, who is the president of the senate, telling Trump that the intelligence community would get him 6 ways from sunday...and then the FBI went after him by falsifying documents to get warrants to wiretap him, isn't powerful?
General Mark Milley, who is the joint chief of staff for the entire military of the US, reaching out to his counterpart in China to tell him that if Trump decided to take any type of action against China that he would be given a heads up and wouldn't allow it to happen, isn't powerful?
As far as threatening to not transfer power...i was curious to i checked google and I couldn't really find any instances of Trump threatening to not transfer power. I read a whole lot of quotes from democrats saying that Trump wouldn't leave the white house and would refuse to give up his power, but nothing from Trump himself.
For the stuff with his VP...who cares....politicians lobby other politicians all the time to vote for bills and do things that shouldn't be passed.
Packchem91 said:LOL. Yeah, those "sauces" of yours. These the same ones that assured -- absolutely assured you -- that AZ was being overturned?caryking said:hokiewolf said:
"Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us. If he doesn't, that will be a sad day for our country because you're sworn to uphold our Constitution"
Trump, January 6th
"If the Vice President had 'absolutely no right' to change the Presidential Election results in the Senate, despite fraud and many other irregularities, how come the Democrats, and RINO Republicans, like Wacky Susan Collins, are desperately trying to pass legislation that will not allow the Vice President to change the results of the election? Actually, what they are saying is that Mike Pence did have the right to change the outcome, and they now want to take that right away. Unfortunately, he didn't exercise that power, he could have overturned the Election!"
Also Donald Trump
The mental gymnastics that you have to go through to think that he did not tell Mike Pence what he wanted him to do or pressure him to do on January 6th is somewhat fascinating to me.
Hokie, context matters! He absolutely told Pence what he wanted him to do! Not denying that. Where we differ is in what the ask was. Follow options given to him, based on history, and allow the State(s) do what they were asking.
It's the same argument people have made about the Georgia Secretary of State phone call as well as the call with Zelinsky. The biggest issue I see is your uneducated bias…
I've actually listened to the lawyers involved in the Pence deal. They have shown documents and expressed what was being asked.
Hokie, before you go any further, you might want to hear directly from the horses mouth…
Were you a gymnast at a younger age?
LOL....way to represent, Mr I'm a Big Christian!caryking said:Packchem91 said:LOL. Yeah, those "sauces" of yours. These the same ones that assured -- absolutely assured you -- that AZ was being overturned?caryking said:hokiewolf said:
"Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us. If he doesn't, that will be a sad day for our country because you're sworn to uphold our Constitution"
Trump, January 6th
"If the Vice President had 'absolutely no right' to change the Presidential Election results in the Senate, despite fraud and many other irregularities, how come the Democrats, and RINO Republicans, like Wacky Susan Collins, are desperately trying to pass legislation that will not allow the Vice President to change the results of the election? Actually, what they are saying is that Mike Pence did have the right to change the outcome, and they now want to take that right away. Unfortunately, he didn't exercise that power, he could have overturned the Election!"
Also Donald Trump
The mental gymnastics that you have to go through to think that he did not tell Mike Pence what he wanted him to do or pressure him to do on January 6th is somewhat fascinating to me.
Hokie, context matters! He absolutely told Pence what he wanted him to do! Not denying that. Where we differ is in what the ask was. Follow options given to him, based on history, and allow the State(s) do what they were asking.
It's the same argument people have made about the Georgia Secretary of State phone call as well as the call with Zelinsky. The biggest issue I see is your uneducated bias…
I've actually listened to the lawyers involved in the Pence deal. They have shown documents and expressed what was being asked.
Hokie, before you go any further, you might want to hear directly from the horses mouth…
Were you a gymnast at a younger age?
Chem, go "F" yourself!!! Also, go read any writings from John Eastman. While you're at it; read the reports of him being investigated for his actions regarding things. This is a typical racket being done by people like you!
Packchem91 said:LOL....way to represent, Mr I'm a Big Christian!caryking said:Packchem91 said:LOL. Yeah, those "sauces" of yours. These the same ones that assured -- absolutely assured you -- that AZ was being overturned?caryking said:hokiewolf said:
"Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us. If he doesn't, that will be a sad day for our country because you're sworn to uphold our Constitution"
Trump, January 6th
"If the Vice President had 'absolutely no right' to change the Presidential Election results in the Senate, despite fraud and many other irregularities, how come the Democrats, and RINO Republicans, like Wacky Susan Collins, are desperately trying to pass legislation that will not allow the Vice President to change the results of the election? Actually, what they are saying is that Mike Pence did have the right to change the outcome, and they now want to take that right away. Unfortunately, he didn't exercise that power, he could have overturned the Election!"
Also Donald Trump
The mental gymnastics that you have to go through to think that he did not tell Mike Pence what he wanted him to do or pressure him to do on January 6th is somewhat fascinating to me.
Hokie, context matters! He absolutely told Pence what he wanted him to do! Not denying that. Where we differ is in what the ask was. Follow options given to him, based on history, and allow the State(s) do what they were asking.
It's the same argument people have made about the Georgia Secretary of State phone call as well as the call with Zelinsky. The biggest issue I see is your uneducated bias…
I've actually listened to the lawyers involved in the Pence deal. They have shown documents and expressed what was being asked.
Hokie, before you go any further, you might want to hear directly from the horses mouth…
Were you a gymnast at a younger age?
Chem, go "F" yourself!!! Also, go read any writings from John Eastman. While you're at it; read the reports of him being investigated for his actions regarding things. This is a typical racket being done by people like you!
So when should we hear back on AZ (I know, I know, its still not a conspiracy to believe that it will change).
Ouch.caryking said:Packchem91 said:LOL....way to represent, Mr I'm a Big Christian!caryking said:Packchem91 said:LOL. Yeah, those "sauces" of yours. These the same ones that assured -- absolutely assured you -- that AZ was being overturned?caryking said:hokiewolf said:
"Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us. If he doesn't, that will be a sad day for our country because you're sworn to uphold our Constitution"
Trump, January 6th
"If the Vice President had 'absolutely no right' to change the Presidential Election results in the Senate, despite fraud and many other irregularities, how come the Democrats, and RINO Republicans, like Wacky Susan Collins, are desperately trying to pass legislation that will not allow the Vice President to change the results of the election? Actually, what they are saying is that Mike Pence did have the right to change the outcome, and they now want to take that right away. Unfortunately, he didn't exercise that power, he could have overturned the Election!"
Also Donald Trump
The mental gymnastics that you have to go through to think that he did not tell Mike Pence what he wanted him to do or pressure him to do on January 6th is somewhat fascinating to me.
Hokie, context matters! He absolutely told Pence what he wanted him to do! Not denying that. Where we differ is in what the ask was. Follow options given to him, based on history, and allow the State(s) do what they were asking.
It's the same argument people have made about the Georgia Secretary of State phone call as well as the call with Zelinsky. The biggest issue I see is your uneducated bias…
I've actually listened to the lawyers involved in the Pence deal. They have shown documents and expressed what was being asked.
Hokie, before you go any further, you might want to hear directly from the horses mouth…
Were you a gymnast at a younger age?
Chem, go "F" yourself!!! Also, go read any writings from John Eastman. While you're at it; read the reports of him being investigated for his actions regarding things. This is a typical racket being done by people like you!
So when should we hear back on AZ (I know, I know, its still not a conspiracy to believe that it will change).
Chem, it's time for you to go away…
Civilized said:
Packchem91 said:Naahhhh, it wasn't an insurrection....it was, I've learned here now, just "a bad day". LOL. A bad day. Do you also ignore and not take seriously people who just consider it a bad day?packgrad said:Didn't say you did.hokiewolf said:Didn't call it an insurrection, called it a riot.packgrad said:
Anybody that calls January 6 an insurrection should not be taken seriously, and just ignored.
LOL, I knew you'd minimized it, so am somewhat surprised you even thought it lived up to being a "bad day".packgrad said:Packchem91 said:Naahhhh, it wasn't an insurrection....it was, I've learned here now, just "a bad day". LOL. A bad day. Do you also ignore and not take seriously people who just consider it a bad day?packgrad said:Didn't say you did.hokiewolf said:Didn't call it an insurrection, called it a riot.packgrad said:
Anybody that calls January 6 an insurrection should not be taken seriously, and just ignored.
Why would I ignore people that say that? It was a bad day. It wasn't an insurrection. Pretty simple.
Packchem91 said:LOL, I knew you'd minimized it, so am somewhat surprised you even thought it lived up to being a "bad day".packgrad said:Packchem91 said:Naahhhh, it wasn't an insurrection....it was, I've learned here now, just "a bad day". LOL. A bad day. Do you also ignore and not take seriously people who just consider it a bad day?packgrad said:Didn't say you did.hokiewolf said:Didn't call it an insurrection, called it a riot.packgrad said:
Anybody that calls January 6 an insurrection should not be taken seriously, and just ignored.
Why would I ignore people that say that? It was a bad day. It wasn't an insurrection. Pretty simple.
So the guy who loves posing questions to posters with whom he disagrees to try to pin them down, is not going to respond to a question to pin him down?caryking said:Civilized said:
Civ, you're correct! The temperature got a little hot…. I'm moving on from Chem…
packgrad said:Here’s @MarshaBlackburn asking KBJ if she can define the word woman. KBJ says she can’t. This is how broken the “party of science” is. They are so obsessed with transgenderism that they can’t even say what a woman is. pic.twitter.com/zdj2OkqppI
— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) March 23, 2022
Fascinating turn of events as we've gone from #BelieveAllWomen to "What is this word you speak of?" in just four years.
— Bridget Phetasy (@BridgetPhetasy) March 23, 2022
This is one that I am struggling with. I admittedly know very little about Ketanji Brown Jackson and her legal credentials, but if you cannot define a woman, how can you rule on cases about things such as sex discrimination, Title XI, etc. Seems like that would need to be a prerequisite to sit on the highest court in the land.packgrad said:packgrad said:Here’s @MarshaBlackburn asking KBJ if she can define the word woman. KBJ says she can’t. This is how broken the “party of science” is. They are so obsessed with transgenderism that they can’t even say what a woman is. pic.twitter.com/zdj2OkqppI
— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) March 23, 2022Fascinating turn of events as we've gone from #BelieveAllWomen to "What is this word you speak of?" in just four years.
— Bridget Phetasy (@BridgetPhetasy) March 23, 2022
