# Republicans try but can't change history



## Astrostar

Fact check: Some Republicans have tried to rewrite the history of January 6. Here's how | CNN Politics
					

When the House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6 convenes for the first time, it will be against a backdrop of Republican objections and falsehoods.




					www.cnn.com
				




Because history is what it is.  Despite the efforts of Trump and his Cult members in Congress to rewrite it to reflect positively on Trump, theirs is a lost cause.

Trump and his disciples, since January 6 have tried over and over to convince the American people that the insurrection was caused by Antifa, was a peaceful event with lots of love in the air or was just a guided tour of the Capital building. 

We know better!  It was an aggressive attempt by white nationalists, inspired by Trump, to take over the government of the United States.  Anyone who sees it in a different light is not a loyal, patriotic American, but rather is a Trump disciple who places him above the Constitution of the United States and the welfare of the majority of the American people.  

Today's congressional hearing will expose the Trump people who tried to storm the Capital for what they really are:  enemies of the American people.


----------



## TNHarley




----------



## Correll

1. They were not "white nationalists", you are a lying asshole.

2. Lefty agitators being responsible is a reasonable suspicion. We've seen one  on tape. 

3. Most republicans are happy to agree that the 1/6 riot, was a riot and that it was a violent crime. 

4.  YOu are a lying asshole.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Astrostar said:


> Fact check: Some Republicans have tried to rewrite the history of January 6. Here's how | CNN Politics
> 
> 
> When the House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6 convenes for the first time, it will be against a backdrop of Republican objections and falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because history is what it is.  Despite the efforts of Trump and his Cult members in Congress to rewrite it to reflect positively on Trump, theirs is a lost cause.
> 
> Trump and his disciples, since January 6 have tried over and over to convince the American people that the insurrection was caused by Antifa, was a peaceful event with lots of love in the air or was just a guided tour of the Capital building.
> 
> We know better!  It was an aggressive attempt by white nationalists, inspired by Trump, to take over the government of the United States.  Anyone who sees it in a different light is not a loyal, patriotic American, but rather is a Trump disciple who places him above the Constitution of the United States and the welfare of the majority of the American people.
> 
> Today's congressional hearing will expose the Trump people who tried to storm the Capital for what they really are:  enemies of the American people.







Tell us again how you feared for your life but survived the protest after the only people with firearms, namely the Capitol police, murdered a unarmed female protestor.

I'm sure you were terrified!

*****SMILE*****


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

Pelosi is afraid of the truth, that is why she will only have shills on her hearings.
BTW, this is a loser issue for Dirty Nancy, but keep on pushing it. LOL
Pelosi is exploiting this to try and distract from the Democrat Cult's election rigging scandal.


----------



## Oddball

Astrostar said:


> Fact check: Some Republicans have tried to rewrite the history of January 6. Here's how | CNN Politics
> 
> 
> When the House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6 convenes for the first time, it will be against a backdrop of Republican objections and falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because history is what it is.  Despite the efforts of Trump and his Cult members in Congress to rewrite it to reflect positively on Trump, theirs is a lost cause.
> 
> Trump and his disciples, since January 6 have tried over and over to convince the American people that the insurrection was caused by Antifa, was a peaceful event with lots of love in the air or was just a guided tour of the Capital building.
> 
> We know better!  It was an aggressive attempt by white nationalists, inspired by Trump, to take over the government of the United States.  Anyone who sees it in a different light is not a loyal, patriotic American, but rather is a Trump disciple who places him above the Constitution of the United States and the welfare of the majority of the American people.
> 
> Today's congressional hearing will expose the Trump people who tried to storm the Capital for what they really are:  enemies of the American people.


Rewriting history is the job of you Marxist assholes.


----------



## postman

Correll said:


> 2. Lefty agitators being responsible is a reasonable suspicion. We've seen one  on tape.
> 
> 3. Most republicans are happy to agree that the 1/6 riot, was a riot and that it was a violent crime.



It wasn't a riot, it was an insurrection.  And it wasn't the FBI, or BLM or Antifa behind it.  It was those waiving Trump flags, and carrying the stars and bars while chanting hang Mike Pence, that were behind it.


----------



## surada

Oddball said:


> Rewriting history is the job of you Marxist assholes.



LOLOL. Don't you know what a Marxist is?


----------



## Oddball

surada said:


> LOLOL. Don't you know what a Marxist is?


----------



## MarcATL

Astrostar said:


> Fact check: Some Republicans have tried to rewrite the history of January 6. Here's how | CNN Politics
> 
> 
> When the House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6 convenes for the first time, it will be against a backdrop of Republican objections and falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because history is what it is.  Despite the efforts of Trump and his Cult members in Congress to rewrite it to reflect positively on Trump, theirs is a lost cause.
> 
> Trump and his disciples, since January 6 have tried over and over to convince the American people that the insurrection was caused by Antifa, was a peaceful event with lots of love in the air or was just a guided tour of the Capital building.
> 
> We know better!  It was an aggressive attempt by white nationalists, inspired by Trump, to take over the government of the United States.  Anyone who sees it in a different light is not a loyal, patriotic American, but rather is a Trump disciple who places him above the Constitution of the United States and the welfare of the majority of the American people.
> 
> Today's congressional hearing will expose the Trump people who tried to storm the Capital for what they really are:  enemies of the American people.


Facts!


----------



## Oddball

postman said:


> It wasn't a riot, it was an insurrection.  And it wasn't the FBI, or BLM or Antifa behind it.  It was those waiving Trump flags, and carrying the stars and bars while chanting hang Mike Pence, that were behind it.


"Insurrection" requires force of arms, sub-imbecile.


----------



## Correll

postman said:


> It wasn't a riot, it was an insurrection.  And it wasn't the FBI, or BLM or Antifa behind it.  It was those waiving Trump flags, and carrying the stars and bars while chanting hang Mike Pence, that were behind it.




1. It was a riot. There was some violence and some destruction of property and lots of trespassing.  There was no intent to over throw the government.

2. There was at least ONE lefty agitator there. It is reasonable to suspect that there could have been more.

3. It is completely reasonable to suspect FBI moves to encourage violence, to marginalize Trump supporters.


----------



## martybegan

postman said:


> It wasn't a riot, it was an insurrection.  And it wasn't the FBI, or BLM or Antifa behind it.  It was those waiving Trump flags, and carrying the stars and bars while chanting hang Mike Pence, that were behind it.



So by what mechanism would they have overthrown the government?


----------



## martybegan

Oddball said:


> "Insurrection" requires force of arms, sub-imbecile.



It also requires some mechanism of actually being able to overthrow the government.


----------



## B. Kidd

Who wrote the over dramatic narratives that the testifying cops are trying to read?


----------



## surada

Oddball said:


> "Insurrection" requires force of arms, sub-imbecile.



Wise up.

Insurrection | Definition of Insurrection by Merriam-Webster








						Definition of INSURRECTION
					

an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government… See the full definition




					www.merriam-webster.com
				



Definition of insurrection : an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government Other Words from insurrection Synonyms Choose the Right Synonym Example Sentences Learn More About insurrection Other Words from insurrection


----------



## martybegan

surada said:


> Wise up.
> 
> Insurrection | Definition of Insurrection by Merriam-Webster
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of INSURRECTION
> 
> 
> an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government… See the full definition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.merriam-webster.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of insurrection : an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government Other Words from insurrection Synonyms Choose the Right Synonym Example Sentences Learn More About insurrection Other Words from insurrection



So basically what happened in CHAZ/CHOP.


----------



## postman

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Pelosi is afraid of the truth, that is why she will only have shills on her hearings.
> BTW, this is a loser issue for Dirty Nancy, but keep on pushing it. LOL
> Pelosi is exploiting this to try and distract from the Democrat Cult's election rigging scandal.


The republicans could have had a completely bipartisan commission, made up of equal numbers of republicans and democrats, with each able to check the other on subpoenas and other issues.  But they wanted no commission at all.

That's why Nancy had to appoint a committee to investigate 1/6


----------



## Winston

Oddball said:


> "Insurrection" requires force of arms, sub-imbecile.


You are the imbecile, an insurrection does not require arms.  It requires violence.


----------



## postman

Oddball said:


> Rewriting history is the job of you Marxist assholes.


Such as trying to  claim that Trump won in 2020?

The history books say that Joseph R. Biden won on Nov 6 2020, the votes counted on 1/6/21, and he was sworn in 1/20/21 for a 4 year term as president.

You ain't rewriting that.


----------



## Oddball

postman said:


> The republicans could have had a completely bipartisan commission, made up of equal numbers of republicans and democrats, with each able to check the other on subpoenas and other issues.  But they wanted no commission at all.
> 
> That's why Nancy had to appoint a committee to investigate 1/6


Liar.

Peloski wanted hand-picked democrat hacks with (R)s by their names.....And she got them.


----------



## Winston

martybegan said:


> So by what mechanism would they have overthrown the government?


By stopping the certification of the election, dumbass.


----------



## martybegan

Winston said:


> By stopping the certification of the election, dumbass.



That wouldn't have overturned the existing government. They would have had to have prevented the certification for weeks instead of delaying it a few hours.

Try again.


----------



## surada

Correll said:


> 1. It was a riot. There was some violence and some destruction of property and lots of trespassing.  There was no intent to over throw the government.
> 
> 2. There was at least ONE lefty agitator there. It is reasonable to suspect that there could have been more.
> 
> 3. It is completely reasonable to suspect FBI moves to encourage violence, to marginalize Trump supporters.



*Their INTENT was to overturn the election and hang Mike Pence.*


----------



## Winston

martybegan said:


> That wouldn't have overturned the existing government. They would have had to have prevented the certification for weeks instead of delaying it a few hours.
> 
> Try again.


Yes, the fools didn't accomplish jackshit.  But the goal was to stop the certification of the election and keep Trump in power.  That is the definition of an insurrection attempt.


----------



## martybegan

surada said:


> *Their INTENT was to overturn the election and hang Mike Pence.*



So a few people chanting "hang pence" becomes the motivation for every single one of them?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

After this last year and all the somewhat peaceful protests that happened across the nation until I start seeing Molotov cocktails with buildings and vehicles burning at the Capitol the incident on the 6th of January 2021 was only a peaceful protest.

If the people in the Capitol wish to investigate an insurrection they can start by investigating all the mayors and governors who allowed the cities in their jurisdictions to be burnt, looted, and murdered, while mayors, governors, and congresspersons from DC, cheered it on.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Oddball

Winston said:


> You are the imbecile, an insurrection does not require arms.  It requires violence.


So the violence of a unruly gaggle of knuckleheads, who would be hard pressed to beat back mob of Philadelphia Eagles idiots, is going to overcome numerous armed agents and overthrow the entire guminnt?

You fucking nitwits really don't know how utterly foolish you sound, do you?


----------



## martybegan

Winston said:


> Yes, the fools didn't accomplish jackshit.  But the goal was to stop the certification of the election and keep Trump in power.  That is the definition of an insurrection attempt.



But that wouldn't have overturned anything. Which is why they are only being prosecuted for trespass, assault, and interfering with government workers.


----------



## progressive hunter

postman said:


> It wasn't a riot, it was an insurrection.  And it wasn't the FBI, or BLM or Antifa behind it.  It was those waiving Trump flags, and carrying the stars and bars while chanting hang Mike Pence, that were behind it.


and yet not a single person has been charged with insurrection,,,

almost like they know thats not what it was,,


----------



## Oddball

postman said:


> Such as trying to  claim that Trump won in 2020?
> 
> The history books say that Joseph R. Biden won on Nov 6 2020, the votes counted on 1/6/21, and he was sworn in 1/20/21 for a 4 year term as president.
> 
> You ain't rewriting that.


Those history books haven't yet been written, Leon.


----------



## progressive hunter

Winston said:


> You are the imbecile, an insurrection does not require arms.  It requires violence.


havent seen,,
has anyone been charged with insurrection??


----------



## danielpalos

Astrostar said:


> Fact check: Some Republicans have tried to rewrite the history of January 6. Here's how | CNN Politics
> 
> 
> When the House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6 convenes for the first time, it will be against a backdrop of Republican objections and falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because history is what it is.  Despite the efforts of Trump and his Cult members in Congress to rewrite it to reflect positively on Trump, theirs is a lost cause.
> 
> Trump and his disciples, since January 6 have tried over and over to convince the American people that the insurrection was caused by Antifa, was a peaceful event with lots of love in the air or was just a guided tour of the Capital building.
> 
> We know better!  It was an aggressive attempt by white nationalists, inspired by Trump, to take over the government of the United States.  Anyone who sees it in a different light is not a loyal, patriotic American, but rather is a Trump disciple who places him above the Constitution of the United States and the welfare of the majority of the American people.
> 
> Today's congressional hearing will expose the Trump people who tried to storm the Capital for what they really are:  enemies of the American people.


Why should anyone take right wingers when all they have a fallacy and false witness bearing even in this public venue?


----------



## surada

postman said:


> Such as trying to  claim that Trump won in 2020?
> 
> The history books say that Joseph R. Biden won on Nov 6 2020, the votes counted on 1/6/21, and he was sworn in 1/20/21 for a 4 year term as president.
> 
> You ain't rewriting that.



You crack me up when you call out these nincompoops.


----------



## Winston

Damaged Eagle said:


> View attachment 517870
> 
> After this last year and all the somewhat peaceful protests that happened across the nation until I start seeing Molotov cocktails with buildings and vehicles burning at the Capitol the incident on the 6th of January 2021 was only a peaceful protest.
> 
> If the people in the Capitol wish to investigate an insurrection they can start by investigating all the mayors and governors who allowed the cities in their jurisdictions to be burnt, looted, and murdered, while mayors, governors, and congresspersons, cheered it on.
> 
> *****SMILE*****


Enough already.  Mayors and governors didn't "allow" shit.  Tens of thousands, do you get that, tens of thousands of those BLM protestors were arrested.  Some are facing life in prison.  I mean the "Johnny did it too argument" is stupid, especially when Johnny had to pay for the consequences of his actions.


----------



## surada

martybegan said:


> So a few people chanting "hang pence" becomes the motivation for every single one of them?



Just the ones that broke into the Capitol.. Trump had been telling them for five weeks that the election was stolen.

You should be incensed. Aren't you a patriot?


----------



## Winston

martybegan said:


> But that wouldn't have overturned anything. Which is why they are only being prosecuted for trespass, assault, and interfering with government workers.


It would have overturned the election, which was the goal.  I mean damn, do you even think?


----------



## Oddball

surada said:


> Just the ones that broke into the Capitol.. Trump had been telling them for five weeks that the election was stolen.
> 
> You should be incensed. Aren't you a patriot?


"Broke into the Capitol" by walking past barriers that were removed by the capitol police on purpose.


----------



## postman

Oddball said:


> Liar.
> 
> Peloski wanted hand-picked democrat hacks with (R)s by their names.....And she got them.



Only because McCarthy rejected the bipartisan commission, with equal numbers of democrats and republicans, and equal power sharing by the members over subpoenas and agendas.


----------



## 22lcidw

surada said:


> LOLOL. Don't you know what a Marxist is?


Prog politicians are like a reality show.


----------



## Oddball

Winston said:


> Enough already.  Mayors and governors didn't "allow" shit.  Tens of thousands, do you get that, tens of thousands of those BLM protestors were arrested.  Some are facing life in prison.  I mean the "Johnny did it too argument" is stupid, especially when Johnny had to pay for the consequences of his actions.


_*BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!*_

Mayor Jacob Frey ordering all 4th Precinct cops to abandon their HQ wasn't allowing the riot to proceed at full steam!

Got-dammit are you liberoidals some real fucking pinheads!


----------



## Oddball

postman said:


> Only because McCarthy rejected the bipartisan commission, with equal numbers of democrats and republicans, and equal power sharing by the members over subpoenas and agendas.


There was no "bipartisan commission" with Peloski picking and choosing who was or wasn't allowed to participate, lying asswipe.....Picking prop players isn't "power sharing".


----------



## Canon Shooter

I read the title of this thread and I just laugh.

This is the height of hypocrisy. Ignorant libs spent the better part of last year removing and all reference to anything they deemed offensive, including Confederate statues, flags, changing names of schools, etc. They're too fucking stupid to realize that if they erase history (which is their aim), they open the door for history to be repeated somewhere down the road. For those idiots wanting it, I hpoe they get exactly that...


----------



## martybegan

surada said:


> Just the ones that broke into the Capitol.. Trump had been telling them for five weeks that the election was stolen.
> 
> You should be incensed. Aren't you a patriot?



He then told them to march peacefully to the Capitol and let their voices be heard. 

I think there were shenanigans in the election, but no smoking gun has been found, or probably ever will be.


----------



## danielpalos

History books will explain why it was done in modern times.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Winston said:


> Enough already.  Mayors and governors didn't "allow" shit.  Tens of thousands, do you get that, tens of thousands of those BLM protestors were arrested.  Some are facing life in prison.  I mean the "Johnny did it too argument" is stupid, especially when Johnny had to pay for the consequences of his actions.







Then our prison systems should be overflowing and we'd need special facilities to contain the rest.

I'm calling what happened across the nation for well over a year as the real insurrection.

You're insurrectionists just want a fall guy who they set up to avoid the reality of their actions so they played the switch game.

The traitors and insurrectionists for that insurrection across the nation need to be held accountable to the people with severe punishments.

If you got a problem with that...

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Winston

progressive hunter said:


> havent seen,,
> has anyone been charged with insurrection??


Over two hundred people have been charged with conspiracy, over 50 have been charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon against law enforcement.  I mean you need to leave your fantasy world.


----------



## martybegan

Winston said:


> It would have overturned the election, which was the goal.  I mean damn, do you even think?



It wouldn't have done squat. They would have had to prevent the certification for weeks. 

Meanwhile in CHAZ/CHOP you had the actual takeover of a public space from the control of local and State government for months......


----------



## progressive hunter

Winston said:


> Over two hundred people have been charged with conspiracy, over 50 have been charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon against law enforcement.  I mean you need to leave your fantasy world.


but not a single person has been charged with insurrection,,

so why do you and others keep lying and calling it one??


----------



## Winston

Damaged Eagle said:


> View attachment 517872
> 
> Then our prison systems should be overflowing and we'd need special facilities to contain the rest.
> 
> I'm calling what happened across the nation for well over a year an insurrection.
> 
> The traitors and insurrectionists for that insurrection across the nation need to be held accountable to the people with severe punishments.
> 
> If you got a problem with that...
> 
> *****SMILE*****


Nope, I got no problem with you being a flippin idiot.  Carry on.


----------



## Correll

surada said:


> *Their INTENT was to overturn the election and hang Mike Pence.*




Nope. Their intent was to stop the certification of a fraudulent vote.


----------



## postman

Oddball said:


> "Broke into the Capitol" by walking past barriers that were removed by the capitol police on purpose.


Then why the battering ram?
Or the stolen police shields and helmets to break the window glass?


----------



## postman

Oddball said:


> There was no "bipartisan commission" with Peloski picking and choosing who was or wasn't allowed to participate, lying asswipe.....Picking prop players isn't "power sharing".


Apparently you are confusing the January 6th commission (that the republicans negotiation but McCarthy rejected) and the sub committee that Pelosi set up in its place.


----------



## postman

martybegan said:


> It wouldn't have done squat. They would have had to prevent the certification for weeks.



Actually they only needed was to delay it for 14 days.


----------



## Winston

Correll said:


> Nope. Their intent was to stop the certification of a fraudulent vote.


So, the people, and more specifically, to the individual, now have the ability to make legal determinations and administer justice.  No need for courts, or laws for that matter.  Democracy, mob rule, vigilante justice, public hangings, lynching.


----------



## martybegan

postman said:


> Actually they only needed was to delay it for 14 days.



which is 2 weeks. and even then Trump had no legal mechanism to remain in office.


----------



## postman

progressive hunter said:


> but not a single person has been charged with insurrection,,
> 
> so why do you and others keep lying and calling it one??



No one was charged with Genocide over the murder of 6 million Jews.  Yet that's how we describe that happened.


----------



## Correll

Winston said:


> So, the people, and more specifically, to the individual, now have the ability to make legal determinations and administer justice.  No need for courts, or laws for that matter.  Democracy, mob rule, vigilante justice, public hangings, lynching.




We were discussing their intent.  I made no claim that their intent was legal or binding. 


Do you have anything to say that actually addresses something that was in the post you responded to?


----------



## martybegan

postman said:


> No one was charged with Genocide over the murder of 6 million Jews.  Yet that's how we describe that happened.



Actually they were, the term was "crimes against humanity".

Some were charged by the local governments for the murders in the camps.

If you are going to refer to history, you should know it.


----------



## postman

surada said: 
Their INTENT was to overturn the election and hang Mike Pence. 



Correll said:


> Nope. Their intent was to stop the certification of a fraudulent vote.



And to do so by overturning the election, and/or hanging Mike Pence.


----------



## Oddball

postman said:


> Apparently you are confusing the January 6th commission (that the republicans negotiation but McCarthy rejected) and the sub committee that Pelosi set up in its place.


I'm confusing nothing, liar....You have a fact withes getting to choose who asks the questions.

You're a quintessential useful idiot.


----------



## progressive hunter

postman said:


> No one was charged with Genocide over the murder of 6 million Jews.  Yet that's how we describe that happened.


are you sure about that??

insurrection is a chargeable offense where genocide I dont think is,,


----------



## Correll

postman said:


> surada said:
> Their INTENT was to overturn the election and hang Mike Pence.
> 
> 
> 
> And to do so by overturning the election, and/or hanging Mike Pence.




Nope. Stop a count and having a recount, is not overturning. 


If  you wish to discuss intent, that means we have to discuss their actual intent, not what you want to spin it as.


----------



## surada

Correll said:


> Nope. Their intent was to stop the certification of a fraudulent vote.



A fraudulent vote based on Trump's lies. There is still NO evidence.


----------



## postman

martybegan said:


> Actually they were, the term was "crimes against humanity".



As  was the conspiracy to interfere with congress, the term for insurrection.


----------



## martybegan

postman said:


> As  was the conspiracy to interfere with congress, the term for insurrection.



You are equating delaying a certification vote for a few hours to the deaths of 6 million jews?


----------



## postman

Correll said:


> Nope. Their intent was to stop the certification of a fraudulent vote.



Yet not a single secretary of state or governor said the vote was fraudulent.


----------



## martybegan

surada said:


> A fraudulent vote based on Trump's lies. There is still NO evidence.



yes, because people who commit crimes leave all the evidence out in the open right where everyone can see it.


----------



## surada

Correll said:


> Nope. Stop a count and having a recount, is not overturning.
> 
> 
> If  you wish to discuss intent, that means we have to discuss their actual intent, not what you want to spin it as.



No other US president had refused a peaceful transition ... Trump TOLD them to stop the EC certification.


----------



## JackOfNoTrades

Damaged Eagle said:


> View attachment 517861
> 
> Tell us again how you feared for your life but survived the protest after the only people with firearms, namely the Capitol police, murdered a unarmed female protestor.
> 
> I'm sure you were terrified!
> 
> *****SMILE*****


You keep carrying the torch for this woman and making the same stale argument about no firearms.
Again, who needs guns when you have the sheer numbers and you have your enemy overwhelmed?
All she needs to do is make it up through that window into the lobby and she unlocks the doors for
the angry mob who are then in the Speaker's lobby one door away from the floor of the House and
hostages ready for the mob's taking.

It's too bad this woman bought the Big Lie. It got her killed.
No amount of hand wringing will change that.


----------



## martybegan

surada said:


> No other US president had refused a peaceful transition ... Trump TOLD them to stop the EC certification.



he told them no such thing. He said to be peaceful.


----------



## surada

martybegan said:


> yes, because people who commit crimes leave all the evidence out in the open right where everyone can see it.



You have nothing but Trump's lies. They haven't found any evidence in 6 months.. Remember this is the twice impeached moron who claimed his investigators had proof Obama was born in Kenya.


----------



## postman

martybegan said:


> You are equating delaying a certification vote for a few hours to the deaths of 6 million jews?


Godwin has spoken.


----------



## progressive hunter

postman said:


> No one was charged with Genocide over the murder of 6 million Jews.  Yet that's how we describe that happened.


turns out some were charged with genocide









						Landmarks in law: Nuremberg and the first trial for crimes against humanity
					

Seventy-five years ago, the Nuremberg trials brought leading Nazis to justice – and changed international human rights law




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Oddball

surada said:


> A fraudulent vote based on Trump's lies. There is still NO evidence.


NO evidence says the blind  fucking hack....









						The Navarro Report Vol I, II, III - Feb. 2, 2021.pdf
					

Shared with Dropbox




					www.dropbox.com


----------



## martybegan

surada said:


> You have nothing but Trump's lies. They haven't found any evidence in 6 months.. Remember this is the twice impeached moron who claimed his investigators had proof Obama was born in Kenya.



"impeached" on total bullshit as a political exercise. 

I have my own suspicions that haven't been rectified to my satisfaction.


----------



## postman

martybegan said:


> he told them no such thing. He said to be peaceful.


Trump also said he would release his tax returns.

Trump lies.


----------



## martybegan

postman said:


> Godwin has spoken.



Not Godwin, the topic was brought up by someone on your side of the argument, and countered.


----------



## Oddball

postman said:


> Godwin has spoken.


<scrollscrollscroll>....reads post #57...

_*YOU*_ are the one who invoked the Nazis, fuckchop.


----------



## surada

martybegan said:


> he told them no such thing. He said to be peaceful.



Not until the shooting started. Trump has a 40 year history of lies ad cheating.

*Central Park Five & Donald Trump: 5 Fast Facts You Need to ...








						Central Park Five & Donald Trump: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know
					

President Donald Trump has faced criticism for his treatment of the Central Park Five, beginning with a 1989 ad campaign. Here is what he has said about the 5.




					heavy.com
				



*
Aug 22, 2020 · Donald Trump wrote an op-ed published in the Daily News on June 21, 2014, discussing the settlement in the Central Park Five case. “My opinion on the settlement of the Central Park …


----------



## martybegan

postman said:


> Trump also said he would release his tax returns.
> 
> Trump lies.



Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge.


----------



## martybegan

surada said:


> Not until the shooting started. Trump has a 40 year history of lies ad cheating.
> 
> *Central Park Five & Donald Trump: 5 Fast Facts You Need to ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Central Park Five & Donald Trump: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know
> 
> 
> President Donald Trump has faced criticism for his treatment of the Central Park Five, beginning with a 1989 ad campaign. Here is what he has said about the 5.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> heavy.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Aug 22, 2020 · Donald Trump wrote an op-ed published in the Daily News on June 21, 2014, discussing the settlement in the Central Park Five case. “My opinion on the settlement of the Central Park …



It's amazing how your side has to dive off on tangents when you can't respond to the actual point being made.

He told the rally to march there peacefully. You can't memory-hole that.


----------



## JackOfNoTrades

Oddball said:


> NO evidence says the blind  fucking hack....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Navarro Report Vol I, II, III - Feb. 2, 2021.pdf
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


Yeah..NO..EVIDENCE.

And your alt-right conspiracy theory sites don't count.
He lost fair and square. Deal with it.


----------



## martybegan

JackOfNoTrades said:


> Yeah..NO..EVIDENCE.
> 
> And your alt-right conspiracy theory sites don't count.
> He lost fair and square. Deal with it.



The only thing you have is faith in the system, and a lot of us don't have that anymore. 

You have no smoking gun to prove your point either, just faith.


----------



## postman

progressive hunter said:


> turns out some were charged with genocide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Landmarks in law: Nuremberg and the first trial for crimes against humanity
> 
> 
> Seventy-five years ago, the Nuremberg trials brought leading Nazis to justice – and changed international human rights law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com



But nobody was charged with "genocide"


----------



## postman

Oddball said:


> NO evidence says the blind  fucking hack....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Navarro Report Vol I, II, III - Feb. 2, 2021.pdf
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com



Then you should charge the secretaries of state, and the governors with lying on their voter certifications.

If you have proof, that would be the first step.


----------



## danielpalos

martybegan said:


> The only thing you have is faith in the system, and a lot of us don't have that anymore.
> 
> You have no smoking gun to prove your point either, just faith.


Even Pence did his job instead of lie for a false Cause.


----------



## progressive hunter

postman said:


> But nobody was charged with "genocide"


according to the article some were,,,


----------



## postman

martybegan said:


> It's amazing how your side has to dive off on tangents when you can't respond to the actual point being made.


Those tangents prove the point being made.
The best argument is a historical reference to a similar situation.


----------



## surada

martybegan said:


> It's amazing how your side has to dive off on tangents when you can't respond to the actual point being made.
> 
> He told the rally to march there peacefully. You can't memory-hole that.



No he did not.. That came later. Trump also said he would march with them to the Capitol.


----------



## surada

danielpalos said:


> Even Pence did his job instead of lie for a false Cause.



I'm not a fan of Pence, but I would have been very surprised if he did Trump's bidding to overturn the election.


----------



## danielpalos

We can have at least a little faith in the system.


----------



## postman

progressive hunter said:


> according to the article some were,,,


They were charged with the equivalent, not the actual charge.

Nobody at Nuremberg was charged with genocide,  which according to the theory that nobody was charged with insurrection, means that neither crime occurred.


----------



## surada

danielpalos said:


> We can have at least a little faith in the system.



Well, this is the first time the US has ever elected a stupid, lying cheat.


----------



## irosie91

surada said:


> No he did not.. That came later. Trump also said he would march with them to the Capitol


 "LATER"    later than what?   As far as I recall he told the marchers to be peaceful 
BEFORE there was any violence


----------



## Wyatt earp

Winston said:


> Enough already.  Mayors and governors didn't "allow" shit.  Tens of thousands, do you get that, tens of thousands of those BLM protestors were arrested.  Some are facing life in prison.  I mean the "Johnny did it too argument" is stupid, especially when Johnny had to pay for the consequences of his actions.


Quit the propaganda the mayor of Portland was tear gassed supporting them


----------



## surada

irosie91 said:


> "LATER"    later than what?   As far as I recall he told the marchers to be peaceful
> BEFORE there was any violence



Trump told them to fight and take back their country.


----------



## martybegan

postman said:


> Those tangents prove the point being made.
> The best argument is a historical reference to a similar situation.



Those tangents reveal you don't want to admit to a point at hand.


----------



## martybegan

surada said:


> No he did not.. That came later. Trump also said he would march with them to the Capitol.



No, it came while the rally was with him before most of them marched.

He said "peacefully and patriotically"


----------



## martybegan

surada said:


> Trump told them to fight and take back their country.



Hillary said in a money beg in 2016 to "fight like hell".

Same words, but I guess her words are different because "reasons"

Clinton Fundraising: We Have to Fight Like Hell to Beat Trump


----------



## Peace

Astrostar said:


> Fact check: Some Republicans have tried to rewrite the history of January 6. Here's how | CNN Politics
> 
> 
> When the House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6 convenes for the first time, it will be against a backdrop of Republican objections and falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because history is what it is.  Despite the efforts of Trump and his Cult members in Congress to rewrite it to reflect positively on Trump, theirs is a lost cause.
> 
> Trump and his disciples, since January 6 have tried over and over to convince the American people that the insurrection was caused by Antifa, was a peaceful event with lots of love in the air or was just a guided tour of the Capital building.
> 
> We know better!  It was an aggressive attempt by white nationalists, inspired by Trump, to take over the government of the United States.  Anyone who sees it in a different light is not a loyal, patriotic American, but rather is a Trump disciple who places him above the Constitution of the United States and the welfare of the majority of the American people.
> 
> Today's congressional hearing will expose the Trump people who tried to storm the Capital for what they really are:  enemies of the American people.



Trump who?


----------



## Winston

Correll said:


> We were discussing their intent.  I made no claim that their intent was legal or binding.
> 
> 
> Do you have anything to say that actually addresses something that was in the post you responded to?


Are you really this dense.  You made the claim that the insurrectionists went to DC to overturn a "fraudulent" election.  Who determines that there was significant fraud committed?  Perhaps it would have been better to state they went to DC to overturn an election that they "believed" was fraudulent.  And in America, that ain't the way it works.  Vigilante justice, while often times appearing, has never been supported by the US Constitution.  It is the tool of the despot as was eloquently demonstrated by Trump's use of it on 1/06.


----------



## Winston

martybegan said:


> Hillary said in a money beg in 2016 to "fight like hell".
> 
> Same words, but I guess her words are different because "reasons"
> 
> Clinton Fundraising: We Have to Fight Like Hell to Beat Trump


Using it during an election and using it after an election is over is not close to the same.  Nice try.


----------



## Polishprince

Astrostar said:


> Fact check: Some Republicans have tried to rewrite the history of January 6. Here's how | CNN Politics
> 
> 
> When the House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6 convenes for the first time, it will be against a backdrop of Republican objections and falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because history is what it is.  Despite the efforts of Trump and his Cult members in Congress to rewrite it to reflect positively on Trump, theirs is a lost cause.
> 
> Trump and his disciples, since January 6 have tried over and over to convince the American people that the insurrection was caused by Antifa, was a peaceful event with lots of love in the air or was just a guided tour of the Capital building.
> 
> We know better!  It was an aggressive attempt by white nationalists, inspired by Trump, to take over the government of the United States.  Anyone who sees it in a different light is not a loyal, patriotic American, but rather is a Trump disciple who places him above the Constitution of the United States and the welfare of the majority of the American people.
> 
> Today's congressional hearing will expose the Trump people who tried to storm the Capital for what they really are:  enemies of the American people.




Another word for an unarmed insurrection is a peaceful protest.

The fact that Pelosi is trying to make political hay out of this is really unamerican.


----------



## Winston

progressive hunter said:


> are you sure about that??
> 
> insurrection is a chargeable offense where genocide I dont think is,,


You might want to ask  Jean-Paul Akayesu about that.


----------



## martybegan

Winston said:


> Using it during an election and using it after an election is over is not close to the same.  Nice try.



Wow, that's the best you can do to try to respond?

What difference does it make?


----------



## postman

Winston said:


> Are you really this dense.  You made the claim that the insurrectionists went to DC to overturn a "fraudulent" election.  Who determines that there was significant fraud committed?



The best way for them to prove fraud, is to charge the secretaries of state, and the governors who certified the election with perjury.

If they get convicted, it would establish proof of enough fraud to delay or cancel their certifications.


----------



## progressive hunter

postman said:


> They were charged with the equivalent, not the actual charge.
> 
> Nobody at Nuremberg was charged with genocide,  which according to the theory that nobody was charged with insurrection, means that neither crime occurred.


can you point to where in the article it says that??

cause this is what I see,,

In front of the International Military Tribunal, 24 leading Nazis were indicted on charges that included genocide and crimes against humanity. The trial ran until 1 October the following year.


----------



## Wyatt earp

surada said:


> Well, this is the first time the US has ever elected a stupid, lying cheat.


Enough about Obama please get back to the thread topic


----------



## Winston

martybegan said:


> Wow, that's the best you can do to try to respond?
> 
> What difference does it make?


Wow, I mean Holy Shit Wow.  Damn but the average IQ of you Trumpbots must be around 80.  When you fight like hell during an election, well you bust ass knocking on doors, making phone calls, registering people to vote, getting people to the polls.  But when you fight like hell after the election you are, wait for it,

ENDORSING INSURRECTION.


----------



## postman

Polishprince said:


> Another word for an unarmed insurrection is a peaceful protest.



Except dozens of them were charged with being "armed".

So you're calling an armed insurrection, a peaceful protest.

With dozens and dozens and dozens injured.


----------



## Astrostar

Astrostar said:


> Fact check: Some Republicans have tried to rewrite the history of January 6. Here's how | CNN Politics
> 
> 
> When the House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6 convenes for the first time, it will be against a backdrop of Republican objections and falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because history is what it is.  Despite the efforts of Trump and his Cult members in Congress to rewrite it to reflect positively on Trump, theirs is a lost cause.
> 
> Trump and his disciples, since January 6 have tried over and over to convince the American people that the insurrection was caused by Antifa, was a peaceful event with lots of love in the air or was just a guided tour of the Capital building.
> 
> We know better!  It was an aggressive attempt by white nationalists, inspired by Trump, to take over the government of the United States.  Anyone who sees it in a different light is not a loyal, patriotic American, but rather is a Trump disciple who places him above the Constitution of the United States and the welfare of the majority of the American people.
> 
> Today's congressional hearing will expose the Trump people who tried to storm the Capital for what they really are:  enemies of the American people.


The Democrat led insurrection committee and the Capital Police Officers are tearing trump a new ass hole.  He is gonna need lots of hugs after this is over.  Perhaps visits to his ass hole buddies Kim and Pootie would be in order.  Can't hurt!  Bigly!!!


----------



## progressive hunter

postman said:


> Except dozens of them were charged with being "armed".
> 
> So you're calling an armed insurrection, a peaceful protest.
> 
> With dozens and dozens and dozens injured.


got a link to that??


----------



## martybegan

Winston said:


> Wow, I mean Holy Shit Wow.  Damn but the average IQ of you Trumpbots must be around 80.  When you fight like hell during an election, well you bust ass knocking on doors, making phone calls, registering people to vote, getting people to the polls.  But when you fight like hell after the election you are, wait for it,
> 
> ENDORSING INSURRECTION.



No, you are endorsing fighting back against what people consider a compromised election. No insurrection is assumed, except by vapid morons like you. 

It's amazing the mental (I use that term loosely) gymnastics TDS idiots like you do to justify your supposed viewpoints.


----------



## surada

bear513 said:


> Enough about Obama please get back to the thread topic



We have never had a dirtbag president before Trump.


----------



## postman

Winston said:


> You might want to ask  Jean-Paul Akayesu about that.



_The crimes charged before the Nuremberg courts were *crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes*. In all, 199 defendants were tried at Nuremberg, 161 were convicted and 37 were sentenced to death, including 12 of those tried by the IMT._


----------



## surada

progressive hunter said:


> got a link to that??



They had golf  clubs, metal crutches, baseball bats  and metal whips. Do protesters carry those things?


----------



## postman

progressive hunter said:


> can you point to where in the article it says that??
> 
> cause this is what I see,,
> 
> In front of the International Military Tribunal, 24 leading Nazis were indicted on charges that included genocide and crimes against humanity. The trial ran until 1 October the following year.



That's their interpretation.  The actual crimes charged can be found on the record.

_The crimes charged before the Nuremberg courts were *crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes.* In all, 199 defendants were tried at Nuremberg, 161 were convicted and 37 were sentenced to death, including 12 of those tried by the IMT_

Nobody was indicted or charged with genocide for killing 6 million Jews.

Just like nobody was charged with insurrection for January 6th.

If one is proof of the crime not occurring, it means proof neither crime occurred.  And we know that's wrong.  Which is why claiming nobody was charged fails the burden of proof.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Correll said:


> Lefty agitators being responsible is a reasonable suspicion. We've seen one on tape.


This is a lie.


----------



## progressive hunter

postman said:


> That's their interpretation.  The actual crimes charged can be found on the record.
> 
> _The crimes charged before the Nuremberg courts were *crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes.* In all, 199 defendants were tried at Nuremberg, 161 were convicted and 37 were sentenced to death, including 12 of those tried by the IMT_
> 
> Nobody was indicted or charged with genocide for killing 6 million Jews.
> 
> Just like nobody was charged with insurrection for January 6th.
> 
> If one is proof of the crime not occurring, it means proof neither crime occurred.  And we know that's wrong.  Which is why claiming nobody was charged fails the burden of proof.


it also means no insurrection happened and they know it and why no charges for that,,


----------



## progressive hunter

postman said:


> That's their interpretation.  The actual crimes charged can be found on the record.
> 
> _The crimes charged before the Nuremberg courts were *crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes.* In all, 199 defendants were tried at Nuremberg, 161 were convicted and 37 were sentenced to death, including 12 of those tried by the IMT_
> 
> Nobody was indicted or charged with genocide for killing 6 million Jews.
> 
> Just like nobody was charged with insurrection for January 6th.
> 
> If one is proof of the crime not occurring, it means proof neither crime occurred.  And we know that's wrong.  Which is why claiming nobody was charged fails the burden of proof.


and youre distorting the trials,, in the testimonies they covered the act of genocide with the crimes against humanity charges,,


----------



## Wyatt earp

surada said:


> We have never had a dirtbag president before Trump.


Yes we know he called out MSM fake lies


surada said:


> They had golf  clubs, metal crutches, baseball bats  and metal whips. Do protesters carry those things?


Btw did they have RPGs on them after all that's what the left thinks was a friendly protest


----------



## irosie91

surada said:


> Trump told them to fight and take back their country.


oh ---the word  "fight"  impressed you?  -----It did not impress me 
as a call to VIOLENCE----but as a civil protest.    My grandma FOUGHT 
for the unions after the Triangle Fire in Manhattan-----but she never 
committed an act of violence in her life


----------



## postman

surada said:


> They had golf  clubs, metal crutches, baseball bats  and metal whips. Do protesters carry those things?


The guy at Nancy Pelosi's desk had a 950,000 volt stun stick. 

The average stun gun volt strength is anywhere from 80,00 to 300,000 volts.


----------



## surada

progressive hunter said:


> it also means no insurrection happened and they know it and why no charges for that,,



Storming the Capitol with weapons and tear gas to overturn an election is insurrection.


----------



## progressive hunter

postman said:


> The guy at Nancy Pelosi's desk had a 950,000 volt stun stick.
> 
> The average stun gun volt strength is anywhere from 80,00 to 300,000 volts.


got a link for that??


----------



## martybegan

postman said:


> The guy at Nancy Pelosi's desk had a 950,000 volt stun stick.
> 
> The average stun gun volt strength is anywhere from 80,00 to 300,000 volts.



Anyone who knows anything about electricity knows it's the amperage that causes the shock/stun, not the voltage.


----------



## surada

irosie91 said:


> oh ---the word  "fight"  impressed you?  -----It did not impress me
> as a call to VIOLENCE----but as a
> civil protest.    My grandma FOUGHT
> for the unions after the Triangle Fire in Manhattan-----but she never
> committed an act of violence in her life



Did she take weapons to the protest?


----------



## surada

martybegan said:


> Anyone who knows anything about electricity knows it's the amperage that causes the shock/stun, not the voltage.



Do you take stun guns and baseball bats to peaceful protests?


----------



## irosie91

surada said:


> Did she take weapons to the protest?


you have information that  AISHLI  was ARMED?.   Are you suggesting 
that if there is ANYONE armed at a protest that the whole crowd should 
be MACHINE GUNNED DOWN?      I am game.    What do you call a 
"weapon"


----------



## martybegan

surada said:


> Do you take stun guns and baseball bats to peaceful protests?



The post I was responding to was making it look like the one he had was some supermegadeath stun gun, which isn't the case. 

If I was expecting anti-fa to show up in counter protest I sure as hell might carry something on me.


----------



## surada

martybegan said:


> The post I was responding to was making it look like the one he had was some supermegadeath stun gun, which isn't the case.
> 
> If I was expecting anti-fa to show up in counter protest I sure as hell might carry something on me.



Hahaha.. That's quite an excuse. Did they think the cops were Antifa?


----------



## irosie91

surada said:


> Do you take stun guns and baseball bats to peaceful protests?


to clarify----VOLTAGE IS POTENTIAL ENERGY,  Amperage refers to the current.  
I memorized this stuff for the physics exam ------and aced the course----more 
than 50 years ago.    Aishli was carrying a baseball bat?.     Demonstrations 
that took place in my town that included bats and guns and molotov 
cocktails have been called  "peaceful"


----------



## martybegan

surada said:


> Hahaha.. That's quite an excuse. Did they think the cops were Antifa?



You asked if I would take something to defend myself at a peaceful protest, and I gave you an answer and the assumed conditions.


----------



## surada

irosie91 said:


> to clarify----VOLTAGE IS POTENTIAL ENERGY,  Amperage refers to the current.
> I memorized this stuff for the physics exam ------and aced the course----more
> than 50 years ago.    Aishli was carrying a baseball bat?.     Demonstrations
> that took place in my town that included bats and guns and molotov
> cocktails have been called  "peaceful"



Good grief, what sort of town do you live in? Were they using the weapons against the police?


----------



## surada

martybegan said:


> You asked if I would take something to defend myself at a peaceful protest, and I gave you an answer and the assumed conditions.



Trump's mob was attacking police not antifa.


----------



## martybegan

surada said:


> Trump's mob was attacking police not antifa.



They were probably expecting anti-fa, because those violent asshats showed up and plenty of other right leaning rallies and protests. 

And the # of police attacked by left wing types over the past year+ is orders of magnitude greater than those attacked in the capitol. 

but you don't care about those because it doesn't fit your narrative.


----------



## MarcATL

Today's proceedings are nothing if not * somber* and *sobering*.


----------



## irosie91

surada said:


> Good grief, what sort of town do you live in? Were they using the weapons against the police?


   Culturally diverse.    I first arrived in this town about 35 years ago and lived on the edge 
   of the hood and worked in an inner city hospital.    At nite I heard the gunshots -----and 
   shortly thereafter my beeper would BEEP.     Now it is an epicenter of BLM festivities which 
   are STILL  being called  "peaceful" ------and adherence to  "MORATORIUM ON ARRESTS"   
   has increased to a  MACABRE level.    -------a person swinging a bat and therefore 
   SHOT IN THE HEAD in my town would initiate violent protest and an ANNOUNCEMENT 
   by  "celebrities"  about   "POLICE BRUTALITY"-------violence against the police?-----of 
   course-----including bullets to the head------and violence to medical personnel----mostly, 
   however,   random violence and violence to each other.


----------



## irosie91

martybegan said:


> They were probably expecting anti-fa, because those violent asshats showed up and plenty of other right leaning rallies and protests.
> 
> And the # of police attacked by left wing types over the past year+ is orders of magnitude greater than those attacked in the capitol.
> 
> but you don't care about those because it doesn't fit your narrative.


there is no question in my mind that all kinds of  PERSONS OF AGENDA  mixed 
themselves into the  HUGE CROWD  at the Capitol building


----------



## irosie91

surada said:


> Trump's mob was attacking police not antifa.


    "Trump's mob"   ?       He hire them.    I have no doubt that there 
     were some hires ------but not on the payroll of Trump


----------



## Correll

surada said:


> A fraudulent vote based on Trump's lies. There is still NO evidence.




That's fine. The topic was their intent. Which one of the more hysterical libs was claiming was to over throw the government.


----------



## Correll

postman said:


> Yet not a single secretary of state or governor said the vote was fraudulent.



Off topic. THe topic was their INTENT. 


Try to keep up.


----------



## Correll

surada said:


> No other US president had refused a peaceful transition ... Trump TOLD them to stop the EC certification.




Trump told them to peacefully protest and put pressure on the Congress, to stop the certification. 


The riot was a surprise, to just about everyone.


----------



## surada

Correll said:


> Trump told them to peacefully protest and put pressure on the Congress, to stop the certification.
> 
> 
> The riot was a surprise, to just about everyone.



Is that why they brought weapons?

Now's your chance.









						Trump Jr. inches past DeSantis as most popular GOP figure in new poll: Axios
					

A new poll shows Donald Trump Jr. and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis topping other GOP figures in a survey measuring the popularity of key Republicans. The poll from Fabrizio, Lee & Associ…




					thehill.com


----------



## JackOfNoTrades

martybegan said:


> The only thing you have is faith in the system, and a lot of us don't have that anymore.
> 
> You have no smoking gun to prove your point either, just faith.


There has been no evidence presented to suggest widespread voter fraud. Therefore, my faith in the system is secure. I don't need to prove anything. The system worked as it should.
You have no faith in the system because your man lost, and were cock sure that he couldn't be beat. So it *MUST *be fraud. After all, it was those "dark" urban areas that came out against
your man that sent him to the sidelines. And we all know massive fraud went on there.


----------



## Correll

Winston said:


> Are you really this dense.  You made the claim that the insurrectionists went to DC to overturn a "fraudulent" election.  Who determines that there was significant fraud committed?  Perhaps it would have been better to state they went to DC to overturn an election that they "believed" was fraudulent.  And in America, that ain't the way it works.  Vigilante justice, while often times appearing, has never been supported by the US Constitution.  It is the tool of the despot as was eloquently demonstrated by Trump's use of it on 1/06.




You are the one being dense. A hysterical drama queen was talking nonsense and brought up the intent of the rioters. 

I was addressing their intent. That you disagree with their intent is irrelevant. 

Their INTENT was to stop the certification of a fraudulent vote count.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

JackOfNoTrades said:


> You keep carrying the torch for this woman and making the same stale argument about no firearms.
> Again, who needs guns when you have the sheer numbers and you have your enemy overwhelmed?
> All she needs to do is make it up through that window into the lobby and she unlocks the doors for
> the angry mob who are then in the Speaker's lobby one door away from the floor of the House and
> hostages ready for the mob's taking.
> 
> It's too bad this woman bought the Big Lie. It got her killed.
> No amount of hand wringing will change that.







You people kept making the same old stale arguments all last year that the burning, looting, and murdering, happening in those cities were just somewhat peaceful protests.

News for you they were insurrections.

Are you saying that our congresspersons fear the people?

Then perhaps they should be listening more closely to the real heartbeat of the country and not the crazed morons, like you, who think that the wrongs of the ancient past are somehow relevant today in their futile search for systemic racism and social justice as they tear everything down in fits of childish anger and revenge.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Winston

martybegan said:


> No, you are endorsing fighting back against what people consider a compromised election. No insurrection is assumed, except by vapid morons like you.
> 
> It's amazing the mental (I use that term loosely) gymnastics TDS idiots like you do to justify your supposed viewpoints.


Fighting back?  By rioting at the Capital?  Talk about mental gymnastics, what part of that violent outbreak do you find justified? Legal?  I mean are the courts there for shits and giggles?

Maybe just do like most losers do, step back, accept responsibility, evaluate, innovate, and hit it harder the next time.  Think that might be a better alternative than adopting violence and running around screaming you were cheated?  Is that not more "American"?


----------



## Correll

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie.




No, it's not. YOu know it is not. Because you know exactly who I am talking about. You've seen the tape of him in the forefront of the riot, agitating for more violence and aggression, up to, during and even after the woman was killed.


The bit where you just deny it, and claim it's a lie? That is you lying.


----------



## Winco

Damaged Eagle said:


> Tell us again how you feared for your life but survived the protest after the only people with firearms, namely the Capitol police, murdered a unarmed female protestor.
> 
> I'm sure you were terrified!


The only people with firearms?  BS.
There were certainly insurrectionists hiding their guns, it's called CC.
Nobody knew if Babbitt, a Military Veteran, who certainly has training with guns, had a weapon or not.

Babbitt could see the lawmakers on the other side of the window.
Trump supporters busted out a window leading directly to the lawmakers, who were in the hallway.
The two sentences above ^^^^^^^ are in FACT, true.  It's not debatable.

Babbitt attempted to enter the restricted area, where the lawmakers were.  Another FACT.

*I'll ask you......."What was her intention, her motivation, her desired outcome, etc., after she gets through the window?"*


----------



## JackOfNoTrades

Damaged Eagle said:


> View attachment 517923
> 
> You people kept making the same old stale arguments all last year that the burning, looting, and murdering, happening in those cities were just somewhat peaceful protests.
> 
> News for you they were insurrections.
> 
> Are you saying that our congresspersons fear the people?
> 
> Then perhaps they should be listening more closely to the real heartbeat of the country and not the crazed morons, like you, who think that the wrongs of the ancient past are somehow relevant today in their futile search for systemic racism and social justice as they tear everything down in fits of childish anger and revenge.
> 
> *****SMILE*****


LOL. Sure. Protests in cities hundreds and thousands of miles away were insurrections..determined to overthrow the government..jeez I almost can't make it through saying it with a straight face. And as I recall, there were multiple arrests after those protests.
Do you need a chiropractor? Because twisting yourself into a pretzel to excuse what went down on January 6th must be killing your back. 

You do see the tide turning in the last election? The suburban college educated women? The people of color, a lot of whom finally got the chance to vote?..all lining up to show the last guy the door? Thank your lucky stars it didn't filter down ballot or you'd be really screwed. Those people and the yung uns coming up to vote? That's the swan song being sung for the "heartbeat of the country"....which I have no idea of what that means, other than just another attempt at division pimping.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Winco said:


> The only people with firearms?  BS.


Prove it.


Winco said:


> There were certainly insurrectionists hiding their guns, it's called CC.


Hearsay.


Winco said:


> Nobody knew if Babbitt, a Military Veteran, who certainly has training with guns, had a weapon or not.


More hearsay. I've seen no statement from an official force that states she had a weapon.


Winco said:


> Babbitt could see the lawmakers on the other side of the window.


You can prove this or is it just more hearsay?


Winco said:


> Trump supporters busted out a window leading directly to the lawmakers, who were in the hallway.


You've checked the backgrounds of all the people that broke those windows or is this just more hearsay?


Winco said:


> The two sentences above ^^^^^^^ are in FACT, true.  It's not debatable.


I don't believe you.


Winco said:


> Babbitt attempted to enter the restricted area, where the lawmakers were.  Another FACT.


There was a sign stating it was a restricted area? I didn't notice one in the photograph.


Winco said:


> *I'll ask you......."What was her intention, her motivation, her desired outcome, etc., after she gets through the window?"*


Perhaps she just wanted a tour of the Capitol.





*****SMILE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

JackOfNoTrades said:


> LOL. Sure. Protests in cities hundreds and thousands of miles away were insurrections..determined to overthrow the government..jeez I almost can't make it through saying it with a straight face. And as I recall, there were multiple arrests after those protests.
> Do you need a chiropractor? Because twisting yourself into a pretzel to excuse what went down on January 6th must be killing your back.
> 
> You do see the tide turning in the last election? The suburban college educated women? The people of color, a lot of whom finally got the chance to vote?..all lining up to show the last guy the door? Thank your lucky stars it didn't filter down ballot or you'd be really screwed. Those people and the yung uns coming up to vote? That's the swan song being sung for the "heartbeat of the country"....which I have no idea of what that means, other than just another attempt at division pimping.







Why don't you go have a brunch around the Capitol bistros for a few weeks and let us know how your sowing the wind for more than a year has worked out for you.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## skews13

Oddball said:


> Rewriting history is the job of you Marxist assholes.



Those 4 cops laid it out nicely.

Fucking terrorists.

And they were hired by a hitman

And we;re going to find out who that was

And we're going to oput a rope around their terrorist neck.


----------



## Winco

Damaged Eagle said:


> Prove it.
> 
> Hearsay.
> 
> More hearsay. I've seen no statement from an official force that states she had a weapon.
> 
> You can prove this or is it just more hearsay?
> 
> You've checked the backgrounds of all the people that broke those windows or is this just more hearsay?
> 
> I don't believe you.
> 
> There was a sign stating it was a restricted area? I didn't notice one in the photograph.
> 
> Perhaps she just wanted a tour of the Capitol.
> 
> View attachment 517985
> 
> *****SMILE*****





> Winco said:
> Babbitt could see the lawmakers on the other side of the window.


You can prove this or is it just more hearsay?

A Day of Rage.   
Have you watched it.
It clearly shows the lawmakers on the other side of the window.  27:22
Babbitt is looking through the window. 27:19
A warning is Clearly Shouted, There's a gun, he has a gun.  28:28
Babbitt disregards the warning and Breaches the window  28:32

None of this is hearsay, it's all there on the video.


----------



## Lesh

Correll said:


> Their INTENT was to stop the certification of a fraudulent vote count.


A. It's not their call as to whether it was fraudulent or not. That's election boards and Courts...and they had ruled.

B. They certainly WERE trying to stop the certification of a legal election...and THAT is an attack on democracy


----------



## JackOfNoTrades

Damaged Eagle said:


> View attachment 517988
> 
> Why don't you go have a brunch around the Capitol bistros for a few weeks and let us know how your sowing the wind for more than a year has worked out for you.
> 
> *****SMILE*****


Hasn't worked out one way or the other. By now, you've wrapped yourself in such clever responses, I don't even know what you're trying to say anymore. 
What happened on January 6th was an insurrection. Period. Today's testimony sealed it. Too bad she got shot. But as a military veteran, she should have known better.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Winco said:


> You can prove this or is it just more hearsay?
> 
> A Day of Rage.
> Have you watched it.
> It clearly shows the lawmakers on the other side of the window.  27:22
> Babbitt is looking through the window. 27:19
> A warning is Clearly Shouted, There's a gun, he has a gun.  28:28
> Babbitt disregards the warning and Breaches the window  28:32
> 
> None of this is hearsay, it's all there on the video.






So what you're saying was there was no warning offered or alternate means of de-escalation used by the Capitol police before they murdered a unarmed white female protestor at point blank range.

Other than that all I saw was a bunch of peaceful protestors singing patriotic songs and holding up Old Glory in honor.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

JackOfNoTrades said:


> Hasn't worked out one way or the other. By now, you've wrapped yourself in such clever responses, I don't even know what you're trying to say anymore.
> What happened on January 6th was an insurrection. Period. Today's testimony sealed it. Too bad she got shot. But as a military veteran, she should have known better.






But you went delusional many years ago and wouldn't know the difference anyway.

You should watch what you wish for there's always a bitter price to pay when making deals with the devil.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Mac1958

Astrostar said:


> Today's congressional hearing will expose the Trump people who tried to storm the Capital for what they really are:  enemies of the American people.


An incredible day.

The GQP tried to play it down and deflect, of course, finding new depths of disgrace, denial and depravity.

These people are downright craven.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Winco said:


> You can prove this or is it just more hearsay?
> 
> A Day of Rage.
> Have you watched it.
> It clearly shows the lawmakers on the other side of the window.  27:22
> Babbitt is looking through the window. 27:19
> A warning is Clearly Shouted, There's a gun, he has a gun.  28:28
> Babbitt disregards the warning and Breaches the window  28:32
> 
> None of this is hearsay, it's all there on the video.


Bull shit she was just standing there, he fired to kill


----------



## Oddball

skews13 said:


> Those 4 cops laid it out nicely.
> 
> Fucking terrorists.
> 
> And they were hired by a hitman
> 
> And we;re going to find out who that was
> 
> And we're going to oput a rope around their terrorist neck.


Suuuuuuure you are.


----------



## Correll

Lesh said:


> A. It's not their call as to whether it was fraudulent or not. That's election boards and Courts...and they had ruled.
> 
> B. They certainly WERE trying to stop the certification of a legal election...and THAT is an attack on democracy



What they did, was riot, trespass, attack some cops and break some shit. ie, a riot. A short riot, but a riot. 


If you want to discuss INTENT, then we can discuss INTENT.

IF we discuss INTENT, don't whine about how much you disagree with their premises or ideas. Because YOUR ideas and premises, has nothing to do with THEIR intent.


----------



## surada

Correll said:


> What they did, was riot, trespass, attack some cops and break some shit. ie, a riot. A short riot, but a riot.
> 
> 
> If you want to discuss INTENT, then we can discuss INTENT.
> 
> IF we discuss INTENT, don't whine about how much you disagree with their premises or ideas. Because YOUR ideas and premises, has nothing to do with THEIR intent.



Trump made his intent known for five weeks before his mob stormed the Capitol.


----------



## Lesh

Correll said:


> What they did, was riot, trespass, attack some cops and break some shit. ie, a riot. A short riot, but a riot.
> 
> 
> If you want to discuss INTENT, then we can discuss INTENT.
> 
> IF we discuss INTENT, don't whine about how much you disagree with their premises or ideas. Because YOUR ideas and premises, has nothing to do with THEIR intent.


We all saw what they DID...and you admitted the intent...not that we needed your admission. It was plain. THEY admitted it


----------



## Winco

Correll said:


> If you want to discuss INTENT, then we can discuss INTENT.


What was Ashli's INTENT for breaching that window?


----------



## Correll

surada said:


> Trump made his intent known for five weeks before his mob stormed the Capitol.




Correct. Use a large crowd to put political pressure on Congress, to get them to NOT certify the fraudulent vote count.

I mean, if he had at ANY POINT, actually directed the crowd to literally storm the Capital, you people would have ALL had that quote tattooed to your foreheads to keep in every conversation.


----------



## Correll

Lesh said:


> We all saw what they DID...and you admitted the intent...not that we needed your admission. It was plain. THEY admitted it




So, why  you lying so much?


----------



## Lesh

Correll said:


> So, why  you lying so much?


Da FUCK do you think you're talkin about?


----------



## Lesh

Correll said:


> Correct. Use a large crowd to put political pressure on Congress, to get them to NOT certify the fraudulent vote count.


Somehow his supporters seem to have gotten a different message...a much more violent one.

Probably from him saying things like *"there are different rules when there's fraud"*. And to fight like hell and "be strong"


----------



## Correll

Winco said:


> What was Ashli's INTENT for breaching that window?




I suspect that she did not have well formed intent. I think she was caught up in the moment, and not thinking things though very well. Especially with that experienced agitator right behind her, screaming at her to break things and go further.


----------



## whitehall

Lefties who are tearing down statues and disrespecting the National Anthem and the Flag are giving us a lecture on history.


----------



## Correll

Lesh said:


> Da FUCK do you think you're talkin about?




THe lies you libs tell, constantly. Why are you doing that? I mean, I generally know, but I'm curious how you would see it from your perspective.


----------



## Correll

Lesh said:


> Somehow his supporters seem to have gotten a different message...a much more violent one.
> 
> Probably from him saying things like *"there are different rules when there's fraud"*. And to fight like hell and "be strong"




Sorry, no. You people don't get to be taken seriously with any matter of judgement, not after you lie about clear cut matters like "not w.s.".

Trump was clear in his intent. Lots of political pressure.  Now, do you  have anything to say in response to that, or are you done, because I won't let you just say shit?


----------



## Winco

Damaged Eagle said:


> So what you're saying was there was no warning offered or alternate means of de-escalation used by the Capitol police before they murdered a unarmed white female protestor at point blank range.
> 
> Other than that all I saw was a bunch of peaceful protestors singing patriotic songs and holding up Old Glory in honor.


So you didn't watch the video I posted.  

A Day of Rage.

OK, let's clear some stuff up.
You seem utterly confused.
The Video does Not LIE.  Watch it. What are you afraid of?

Warnings:
1)  The 3 Police Officers are Protecting the Door.
That is in itself a warning.  Do NOT enter.

2)  You can see through the window, the one they busted through, and you can see an officer on the other side, with his gun drawn.  That's pretty much a warning.

3)  The protesters, insurrectionists, on Ashli's side of the window, (28:24) shout "There is a Gun, There is a Gun. He's got a Gun, He's Got a Gun, Hey."  Another warning, shouted by her own common insurrectionists.  Babbitt enters the Window 28:35.
She was WARNED, she played stupid games.

You want to talk INTENT.  Sure
What was her INTENT as she Breached the Broken Window?

There is 3 Documented WARNINGS for ya.


----------



## Lesh

Correll said:


> THe lies you libs tell, constantly. Why are you doing that? I mean, I generally know, but I'm curious how you would see it from your perspective.


Again asshole.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Detail my supposed lies you piece of shit


----------



## Correll

Lesh said:


> Again asshole.
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> Detail my supposed lies you piece of shit




In this case, specifically, the pretense that one small riot, that lasted a few hours, was a serious attempt at overthrowing the government, and thus was worse than the 4 years of riots by your side's violent thugs.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Winco said:


> So you didn't watch the video I posted.
> 
> A Day of Rage.
> 
> OK, let's clear some stuff up.
> You seem utterly confused.
> The Video does Not LIE.  Watch it. What are you afraid of?
> 
> Warnings:
> 1)  The 3 Police Officers are Protecting the Door.
> That is in itself a warning.  Do NOT enter.
> 
> 2)  You can see through the window, the one they busted through, and you can see an officer on the other side, with his gun drawn.  That's pretty much a warning.
> 
> 3)  The protesters, insurrectionists, on Ashli's side of the window, (28:24) shout "There is a Gun, There is a Gun. He's got a Gun, He's Got a Gun, Hey."  Another warning, shouted by her own common insurrectionists.  Babbitt enters the Window 28:35.
> She was WARNED, she played stupid games.
> 
> You want to talk INTENT.  Sure
> What was her INTENT as she Breached the Broken Window?
> 
> There is 3 Documented WARNINGS for ya.







So you have nothing except you childish rage and mournful call for iniquitous revenge.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Winco

Damaged Eagle said:


> So you have nothing except you childish rage and mournful call for iniquitous revenge.


I'm sort of sad, that you have zero debate skills.
I present you with Video Evidence,  

Your comeback is "so you have nothing."


----------



## Resnic

Astrostar said:


> Fact check: Some Republicans have tried to rewrite the history of January 6. Here's how | CNN Politics
> 
> 
> When the House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6 convenes for the first time, it will be against a backdrop of Republican objections and falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because history is what it is.  Despite the efforts of Trump and his Cult members in Congress to rewrite it to reflect positively on Trump, theirs is a lost cause.
> 
> Trump and his disciples, since January 6 have tried over and over to convince the American people that the insurrection was caused by Antifa, was a peaceful event with lots of love in the air or was just a guided tour of the Capital building.
> 
> We know better!  It was an aggressive attempt by white nationalists, inspired by Trump, to take over the government of the United States.  Anyone who sees it in a different light is not a loyal, patriotic American, but rather is a Trump disciple who places him above the Constitution of the United States and the welfare of the majority of the American people.
> 
> Today's congressional hearing will expose the Trump people who tried to storm the Capital for what they really are:  enemies of the American people.



Meanwhile democrats want to rename everything, tear down statues and monuments, teach new history and more. 

If democrats can rewrite history then republicans should be able to also. Either it's all ok or none of it's ok.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Winco said:


> I'm sort of sad, that you have zero debate skills.
> I present you with Video Evidence,
> 
> Your comeback is "so you have nothing."








I've already told you all I saw was a peaceful protest where a unarmed white female protestor was murdered by the Capitol police without warning or any non-lethal methods utilized prior to shooting her at point blank range.

The only thing left to be said is that the Capitol police need to be defunded.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## martybegan

JackOfNoTrades said:


> There has been no evidence presented to suggest widespread voter fraud. Therefore, my faith in the system is secure. I don't need to prove anything. The system worked as it should.
> You have no faith in the system because your man lost, and were cock sure that he couldn't be beat. So it *MUST *be fraud. After all, it was those "dark" urban areas that came out against
> your man that sent him to the sidelines. And we all know massive fraud went on there.



Yes, faith in the result you wanted to get. 

All those mail in votes, those late night shifts, your side bleating on about beating him by any means necessary....


----------



## Lesh

Correll said:


> In this case, specifically, the pretense that one small riot, that lasted a few hours, was a serious attempt at overthrowing the government, and thus was worse than the 4 years of riots by your side's violent thugs.
> 
> 
> View attachment 518026
> 
> View attachment 518027
> 
> 
> View attachment 518029


I never said that your insurrection was worse or not than anything else. Know why? Because the two events are COMPLETELY unrelated.

Fuck off


----------



## martybegan

Winston said:


> Fighting back?  By rioting at the Capital?  Talk about mental gymnastics, what part of that violent outbreak do you find justified? Legal?  I mean are the courts there for shits and giggles?
> 
> Maybe just do like most losers do, step back, accept responsibility, evaluate, innovate, and hit it harder the next time.  Think that might be a better alternative than adopting violence and running around screaming you were cheated?  Is that not more "American"?



The trespass/violence was only a small part of what happened that day. 

Right now the courts are only going for trespass, assault, and interfering with government workers/property.

No treason, no insurrection. 

Meanwhile lefty anti-fa types were given passes by sympathetic local governments. 

Haaaackkkkkk-----twaaaaattttt.


----------



## Lesh

Damaged Eagle said:


> View attachment 518049
> 
> I've already told you all I saw was a peaceful protest where a unarmed white female protestor was murdered by the Capitol police without warning or any non-lethal methods utilized prior to shooting her at point blank range.
> 
> The only thing left to be said is that the Capitol police need to be defunded.
> 
> *****SMILE*****


You saw what you wanted to see and clearly not what those four officers experienced or all that video detailed. There was nothing peaceful about that


----------



## Correll

Lesh said:


> I never said that your insurrection was worse or not than anything else. Know why? Because the two events are COMPLETELY unrelated.
> 
> Fuck off




Aw, the little partisan zealot doesn't see the big picture of her own talking points?

Well, then, feel the connection of your little actions to the bigger plans of your evil thought leaders.


----------



## Lesh

Lesh said:


> Again asshole.
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> Detail my supposed lies you piece of shit


So if I don’t buy into your bullshit excuses that makes me a liar?

Only in Trump land


----------



## Mac1958

Lesh said:


> Again asshole.
> What the fuck are you talking about?
> Detail my supposed lies you piece of shit


They do this all the freaking time:  Scream LIAR and then they can't back it up.  Talk about projection.

They are a waste of time.


----------



## irosie91

MarcATL said:


> Today's proceedings are nothing if not * somber* and *sobering*.


   you got it right the first time-----they are NOTHING


----------



## Winston

martybegan said:


> The trespass/violence was only a small part of what happened that day.
> 
> Right now the courts are only going for trespass, assault, and interfering with government workers/property.
> 
> No treason, no insurrection.
> 
> Meanwhile lefty anti-fa types were given passes by sympathetic local governments.
> 
> Haaaackkkkkk-----twaaaaattttt.


Lefty anti-fa types are not given free passes.  Tens of thousands have been arrested.  Why do you have to perpetuate a false narrative?


----------



## martybegan

Winston said:


> Lefty anti-fa types are not given free passes.  Tens of thousands have been arrested.  Why do you have to perpetuate a false narrative?



Arrested, and then not prosecuted. Or given slaps on the wrists.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Lesh said:


> You saw what you wanted to see and clearly not what those four officers experienced or all that video detailed. There was nothing peaceful about that







I saw no Molotov cocktails or buildings burning to suggest that it should be upgraded to a "somewhat" peaceful protest.

I did see an unarmed female protestor murdered by the Capitol police without prior warning or the use of non-lethal force.

Defund the Capitol police!!!

*****SMILE*****


----------



## surada

martybegan said:


> They were probably expecting anti-fa, because those violent asshats showed up and plenty of other right leaning rallies and protests.
> 
> And the # of police attacked by left wing types over the past year+ is orders of magnitude greater than those attacked in the capitol.
> 
> but you don't care about those because it doesn't fit your narrative.



Trump wasn't inciting Antifa.. He was inciting his stooges to overturn the election.


----------



## irosie91

Winston said:


> Lefty anti-fa types are not given free passes.  Tens of thousands have been arrested.  Why do you have to perpetuate a false narrative?


they are given free passes------all charges are MOSTLY DISMISSED


----------



## surada

irosie91 said:


> there is no question in my mind that all kinds of  PERSONS OF AGENDA  mixed
> themselves into the  HUGE CROWD  at the Capitol building



Trump officials and the DOJ will also testify.


----------



## MarcATL

Winco said:


> So you didn't watch the video I posted.
> 
> A Day of Rage.
> 
> OK, let's clear some stuff up.
> You seem utterly confused.
> The Video does Not LIE.  Watch it. What are you afraid of?
> 
> Warnings:
> 1)  The 3 Police Officers are Protecting the Door.
> That is in itself a warning.  Do NOT enter.
> 
> 2)  You can see through the window, the one they busted through, and you can see an officer on the other side, with his gun drawn.  That's pretty much a warning.
> 
> 3)  The protesters, insurrectionists, on Ashli's side of the window, (28:24) shout "There is a Gun, There is a Gun. He's got a Gun, He's Got a Gun, Hey."  Another warning, shouted by her own common insurrectionists.  Babbitt enters the Window 28:35.
> She was WARNED, she played stupid games.
> 
> You want to talk INTENT.  Sure
> What was her INTENT as she Breached the Broken Window?
> 
> There is 3 Documented WARNINGS for ya.


Yeah... it was a *good* shoot.


----------



## irosie91

surada said:


> Trump officials and the DOJ will also testify.


is that supposed to MEAN SOMETHING?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

surada said:


> Trump wasn't inciting Antifa.. He was inciting his stooges to overturn the election.







You're most likely correct because it was more than likely Pelosi and her squad of goons who incited ANTIFA then they screamed and hollered about how they feared for their lives.

Defund the Capitol police!!!

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Winco

MarcATL said:


> Yeah... it was a *good* shoot.


Damaged Eagle has to be some BOT.
I posted a video with times, showing people busting through windows,
Yet it claims that "ALL I saw was a peaceful protest."

trump really indoctrinated them when he said,  "What you are seeing and hearing is not real." he really hooked them in.


----------



## Correll

Winco said:


> Damaged Eagle has to be some BOT.
> I posted a video with times, showing people busting through windows,
> Yet it claims that "ALL I saw was a peaceful protest."
> 
> trump really indoctrinated them when he said,  "What you are seeing and hearing is not real." he really hooked them in.




Well, in his defense. MOST of the protest was peaceful. That is a valid....defense(?) now, right? You people on the left, you've been doing that for your "protests" though out the entire Trump administration, sooo, 

wow the fag like whining now?


----------



## surada

Damaged Eagle said:


> View attachment 518086
> 
> You're most likely correct because it was more than likely Pelosi and her squad of goons who incited ANTIFA then they screamed and hollered about how they feared for their lives.
> 
> Defund the Capitol police!!!
> 
> *****SMILE*****



Trump officials and the DOJ will testify.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Winco said:


> Damaged Eagle has to be some BOT.
> I posted a video with times, showing people busting through windows,
> Yet it claims that "ALL I saw was a peaceful protest."
> 
> trump really indoctrinated them when he said,  "What you are seeing and hearing is not real." he really hooked them in.








Trump had nothing to do with it.

My indoctrination on what a peaceful protest and somewhat peaceful protest was all about came from the modern progressive democratic liberal fascists'.

What??? You think I'm going to hold Trump protestors to any higher of a standard than ANTIFA or BLM?

Defund the Capitol police!!! We need a name so the trial of the Capitol police force murderer can begin. I'm thinkin' first degree murder since he knew exactly what he was doing when he pulled the trigger. Let's see his internet discussions!

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Correll

Damaged Eagle said:


> View attachment 518095
> 
> Trump had nothing to do with it.
> 
> My indoctrination on what a peaceful protest and somewhat peaceful protest was all about came from the modern progressive democratic liberal fascists'.
> 
> What??? You think I'm going to hold Trump protestors to any higher of a standard than ANTIFA or BLM?
> 
> Defund the Capitol police!!! We need a name so the trial of the Capitol police force murderer can begin.
> 
> *****SMILE*****



I'll second that. DEFUND THE D.C. POLICE. ALL THE WAY TO ZERO!!!!


----------



## Winston

irosie91 said:


> they are given free passes------all charges are MOSTLY DISMISSED


Horseshit.  Prove it.


----------



## Winco

Damaged Eagle said:


> We need a name so the trial of the Capitol police force murderer can begin.


Laughable.

Justified shooting.
Stupid Decision, win a Prize.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Winco said:


> Laughable.
> 
> Justified shooting.
> Stupid Decision, win a Prize.






If it was laughable they wouldn't be trying so hard to evade giving out the name and attempting to hide the evidence under the farce of a kangaroo inquisition.

Defund the Capitol police!

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Correll




----------



## JustAGuy1

surada said:


> Trump officials and the DOJ will testify.



Why is what yo u think important ?


----------



## surada

JustAGuy1 said:


> Why is what yo u think important ?



Don't you want them to testify?

I think they will confirm Trump's efforts to overturn the election.


----------



## 22lcidw

danielpalos said:


> Why should anyone take right wingers when all they have a fallacy and false witness bearing even in this public venue?


But many will not help any of you in a bad situation now. They may not be able to tell who are traitorous Progs in their own environs, but in the deep blue areas, not anymore.


----------



## Winco

Damaged Eagle said:


> View attachment 518110
> 
> If it was laughable they wouldn't be trying so hard to evade giving out the name and attempting to hide the evidence under the farce of a kangaroo inquisition.
> 
> Defund the Capitol police!
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****


They are protecting him from wackos like you and trump who will threaten him with violence and possible death.   That's what you RWI's will do.  You know it, trump believes in "An Eye for an Eye."  You know he has said this.......right.   Or am I lying again?


----------



## JustAGuy1

surada said:


> Don't you want them to testify?
> 
> I think they will confirm Trump's efforts to overturn the election.



I think they'll confirm the need for audits. I have a worse view of Rump than anyone here but it stinks.


----------



## surada

Trump officials can testify to Congress about his role in Capitol attack, DoJ says
					

Move declines to assert executive privilege for then acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen, clearing path for others to testify




					www.theguardian.com
				




Executive privilege exists to protect the country NOT an individual.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Winco said:


> They are protecting him from wackos like you and trump who will threaten him with violence and possible death.   That's what you RWI's will do.  You know it, trump believes in "An Eye for an Eye."  You know he has said this.......right.   Or am I lying again?






Why would he need any more protection than Derek Chauvin?

Have you taken your meds or did George swallow them all on you?

Defund the Capitol police!

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Faun

Damaged Eagle said:


> View attachment 518147
> 
> Why would he need any more protection than Derek Chauvin?
> 
> Have you taken your meds or did George swallow them all on you?
> 
> Defund the Capitol police!
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****


Chauvin didn't need protection because he committed murder and was charged for it. Whereas the Capitol cop did not commit murder but some rightwingnuts would resort to vigilante justice because they _think_ he did but got away with it.


----------



## surada

Correll said:


> Well, in his defense. MOST of the protest was peaceful. That is a valid....defense(?) now, right? You people on the left, you've been doing that for your "protests" though out the entire Trump administration, sooo,
> 
> wow the fag like whining now?











						Trump officials can testify on former President's actions leading up to insurrection, Justice Department decides
					

The Justice Department formally declined to assert executive privilege for potential testimony of at least some witnesses related to the January 6 Capitol attack, a person briefed on the matter said.




					www.cnn.com
				




The decision paves the way for some former Justice Department officials to testify on what they witnessed in the chaotic days between former President Donald Trump's November election loss and early January when he tried to use the Justice Department and other means to advance false claims that he won.


----------



## surada

Faun said:


> Chauvin didn't need protection because he committed murder and was charged for it. Whereas the Capitol cop did not commit murder but some rightwingnuts would resort to vigilante justice because they _think_ he did but got away with it.



Trump has demanded that his name be released... What a creep he is.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Faun said:


> Chauvin didn't need protection because he committed murder and was charged for it. Whereas the Capitol cop did not commit murder but some rightwingnuts would resort to vigilante justice because they _think_ he did but got away with it.






Looked like the Capitol policeman committed murder to me. Plenty of video on it. Didn't give a warning, didn't try non-lethal methods first, just fired his pistol at point blank range without even trying for a leg or arm shot.

Judge, jury, and executioner, all rolled into one. Sounds like something I read about that happened seven or eight decades ago.

Defund the Capitol police!

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Faun

surada said:


> Trump has demanded that his name be released... What a creep he is.


Which is pretty sick of him since he knows there's only one reason to release it -- so some vigilante rightwingnut will hunt that cop down.


----------



## skews13

Oddball said:


> Rewriting history is the job of you Marxist assholes.


----------



## evenflow1969

Damaged Eagle said:


> View attachment 517861
> 
> Tell us again how you feared for your life but survived the protest after the only people with firearms, namely the Capitol police, murdered a unarmed female protestor.
> 
> I'm sure you were terrified!
> 
> *****SMILE*****


That bitch burns in hell after attacking our capitol with a mob of people behind her looking to kill kidnap and maim. Fuck her she got what was coming to her.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

evenflow1969 said:


> That bitch burns in hell after attacking our capitol with a mob of people behind her looking to kill kidnap and maim. Fuck her she got what was coming to her.







Then those murderous Capitol police showed up expecting to shoot people and kneel on necks when those peaceful protestors were probably only looking for the lounge and bar.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## evenflow1969

Damaged Eagle said:


> View attachment 518183
> 
> Then those murderous Capitol police showed up expecting to shoot people and kneel on necks when those peaceful protestors were probably only looking for the lounge and bar.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****


Lol, you would have to be a falling down drunk to believe the trumpster narrative.


----------



## martybegan

surada said:


> Trump wasn't inciting Antifa.. He was inciting his stooges to overturn the election.



no incitement, which is a specific actual crime. incitement is saying "go burn that building down" not saying "buildings should burn"


----------



## Lesh

Correll said:


> Well, in his defense. MOST of the protest was peaceful. That is a valid....defense(?) now, right? You people on the left, you've been doing that for your "protests" though out the entire Trump administration, sooo,
> 
> wow the fag like whining now?


The ONLY protesters who were peaceful stayed outside, never tried to enter and didn’t attack camera men.
At best that’s SOME


----------



## Correll

surada said:


> Trump officials can testify on former President's actions leading up to insurrection, Justice Department decides
> 
> 
> The Justice Department formally declined to assert executive privilege for potential testimony of at least some witnesses related to the January 6 Capitol attack, a person briefed on the matter said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The decision paves the way for some former Justice Department officials to testify on what they witnessed in the chaotic days between former President Donald Trump's November election loss and early January when he tried to use the Justice Department and other means to advance false claims that he won.




What part of that justifies the fag like whining?


----------



## Lesh

Correll said:


> What part of that justifies the fag like whining?


You still babbling?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

evenflow1969 said:


> Lol, you would have to be a falling down drunk to believe the trumpster narrative.







In your case it would more likely be fentanyl because of the creak in the neck you have while you're whining.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Correll

Lesh said:


> You still babbling?



The point stands. The riot was a riot. Your fucktards attempt to exaggerate it, are just you fucktards being fucktards.


----------



## surada

martybegan said:


> he told them no such thing. He said to be peaceful.



Wait till the Trump officials and the DOJ testify.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

surada said:


> Storming the Capitol with weapons and tear gas to overturn an election is insurrection.


…it’s an act of terrorism.


----------



## Correll

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> …it’s an act of terrorism.




It is a riot. Your desire to exaggerate it, is you being a panic mongering liar.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Correll said:


> It is a riot. Your desire to exaggerate it, is you being a panic mongering liar.


The only thing more reprehensible than the 1/6 rightwing terrorist attack on America’s democracy is dishonest conservatives trying to justify, excuse, or whitewash the 1/6 rightwing terrorist attack on America’s democracy.


----------



## Correll

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The only thing more reprehensible than the 1/6 rightwing terrorist attack on America’s democracy is dishonest conservatives trying to justify, excuse, or whitewash the 1/6 rightwing terrorist attack on America’s democracy.




I've been completely consistent in agreeing that it was a violent crime and and that the people who did it, should face the same punishments as all the rest of the rioters of the last 4 years.


That is not "justifying" or "excusing" or "white washing".


Why are you such a liar? Why do you talk so much shit?


----------



## evenflow1969

Damaged Eagle said:


> View attachment 518192
> 
> In your case it would more likely be fentanyl because of the creak in the neck you have while you're whining.
> 
> *****SMILE*****


Lol, ok there short bus. That bitch is worn food and I am please. Mean while your side are the ones crying there asses to sleep. Smiles


----------



## Tumblin Tumbleweed

martybegan said:


> The post I was responding to was making it look like the one he had was some supermegadeath stun gun, which isn't the case.
> 
> If I was expecting anti-fa to show up in counter protest I sure as hell might carry something on me.


Then you would be considered armed. Can we get a concensus on that, you fucking simpleton?


----------



## Oddball

skews13 said:


> View attachment 518167


----------



## Oddball

Correll said:


> What part of that justifies the fag like whining?


Being a fag.


----------



## Coyote

martybegan said:


> So by what mechanism would they have overthrown the government?


The answer to that is in the words of the rioters themselves.  They believed they wefe ordered to and were backed by Trump.  It is irrelevant whether there existed a mechanism or not, they believed they could stop it by stopping congresd.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> It is a riot. Your desire to exaggerate it, is you being a panic mongering liar.


That's no exaggeration. You would know that if you weren't brain-dead.

*terrorism*
_the unlawful use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government, with the goal of furthering political, social, or ideological objectives._​


----------



## themirrorthief

Oddball said:


> Rewriting history is the job of you Marxist assholes.


democrats formed the kkk  created jim crow  and voted against the civil rights


----------



## themirrorthief

Coyote said:


> The answer to that is in the words of the rioters themselves.  They believed they wefe ordered to and were backed by Trump.  It is irrelevant whether there existed a mechanism or not, they believed they could stop it by stopping congresd.


you prob believe smokin weed makes u smart


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> I've been completely consistent in agreeing that it was a violent crime and and that the people who did it, should face the same punishments as all the rest of the rioters of the last 4 years.
> 
> 
> That is not "justifying" or "excusing" or "white washing".
> 
> 
> Why are you such a liar? Why do you talk so much shit?


Again, you prove to be brain-dead, unable to comprehend many of the domestic terrorists are charged with obstructing Congress as they were trying to certify the election, which was an assault on our democracy. Something no one from BLM was charged with. So no, the crimes are not yhe same; so no, the punishments will not be the same.


----------



## Esdraelon

Astrostar said:


> Fact check: Some Republicans have tried to rewrite the history of January 6. Here's how | CNN Politics
> 
> 
> When the House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6 convenes for the first time, it will be against a backdrop of Republican objections and falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because history is what it is.  Despite the efforts of Trump and his Cult members in Congress to rewrite it to reflect positively on Trump, theirs is a lost cause.
> 
> Trump and his disciples, since January 6 have tried over and over to convince the American people that the insurrection was caused by Antifa, was a peaceful event with lots of love in the air or was just a guided tour of the Capital building.
> 
> We know better!  It was an aggressive attempt by white nationalists, inspired by Trump, to take over the government of the United States.  Anyone who sees it in a different light is not a loyal, patriotic American, but rather is a Trump disciple who places him above the Constitution of the United States and the welfare of the majority of the American people.
> 
> *Today's congressional hearing will expose the Trump people who tried to storm the Capital for what they really are:  enemies of the American people.*


Yet their protests that day are supported by tens of millions of Americans... I thought I'd provide you with some interesting reading material:




__





						10 Stages of Genocide
					






					genocidewatch.net
				



People who are spewing hate and fear that a couple of hundred unarmed Americans protesting at the Capitol are capable of "taking over the government", are either mentally challenged or so bent with tribal hate that they've become a danger to us all.
I have seen comments here and on other sites where people would cheer if these Americans were EXECUTED for being there and protesting.  Would you support life terms or execution?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> That's no exaggeration. You would know that if you weren't brain-dead.
> 
> *terrorism*​_the unlawful use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government, with the goal of furthering political, social, or ideological objectives._​




Seems quite the stretch. Are you afraid of them? You libs are constantly calling us "pussies" and saying that we won't or can't do anything. 

The only person that died was an unarmed woman, shot by a cop.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Again, you prove to be brain-dead, unable to comprehend many of the domestic terrorists are charged with obstructing Congress as they were trying to certify the election, which was an assault on our democracy. Something no one from BLM was charged with. So no, the crimes are not yhe same; so no, the punishments will not be the same.



BLM and antifa were rioting during the election. Hell, they both set up various "autonomous zones" that were blatant and overt insurrections. 


So, that is not what is motivating you. It is just an excuse. 

What this is really about, is this panic mongering of yours, gives you an excuse for your next round of escalation.


----------



## martybegan

surada said:


> Wait till the Trump officials and the DOJ testify.



who cares? It's a dog and pony show, nothing more.


----------



## martybegan

Tumblin Tumbleweed said:


> Then you would be considered armed. Can we get a concensus on that, you fucking simpleton?



By your standards if I carry a spork i'm armed.


----------



## martybegan

Coyote said:


> The answer to that is in the words of the rioters themselves.  They believed they wefe ordered to and were backed by Trump.  It is irrelevant whether there existed a mechanism or not, they believed they could stop it by stopping congresd.



No, YOU believe that, due to your TDS. 

So if I believe I can walk across a gorge through the air the mechanism doesn't matter?


----------



## Tumblin Tumbleweed

martybegan said:


> By your standards if I carry a spork i'm armed.


Deflection. Because you're a troll. Too stupid to answer a simple question. You're a waste.


----------



## martybegan

Tumblin Tumbleweed said:


> Deflection. Because you're a troll. Too stupid to answer a simple question. You're a waste.



a bat is armed but not really armed, because in this country, when you call someone armed, it almost always means a firearm. 

a person running around with a bat is not "armed and dangerous" by most people's definition of the term.


----------



## Coyote

martybegan said:


> No, YOU believe that, due to your TDS.
> 
> So if I believe I can walk across a gorge through the air the mechanism doesn't matter?


When do angry fired up mobs think about mechanisms?


----------



## Correll

martybegan said:


> By your standards if I carry a spork i'm armed.




Are you kidding? More and more they are pushing the


Coyote said:


> When do angry fired up mobs think about mechanisms?




You got a mob led by political radicals intent on an "insurrection", the mob leaders would have a mechanism in mind for it to work.


You got a mob that is just rioting, because they are pissed off. Then no, they would not think about a mechanism. 



That's the point. It was  a riot, NOT an insurrection.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Seems quite the stretch. Are you afraid of them? You libs are constantly calling us "pussies" and saying that we won't or can't do anything.
> 
> The only person that died was an unarmed woman, shot by a cop.


LOL

No, dickhead, I am not afraid of them as they are going to prison. And no, Ashli Targetpractice was not the only person who died. You're lying again. There was a woman who OD'd, another who died from a heart attack and another from a stroke.

And no, it's not a stretch. They used violence in an attempt to get the Congress to not certify Biden's electoral victory. That fits the description perfectly.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> BLM and antifa were rioting during the election. Hell, they both set up various "autonomous zones" that were blatant and overt insurrections.
> 
> 
> So, that is not what is motivating you. It is just an excuse.
> 
> What this is really about, is this panic mongering of yours, gives you an excuse for your next round of escalation.


Show BLM and Antifa rioting during the election...


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> LOL
> 
> No, dickhead, I am not afraid of them as they are going to prison. And no, Ashli Targetpractice was not the only person who died. You're lying again. There was a woman who OD'd, another who died from a heart attack and another from a stroke.
> 
> And no, it's not a stretch. They used violence in an attempt to get the Congress to not certify Biden's electoral victory. That fits the description perfectly.




Funny. You say it was "terrorism" but you are not afraid. Obviously I was not referring to those going to prison. Though, they will get all. Plenty of terrorists and revolutionaries did some time and then returned to the fight.


In the future, when you tell this lie of Terrorism, it would make sense to pretend to be afraid of the tens of millions of Trump supporters who are still loose, since your position is that, as a movement we are prepared to use "terrorism" and violence to achieve our evul goals. 


Because your lack of fear here, shows that your position is just a silly game for you.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Funny. You say it was "terrorism" but you are not afraid. Obviously I was not referring to those going to prison. Though, they will get all. Plenty of terrorists and revolutionaries did some time and then returned to the fight.
> 
> 
> In the future, when you tell this lie of Terrorism, it would make sense to pretend to be afraid of the tens of millions of Trump supporters who are still loose, since your position is that, as a movement we are prepared to use "terrorism" and violence to achieve our evul goals.
> 
> 
> Because your lack of fear here, shows that your position is just a silly game for you.


Why would I fear terrorists who are in jail? As always, you make no sense.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Show BLM and Antifa rioting during the election...




Fiuck off troll boy.  There is s limit to how much retardness I can stomach and you just massively exceeded it.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Fiuck off troll boy.  There is s limit to how much retardness I can stomach and you just massively exceeded it.


*Translation: *_you're full of shit._


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Why would I fear terrorists who are in jail? As always, you make no sense.




Aw look. YOu pretended to be retarded to dodge my point. How original. 


FUCK OFF.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> *Translation: *_you're full of shit._




No, my words to you were much worse than just you being full of shit. ANd I stand by them. Fucktard.


----------



## MarcATL

Faun said:


> *Translation: *_you're full of shit._


Bingo!


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> No, my words to you were much worse than just you being full of shit. ANd I stand by them. Fucktard.


LOL

Who cares that you stand by your hollow deflection?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> LOL
> 
> Who cares that you stand by your hollow deflection?




Any how, speaking of deflections. 


Back to the topic.


The 1/6 riot was a riot, ie a violent crime, committed by quite a number of people. They should face Justice, with due process and all their rights respected. 


That the leftards are trying to inflate that riot into...something it was not, is them justifying their next level of escalation.


Which will be, even more use of government force against their political enemies.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Any how, speaking of deflections.
> 
> 
> Back to the topic.
> 
> 
> The 1/6 riot was a riot, ie a violent crime, committed by quite a number of people. They should face Justice, with due process and all their rights respected.
> 
> 
> That the leftards are trying to inflate that riot into...something it was not, is them justifying their next level of escalation.
> 
> 
> Which will be, even more use of government force against their political enemies.


Insurrection Day was an attempt to subvert our Constitution to prevent the Congressional certification of a duly elected president.

BLM riots were not that ^^^

Deflect away.


----------



## Coyote

martybegan said:


> By your standards if I carry a spork i'm armed.





Correll said:


> Are you kidding? More and more they are pushing the
> 
> 
> 
> You got a mob led by political radicals intent on an "insurrection", the mob leaders would have a mechanism in mind for it to work.
> 
> 
> You got a mob that is just rioting, because they are pissed off. Then no, they would not think about a mechanism.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point. It was  a riot, NOT an insurrection.



What you are doing is splitting hairs and playing games with semantics.  The mob was a mixture of people from those with a plan to use violence in an attempt to overturn an election (they certainly believed Trump would back them) to those who got swept up in the moment.  Their mechanism?  Violence.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Insurrection Day was an attempt to subvert our Constitution to prevent the Congressional certification of a duly elected president.
> 
> BLM riots were not that ^^^
> 
> Deflect away.




Right. Our one little riot, is worse than your 4 years of riots, cause, reasons.


----------



## Correll

Coyote said:


> What you are doing is splitting hairs and playing games with semantics.  The mob was a mixture of people from those with a plan to use violence in an attempt to overturn an election (they certainly believed Trump would back them) to those who got swept up in the moment.  Their mechanism?  Violence.




No, YOU are the one playing games with semantics.  Violence is not a "mechanism", it is at best PART of a mechanism. 

There was no way that the events of that day would have done any more than they did, a slight delay in a formality.


----------



## martybegan

Coyote said:


> When do angry fired up mobs think about mechanisms?



Being an insurrectionist requires an actual ability to perform an insurrection, which is why all the charges have been trespass, assault, and interfering with government workers/property. 

Unlike the CHAZ/CHOP people who actually took over portions of a city FOR MONTHS, and haven't been charged for an ACTUAL insurrection.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> No, YOU are the one playing games with semantics.  Violence is not a "mechanism", it is at best PART of a mechanism.
> 
> There was no way that the events of that day would have done any more than they did, a slight delay in a formality.


Their Intent was all that matters for legal purposes.  Mens rea matters.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Right. Our one little riot, is worse than your 4 years of riots, cause, reasons.
> 
> 
> View attachment 518410


Yeah, that reason being the attempt to void the Constitution. Nothing as important as some black thug throwing a Molotov cocktail at a building.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Their Intent was all that matters for legal purposes.  Mens rea matters.




Sayihng legal purposes, when Dems are involved is like...well, your normal speaking in gibberish.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Yeah, that reason being the attempt to void the Constitution. Nothing as important as some black thug throwing a Molotov cocktail at a building.




Your excuses are dismissed as partisan nonsense. That has repeatedly been refuted. YOu are a liar.


----------



## Soupnazi630

Faun said:


> Insurrection Day was an attempt to subvert our Constitution to prevent the Congressional certification of a duly elected president.
> 
> BLM riots were not that ^^^
> 
> Deflect away.


CHAZ was precisely gthe same thing. Supported and defended by the left. No deflection but deny away


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Your excuses are dismissed as partisan nonsense. That has repeatedly been refuted. YOu are a liar.


LOL

Not my problem you're too retarded to comprehend the difference.


----------



## Faun

Soupnazi630 said:


> CHAZ was precisely gthe same thing. Supported and defended by the left. No deflection but deny away


CHAZ in no way threatened our Constitution.

Try harder next time.


----------



## Oddball

martybegan said:


> Being an insurrectionist requires an actual ability to perform an insurrection, which is why all the charges have been trespass, assault, and interfering with government workers/property.
> 
> Unlike the CHAZ/CHOP people who actually took over portions of a city FOR MONTHS, and haven't been charged for an ACTUAL insurrection.


And she's the deflecting aand projecting  balloon head accusing others of playing semantic games.

Ima need to order a dozen irony-o-meters off of Evilbay today....Just this morning, several of them have been blown up.


----------



## Soupnazi630

Faun said:


> CHAZ in no way threatened our Constitution.
> 
> Try harder next time.


Wrong

They overthrew local ELECTED government whiuch is also basded on constitutional law.

You are either lying or stupid but you are wrong DEAL WITH IT


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> Sayihng legal purposes, when Dems are involved is like...well, your normal speaking in gibberish.





Soupnazi630 said:


> Wrong
> 
> They overthrew local ELECTED government whiuch is also basded on constitutional law.
> 
> You are either lying or stupid but you are wrong DEAL WITH IT


How did they do that?  And, "squatting" is not the same as actively trying to "sabotage" due process of Government.


----------



## Coyote

martybegan said:


> Being an insurrectionist requires an actual ability to perform an insurrection, which is why all the charges have been trespass, assault, and interfering with government workers/property.
> 
> Unlike the CHAZ/CHOP people who actually took over portions of a city FOR MONTHS, and haven't been charged for an ACTUAL insurrection.



Being an insurrectionist requires none of that, only the intent and acting on that intent. Because they were incompetent doesnt make it any less an insurrection.  

The LEGAL BAR for charging some one with insurrection is pretty high, and very rarely done because our government prioritizes free speech rights and this applies to a lot of the reluctance to come down hard on protests.  That is one they are charging them with other crimes instead.  The other aspect is that it was not one coordinated action.  There undeniably were those who coordinayed and planned an attempted violent overthrow of our electoral process and utilized a fired up mob towards that end.  However there were many who were just stupid and caught up in it.  Not everyone will be charged the same nor should be.


----------



## Soupnazi630

danielpalos said:


> How did they do that?  And, "squatting" is not the same as actively trying to "sabotage" due process of Government.


They did not simply squat they openly declared CHAZ as a seperate politiucal and legal entity where elected government had no authority.

It was open insurrection


----------



## Coyote

Soupnazi630 said:


> Wrong
> 
> They overthrew local ELECTED government whiuch is also basded on constitutional law.
> 
> You are either lying or stupid but you are wrong DEAL WITH IT


They didnt overthrow anything.  The local government allowed it.  They could have stepped on and put an end to it at time.  Kind of like the Conch Republic.


----------



## Oddball

Soupnazi630 said:


> Wrong
> 
> They overthrew local ELECTED government whiuch is also basded on constitutional law.
> 
> You are either lying or stupid but you are wrong DEAL WITH IT


*You are either lying or stupid...






*


----------



## danielpalos

Soupnazi630 said:


> They did not simply squat they openly declared CHAZ as a seperate politiucal and legal entity where elected government had no authority.
> 
> It was open insurrection


Squatting.  They did not Invade the capital like "illegals".


----------



## Faun

Soupnazi630 said:


> Wrong
> 
> They overthrew local ELECTED government whiuch is also basded on constitutional law.
> 
> You are either lying or stupid but you are wrong DEAL WITH IT


What elected government was overthrown? You do know they took over just a few city blocks, right? Bear in mind, I'm not defending their actions. I'm just ridiculing your nonsense that they overthrew a local elected government. Which by the way, the Constitution doesn't address. The Constitution leaves such matters up to the states. Unlike a presidential election, which had Trump's thugs been successful at getting him into the White House instead of the duly elected winner, would have been the end of the Constitution.


----------



## Coyote

Correll said:


> No, YOU are the one playing games with semantics.  Violence is not a "mechanism", it is at best PART of a mechanism.
> 
> There was no way that the events of that day would have done any more than they did, a slight delay in a formality.


What the hell do you mean violence is not a mechanism?  It has been the mechanism for a good many revolutions, rebellions, and insurrections.  And don't forget, they believed Trump was backing them and going to join them.  They likely thought presidential power was mechanism enough.


----------



## toobfreak

Astrostar said:


> Republicans try but can't change history​



SORRY, NO, Astroturd:

We ain't the ones running from an illegal election!
We're not the ones trying to run another sham investigation!
We're not the ones tearing down every monument connected to the Civil War!
We're not the ones trying to hide the democrat's storied history with the KKK!
YOU ARE


----------



## Winco

Correll said:


> Back to the topic.
> 
> 
> The 1/6 riot was a riot, ie a violent crime, committed by quite a number of people. They should face Justice, with due process and all their rights respected.


I LOVE how you are coming around to the realistic view of what happened on Jan 6th.

1) WAS:   It was a peaceful protest, no weapons, Lots of Love, very peaceful.
2) Bit Later:   Antifa, BLM, even the FBI coordinated this event.  
3) Wee Bit Later:  Innocent protesters are being mistreated. Being held w/o cause.
4) Wee Wee bit later:  Who killed Ashli.  An innocent unarmed legal protester. 
5) Big Lie #2 later:  The police just let them in.  Waved them in, actually. How do you trespass when they just wave you in? 
6) The Capitol Police are Liars.  Fuck the Police.
7) NOW:  "The 1/6 riot was a riot, ie a violent crime, committed by quite a number of people. They should face Justice, with due process and all their rights respected."

*Thank You for finally saying that these insurrectionists should face trial (Justice).*


----------



## postman

Faun said:


> What elected government was overthrown? You do know they took over just a few city blocks, right? Bear in mind, I'm not defending their actions. I'm just ridiculing your nonsense that they overthrew a local elected government.


They equate taking over public property, as an overthrow of the local government.  

Maybe that's why when people took over the  Edmund Pettus Bridge, they called out the dogs, because it was an overthrow of the Selma, Alabama government.


----------



## Godboy

Astrostar said:


> Fact check: Some Republicans have tried to rewrite the history of January 6. Here's how | CNN Politics
> 
> 
> When the House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6 convenes for the first time, it will be against a backdrop of Republican objections and falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because history is what it is.  Despite the efforts of Trump and his Cult members in Congress to rewrite it to reflect positively on Trump, theirs is a lost cause.
> 
> Trump and his disciples, since January 6 have tried over and over to convince the American people that the insurrection was caused by Antifa, was a peaceful event with lots of love in the air or was just a guided tour of the Capital building.
> 
> We know better!  It was an aggressive attempt by white nationalists, inspired by Trump, to take over the government of the United States.  Anyone who sees it in a different light is not a loyal, patriotic American, but rather is a Trump disciple who places him above the Constitution of the United States and the welfare of the majority of the American people.
> 
> Today's congressional hearing will expose the Trump people who tried to storm the Capital for what they really are:  enemies of the American people.


Why do you guys only talk about this one riot, when there were hundreds of other ones, many of which were far more violent. Many people were murdered at BLM riots. Why arent you talking about THOSE riots?


----------



## Winco

toobfreak said:


> SORRY, NO, Astroturd:
> 
> We ain't the ones running from an illegal election!
> We're not the ones trying to run another sham investigation!
> We're not the ones tearing down every monument connected to the Civil War!
> We're not the ones trying to hide the democrat's storied history with the KKK!



*We ain't the ones running from an illegal election!*
You clowns are the ones that created the facade of a stolen election.
*We're not the ones trying to run another sham investigation!*
Like the 19 Sham Benghazi Investigations.   FACT.
*We're not the ones tearing down every monument connected to the Civil War!*
Don't really care about this one.  Everyone should be informed, from both sides, and educated people can form their own opinion from the information.
*We're not the ones trying to hide the democrat's storied history with the KKK!*
This one is BIG.  Yes, the (D) party was the 'original' party of the KKK.  The DixieCrats now have the platform of the (R) party.  Clearly, it is White Supremacists that support the KKK, and those individuals are from the Very White South Confederates.
Who carries the Confederate Flag.  Southern Rednecks.  Racists. Current members of the (R) party.


----------



## Tumblin Tumbleweed

martybegan said:


> a bat is armed but not really armed, because in this country, when you call someone armed, it almost always means a firearm.
> 
> a person running around with a bat is not "armed and dangerous" by most people's definition of the term.


Then you, and 'most people' are pretty fucking dumb. Actually, 'most people' know you're full of shit.


----------



## Soupnazi630

Coyote said:


> They didnt overthrow anything.  The local government allowed it.  They could have stepped on and put an end to it at time.  Kind of like the Conch Republic.


They openly stated and succeeded in overthrlowing local government.

That government had no right to allow it as they were elected by the people to be gthe government of that region.

Your spin is a failure. The left is filled with hypocrites trying to spin what happened just as the right spins what happened on Jan 6.


----------



## Soupnazi630

Faun said:


> What elected government was overthrown? You do know they took over just a few city blocks, right? Bear in mind, I'm not defending their actions. I'm just ridiculing your nonsense that they overthrew a local elected government. Which by the way, the Constitution doesn't address. The Constitution leaves such matters up to the states. Unlike a presidential election, which had Trump's thugs been successful at getting him into the White House instead of the duly elected winner, would have been the end of the Constitution.


Thiose few city blocks were in fact under the jurisdiction of a local and legally elected government. I could ask the same sort of question about Jan 6. As in what election was stopped?

There is more than one constitution including state and local constitutions and in fact CHAZ was precisely what you are accusing the MAGA rioters of ATTEMPTING.


----------



## Soupnazi630

postman said:


> They equate taking over public property, as an overthrow of the local government.
> 
> Maybe that's why when people took over the  Edmund Pettus Bridge, they called out the dogs, because it was an overthrow of the Selma, Alabama government.


That is precisely what it is. When one declares public AND PRIVATE property to be subject to a new fiat government it is by defintion overthrow of government.


----------



## Soupnazi630

danielpalos said:


> Squatting.  They did not Invade the capital like "illegals".


Liar.

Theyd di mroe than squat they invaded and declared a new government

you always bear false witness and post fallacies


----------



## danielpalos

Soupnazi630 said:


> Liar.
> 
> Theyd di mroe than squat they invaded and declared a new government
> 
> you always bear false witness and post fallacies


Still mostly just a protest not actively trying to change the results of an election. 

_The Capitol Hill Occupied Protest or the Capitol Hill Organized Protest[6][7][8][9] (CHOP),[10][11] originally Free Capitol Hill[12][13] and later the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ),[14] was an occupation protest and self-declared autonomous zone[1] in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Seattle, Washington. The zone, originally covering six city blocks and Cal Anderson Park,[15][16] was established on June 8, 2020, by George Floyd protesters after the Seattle Police Department (SPD) left its East Precinct building.[2] The zone was cleared of occupants by police on July 1.[3][17] Its formation was preceded by a week of tense interactions between protesters and police in riot gear which began on June 1 and escalated on June 7 after a man drove his vehicle into the crowd and shot a protester near 11th Avenue and Pine Street.[18][19] Tear gas, flashbangs and pepper spray were used by police in the densely populated residential neighborhood.[20] On June 7, the SPD reported that the crowd was throwing rocks, bottles and fireworks and shining green lasers into officers' eyes.[18] The next day, police boarded up their building and moved out of the East Precinct in an effort to de-escalate the situation.[21]_--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Occupied_Protest


----------



## Soupnazi630

danielpalos said:


> Still mostly just a protest not actively trying to change the results of an election.
> 
> _The Capitol Hill Occupied Protest or the Capitol Hill Organized Protest[6][7][8][9] (CHOP),[10][11] originally Free Capitol Hill[12][13] and later the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ),[14] was an occupation protest and self-declared autonomous zone[1] in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Seattle, Washington. The zone, originally covering six city blocks and Cal Anderson Park,[15][16] was established on June 8, 2020, by George Floyd protesters after the Seattle Police Department (SPD) left its East Precinct building.[2] The zone was cleared of occupants by police on July 1.[3][17] Its formation was preceded by a week of tense interactions between protesters and police in riot gear which began on June 1 and escalated on June 7 after a man drove his vehicle into the crowd and shot a protester near 11th Avenue and Pine Street.[18][19] Tear gas, flashbangs and pepper spray were used by police in the densely populated residential neighborhood.[20] On June 7, the SPD reported that the crowd was throwing rocks, bottles and fireworks and shining green lasers into officers' eyes.[18] The next day, police boarded up their building and moved out of the East Precinct in an effort to de-escalate the situation.[21]_--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Occupied_Protest


Wrong.

When a gorup violently takes over territory and declares it a new state they ARE by definition attempting to change the outcome of an election. This is precisely what CHAZ was about and what they did.
The mostly violent rioters all year of BLM ANTIFA were not protesting they were engaging in insurrection.

You are a hypocrite bearing false witness


----------



## danielpalos

danielpalos said:


> was an occupation protest and self-declared autonomous zone


Nothing to do with trying to overturn an election.


----------



## martybegan

Coyote said:


> Being an insurrectionist requires none of that, only the intent and acting on that intent. Because they were incompetent doesnt make it any less an insurrection.
> 
> The LEGAL BAR for charging some one with insurrection is pretty high, and very rarely done because our government prioritizes free speech rights and this applies to a lot of the reluctance to come down hard on protests.  That is one they are charging them with other crimes instead.  The other aspect is that it was not one coordinated action.  There undeniably were those who coordinayed and planned an attempted violent overthrow of our electoral process and utilized a fired up mob towards that end.  However there were many who were just stupid and caught up in it.  Not everyone will be charged the same nor should be.



Actually the means to perform a crime requires you to be actually capable of doing it. 

That's why there is not "attempted insurrection" just like there is no Nobel prize for "attempted chemistry"

A guy with no arms and no legs wants to murder someone without any help, can you convict him of attempted murder?

And as usual you ignore the CHAZ/CHOP reference, where lawful authority was SUSPENDED FOR MONTHS, and none of those people are up on charges of insurrection.


----------



## martybegan

Tumblin Tumbleweed said:


> Then you, and 'most people' are pretty fucking dumb. Actually, 'most people' know you're full of shit.



Says the SJW soi boi who probably pees sitting down to be more woke than anyone else.

Now go get scared of the thought of an uncut version of Blazing Saddles playing somewhere.


----------



## Tumblin Tumbleweed

martybegan said:


> Says the SJW soi boi who probably pees sitting down to be more woke than anyone else.


More bullshit deflection from a coward ass troll piece of shit.


----------



## martybegan

Tumblin Tumbleweed said:


> More bullshit deflection from a coward ass troll piece of shit.



Om nom nom nom. 

If any of you lefty twats would actually debate as opposed to debase I might feel the need to reply with something other than disdain and disrespect.


----------



## Faun

Godboy said:


> Why do you guys only talk about this one riot, when there were hundreds of other ones, many of which were far more violent. Many people were murdered at BLM riots. Why arent you talking about THOSE riots?


If you haven't figured that out by now, you never will.


----------



## Faun

Soupnazi630 said:


> Thiose few city blocks were in fact under the jurisdiction of a local and legally elected government. I could ask the same sort of question about Jan 6. As in what election was stopped?
> 
> There is more than one constitution including state and local constitutions and in fact CHAZ was precisely what you are accusing the MAGA rioters of ATTEMPTING.


Dumbfuck, the local government was still in place. No one overthrew them.


----------



## Faun

danielpalos said:


> Nothing to do with trying to overturn an election.


Give 'em a break. Their desperation is growing with every passing day Trump is not re-installed.


----------



## Faun

martybegan said:


> Actually the means to perform a crime requires you to be actually capable of doing it.
> 
> That's why there is not "attempted insurrection" just like there is no Nobel prize for "attempted chemistry"
> 
> A guy with no arms and no legs wants to murder someone without any help, can you convict him of attempted murder?
> 
> And as usual you ignore the CHAZ/CHOP reference, where lawful authority was SUSPENDED FOR MONTHS, and none of those people are up on charges of insurrection.


An insurrection is a a violent uprising against a government.

That's what Trump's thugs did.


----------



## Who_Me?

How incredibly stupid for the Republicans to take the route they are taking with the Jan 6th insurrection.  The video tells the story.  Really and truly pathetic.


----------



## Godboy

Faun said:


> If you haven't figured that out by now, you never will.


I HAVE figured it out. Do you think people are stupid? Do you honestly think you can make the country forget about you rioting for a year if you just keep talking about Jan 6th?


----------



## danielpalos

Godboy said:


> I HAVE figured it out. Do you think people are stupid? Do you honestly think you can make the country forget about you rioting for a year if you just keep talking about Jan 6th?


People were getting killed without due process and is why they were rioting.  And the right-wing kept doing it.  Only the right-wing are habitually rebels without a Cause.


----------



## Faun

Godboy said:


> I HAVE figured it out. Do you think people are stupid? Do you honestly think you can make the country forget about you rioting for a year if you just keep talking about Jan 6th?


----------



## Tumblin Tumbleweed

Godboy said:


> I HAVE figured it out. Do you think people are stupid? Do you honestly think you can make the country forget about you rioting for a year if you just keep talking about Jan 6th?


I think you're pretty fucking stupid. Don't sell yourself short.

And who's this mysterious 'you', you fucking hack? Many people on this board don't support protests and haven't rioted at all. But I think both groups are criminals, for sure. Justice needs to crawl right into these Antifa/BLM/magaturds' assholes and metastasize.

I think if you support the insurrection, that's all I need to know about you. You're shit and deserve to catch a beating. Full stop. There's going to be no unity. No kumbaya. No listening to nor tolerating your fucking entitled temper tantrums.


----------



## Tumblin Tumbleweed

martybegan said:


> Om nom nom nom.
> 
> If any of you lefty twats would actually debate as opposed to debase I might feel the need to reply with something other than disdain and disrespect.


What's to debate? You call people left that aren't even Democrats. You're so fucking out of it that debate isn't even in your bag of tricks. I have no respect for you, so feel free to let your disdain fly. Disdain is all I have  because I disagree with just about everything that comes out of your leaking maw.


----------



## martybegan

Faun said:


> An insurrection is a a violent uprising against a government.
> 
> That's what Trump's thugs did.



It didn't interfere with any function of the government, it delayed the vote for the next government coming in by a few hours, which did not delay said government taking over by a second. 

Now CHAZ/CHOP took over several blocks of land controlled by a State and Local government, prevented said governments from exercising any control or protection of said land, and yet your ilk don't consider that an insurrection.


----------



## martybegan

Tumblin Tumbleweed said:


> What's to debate? You call people left that aren't even Democrats. You're so fucking out of it that debate isn't even in your bag of tricks. I have no respect for you, so feel free to let your disdain fly. Disdain is all I have  because I disagree with just about everything that comes out of your leaking maw.



Left is left. If you help them, then you are either a fellow traveler or a sap thinking the crocodile will eat you last. 

Nevertrumpers are tools, and don't realize they are tools.


----------



## danielpalos

martybegan said:


> It didn't interfere with any function of the government, it delayed the vote for the next government coming in by a few hours, which did not delay said government taking over by a second.
> 
> Now CHAZ/CHOP took over several blocks of land controlled by a State and Local government, prevented said governments from exercising any control or protection of said land, and yet your ilk don't consider that an insurrection.


The issue was one set of people were delegated the power to elect our next president of the Union, the other was not.


----------



## Faun

martybegan said:


> It didn't interfere with any function of the government, it delayed the vote for the next government coming in by a few hours, which did not delay said government taking over by a second.
> 
> Now CHAZ/CHOP took over several blocks of land controlled by a State and Local government, prevented said governments from exercising any control or protection of said land, and yet your ilk don't consider that an insurrection.


You can't lie your way out of this, marty. They interfered with the certification of an election; for which many of them have been charged. 

And again, their actions meet the very definition of an insurrection.


----------



## AZrailwhale

postman said:


> It wasn't a riot, it was an insurrection.  And it wasn't the FBI, or BLM or Antifa behind it.  It was those waiving Trump flags, and carrying the stars and bars while chanting hang Mike Pence, that were behind it.


It wasn’t an insurrection.  A insurrection has plans to take over the government and control the country.  It was a demonstration that spawned a small riot.  Even if the rioters had seized the entire membership of the house and senate, what would have happened? Nothing.  The police would have gone in and arrested them.  The only plan they had was to interrupt the confirmation vote for the electoral college vote.  Demonstrators tried to interrupt the confirmation of Kavanaugh and nothing happened.  Demonstrators tried to assault the White House before the election and nothing happened.  Get over yourself.


----------



## Faun

AZrailwhale said:


> It wasn’t an insurrection.  A insurrection has plans to take over the government and control the country.  It was a demonstration that spawned a small riot.  Even if the rioters had seized the entire membership of the house and senate, what would have happened? Nothing.  The police would have gone in and arrested them.  The only plan they had was to interrupt the confirmation vote for the electoral college vote.  Demonstrators tried to interrupt the confirmation of Kavanaugh and nothing happened.  Demonstrators tried to assault the White House before the election and nothing happened.  Get over yourself.


False. Now stop making up your own definitions for words. An insurrection is a revolt against the government. And the brave police who fended off that insurrection say they have no doubt members Congress would have been killed or severely injured had Trump's thugs gotten their paws on any of them.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Winston said:


> Over two hundred people have been charged with conspiracy, over 50 have been charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon against law enforcement.  I mean you need to leave your fantasy world.


Conspiracy to interfere with a government worker.  It’s either a very minor felony or a misdemeanor depending on the end crime of the conspiracy.  The crowd was tens of thousands, and somewhere in excess of five hundred invaded the Capitol and you can only come up with two hundred fifty charges that really are only about two hundred since they are stacking the charges.


----------



## AZrailwhale

martybegan said:


> which is 2 weeks. and even then Trump had no legal mechanism to remain in office.


Yeah, the joke is that after two weeks PELOSI would have become President.


----------



## Faun

AZrailwhale said:


> Conspiracy to interfere with a government worker.  It’s either a very minor felony or a misdemeanor depending on the end crime of the conspiracy.  The crowd was tens of thousands, and somewhere in excess of five hundred invaded the Capitol and you can only come up with two hundred fifty charges that really are only about two hundred since they are stacking the charges.


LOL

You're delusional. 

Many are charged with 18 U.S. Code § 1752 - Restricted building or grounds. That's a felony which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years *for each count*.

Many are also charged with 18 U.S. Code § 231 - Civil disorders. That's a felony which carries a maximum sentence of 5 years *for each count*.

Many are also charged with 18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant. That's a felony which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years.

And a host of other felonies for assaulting a federal officer, obstructing a congressional procedure, and others.

Trump's thugs are going bye-bye for a long time. AND losing their voting rights and 2nd Amendment rights to boot.


----------



## Tumblin Tumbleweed

martybegan said:


> Left is left. If you help them, then you are either a fellow traveler or a sap thinking the crocodile will eat you last.


Keep your binary thought patterns to yourself. Your rules never apply. You are just partisan hack, hack, hackery.


martybegan said:


> Nevertrumpers are tools, and don't realize they are tools.


They're hammers that knock the shit out of magaturds.


----------



## Godboy

Tumblin Tumbleweed said:


> I think you're pretty fucking stupid. Don't sell yourself short.
> 
> And who's this mysterious 'you', you fucking hack? Many people on this board don't support protests and haven't rioted at all. But I think both groups are criminals, for sure. Justice needs to crawl right into these Antifa/BLM/magaturds' assholes and metastasize.
> 
> I think if you support the insurrection, that's all I need to know about you. You're shit and deserve to catch a beating. Full stop. There's going to be no unity. No kumbaya. No listening to nor tolerating your fucking entitled temper tantrums.


God damn, have you forgotten already how democrats defended the riots? Get the fuck outa here with that trash angle. You sure as hell didnt condemn them.

As for insurrection, thats what you fucking people did for a year straight, but you only have a problem with it now the one time in history republicans rioted, and it lasted a couple hours, so spare me your horseshit.

_Definition of insurrection_​
_*: *an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government









						Definition of INSURRECTION
					

an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government… See the full definition




					www.merriam-webster.com
				



_


----------



## Tumblin Tumbleweed

Godboy said:


> God damn, have you forgotten already how democrats defended the riots? Get the fuck outa here with that trash angle. You sure as hell didnt condemn them


I know the Democrats defended the BLM/Antifa protests. Many of those protests turned into riots and destruction of private property. I have condemned them. But my condemnation means fuck all to magaturds that feel entitled to their choice of president and personal messiah ruling forever and will go to similar ends to make that happen.


----------



## Soupnazi630

danielpalos said:


> Nothing to do with trying to overturn an election.


Absolutely everything with overturning an election. That area which they violently took over had an ELECTED government.

You are wrong as always


----------



## Soupnazi630

Faun said:


> Dumbfuck, the local government was still in place. No one overthrew them.


Wrong you drooling foolk.

It was NOT in place within CHAZ 

Grow gthe fuck up BOY youa re wrong , stupi, proven so and evertyone knows it. Even you

Sto[p being a hypocrite you lying bitch youn have been owned


----------



## Correll

Soupnazi630 said:


> CHAZ was precisely gthe same thing. Supported and defended by the left. No deflection but deny away




Yeah, they pretend that the 4 hour delay was an "insurrection" but ignore the OPENLY STATED AND CELEBRATED FORMAL INSURRECTIONS of their side, because..... they are lying scum.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> LOL
> 
> Not my problem you're too retarded to comprehend the difference.




Said the retard.


----------



## Correll

Coyote said:


> What the hell do you mean violence is not a mechanism?  It has been the mechanism for a good many revolutions, rebellions, and insurrections.  And don't forget, they believed Trump was backing them and going to join them.  They likely thought presidential power was mechanism enough.




So, describe how it happens. They riot and commit violence. They delay the certification.


What happens next? Do they claim to be the new Congress and start issuing laws?


----------



## Correll

Winco said:


> I LOVE how you are coming around to the realistic view of what happened on Jan 6th.
> 
> 1) WAS:   It was a peaceful protest, no weapons, Lots of Love, very peaceful.
> 2) Bit Later:   Antifa, BLM, even the FBI coordinated this event.
> 3) Wee Bit Later:  Innocent protesters are being mistreated. Being held w/o cause.
> 4) Wee Wee bit later:  Who killed Ashli.  An innocent unarmed legal protester.
> 5) Big Lie #2 later:  The police just let them in.  Waved them in, actually. How do you trespass when they just wave you in?
> 6) The Capitol Police are Liars.  Fuck the Police.
> 7) NOW:  "The 1/6 riot was a riot, ie a violent crime, committed by quite a number of people. They should face Justice, with due process and all their rights respected."
> 
> *Thank You for finally saying that these insurrectionists should face trial (Justice).*




Dude. My position has been pretty much the same, only slightly altered by new information, such as the Lefty agitator being discovered.


You are very confused. Are you thinking that, all conservatives share a hive mind like you libs do?


----------



## Faun

Soupnazi630 said:


> Wrong you drooling foolk.
> 
> It was NOT in place within CHAZ
> 
> Grow gthe fuck up BOY youa re wrong , stupi, proven so and evertyone knows it. Even you
> 
> Sto[p being a hypocrite you lying bitch youn have been owned


LOL

You're a nut. The government was always in place. They were never overthrown. According to your nonsense, if bank robbers seize a bank and take control of it, they overthrew the government.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Said the retard.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


>


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> So, describe how it happens. They riot and commit violence. They delay the certification.
> 
> 
> What happens next? Do they claim to be the new Congress and start issuing laws?


Who knows how it would have played out? They don't get off due to incompetence.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> View attachment 518775


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Who knows how it would have played out? They don't get off due to incompetence.




You people are claiming to know what their intent was. So, share it with us. 


Or, was that just more of you talking shit?


Me? I think it was an irrational riot, with no real plan, or clear intent.  


You are the one claiming there was a plan and clear intent. But you can't back it up.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> You people are claiming to know what their intent was. So, share it with us.
> 
> 
> Or, was that just more of you talking shit?
> 
> 
> Me? I think it was an irrational riot, with no real plan, or clear intent.
> 
> 
> You are the one claiming there was a plan and clear intent. But you can't back it up.


How many times do you need to hear their intent was to "stop the steal" until you learn their intent was to "stop the steal?"


----------



## danielpalos

Why are right-wingers such false witness bearers?  Don't they know it is immoral.


----------



## martybegan

danielpalos said:


> The issue was one set of people were delegated the power to elect our next president of the Union, the other was not.



Dodge, duck dip dive and dodge.


----------



## martybegan

Faun said:


> You can't lie your way out of this, marty. They interfered with the certification of an election; for which many of them have been charged.
> 
> And again, their actions meet the very definition of an insurrection.



For a few hours. Big whoop.

And you continue to ignore the ACTUAL insurrection, CHAZ/CHOP and the months long assaults on federal courthouses and ICE facilities.


----------



## danielpalos

martybegan said:


> Dodge, duck dip dive and dodge.


The difference is very clear.  Why do you believe I was avoiding the issue?


----------



## martybegan

Tumblin Tumbleweed said:


> Keep your binary thought patterns to yourself. Your rules never apply. You are just partisan hack, hack, hackery.
> 
> They're hammers that knock the shit out of magaturds.



Trying to apply Star Trek rules in a Star Wars universe is idiotic. 

The system is the system, and if people want to win they gotta play with the rules given. 

Hurting Trump and the Republicans is helping them.


----------



## martybegan

danielpalos said:


> The difference is very clear.  Why do you believe I was avoiding the issue?



Your entire modus operandi is avoiding any issue by long screeds of word salad.


----------



## danielpalos

martybegan said:


> Your entire modus operandi is avoiding any issue by long screeds of word salad.


Only right-wingers claim that; and have nothing but diversion while alleging it.


----------



## Faun

martybegan said:


> For a few hours. Big whoop.
> 
> And you continue to ignore the ACTUAL insurrection, CHAZ/CHOP and the months long assaults on federal courthouses and ICE facilities.


LOL

A few hours delay is a felony carrying a penalty of up to 20 years in prison. So yeah, it actually is a big whoop.


----------



## martybegan

Faun said:


> LOL
> 
> A few hours delay is a felony carrying a penalty of up to 20 years in prison. So yeah, it actually is a big whoop.



And people who held a neighborhood hostage for months get away with it. 

Selective prosecution is the hallmark of a totalitarian state.


----------



## Faun

martybegan said:


> And people who held a neighborhood hostage for months get away with it.
> 
> Selective prosecution is the hallmark of a totalitarian state.


You're unhinged. There was no selective prosecution. You imagine someone in authority selectively chose to prosecute one but not the other but that is not the case. The authority in Washington has no jurisdictional authority over the federal government and the federal government has no jurisdictional authority over Washington.


----------



## martybegan

Faun said:


> You're unhinged. There was no selective prosecution. You imagine someone in authority selectively chose to prosecute one but not the other but that is not the case. The authority in Washington has no jurisdictional authority over the federal government and the federal government has no jurisdictional authority over Washington.



All part of the same system, all part of the same bullshit. 

lefties in power giving lefty revolutionaries a pass. 

It's what plagued the Weimar judiciary and power structures, and the same thing is repeating itself.


----------



## Soupnazi630

Faun said:


> LOL
> 
> You're a nut. The government was always in place. They were never overthrown. According to your nonsense, if bank robbers seize a bank and take control of it, they overthrew the government.


Within CHAZ it was not that is simple fact.

It was not a bank it was a large swath of territory

Massive failure for you. You are either not very bright or a dishonest hypocrite.


----------



## danielpalos

Soupnazi630 said:


> Within CHAZ it was not that is simple fact.
> 
> It was not a bank it was a large swath of territory
> 
> Massive failure for you. You are either not very bright or a dishonest hypocrite.


Squatting is not the same as actively invading the Capitol like illegals.


----------



## Soupnazi630

danielpalos said:


> Squatting is not the same as actively invading the Capitol like illegals.


They did not simply squat they violently took over teritory and declare dit seperate from government.

That is absolute fact you deny and lie about because you are a false witness bearing piece odf shit who defends violent insurrection


----------



## danielpalos

Soupnazi630 said:


> They did not simply squat they violently took over teritory and declare dit seperate from government.
> 
> That is absolute fact you deny and lie about because you are a false witness bearing piece odf shit who defends violent insurrection


The police let them do it since it was a protest in the beginning.   The same can not be said of the Capitol invasion by illegals.


----------



## Faun

martybegan said:


> All part of the same system, all part of the same bullshit.
> 
> lefties in power giving lefty revolutionaries a pass.
> 
> It's what plagued the Weimar judiciary and power structures, and the same thing is repeating itself.


LOLOL 

You're deranged, Marty. They are not part of the same system. Completely different jurisdictions. Neither has jurisdictional authority over the other. So no, it's not like anyone selectively prosecutes one crime but not another.

Not to mention, but the crimes are also different.


----------



## martybegan

Faun said:


> LOLOL
> 
> You're deranged, Marty. They are not part of the same system. Completely different jurisdictions. Neither has jurisdictional authority over the other. So no, it's not like anyone selectively prosecutes one crime but not another.
> 
> Not to mention, but the crimes are also different.



Same type of people running both, statist progressives, give the left a pass, lay it on hard on the right. 

Yes, CHAZ/CHOP was far worse.


----------



## Soupnazi630

danielpalos said:


> The police let them do it since it was a protest in the beginning.   The same can not be said of the Capitol invasion by illegals.


It was a violent riot in the beginning and yes the same can be said of the capitol as the police LET them in.


----------



## danielpalos

Soupnazi630 said:


> It was a violent riot in the beginning and yes the same can be said of the capitol as the police LET them in.


Is that why someone got shot?  Why try to sue the capital police.


----------



## Soupnazi630

danielpalos said:


> Is that why someone got shot?  Why try to sue the capital police.


That shot took place after they were let in


----------



## Faun

martybegan said:


> Same type of people running both, statist progressives, give the left a pass, lay it on hard on the right.
> 
> Yes, CHAZ/CHOP was far worse.


LOL

Your hollow generalizations don't grant mutual jurisdiction.


----------



## Faun

Soupnazi630 said:


> It was a violent riot in the beginning and yes the same can be said of the capitol as the police LET them in.


LOL

I can't wait to watch those insurrectionists get decade(s) long sentences while crying in their own defense that the Capitol police let them in.


----------



## danielpalos

Soupnazi630 said:


> That shot took place after they were let in


Why shoot if they are "let in"?


----------



## Soupnazi630

danielpalos said:


> Why shoot if they are "let in"?


Because then they became violent


----------



## danielpalos

Soupnazi630 said:


> Because then they became violent


An insurrection at the Capitol.


----------



## martybegan

Faun said:


> LOL
> 
> Your hollow generalizations don't grant mutual jurisdiction.



And your refusal to even admit CHAZ/CHOP existed and was an actual insurrection just shows your hackery.


----------



## Faun

martybegan said:


> And your refusal to even admit CHAZ/CHOP existed and was an actual insurrection just shows your hackery.


You're fucked in the head, marty. I never once denied it existed.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> You're fucked in the head, marty. I never once denied it existed.




Said the leftard dodging the point again.


----------



## Soupnazi630

Faun said:


> You're fucked in the head, marty. I never once denied it existed.


Just that it was what it was. A violent insurrection as bad as Jan 6.

The hypocrisy is rank


----------



## martybegan

Faun said:


> You're fucked in the head, marty. I never once denied it existed.



and yet you ignored my points on it every post. Nice doublethink exercise there.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Said the leftard dodging the point again.


----------



## Faun

Soupnazi630 said:


> Just that it was what it was. A violent insurrection as bad as Jan 6.
> 
> The hypocrisy is rank


Uh, no, not nearly as bad. CHAZ never threatened the democracy of this country like Insurrection Day did.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


>




Meanwhile in the real world, the Left is trying to inflate the important of ONE small riot, to justify it's increasing use of government power against it's enemies. 


While ignoring the far larger and longer lasting riots of the left, OR the rapid rise in crime due to their War on Cops.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Uh, no, not nearly as bad. CHAZ never threatened the democracy of this country like Insurrection Day did.


----------



## Faun

martybegan said:


> and yet you ignored my points on it every post. Nice doublethink exercise there.


Your derangement worsens. Your point was the same people who seek to prosecute protesters for Insurrection Day gave protesters a pass for CHAZ. I dismantled that by pointing out the jurisdictions were different, the people were different, the circumstances were different and the potential outcomes were different. It's not my problem you don't know the difference between an apple and an orange.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Meanwhile in the real world, the Left is trying to inflate the important of ONE small riot, to justify it's increasing use of government power against it's enemies.
> 
> 
> While ignoring the far larger and longer lasting riots of the left, OR the rapid rise in crime due to their War on Cops.


By "small riot," you mean the attempt to shred our Constitution, our democracy and our freedom; and for the first time in American history, get the loser of a presidential election, declared the winner.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> View attachment 519291


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Your derangement worsens. Your point was the same people who seek to prosecute protesters for Insurrection Day gave protesters a pass for CHAZ. I dismantled that by pointing out the jurisdictions were different, the people were different, the circumstances were different and the potential outcomes were different. It's not my problem you don't know the difference between an apple and an orange.




It was a violent and criminal insurrection, which supposedly you find soooo bad, but when it is your side, suddenly not. 


YOu are a lying whore.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


>


----------



## martybegan

Faun said:


> Your derangement worsens. Your point was the same people who seek to prosecute protesters for Insurrection Day gave protesters a pass for CHAZ. I dismantled that by pointing out the jurisdictions were different, the people were different, the circumstances were different and the potential outcomes were different. It's not my problem you don't know the difference between an apple and an orange.



same type of people, same team.


----------



## Lastamender

Astrostar said:


> Fact check: Some Republicans have tried to rewrite the history of January 6. Here's how | CNN Politics
> 
> 
> When the House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6 convenes for the first time, it will be against a backdrop of Republican objections and falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because history is what it is.  Despite the efforts of Trump and his Cult members in Congress to rewrite it to reflect positively on Trump, theirs is a lost cause.
> 
> Trump and his disciples, since January 6 have tried over and over to convince the American people that the insurrection was caused by Antifa, was a peaceful event with lots of love in the air or was just a guided tour of the Capital building.
> 
> We know better!  It was an aggressive attempt by white nationalists, inspired by Trump, to take over the government of the United States.  Anyone who sees it in a different light is not a loyal, patriotic American, but rather is a Trump disciple who places him above the Constitution of the United States and the welfare of the majority of the American people.
> 
> Today's congressional hearing will expose the Trump people who tried to storm the Capital for what they really are:  enemies of the American people.


Jan 6th was a false flag bought to you by the thoroughly corrupt FBI. End of story.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> It was a violent and criminal insurrection, which supposedly you find soooo bad, but when it is your side, suddenly not.
> 
> 
> YOu are a lying whore.


Detail the violence against the government...


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Detail the violence against the government...




Did I claim violence against the government? People died. There was violence and crime.


----------



## surada

martybegan said:


> So a few people chanting "hang pence" becomes the motivation for every single one of them?



They had baseball bats, metal crutches, pepper spray, metal whips, golf clubs. They were pushing, shoving, screaming, breaking windows...Why do you think Mo Brooks was wearing body armor to a peaceful "rally"?


----------



## martybegan

surada said:


> They had baseball bats, metal crutches, pepper spray, metal whips, golf clubs. They were pushing, shoving, screaming, breaking windows...Why do you think Mo Brooks was wearing body armor to a peaceful "rally"?



They were probably expecting anti-fa to show up carrying the same things. 

But them doing it is OK because....reasons.


----------



## Correll

surada said:


> They had baseball bats, metal crutches, pepper spray, metal whips, golf clubs. They were pushing, shoving, screaming, breaking windows...Why do you think Mo Brooks was wearing body armor to a peaceful "rally"?




Hundreds of people and you managed to find a few weapons. That is not impressive. Any random 3oo people off the street, could have a better pile of weapons than that.


----------



## Faun

martybegan said:


> same type of people, same team.


You're fucked in the head, marty. For example, the FBI and the Department of Justice are going after insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol. You know, the FBI headed by a Republican appointed by a Republican. And the Department of Justice, at the time, also headed by a Republican appointed by a Republican.

Again, moron, different people, different jurisdictions, different circumstances, different crimes and different potential outcomes. But fear not, your desperation to lessen the significance of Insurrection day is noted and laughed at.


----------



## Faun

Lastamender said:


> Jan 6th was a false flag bought to you by the thoroughly corrupt FBI. End of story.


----------



## martybegan

Faun said:


> You're fucked in the head, marty. For example, the FBI and the Department of Justice are going after insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol. You know, the FBI headed by a Republican appointed by a Republican. And the Department of Justice, at the time, also headed by a Republican appointed by a Republican.
> 
> Again, moron, different people, different jurisdictions, different circumstances, different crimes and different potential outcomes. But fear not, your desperation to lessen the significance of Insurrection day is noted and laughed at.



Same Deep State. 

Cheney is a "Republican" as well....


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Did I claim violence against the government? People died. There was violence and crime.


Dumbfuck, there's violence and crime all over every day. That doesn't make it an insurrection.


----------



## surada

Correll said:


> Hundreds of people and you managed to find a few weapons. That is not impressive. Any random 3oo people off the street, could have a better pile of weapons than that.



They bashed up a lot of Capitol Police officers.

Why would you defend them?


----------



## Faun

martybegan said:


> They were probably expecting anti-fa to show up carrying the same things.
> 
> But them doing it is OK because....reasons.


LOL

You're fucked in the head, marty ... "them" didn't do it.


----------



## martybegan

Faun said:


> LOL
> 
> You're fucked in the head, marty ... "them" didn't do it.



Didn't say they did it, said I expected them to show up, and some of the Trump supporters probably expected the same thing.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> You're fucked in the head, marty. For example, the FBI and the Department of Justice are going after insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol. You know, the FBI headed by a Republican appointed by a Republican. And the Department of Justice, at the time, also headed by a Republican appointed by a Republican.
> 
> Again, moron, different people, different jurisdictions, different circumstances, different crimes and different potential outcomes. But fear not, your desperation to lessen the significance of Insurrection day is noted and laughed at.




The FBI? The same assholes that gave us Peter Strzok?

LOL!!!


----------



## Faun

martybegan said:


> Same Deep State.
> 
> Cheney is a "Republican" as well....


LOLOLOL


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Dumbfuck, there's violence and crime all over every day. That doesn't make it an insurrection.




Correct. It was more the formal statements that they were "Autonomous" and the way they did not allow American government agents, such as cops to enter their territory.


----------



## Faun

martybegan said:


> Didn't say they did it, said I expected them to show up, and some of the Trump supporters probably expected the same thing.


You said...

_They were probably expecting anti-fa to show up carrying the same things.

*But them doing it is OK* because....reasons._​
Again ... "them" didn't do it. Please strive harder to understand what you write.


----------



## martybegan

Faun said:


> LOLOLOL



Wow, it's not like a massive bureaucracy has overstepped its bounds before, no history at all...

1587, a Year of No Significance - Wikipedia


----------



## Correll

surada said:


> They bashed up a lot of Capitol Police officers.
> 
> Why would you defend them?




Because I want them to have a fair trial with their rights respected. And that is not happening.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Correct. It was more the formal statements that they were "Autonomous" and the way they did not allow American government agents, such as cops to enter their territory.


So unlike Insurrection Day, there was no violence against the government.

But they're the same, right?


----------



## Faun

martybegan said:


> Wow, it's not like a massive bureaucracy has overstepped its bounds before, no history at all...
> 
> 1587, a Year of No Significance - Wikipedia


LOL


----------



## martybegan

Faun said:


> You said...
> 
> _They were probably expecting anti-fa to show up carrying the same things._​​_*But them doing it is OK* because....reasons._​
> Again ... "them" didn't do it. Please strive harder to understand what you write.



I'm saying anti-fa carrying those weapons is considered OK by people like you.

Reading comprehension, twat.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Because I want them to have a fair trial with their rights respected. And that is not happening.


Who said they won't get fair trials?


----------



## Faun

martybegan said:


> I'm saying anti-fa carrying those weapons is considered OK by people like you.
> 
> Reading comprehension, twat.


You said they were expected to show up with weapons.

They didn't.

You're a fucking moron.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> So unlike Insurrection Day, there was no violence against the government.
> 
> But they're the same, right?



You the one that whined about the violence and the insurrection. Suddenly it's only bad, if the violence is DIRECTLY against the government, if it is just some random person that is murdered, then it doesn't count.

AND, if I go and find some example of violence against a government agent, there would be a new excuse.


YOU SUCK.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Who said they won't get fair trials?




I did. It's obvious. The investigations are already political. There is no change of it being "equal justice".


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> I did. It's obvious. The investigations are already political. There is no change of it being "equal justice".


Whew. Fortunately it's saying it and not someone of any importance.


----------



## martybegan

Faun said:


> You said they were expected to show up with weapons.
> 
> They didn't.
> 
> You're a fucking moron.



They didn't show up at all, which I find strange. 

At least not out in the open.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Whew. Fortunately it's saying it and not someone of any importance.




The point is not  the source. The point is that it is obviously true. We have a massive injustice being committeed.


EVERYONE who does time from this, will be a political prisoner. 


This is a massive step forward, in our decline into a Third World Shithole.


----------



## Soupnazi630

Faun said:


> Uh, no, not nearly as bad. CHAZ never threatened the democracy of this country like Insurrection Day did.


Yes it did.

Anyone can stage a violent insurrection and take territory away from progressives who allow it and look the other way.


----------



## blackhawk

The left accusing others of trying to rewrite history this needs to be submitted to The Onion or Babylon Bee.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

Astrostar said:


> Fact check: Some Republicans have tried to rewrite the history of January 6. Here's how | CNN Politics
> 
> 
> When the House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6 convenes for the first time, it will be against a backdrop of Republican objections and falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because history is what it is.  Despite the efforts of Trump and his Cult members in Congress to rewrite it to reflect positively on Trump, theirs is a lost cause.
> 
> Trump and his disciples, since January 6 have tried over and over to convince the American people that the insurrection was caused by Antifa, was a peaceful event with lots of love in the air or was just a guided tour of the Capital building.
> 
> We know better!  It was an aggressive attempt by white nationalists, inspired by Trump, to take over the government of the United States.  Anyone who sees it in a different light is not a loyal, patriotic American, but rather is a Trump disciple who places him above the Constitution of the United States and the welfare of the majority of the American people.
> 
> Today's congressional hearing will expose the Trump people who tried to storm the Capital for what they really are:  enemies of the American people.


It was mostly peaceful.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

Faun said:


> Uh, no, not nearly as bad. CHAZ never threatened the democracy of this country like Insurrection Day did.


Do you even know what an insurrection is?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW wrote: I have noticed whenever the Republican/right wing poster Correll mindfully and deliberately needs to distort reality in order to try to change history he invokes his oft used “pretend and ignore” tactic. Here is an example: 21SEP01-POST#413

Correll wrote: Yeah, they pretend that the 4 hour delay was an "insurrection" but ignore the OPENLY STATED AND CELEBRATED FORMAL INSURRECTIONS of their side, because..... they are lying scum. 21JUL29-POST#329

NFBW wrote:  Jan06 was a violent Trump supporting anti-America insurrection. There is and was no BLM or ANTIFA insurrection to overthrow an election for the left. That is the reality Correll is attempting to distort. 21SEP01-POST#413


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Stop a count and having a recount, is not overturning.  21JUL27-POST#63

NFBW wrote: It was not stopping a count. The Constitutional timeframe to conclude recounts had expired. The rioters were told they had to stop the certification which would throw the process into chaos - and chaos was to be the means that Trump stays in power. SEE NYTIMES “  “Leave the rest to me” Trump says below. 21SEP02-POST#414

surada is correct:


surada said:


> Trump TOLD them to stop the EC certification.



NFBW wrote: The rioters were encouraged at Trump’s insistence that if they could stop the certifications from several key states Trump would find a way to remain in office - thus overthrowing the will of the voters and therefore overthrowing the duly constitutionally elected government. 21SEP02-POST#414

NFBW posted Trump Pressed Justice Dept. to Declare Election Results Corrupt, Notes Show - “Leave the rest to me” and to congressional allies, the former president is said to have told top law enforcement officials. - Published July 30, 2021 - Updated Aug. 11, 2021
WASHINGTON — President Donald J. Trump pressed top Justice Department officials late last year to declare that the election was corrupt even though they had found no instances of widespread fraud, so he and his allies in Congress could use the assertion to try to overturn the results, according to new documents provided to lawmakers. 21SEP02-POST#414


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: I am not respecting the peaceful transfer of power either. I do not consider BIden's election to be legitimate nor do I consider him to be a legitimate President.  21FEB27-POST#257

NFBW wrote: When you as a conservative have no respect for the peaceful transfer of power because your “Dear Leader” lost the national  election for a second term by seven million votes - are you now of the revolutionary mindset that no election in the future can be legitimate unless the conservative candidate wins? 21SEP02-POST#415


----------



## NotfooledbyW

"Had Mike Pence had the courage to send the Electoral College vote back to the states for recertification, …. we would right now have a Republican President” DJT-21May15 official statement

NFBW wrote: The above DJT statement is all the proof any non-duped Democracy Loving American needs to be clear in understanding that Trump had a plan that involved a mob surrounding the Capitol where the intent was to overturn the election. 21SEP03-POST#416

Correll wrote: Stop a count and having a recount, is not overturning.  21JUL27-POST#63

Correll ’s “Dear Leader tore the deluded fool Correll ‘s 21JUL27-POST#63 argument to shreds two months before Correll posted it.

“”” "The 2020 Presidential Election was, by far, the greatest Election Fraud in the history," continued Trump. "Had Mike Pence had the courage to send the Electoral College vote back to the states for recertification, and had Mitch McConnell fought for us instead of being the weak and pathetic leader he is, we would right now have a Republican President who would be VETOING the horrific Socialistic Bills that are rapidly going through Congress, including Open Borders, High Taxes, Massive Regulations, and so much else!” DJT-21May15 INSURRECTION “””


----------



## harmonica

Astrostar said:


> Fact check: Some Republicans have tried to rewrite the history of January 6. Here's how | CNN Politics
> 
> 
> When the House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6 convenes for the first time, it will be against a backdrop of Republican objections and falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because history is what it is.  Despite the efforts of Trump and his Cult members in Congress to rewrite it to reflect positively on Trump, theirs is a lost cause.
> 
> Trump and his disciples, since January 6 have tried over and over to convince the American people that the insurrection was caused by Antifa, was a peaceful event with lots of love in the air or was just a guided tour of the Capital building.
> 
> We know better!  It was an aggressive attempt by white nationalists, inspired by Trump, to take over the government of the United States.  Anyone who sees it in a different light is not a loyal, patriotic American, but rather is a Trump disciple who places him above the Constitution of the United States and the welfare of the majority of the American people.
> 
> Today's congressional hearing will expose the Trump people who tried to storm the Capital for what they really are:  enemies of the American people.


1. CNN = HAHHAHAHAAHAHAH
2. the OP is nothing but babble crap


----------



## Superbadbrutha

Oddball said:


> "Insurrection" requires force of arms, sub-imbecile.


Essential Meaning of _insurrection_
*: *a usually violent attempt to take control of a government

*: *an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government


----------



## Superbadbrutha

NotfooledbyW said:


> "Had Mike Pence had the courage to send the Electoral College vote back to the states for recertification, …. we would right now have a Republican President” DJT-21May15 official statement
> 
> NFBW wrote: The above DJT statement is all the proof any non-duped Democracy Loving American needs to be clear in understanding that Trump had a plan that involved a mob surrounding the Capitol where the intent was to overturn the election. 21SEP03-POST#416
> 
> Correll wrote: Stop a count and having a recount, is not overturning.  21JUL27-POST#63
> 
> Correll ’s “Dear Leader tore the deluded fool Correll ‘s 21JUL27-POST#63 argument to shreds two months before Correll posted it.
> 
> “”” "The 2020 Presidential Election was, by far, the greatest Election Fraud in the history," continued Trump. "Had Mike Pence had the courage to send the Electoral College vote back to the states for recertification, and had Mitch McConnell fought for us instead of being the weak and pathetic leader he is, we would right now have a Republican President who would be VETOING the horrific Socialistic Bills that are rapidly going through Congress, including Open Borders, High Taxes, Massive Regulations, and so much else!” DJT-21May15 INSURRECTION “””


What part of the Constitution gave Pence the authority to send the votes back to the states for recertification?


----------



## LuckyDuck

Astrostar said:


> Fact check: Some Republicans have tried to rewrite the history of January 6. Here's how | CNN Politics
> 
> 
> When the House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6 convenes for the first time, it will be against a backdrop of Republican objections and falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because history is what it is.  Despite the efforts of Trump and his Cult members in Congress to rewrite it to reflect positively on Trump, theirs is a lost cause.
> 
> Trump and his disciples, since January 6 have tried over and over to convince the American people that the insurrection was caused by Antifa, was a peaceful event with lots of love in the air or was just a guided tour of the Capital building.
> 
> We know better!  It was an aggressive attempt by white nationalists, inspired by Trump, to take over the government of the United States.  Anyone who sees it in a different light is not a loyal, patriotic American, but rather is a Trump disciple who places him above the Constitution of the United States and the welfare of the majority of the American people.
> 
> Today's congressional hearing will expose the Trump people who tried to storm the Capital for what they really are:  enemies of the American people.


Apparently, you hilariously think that a few hundred unarmed individuals, only 52 of which actually did the breaking in, the others just wandered in after them, having their pictures taken while smiling next to the Capitol Police and staying within the roped areas, were trying to take over the United States and its government?!  Clearly, you don't live in any kind of reality.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

LuckyDuck wrote: “only 52 of which actually did the breaking in, the others just wandered in after them,” 21SEP03-POST#420

NFBW 21SEP03-POST#421 A couple questions to test your connection  to reality: 

Do you have a source for your number that   there were 52 individuals that were violent and broke into the US Capitol on Jan6? 21SEP03-POST#421 

What was the purpose of the break in? 21SEP03-POST#421 

Do you believe the individuals that just wandered in were oblivious to the violence that was used by 52 individuals in order to break into the US Capitol. 21SEP03-POST#421


----------



## Flash

Astrostar said:


> Fact check: Some Republicans have tried to rewrite the history of January 6. Here's how | CNN Politics
> 
> 
> When the House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6 convenes for the first time, it will be against a backdrop of Republican objections and falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because history is what it is.  Despite the efforts of Trump and his Cult members in Congress to rewrite it to reflect positively on Trump, theirs is a lost cause.
> 
> Trump and his disciples, since January 6 have tried over and over to convince the American people that the insurrection was caused by Antifa, was a peaceful event with lots of love in the air or was just a guided tour of the Capital building.
> 
> We know better!  It was an aggressive attempt by white nationalists, inspired by Trump, to take over the government of the United States.  Anyone who sees it in a different light is not a loyal, patriotic American, but rather is a Trump disciple who places him above the Constitution of the United States and the welfare of the majority of the American people.
> 
> Today's congressional hearing will expose the Trump people who tried to storm the Capital for what they really are:  enemies of the American people.




The Democrat scum forgets history.

Like the six months of BLM and ANTIFA terrorism in over 200 American cities that created looting, murdering, burning and destruction.

Hell, the Democrat scum supported the filth that did the destruction.


----------



## 22lcidw

Superbadbrutha said:


> Essential Meaning of _insurrection_
> *: *a usually violent attempt to take control of a government
> 
> *: *an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government


Watching the insurrections in local government entities for years with the politicians approving of revolutionary tactics perhaps affected decisions on Jan. 6.  They hurt no one. And saw that what they did was minor league compared to their teachers. They happened to be in the wrong party at the federal level whose political class will have none of that on them who promote terrorism on others.


----------



## Faun

Superbadbrutha said:


> What part of the Constitution gave Pence the authority to send the votes back to the states for recertification?


This part...


----------



## NotfooledbyW

LuckyDuck wrote: Apparently, you hilariously think that a few hundred unarmed individuals, “only 52 of which actually did the breaking in, the others just wandered in after them,” having their pictures taken while smiling next to the Capitol Police and staying within the roped areas, were trying to take over the United States and its government?! 21SEP03-POST#420

NFBW wrote: I do not argue that any of the  Jan6 rioters had any intent to try to take over the United States and its government. They were following their “Dear Leader’s” instructions to stop the certification  of the election. EXACTLY As the “Dear Leader at Palace Mar-A-Lago has explained. 21SEP03-POST#425

“”” "The 2020 Presidential Election was, by far, the greatest Election Fraud in the history," continued Trump. "Had Mike Pence had the courage to send the Electoral College vote back to the states for recertification, and had Mitch McConnell fought for us instead of being the weak and pathetic leader he is, we would right now have a Republican President who would be VETOING the horrific Socialistic Bills that are rapidly going through Congress, including Open Borders, High Taxes, Massive Regulations, and so much else!” DJT-21May15 “””  21SEP03-POST#425


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: I have noticed whenever the Republican/right wing poster Correll mindfully and deliberately needs to distort reality in order to try to change history he invokes his oft used “pretend and ignore” tactic. Here is an example: 21SEP01-POST#413
> 
> Correll wrote: Yeah, they pretend that the 4 hour delay was an "insurrection" but ignore the OPENLY STATED AND CELEBRATED FORMAL INSURRECTIONS of their side, because..... they are lying scum. 21JUL29-POST#329
> 
> NFBW wrote:  Jan06 was a violent Trump supporting anti-America insurrection. There is and was no BLM or ANTIFA insurrection to overthrow an election for the left. That is the reality Correll is attempting to distort. 21SEP01-POST#413




I'm not ignoring the 1/6 riot. I'm happy to discuss how it was a riot, a violent and criminal act, and refute the stupid claims that it was more than that. 


You are the one who is on the side of the liars.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: I am not respecting the peaceful transfer of power either. I do not consider BIden's election to be legitimate nor do I consider him to be a legitimate President.  21FEB27-POST#257
> 
> NFBW wrote: When you as a conservative have no respect for the peaceful transfer of power because your “Dear Leader” lost the national  election for a second term by seven million votes - are you now of the revolutionary mindset that no election in the future can be legitimate unless the conservative candidate wins? 21SEP02-POST#415





Why did you post this? Seriously. You didn't make a point, you quoted yourself from teh past. 

You are being nothiing but a troll bot now.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> "Had Mike Pence had the courage to send the Electoral College vote back to the states for recertification, …. we would right now have a Republican President” DJT-21May15 official statement
> 
> NFBW wrote: The above DJT statement is all the proof any non-duped Democracy Loving American needs to be clear in understanding that Trump had a plan that involved a mob surrounding the Capitol where the intent was to overturn the election. 21SEP03-POST#416
> 
> Correll wrote: Stop a count and having a recount, is not overturning.  21JUL27-POST#63
> 
> Correll ’s “Dear Leader tore the deluded fool Correll ‘s 21JUL27-POST#63 argument to shreds two months before Correll posted it.
> 
> “”” "The 2020 Presidential Election was, by far, the greatest Election Fraud in the history," continued Trump. "Had Mike Pence had the courage to send the Electoral College vote back to the states for recertification, and had Mitch McConnell fought for us instead of being the weak and pathetic leader he is, we would right now have a Republican President who would be VETOING the horrific Socialistic Bills that are rapidly going through Congress, including Open Borders, High Taxes, Massive Regulations, and so much else!” DJT-21May15 INSURRECTION “””




What the fuck are you even saying? I don't even see a point here. So, Trump; said something that you think contradicted what I said.


Who cares? You don't. I don't. What the fuck are you even doing?


----------



## Lesh

The intent was to disrupt the lawful and usual action of Congress in certifying the election in order for Trump to use that to stay in power.

That it failed does not change the intent


----------



## Tumblin Tumbleweed

Oddball said:


> Rewriting history is the job of you Marxist assholes.


Then why does your stupid Qult use the same playbook as the 'Marxist assholes'? Doesn't that by proxy make magaturds the same?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Who cares? You don't. I don't. What the fuck are you even doing? 21SEP04-POST#431

NFBW 21SEP04-POST#431 wrote: You cared about the fraudulent vote when you wrote this. 




Correll said:


> fraudulent vote.






Correll said:


> filthy unwashed treasonous mobs



Correll wrote: Their intent was to stop the certification of a fraudulent vote.
21JUL27-POST#51

Don’t you care anymore? 21SEP04-POST#431

NFBW wrote:  Ashley Babbit used to care - about the fraudulent vote but she doesn’t anymore. She got herself shot to death because she embraced an elected president who refused to accept defeat. She stupidly attacked an open session of Congress on Jan6 in a failed insurrection which had at the heart of it the goal of disenfranchising millions of black voters in cities like Atlanta Detroit Philadelphia Phoenix Las Vegas Milwaukee who voted for Joe Biden. I care about those voters as much as my own right to vote and have it counted..  21SEP04-POST#431



Correll said:


> filthy unwashed treasonous mobs



Correll wrote: How do you feel about the filthy unwashed treasonous mobs from the left that were burning and killing for the entire 4 years of Trump's presidency? 21JUL29-POST#50

NFBW wrote: Try to care again Correll. 21SEP04-POST#431


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Who cares? You don't. I don't. What the fuck are you even doing? 21SEP04-POST#431
> 
> NFBW 21SEP04-POST#431 wrote: You cared about the fraudulent vote when you wrote this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll wrote: Their intent was to stop the certification of a fraudulent vote.
> 21JUL27-POST#51
> 
> Don’t you care anymore? 21SEP04-POST#431
> 
> NFBW wrote:  Ashley Babbit used to care - about the fraudulent vote but she doesn’t anymore. She got herself shot to death because she embraced an elected president who refused to accept defeat. She stupidly attacked an open session of Congress on Jan6 in a failed insurrection which had at the heart of it the goal of disenfranchising millions of black voters in cities like Atlanta Detroit Philadelphia Phoenix Las Vegas Milwaukee who voted for Joe Biden. I care about those voters as much as my own right to vote and have it counted..  21SEP04-POST#431
> 
> 
> 
> Correll wrote: How do you feel about the filthy unwashed treasonous mobs from the left that were burning and killing for the entire 4 years of Trump's presidency? 21JUL29-POST#50
> 
> NFBW wrote: Try to care again Correll. 21SEP04-POST#431




No, you are teh one not answering.


----------



## NoNukes

Oddball said:


> Rewriting history is the job of you Marxist assholes.


Just ask the Indians if that is true.


----------



## Correll

NoNukes said:


> Just ask the Indians if that is true.




Yeah, shitty shit happened to some brown people in the past. 


YOu know what else? Shitty shit happened to EVERYONE.


Hey, what ever happened to all the Christians that lived in Constantinople?  Why do you whiny faggots ever whine about that?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: So, Trump; said something that you think contradicted what I said. 21SEP03-POST#427

NFBW wrote:  I do not ‘think’ it. I read what both you and DJT said and understand language and what language means. 21SEP04-POST#435

NFBW wrote: This means Jan6 was not about a recount:  “”” "Had Mike Pence had the courage to send the Electoral College vote back to the states for recertification, …. we would right now have a Republican President” DJT-21May15 official statement. “””  21SEP04-POST#435

NFBW wrote:   So when you wrote, “”” Stop a count and having a recount, is not overturning. 21JUL27-POST#63 “”” You are in fact contradicting your Dear Leader speaking to you from the Palace at Mar A Lago because DJT says Jan6 was about decertification of the 2020 election which will end somehow in making DJT the winner based on no recount - it would be based on simply having GOP legislators in key states DJT lost, assign new electors or some variance of the General Flynn plan which would cause chaos and declare martial law and void the election. Jan6 was exactly about overturning the election. 21SEP04-POST#435

NFBW wrote:   DJT says it is about overturning - Correll says it is not about overturning the election  - that is a contradiction. 21SEP04-POST#435

NFBW wrote:   Trump whacko lock her up General Michael Flynn: “”” 'I don’t know if he’s going to take any of these options. The president has to plan for every eventuality because we cannot allow this election and the integrity of our election to go the way it is,'' GenFlynn-20DEC17-martial law

Michael Flynn to Newsmax TV: Trump Has Options to Secure Integrity of 2020 Election     GenFlynn-20DEC17-martial law

 ''This is just totally unsatisfactory. There’s no way in the world we’re going to be able to move forward as a nation with this. …
''He could immediately on his order seize every single one of these machines around the country on his order. He could also order, within the swing states, if he wanted to, he could take military capabilities and he could place them in those states and basically rerun an election in each of those states. It’s not unprecedented” - “These people out there talking about martial law like it’s something we’ve never done, Martial law has been instituted 64 times.” GenFlynn-20DEC17-martial law “””  21SEP04-POST#435


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW wrote: Summary: Republican, BIG LIE conservative, white cultural Christian nationalist, MAGA moron  Correll tried to change history and got caught. Now in his pissing and moaning stage. 21SEP04-POST#436

NFBW wrote:  21SEP04-POST#436 ThIs DJT statement is locked into history.

 “”” "Had Mike Pence had the courage to send the Electoral College vote back to the states for recertification, …. we would right now have a Republican President” DJT-21May15 official statement. “”” 

NFBW 21SEP04-POST#436 wrote: It cannot be changed but  Correll tried to change it when he wrote this: 

: “”” Stop a count and having a recount, is not overturning. 21JUL27-POST#63 “”” 

NFBW wrote: Another BIG LIE fail.  21SEP04-POST#436


----------



## NoNukes

Correll said:


> Yeah, shitty shit happened to some brown people in the past.
> 
> 
> YOu know what else? Shitty shit happened to EVERYONE.
> 
> 
> Hey, what ever happened to all the Christians that lived in Constantinople?  Why do you whiny faggots ever whine about that?


Thank you for showing what a despicable person you are. Genocide is not that nonchalant.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NoNukes said:


> Thank you for showing what a despicable person you are. Genocide is not that nonchalant.



NFBW wrote: The US invasion of Iraq led to the deaths of half a million Iraqis. Rather nonchalantly Correll tells us he supported the start of killing some Iraqis in order to do nation building by the use of military power on them. And then he blames Iraqis for not making it go smoothly. 21SEP04-POST#438

Correll wrote: A big part of the argument for war, was that a functioning democracy in the ME would be a powerful ideological challenge to Islamic Extremism. Iraq was presented as a good candidate for that  21MAY13-POST#703

NFBW asked:  Who made such an argument and when was it used by the Bush Administration to initiate a long term declaration of war against Iraq?  21MAY13-POST#722

Correll wrote: I recall Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer making that argument. 21MAY14-POST#741

Correll wrote: There was a national debate on this issue pand those who supported war, made their side's case.
And they won. 21MAY14-POST#741


----------



## toobfreak

Astrostar said:


> Trump and his disciples, since January 6 have tried over and over to convince the American people that the insurrection was caused by Antifa, was a peaceful event with lots of love in the air or was just a guided tour of the Capital building.



I don't know where you ever got such a crazy idea!  But then, you are an idiot anyway.  1/6 was a protest known and planned to happen in advance, it wasn't an "insurrection," but a protest that got out of hand and bloomed into a riot after Capitol police were seen on video provoking the protesters.  Antifa was there but it remains unclear whether they "started" it, but it did start long before Trump was even finished speaking up the road a few miles, it did not end up peaceful though it started that way, quickly lost any vestige of love left over from the Ellipse rally, and definitely was not a guided tour of the Capitol bldg.

But the one overriding fact that CANNOT be glazed over is WHY IT HAPPENED. It didn't happen because Trump lost, it happened because the election was held unlike any other in history, violating many rules and breaking many state laws, opening a virtual floodgate of opportunities for cheating and corruption, with more than 50 activist hard-left organizations with millions of people pulling heavily to sway the outcomes against Trump, and with the most specious of outcomes: Biden, losing badly late into the morning suddenly shoots way ahead to win when millions of paper ballots are found, all for him! Biden's victory came as the most unlikely of long shots given the circumstances.

And bared from even questioning the election much less GETTING any credible answers, the election was shoved down their throats, told the great lie that there was NO fraud and that it was the most honest and upstanding election in history (just how does anyone determine that?), which is an obvious lie!  MILLIONS and MILLIONS of people in this country had good cause to believe the election was rigged, fraudulent, and that their government was NOT being honest with them, and THAT is why the capitol riot happened, not because Trump lost, but for the unacceptable manner in which he was handed a defeat and we were told not to even question it.

The government lied and people fought back.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

toobefreak wrote: But the one overriding fact that CANNOT be glazed over is WHY IT HAPPENED. It didn't happen because Trump lost, it {Jan6} happened because the election was held unlike any other in history, violating many rules and breaking many state laws, opening a virtual floodgate of opportunities for cheating and corruption, 21SEP04-POST#439 21SEP04-POST#4

NFBW wrote: I’m trying to follow your argument but it appears to be too absurd to follow. Logic must ask if it didn’t happen because Trump lost would it have happened if Trump won? My logic says it would not have happened if Trump won.

NFBW wrote: You are contending that Trump’s MAGA mob assaulted the certification of the election because the “election was held unlike any other in history, violating many rules and breaking many state laws, opening a virtual floodgate of opportunities for cheating and corruption”.  Pardon my Polish. That is bullshitzki. 

NFBW wrote:  if Trump had won - there is no rational human being living in this era who would argue including right wing US CAPITOL rioters that the 2020 election changes and conditions, because of the pandemic, were any different in terms of election fraud than any previous election in modern history.

NFBW wrote:  Stop feeding the BIG LIE toobfreak.


----------



## toobfreak

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: I’m trying to follow your argument but it appears to be too absurd to follow.



If you think it absurd that people mobbed the Capitol in protest because an overtly improper and illegal election was held in the most unpropitious way while mocking anyone for even questioning it that resulted in the most unlikely of outcomes--- than an unpopular politician with no message nor campaign won decisively over a popular and successful president whose popularity had GROWN in his four years, then I don't know what else to say but that you are thick!

If someone breaks into your house but doesn't take or disturb anything, are you as upset as if they cleaned out the joint?

Let me spell it out for you:  the revolt at the capitol never would have happened if the election had been held as all presidential elections before were held irregardless of the outcome:  with people getting up and going to the polls and voting between 8AM and 8PM with a decision by the next morning essentially, and a few mail ins from people overseas, etc.

Instead, we got the screwiest election in history with a flat out reversal of the outcome happening in all the swing states in the dead of night after everyone was sent home with a guy winning whose chances frankly should have been about as likely as lightning striking the ocean floor.

Biddum's a fraud, a bum, an incompetent, he is everything and worse than what the Left accused Trump of being, and barely half way through his first year, he has already shocked not only all the people here including his own voters, but even all his so-called allies around the world.

As much as I dislike Biddum, if I thought for a second he was really honestly, fairly elected, I'd accept him, but all these organizations came forth bragging in print last winter that they worked tirelessly as SHADOW ORGANIZATIONS in secret to make sure that Trump lost.






So, tell me again that Bidden really won, won fair and square and honestly and that America should not feel cheated.

While you're at it, why not throw in how proud you are of the good job Joe did with Afghanistan, the border and illegal immigration, the national debt, energy and food costs, ending the covid crisis, not to mention prompting Americans to start snitching, spying on and turning in their family, friends and neighbors for anything which appears "abnormal."


----------



## NotfooledbyW

toobefreak wrote: ….. people mobbed the Capitol in protest because an overtly improper and illegal election was held in the most unpropitious way. 21SEP04-POST#441

NFBW: In America the loser candidate and all his losers of an election do not get to decide amongst themselves that the election was improper and illegal.. That’s as fucked up as our system of government can take. You need to be ashamed of yourself for supporting such unAmerican behavior. 21SEP04-POST#442


----------



## frigidweirdo

Astrostar said:


> Fact check: Some Republicans have tried to rewrite the history of January 6. Here's how | CNN Politics
> 
> 
> When the House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6 convenes for the first time, it will be against a backdrop of Republican objections and falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because history is what it is.  Despite the efforts of Trump and his Cult members in Congress to rewrite it to reflect positively on Trump, theirs is a lost cause.
> 
> Trump and his disciples, since January 6 have tried over and over to convince the American people that the insurrection was caused by Antifa, was a peaceful event with lots of love in the air or was just a guided tour of the Capital building.
> 
> We know better!  It was an aggressive attempt by white nationalists, inspired by Trump, to take over the government of the United States.  Anyone who sees it in a different light is not a loyal, patriotic American, but rather is a Trump disciple who places him above the Constitution of the United States and the welfare of the majority of the American people.
> 
> Today's congressional hearing will expose the Trump people who tried to storm the Capital for what they really are:  enemies of the American people.



Well, the whole of politics is people throwing narratives around. History will change as it'll not be the truth, it'll be a war between narratives.


----------



## frigidweirdo

NotfooledbyW said:


> toobefreak wrote: But the one overriding fact that CANNOT be glazed over is WHY IT HAPPENED. It didn't happen because Trump lost, it {Jan6} happened because the election was held unlike any other in history, violating many rules and breaking many state laws, opening a virtual floodgate of opportunities for cheating and corruption, 21SEP04-POST#439 21SEP04-POST#4
> 
> NFBW wrote: I’m trying to follow your argument but it appears to be too absurd to follow. Logic must ask if it didn’t happen because Trump lost would it have happened if Trump won? My logic says it would not have happened if Trump won.
> 
> NFBW wrote: You are contending that Trump’s MAGA mob assaulted the certification of the election because the “election was held unlike any other in history, violating many rules and breaking many state laws, opening a virtual floodgate of opportunities for cheating and corruption”.  Pardon my Polish. That is bullshitzki.
> 
> NFBW wrote:  if Trump had won - there is no rational human being living in this era who would argue including right wing US CAPITOL rioters that the 2020 election changes and conditions, because of the pandemic, were any different in terms of election fraud than any previous election in modern history.
> 
> NFBW wrote:  Stop feeding the BIG LIE toobfreak.



Was it held like none other? Or has this been happening forever? Back in JFK's era and before elections were exceedingly corrupt. 

The problem is the FPTP system leads to corruption. If you don't like corruption, change the system.

PR gives every person an equal vote. 

FPTP doesn't give every person an equal vote. My parents never had a say in their area once they moved to the place I grew up. The area is a hard core right wing area and my father (at least) is not right wing at all. So, whenever he voted, he KNEW his vote wouldn't count. 

If you care about democracy, change the system.

If you don't care about democracy, stop whining about stolen elections.


----------



## toobfreak

NotfooledbyW said:


> In America the loser candidate and all his losers of an election do not get to decide amongst themselves that the election was improper and illegal.. That’s as fucked up as our system of government can take. You need to be ashamed of yourself for supporting such unAmerican behavior.



A FEW THINGS:

If you want someone to see your post, you should try responding to THEM and not a generic thread reply.  You are only lucky I saw this, looked at it and realized it was intended for ME.
I never said that Trump or his supporters decided anything,  Millions of people decided it after looking at mountains of evidence supplied by thousands, and it goes on to this day.
Violating written state laws makes it illegal, not some person's word.
I don't need to be ashamed of anything.
Thank you for gaslighhting my post and avoiding all my talking points and not responding to any of them, instead gaslighting my comments by trying to change the subject.  That tells me you are only 40% stupid.  The other 60% is seditious, the very thing you claim I should be ashamed of.
Nice try, no cigar.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

toobfreak  wrote: Let me spell it out for you: the revolt at the capitol never would have happened if the election had been held as all presidential elections before were held irregardless of the outcome: with people getting up and going to the polls and voting between 8AM and 8PM with a decision by the next morning essentially, and a few mail ins from people overseas, etc. 21SEP04-POST#441

Every vote that was counted and certified as legal and legit no matter how it arrived to each voting district has been settled. Trump lost and Biden won. There is no disputing that reality except by the losers and they don’t have a leg to stand on. 21SEP04-POST#446


----------



## NotfooledbyW

toobfreak wrote:  3. Violating written state laws makes it illegal, not some person's word 21SEP04-POST#441

NFBW wrote: What states and what was illegal in those states that Trump voters went to the polls giving their consent that the election was legal until Trump lost? 21SEP05-POST#447


----------



## Faun

toobfreak said:


> If you think it absurd that people mobbed the Capitol in protest because an overtly improper and illegal election was held in the most unpropitious way while mocking anyone for even questioning it that resulted in the most unlikely of outcomes--- than an unpopular politician with no message nor campaign won decisively over a popular and successful president whose popularity had GROWN in his four years, then I don't know what else to say but that you are thick!
> 
> If someone breaks into your house but doesn't take or disturb anything, are you as upset as if they cleaned out the joint?
> 
> Let me spell it out for you:  the revolt at the capitol never would have happened if the election had been held as all presidential elections before were held irregardless of the outcome:  with people getting up and going to the polls and voting between 8AM and 8PM with a decision by the next morning essentially, and a few mail ins from people overseas, etc.
> 
> Instead, we got the screwiest election in history with a flat out reversal of the outcome happening in all the swing states in the dead of night after everyone was sent home with a guy winning whose chances frankly should have been about as likely as lightning striking the ocean floor.
> 
> Biddum's a fraud, a bum, an incompetent, he is everything and worse than what the Left accused Trump of being, and barely half way through his first year, he has already shocked not only all the people here including his own voters, but even all his so-called allies around the world.
> 
> As much as I dislike Biddum, if I thought for a second he was really honestly, fairly elected, I'd accept him, but all these organizations came forth bragging in print last winter that they worked tirelessly as SHADOW ORGANIZATIONS in secret to make sure that Trump lost.
> 
> View attachment 535105
> 
> So, tell me again that Bidden really won, won fair and square and honestly and that America should not feel cheated.
> 
> While you're at it, why not throw in how proud you are of the good job Joe did with Afghanistan, the border and illegal immigration, the national debt, energy and food costs, ending the covid crisis, not to mention prompting Americans to start snitching, spying on and turning in their family, friends and neighbors for anything which appears "abnormal."


----------



## Faun

toobfreak said:


> A FEW THINGS:
> 
> If you want someone to see your post, you should try responding to THEM and not a generic thread reply.  You are only lucky I saw this, looked at it and realized it was intended for ME.
> I never said that Trump or his supporters decided anything,  Millions of people decided it after looking at mountains of evidence supplied by thousands, and it goes on to this day.
> Violating written state laws makes it illegal, not some person's word.
> I don't need to be ashamed of anything.
> Thank you for gaslighhting my post and avoiding all my talking points and not responding to any of them, instead gaslighting my comments by trying to change the subject.  That tells me you are only 40% stupid.  The other 60% is seditious, the very thing you claim I should be ashamed of.
> Nice try, no cigar.


LOLOL 

"Mountains of evidence" that don't actually exist.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: I do not ‘think’ it. I read what both you and DJT said and understand language and what language means. 21SEP04-POST#435



Right here, this is fucking retarded. Why the fuck did you even post it?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: So, Trump; said something that you think contradicted what I said. 21SEP03-POST#427
> 
> NFBW wrote:  I do not ‘think’ it. I read what both you and DJT said and understand language and what language means. 21SEP04-POST#435
> 
> NFBW wrote: This means Jan6 was not about a recount:  “”” "Had Mike Pence had the courage to send the Electoral College vote back to the states for recertification, …. we would right now have a Republican President” DJT-21May15 official statement. “””  21SEP04-POST#435
> 
> NFBW wrote:   So when you wrote, “”” Stop a count and having a recount, is not overturning. 21JUL27-POST#63 “”” You are in fact contradicting your Dear Leader speaking to you from the Palace at Mar A Lago because DJT says Jan6 was about decertification of the 2020 election which will end somehow in making DJT the winner based on no recount - it would be based on simply having GOP legislators in key states DJT lost, assign new electors or some variance of the General Flynn plan which would cause chaos and declare martial law and void the election. Jan6 was exactly about overturning the election. 21SEP04-POST#435
> 
> NFBW wrote:   DJT says it is about overturning - Correll says it is not about overturning the election  - that is a contradiction. 21SEP04-POST#435
> 
> NFBW wrote:   Trump whacko lock her up General Michael Flynn: “”” 'I don’t know if he’s going to take any of these options. The president has to plan for every eventuality because we cannot allow this election and the integrity of our election to go the way it is,'' GenFlynn-20DEC17-martial law
> 
> Michael Flynn to Newsmax TV: Trump Has Options to Secure Integrity of 2020 Election     GenFlynn-20DEC17-martial law
> 
> ''This is just totally unsatisfactory. There’s no way in the world we’re going to be able to move forward as a nation with this. …
> ''He could immediately on his order seize every single one of these machines around the country on his order. He could also order, within the swing states, if he wanted to, he could take military capabilities and he could place them in those states and basically rerun an election in each of those states. It’s not unprecedented” - “These people out there talking about martial law like it’s something we’ve never done, Martial law has been instituted 64 times.” GenFlynn-20DEC17-martial law “””  21SEP04-POST#435





Trump thought that something could have been done to decertify the voting as fraudulent, at that time.

I think he was kidding himself. 


That is all there is there.

What the fuck are you even doing? Are you that desperate to avoid any real discussion? 

Admit that you are wrong on your, weird obsession with "white christian nationalists". You can still be a...whatever you are, A secular anti-white far lefty?


You just need to do a better job of... admitting your real motives.



IF, your real motives are such that you cannot admit them, then you have to face that.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: Summary: Republican, BIG LIE conservative, white cultural Christian nationalist, MAGA moron  Correll tried to change history and got caught. Now in his pissing and moaning stage. 21SEP04-POST#436
> 
> NFBW wrote:  21SEP04-POST#436 ThIs DJT statement is locked into history.
> 
> “”” "Had Mike Pence had the courage to send the Electoral College vote back to the states for recertification, …. we would right now have a Republican President” DJT-21May15 official statement. “””
> 
> NFBW 21SEP04-POST#436 wrote: It cannot be changed but  Correll tried to change it when he wrote this:
> 
> : “”” Stop a count and having a recount, is not overturning. 21JUL27-POST#63 “””
> 
> NFBW wrote: Another BIG LIE fail.  21SEP04-POST#436




I disagree with Trump how it would have turned out. 


That you think that means something big, is you... being at best weird, and at worst dishonest.


----------



## Correll

NoNukes said:


> Thank you for showing what a despicable person you are. Genocide is not that nonchalant.




My question was not rhetorical. Why do you whiners never whine about the Christians in Constantinople?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: The US invasion of Iraq led to the deaths of half a million Iraqis. Rather nonchalantly @Correll tells us he supported the start of killing some Iraqis in order to do nation building by the use of military power on them. And then he blames Iraqis for not making it go smoothly. 21SEP04-POST#438




Except we established that that was an error on my part. I did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT, and gave my support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation.


That you slam me for something we both know to be not true, is pretty sleazy of you.


But more important, that you feel you have to lie to slam me, shows that you know that the Truth is not something what works for you.


What is the implication of THAT, Not,?


----------



## toobfreak

NotfooledbyW said:


> Every vote that was counted and certified as legal and legit no matter how it arrived to each voting district has been settled.


In your dreams, BooBoo.  *No matter how it arrived?* That is the very antithesis of what every election we have ever held has stood for. That's the problem, millions of paper ballots were counted that did not meet the legal standards of a legitimate vote, and no one is going to stop looking into every detail of this fraud election no matter how much chumps like you keep trying to bury it until the full truth is revealed to the public and that fraudulent bum is carried out of the WH.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: I only bought into the nation building agenda AFTER the invasion, and AFTER the course was already set. 21AUG22-POST#3305

NFBW wrote:  Yes, Correll we have established that you “bought into the nation building agenda AFTER the invasion” and that means our “support” for post-invasion nation building is mutual. There is no disagreement on that between us. I’m glad my superior knowledge on the facts surrounding the ramp up to war enlightened you. But we continue to have a major difference when it comes down to supporting the invasion going in - BEFORE the course was already set,  as you said. 21SEP05-POST#456

NFBW 21SEP05-POST#456 Look at your most recent response: 

Correll wrote: I did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT, and gave my support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation. 21SEP05-POST#454

NFBW wrote: You, Correll told the entire world for all posterity that you “did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT.“ It means you did and still do support the invasion that ended up killing half a million Iraqis that disarming Iraq peacefully would not have killed to achieve the same result - a disarmed Iraq kept under long term monitoring. THE WMD THREAT REMOVED! 21SEP05-POST#456

NFBW wrote: I, on the other hand would paraphrase your statement thusly, “I did not support the invasion, but gave my support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation.” So Correll do you see the significant difference between you and me. You support the invasion. I never supported the invasion and never will. I agree with DJT - we Americans were fed a lie to make a war out of dusarming Iraq. You don’t agree with DJT on that. 21SEP05-POST#456


----------



## NotfooledbyW

toobfreak wrote:  That's the problem, millions of paper ballots were counted that did not meet the legal standards of a legitimate vote, 21SEP05 -POST#455

NFBW You, toobfreak say “millions of paper ballots” blah blah blah as if you have physical evidence to back that up - so …. how many failed, therefore illegal, ballots are out there and in which of the critical states do they exist? 21SEP05 -POST#457


----------



## Fang

Astrostar said:


> Fact check: Some Republicans have tried to rewrite the history of January 6. Here's how | CNN Politics
> 
> 
> When the House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6 convenes for the first time, it will be against a backdrop of Republican objections and falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because history is what it is.  Despite the efforts of Trump and his Cult members in Congress to rewrite it to reflect positively on Trump, theirs is a lost cause.
> 
> Trump and his disciples, since January 6 have tried over and over to convince the American people that the insurrection was caused by Antifa, was a peaceful event with lots of love in the air or was just a guided tour of the Capital building.
> 
> We know better!  It was an aggressive attempt by white nationalists, inspired by Trump, to take over the government of the United States.  Anyone who sees it in a different light is not a loyal, patriotic American, but rather is a Trump disciple who places him above the Constitution of the United States and the welfare of the majority of the American people.
> 
> Today's congressional hearing will expose the Trump people who tried to storm the Capital for what they really are:  enemies of the American people.



“Fact Check” - A CNN article. LMAO!!!


----------



## toobfreak

NotfooledbyW said:


> “millions of paper ballots” blah blah blah as if you have physical evidence to back that up



IDIOT-- -- the witnesses, affidavits, sworn testimony, video, and documentation of those ballots has been the subject here presented over and over for MONTHS here.

Either wake the fuck up and start READING the damned threads here and follow along or shut the hell up and stop posting stupid questions!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

toobfreak wrote:  That's the problem, millions of paper ballots were counted that did not meet the legal standards of a legitimate vote, 21SEP05-POST#455

NFBW wrote: You, toobfreak say “millions of paper ballots” blah blah blah as if you have physical evidence to back that up - so …. how many failed, therefore illegal, ballots are out there and in which of the critical states do they exist? 21SEP05-POST#457

toobfreak wrote: documentation of those ballots has been the subject here presented over and over for MONTHS here. 21SEP05-POST#459

NFBW wrote: OK toobfreak I will continue to search for what you defined in your post 21SEP05-POST#455 as “ millions of paper ballots were counted” but you should at least tell me which State actually “counted” millions of “paper” ballots that were not legitimate votes. ITS Your claim  that a state physically  “counted” illegit ballots that I’m trying to find in previous posts. Regarding  those illegal paper ballots that I’m searching for I cannot find any reference in any of your posts. 21SEP06-POST#460

NFBW wrote:  Searching back through January all I can find toobfreak was 21JAN18-POST#7 posted by you nothing about  “millions of illegal paper ballots” being counted 21SEP06-POST#460

toobfreak wrote: Phony election fraud:
forged signatures, ballot-box stuffing, ballot harvesting, paying for voting, offering raffle prizes for voting, voting in place of the deceased, doctoring ballots,
voting twice, not delivering opposition ballots, destroying opposition ballots,
backdating ballots, re-running ballots through counting machines, restricting access of poll observers, assaulting and threatening observers advising voters at the voting booth, ‘finding’ stacks of ballots hours and days later, feigning water main breaks to clear out voting precincts and then manipulate counting machines,
delivering truckloads of computer-generated ballots, employing software susceptible to vote-switching, and untold numbers other illegal and un-democratic schemes.  21JAN18-POST#7

1. Who delivered thousands of ballots by truck?
2. Who drove the trucks?
3. Did anyone have to pay for the trucks and drivers?
4. Who summoned the drivers, in the wee hours, and
5. who coordinated the delivery and timing?
6. Who instigated the ‘water main’ break, or the equivalent excuse, in Atlanta?
7. Who informed postal officials to instruct their workers to backdate ballots?
8. Who directed postal workers to doctor ballots?
9. Who directed poll workers to discard or destroy outside envelopes for mail-in ballots?
10. Where were the ballot mills located?
11. Who printed thousands of ‘Biden votes,’ and delivered them in pristine condition – thus indicating that the ballots had never been mailed, and virtually had never been handled.  21JAN18-POST#7

NFBW wrote:  You must recall toobfreak which state this illegal activity happened. So could you you tell me in order to find what you claim has been posted already. What state I am looking for? 21SEP06-POST#460


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Stop a count and having a recount, is not overturning. 21JUL27-POST#63

"Had Mike Pence had the courage to send the Electoral College vote back to the states for recertification, …. we would right now have a Republican President” DJT-21May15 official statement

NFBW wrote: The above DJT statement is all the proof any non-duped Democracy Loving American needs to be clear in understanding that Trump had a plan that involved a mob surrounding the Capitol where the intent was to overturn the election. 21SEP03-POST#416

"Had Mike Pence had the courage to send the Electoral College vote back to the states for recertification, …. we would right now have a Republican President” DJT-21May15 official statement

NFBW wrote: I am telling Correll he is wrong to claim that the Jan6 riot was not , about overturning.the election. Trump’s public statements make Correll ’s statement false. 21SEP06-POST#461

NFBW 21SEP06-POST#461 But now Correll says he thinks DJT was wrong:

Correll wrote: Trump thought that something could have been done to decertify the voting as fraudulent, at that time. I think he was kidding himself. 21SEP05-POST#428

NFBW wrote:  So the truth is still that DJT being wrong, which he always obviously was, does nothing to negate the fact that DJT told the world that the Jan6 rally pulled in rioters who believed their Dear Leader had a plan to overturn the election-  so they stormed the US Capitol. 21SEP06-POST#461


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: I only bought into the nation building agenda AFTER the invasion, and AFTER the course was already set. 21AUG22-POST#3305
> 
> NFBW wrote:  Yes, Correll we have established that you “bought into the nation building agenda AFTER the invasion” and that means our “support” for post-invasion nation building is mutual. There is no disagreement on that between us. I’m glad my superior knowledge on the facts surrounding the ramp up to war enlightened you. But we continue to have a major difference when it comes down to supporting the invasion going in - BEFORE the course was already set,  as you said. 21SEP05-POST#456
> 
> NFBW 21SEP05-POST#456 Look at your most recent response:
> 
> Correll wrote: I did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT, and gave my support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation. 21SEP05-POST#454
> 
> NFBW wrote: You, Correll told the entire world for all posterity that you “did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT.“ It means you did and still do support the invasion that ended up killing half a million Iraqis that disarming Iraq peacefully would not have killed to achieve the same result - a disarmed Iraq kept under long term monitoring. THE WMD THREAT REMOVED! 21SEP05-POST#456
> 
> NFBW wrote: I, on the other hand would paraphrase your statement thusly, “I did not support the invasion, but gave my support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation.” So Correll do you see the significant difference between you and me. You support the invasion. I never supported the invasion and never will. I agree with DJT - we Americans were fed a lie to make a war out of dusarming Iraq. You don’t agree with DJT on that. 21SEP05-POST#456




The point was that you slammed me for not caring about the "half a million dead" which is so vile of you on so many levels.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Stop a count and having a recount, is not overturning. 21JUL27-POST#63
> 
> "Had Mike Pence had the courage to send the Electoral College vote back to the states for recertification, …. we would right now have a Republican President” DJT-21May15 official statement
> 
> NFBW wrote: The above DJT statement is all the proof any non-duped Democracy Loving American needs to be clear in understanding that Trump had a plan that involved a mob surrounding the Capitol where the intent was to overturn the election. 21SEP03-POST#416
> 
> "Had Mike Pence had the courage to send the Electoral College vote back to the states for recertification, …. we would right now have a Republican President” DJT-21May15 official statement
> 
> NFBW wrote: I am telling Correll he is wrong to claim that the Jan6 riot was not , about overturning.the election. Trump’s public statements make Correll ’s statement false. 21SEP06-POST#461
> 
> NFBW 21SEP06-POST#461 But now Correll says he thinks DJT was wrong:
> 
> Correll wrote: Trump thought that something could have been done to decertify the voting as fraudulent, at that time. I think he was kidding himself. 21SEP05-POST#428
> 
> NFBW wrote:  So the truth is still that DJT being wrong, which he always obviously was, does nothing to negate the fact that DJT told the world that the Jan6 rally pulled in rioters who believed their Dear Leader had a plan to overturn the election-  so they stormed the US Capitol. 21SEP06-POST#461




You say that Trump said, "overturn", yet, that is not what you quote Trump sayihng above.

When you have to change what your enemy said, to make your point about your enemy, 

your point is wrong.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Astrostar said:


> Fact check: Some Republicans have tried to rewrite the history of January 6. Here's how | CNN Politics
> 
> 
> When the House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6 convenes for the first time, it will be against a backdrop of Republican objections and falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because history is what it is.  Despite the efforts of Trump and his Cult members in Congress to rewrite it to reflect positively on Trump, theirs is a lost cause.
> 
> Trump and his disciples, since January 6 have tried over and over to convince the American people that the insurrection was caused by Antifa, was a peaceful event with lots of love in the air or was just a guided tour of the Capital building.
> 
> We know better!  It was an aggressive attempt by white nationalists, inspired by Trump, to take over the government of the United States.  Anyone who sees it in a different light is not a loyal, patriotic American, but rather is a Trump disciple who places him above the Constitution of the United States and the welfare of the majority of the American people.
> 
> Today's congressional hearing will expose the Trump people who tried to storm the Capital for what they really are:  enemies of the American people.



They should probably start tearing down statues and monuments


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: The point was that you slammed me for not caring about the "half a million dead" which is so vile of you on so many levels. 21SEP06-POST#462

NFBW  21SEP06-POST#465 I’ll decide what my points are - not you. The point is articulated here: 

NFBW wrote: You, Correll told the entire world for all posterity that you “did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT.“ It means you did and still do support the invasion that ended up killing half a million Iraqis that disarming Iraq peacefully would not have killed to achieve the same result - a disarmed Iraq kept under long term monitoring. THE WMD THREAT REMOVED! 21SEP05-POST#456

NFBW wrote: You did and still do support the invasion that ended up killing half a million Iraqis that disarming Iraq peacefully would not have killed to achieve the same result. That is a fact. That is the point. 21SEP06-POST#465

NFBW wrote:  Deal with it 21SEP06-POST#465


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: The point was that you slammed me for not caring about the "half a million dead" which is so vile of you on so many levels. 21SEP06-POST#462
> 
> NFBW  21SEP06-POST#465 I’ll decide what my points are - not you. The point is articulated here:
> 
> NFBW wrote: You, Correll told the entire world for all posterity that you “did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT.“ It means you did and still do support the invasion that ended up killing half a million Iraqis that disarming Iraq peacefully would not have killed to achieve the same result - a disarmed Iraq kept under long term monitoring. THE WMD THREAT REMOVED! 21SEP05-POST#456
> 
> 
> NFBW wrote:  Deal with it 21SEP06-POST#46




Wrong on several levels as we have repeatedly discussed, Wally.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Wrong on several levels as we have repeatedly discussed, 21SEP06-POST#466  

NFBW  21SEP06-POST#467 Tell me what is wrong with my 21SEP06-POST#465 commentary? 

NFBW wrote: You Correll did and still do support the invasion that ended up killing half a million Iraqis that disarming Iraq peacefully would not have killed to achieve the same resulting . 21SEP06-POST#465

Can you point to anything in 21SEP06-POST#465 that is not true? So what is wrong with it?  21SEP06-POST#467


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Wrong on several levels as we have repeatedly discussed, 21SEP06-POST#466
> 
> NFBW wrote:  Tell me what is wrong with my 21SEP06-POST#465 commentary?  21SEP06-POST#467
> 
> NFBW wrote: You Correll did and still do support the invasion that ended up killing half a million Iraqis that disarming Iraq peacefully would not have killed to achieve the same resulting . 21SEP06-POST#465
> 
> Can you point to anything in 21SEP06-POST#465 that is not true? So what is wrong with it?  21SEP06-POST#467




i've done so many times before. 


Why have you devolved into a mindless spam bot? SAY SOMETHING NEW, YOU  LOSER.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> i've done so many times before.



You never have and it will be a shock if you ever will. You are a liar.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> You never have and it will be a shock if you ever will. You are a liar.



SAY SOMETHING NEW.


----------



## toobfreak

NotfooledbyW said:


> so …. how many failed, therefore illegal, ballots are out there and in which of the critical states do they exist?
> which State actually “counted” millions of “paper” ballots that were not legitimate votes.
> forged signatures, ballot-box stuffing, ballot harvesting, paying for voting, offering raffle prizes for voting, voting in place of the deceased, doctoring ballots, voting twice, not delivering opposition ballots, destroying opposition ballots, backdating ballots, re-running ballots through counting machines, restricting access of poll observers, assaulting and threatening observers advising voters at the voting booth, ‘finding’ stacks of ballots hours and days later, feigning water main breaks to clear out voting precincts and then manipulate counting machines, delivering truckloads of computer-generated ballots, employing software susceptible to vote-switching, and untold numbers other illegal and un-democratic schemes.
> 1. Who delivered thousands of ballots by truck?
> 2. Who drove the trucks?
> 3. Did anyone have to pay for the trucks and drivers?
> 4. Who summoned the drivers, in the wee hours, and
> 5. who coordinated the delivery and timing?
> 6. Who instigated the ‘water main’ break, or the equivalent excuse, in Atlanta?
> 7. Who informed postal officials to instruct their workers to backdate ballots?
> 8. Who directed postal workers to doctor ballots?
> 9. Who directed poll workers to discard or destroy outside envelopes for mail-in ballots?
> 10. Where were the ballot mills located?
> 11. Who printed thousands of ‘Biden votes,’ and delivered them in pristine condition – thus indicating that the ballots had never been mailed, and virtually had never been handled.  21JAN18-POST#7
> could you you tell me in order to find what you claim has been posted already. What state I am looking for? 21SEP06-POST#460



Apparently the operative word in NotfooledbyW moniker is the word FOOL.  He sleeps through months and hundreds of threads, then demands to be taught all handed him on a silver platter while standing on one leg!

Apparently he also missed that since last November 3, all his questions have been reported by the press as being totally BASELESS and DEBUNKED.  Yet apparently still can't tell us HOW, WHERE, WHEN, or by WHO!  Nah.  Without realizing it, Fooledbyeverything has let it slip out that he really knows more than he lets on, is acting dumb, and is just gaslighting the topic again hoping that I'll bite and get led on a merry chase around in circles by him! 

When leftists ask you questions, it is never to learn or to see if they could be wrong or don't know something, it is always asked on the assumption that they already know everything, are right about everything, and just are hoping to jerk others around by a chain.


----------



## toobfreak

NotfooledbyW said:


> You never have and it will be a shock if you ever will. You are a liar.





Correll said:


> SAY SOMETHING NEW.



Notice how all these idiots ever say is how wrong others are, how they lied or are brainwashed, but can never provide even a hair of evidence to support a thing they ever say?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> SAY SOMETHING NEW



NFBW wrote:  Show us you are not a liar by referencing the post where you think you found something wrong with my 21SEP06-POST#465 commentary?  21SEP06-POST#473 

NFBW wrote: Tell me what is wrong with my 21SEP06-POST#465 commentary? 21SEP06-POST#467

NFBW wrote You Correll did and still do support the invasion that ended up killing half a million Iraqis that disarming Iraq peacefully would not have killed to achieve the same resulting . 21SEP06-POST#465

NFBW wrote:  Can you point to anything in 21SEP06-POST#465 that is not true? So what is wrong with it? 21SEP06-POST#467

NFBW wrote:  Do you still support the invasion that killed half a million Iraqis 21SEP06-POST#473

NFBW wrote:  Do You dissagree with DJT that invading Iraq was a huge disaster? 21SEP06-POST#473


----------



## NotfooledbyW

toobfreak wrote: Notice how all these idiots ever say is how wrong others are, how they lied or are brainwashed, but can never provide even a hair of evidence to support a thing they ever say? 21SEP05-POST#472

NFBW You, toobfreak say “millions of paper ballots” blah blah blah as if you have physical evidence to back that up - so …. how many failed, therefore illegal, ballots are out there and in which of the critical states do they exist? 21SEP05 -POST#457

NFBW wrote: You must recall toobfreak which state this illegal activity happened. So could you you tell me in order to find what you claim has been posted already. What state I am looking for? 21SEP06-POST#460

NFBW wrote:  If you have no idea which state physically “counted” illegit and illegal paper ballots please say it.  Then I won’t have to search for something that does not exist. It didn’t happen is the answer. 21SEP06-POST#474

NFBW wrote: perhaps Correll knows which state physically “counted” millions of illegit and illegal paper ballots ? 21SEP06-POST#474


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: Do You dissagree with DJT that invading Iraq was a huge disaster? 21SEP06-POST#473




I've clearly and concisely said that I think it is too early to tell. 

Did you forget? Or are you just being a spam bot again?


----------



## toobfreak

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: NFBW wrote: NFBW wrote NFBW wrote: NFBW wrote: NFBW wrote:



God what a pedantic idiot.


----------



## Correll

toobfreak said:


> God what a pedantic idiot.




He obviously has severe aspergers, yet refuses to acknowledge that that means he is going to SUCK at understanding the motivations and internal world of others. 


He INSISTS on making EXTREMELY self serving assumptions about what other people think, and then attacking them based on that.

And when he tries to justify his attacks, and starts declaring certain opinions "Facts", he gets really twisted up. 


If he was not so rude in the process, i would feel sorry for him.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: I've clearly and concisely said that I think it is too early to tell. 21SEP06-POST#475

NFBW 21SEP06-POST#478 Here is what you were asked: 

NFBW wrote: Do You dissagree with DJT that I N V A D I N G Iraq was a huge disaster? 21SEP06-POST#473

NFBW wrote: Do you agree that the invasion itself - the decision to invade - was a huge disaster? We all hope the nation building in Iraq works out in the long run but that was not the reason that Iraq was invaded.  21SEP06-POST#478

NFBW 21SEP06-POST#478 wrote:  I Just came across an interesting perspective on the invasion of Iraq from one of our Christian posters: 

@emilyngheim wrote: However, even though I believe the arguments about WMD were valid, and these chemical weapons were most likely moved into Syria and used later, this was not PROVEN as in due process before making a decision to act and deprive citizens of liberty. 16SEP28-POST#443-SyriaWMD

NFBW wrote:  She brings up an astute point when she wrote “ not PROVEN as in due process before making a decision to act and deprive citizens of liberty.” 21SEP06-POST#478 

NFBW wrote:  Correll supported and supports the invasion that deprived the half a million Iraqi people who died of life and their liberty without due pricess. 21SEP06-POST#478


----------



## toobfreak

Correll said:


> He obviously has severe aspergers,



I think that is true of most all of the Lefties here.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: I've clearly and concisely said that I think it is too early to tell. 21SEP06-POST#475
> 
> NFBW 21SEP06-POST# to Here is what you were asked:
> 
> NFBW wrote: Do You dissagree with DJT that invading Iraq was a huge disaster? 21SEP06-POST#473
> 
> NFBW wrote: Do you agree that the invasion itself - the decision to invade - was a huge disaster? We all hope the nation building in Iraq works out in the long run but that was not the reason that Iraq was invaded.  21SEP06-POST#4
> 
> NFBW 21SEP06-POST#4 wrote:  I Just came across an interesting perspective on the invasion of Iraq from one of our Christian posters:
> 
> @emilyngheim wrote: However, even though I believe the arguments about WMD were valid, and these chemical weapons were most likely moved into Syria and used later, this was not PROVEN as in due process before making a decision to act and deprive citizens of liberty. 16SEP28-POST#443-SyriaWMD
> 
> She brings up an astute point when she wrote “ not PROVEN as in due process before making a decision to act and deprive citizens of liberty.” 21SEP06-POST#




I think I see what you are asking. Now phrase it as a question, without the chaff, and I will happily answer it. 


Are you capable of that?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

toobfreak said:


> God what a pedantic idiot.




Just want to know your source for your accusation that a state counted millions of ballots knowing they were illegal and you and Correll together can’t find one.


----------



## toobfreak

NotfooledbyW said:


> Just want to know your source for your accusation that a state counted millions of ballots knowing they were illegal and you and Correll together can’t find one.



Moron, they were all found and counted long ago.  Go watch an I Love Lucy episode so you don't hurt your brain any further trying to think.


----------



## toobfreak

Correll said:


> I think I see what you are asking. Now phrase it as a question, without the chaff, and I will happily answer it.
> Are you capable of that?



I have $50 bucks that says he isn't.


----------



## Correll

toobfreak said:


> I have $50 bucks that says he isn't.




No one will take that action. Not at any odds.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Now phrase it as a question, without the chaff, and I will happily answer it.




NFBW wrote: Do You dissagree with DJT that invading Iraq was a huge disaster? 21SEP06-POST#473


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: Do You dissagree with DJT that invading Iraq was a huge disaster? 21SEP06-POST#473




That was your question?  Then what was all that crap about what the other poster thought? Was that just filler? Or were you trying to imply other shit but when called to get serious, you walked it back?


And I just answered that, AGAIN, just minutes ago. Why are you talking in circles so much?  What you are running away from?


Any ways, i said I would answer if you could actual phrase a question, so here is my answer AGAIN.


It is too early to tell. Ask me again in twenty years. 


If Iraq is a functioning democracy, and the Arab Street has taken notice, and Islamic Fundamentalism seems even a little less of an unstoppable Tide, then I would have to say it worked out, despite being harder than it was supposed to.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> It is too early to tell.



Like I told you - that is not an answer to the question. That applies to nation building which was not the reason Iraq was invaded. Was the invasion itself a disaster.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: If Iraq is a functioning democracy, and the Arab Street has taken notice, and Islamic Fundamentalism seems even a little less of an unstoppable Tide, then I would have to say it worked out, despite being harder than it was supposed to. 21SEP06-POST#475

NFBW 21SEP06-POST#488 wrote: I know you understand that nation building and the reason for invasion are two separate things because you announced it when you wrote this:

Correll wrote: I did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT, and gave my support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation. 21SEP05-POST#454

NFBW wrote: So why do you now, since APRIL 2003, support the decision by W to invade Iraq In order to remove the threat of WMD by giving that decision costing $7 trillion and 5000 American lives 40 years to work out? 21SEP06-POST#488


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Like I told you - that is not an answer to the question. That applies to nation building which was not the reason Iraq was invaded. Was the invasion itself a disaster.



You do not have the right to tell me what to base my opinion on. 


IMO, the deciding factor as to whether or not the Invasion of Iraq was a good idea, is in the long  term results.


That is a valid response. That fact that you do not like it, is not an excuse to pretend that I have not already answered it, repeatedly.

Indeed, Pretending  that I did not answer it repeatedly, when I did, if you being fucked in the head.


You are engaged in magical thinking right up there with Voo Doo Dolls and lucky rabbit feet.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: You do not have the right to tell me what to base my opinion on. 21SEP06-POST#489

NFBW wrote: Don’t give a damn about your opinion on nation building. I have the same exact opinion on the long term impact of nation building working out as you. 21SEP06-POST#490

NFBW wrote: Based on the fact (yes these are facts) that the US Military operation in Iraq that W decided to launch instead of allowing the peaceful process of disarming Iraq continue has been over since 2012, do you agree or disagree   with DJT that the invasion/decision to invade was a disaster? 21SEP06-POST#490


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: IMO, the deciding factor as to whether or not the Invasion of Iraq was a good idea, is in the long term results. 21SEP06-POST#489

NFBW wrote:  Correll hides once again under the cover of opinion by ignoring facts. The invasion of Iraq was not a friggin’ idea. It was a serious military reaction to a perceived threat primarily that the dictator would allow his stockpile of chemical WMD to fall into the hands of terrorists. There are no long term results to we wait to come in because the WMD threat has been removed when we found they did not exist. 

And we cannot compare the historical record of what would have happened if W had let the peaceful disarming of Iraq to remove the threat of WMD continue - except that peaceful inspections would not have caused half a million Iraqis to die. 21SEP07-POST#491

NFBW wrote:   I’m wishing Correll could think about those dead Iraqis in the context of the other option that was available to W besides starting a war. 21SEP07-POST#491

NFBW wrote:   And think about what a Christian poster had to say on the subject a while back.  Just food for thought 21SEP07-POST#491

NFBW 21SEP07-POST#491 wrote:   Don’t know why Correll has to piss and moan about food for thought from a Christian perspective. 

@emilyngheim wrote: So people who don't BELIEVE war was necessary, but BELIEVE diplomatic solutions could be accomplished by connecting DIRECTLY with the Iraqi people and academic leaders and clergy deserved that chance, and are owed restitution for destruction caused by bypassing their right to petition to redress grievances peacefully. 16SEP28-POST#443-peace

@emilyngheim wrote: I tend to favor the decision of war once it is made. But I do recognize this decision and its justification as necessary wasn't proven to all citizens, and was faith-based. 16SEP28-POST#443-Peace Reposted by NFBW 21SEP07-POST#491


----------



## NotfooledbyW

toobfreak wrote: Moron, they were all found and counted long ago. 21SEP05-POST#482



NFBW wrote: You said there were millions of paper ballots illegally counted so you should be able to tell me counted in which state. If you can’t you are a liar. What state? 21SEP05-POST#492


----------



## themirrorthief

postman said:


> It wasn't a riot, it was an insurrection.  And it wasn't the FBI, or BLM or Antifa behind it.  It was those waiving Trump flags, and carrying the stars and bars while chanting hang Mike Pence, that were behind it.


you were there  why arent you in jail then


----------



## themirrorthief

Astrostar said:


> Fact check: Some Republicans have tried to rewrite the history of January 6. Here's how | CNN Politics
> 
> 
> When the House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6 convenes for the first time, it will be against a backdrop of Republican objections and falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because history is what it is.  Despite the efforts of Trump and his Cult members in Congress to rewrite it to reflect positively on Trump, theirs is a lost cause.
> 
> Trump and his disciples, since January 6 have tried over and over to convince the American people that the insurrection was caused by Antifa, was a peaceful event with lots of love in the air or was just a guided tour of the Capital building.
> 
> We know better!  It was an aggressive attempt by white nationalists, inspired by Trump, to take over the government of the United States.  Anyone who sees it in a different light is not a loyal, patriotic American, but rather is a Trump disciple who places him above the Constitution of the United States and the welfare of the majority of the American people.
> 
> Today's congressional hearing will expose the Trump people who tried to storm the Capital for what they really are:  enemies of the American people.


that explains why they  were  unarmed


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Iraq 2003 gave birth to Republican BIG LIES and BIG LIARS 

May 22, 2021
Correll wrote: Hint: You don't have to spend the time to source my own words. I remember saying those words, and I don't play dishonest games like you libs do. 21MAY22-POST#1013

NFBW wrote: We found Correll has been remembering the ramp up to war in IRAQ wrong and faked and falsely for 18 years as part of typical Republican BIG LIES to re-write history from invading Iraq to invading the Capitol JAN6. Just another honest mistake was it? 21SEP07-POST#495



Correll said:


> decision was made to NOT invade Iraq, I would have been fine with that.



May 22, 2021
Correll wrote: These were not my "GOALS" but my personal reason for supporting the policy of invasion.  - I am discussing the "peaceful process of disarmament" because YOU are obsessed with it.  - IF, Saddam had been able to provide evidence that his wmds had been destroyed and support for the invasion collapsed and the decision was made to NOT invade Iraq, I would have been fine with that. - I realized at the time, that invasion was a costly gamble. NOT doing it would have been fine with me too.
21MAY22-POST#1013

NFBW wrote: We can see (above) that prior to the invasion Correll does remember that the peaceful option was absolutely available to W and it would have been fine with Correll to not take the costly gamble of invading Iraq for any reason other than disarming the dictatorship. Just keep that in mind. 21SEP07-POST#495

AUGUST 08 2021
Correll wrote: As I have told you many times, I supported the decision to invade Iraq. 21AUG08-POST#3010

NFBW wrote: But (above) was not true and bad memory was to blame. But then somehow weeks after the invasion began Newt GINGRICH  and Charles Krauthammer convinced Correll that the decision that was already made was not to disarm Iraq of WMD but to militarily  convert Iraq into a functional democracy even though the only known plan and preparation for nation building at the time was to be greeted as liberators and Iraq oil would pay the cost. 21SEP07-POST#495

SEPTEMBER 05 2021
Correll wrote: I did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT, and gave my support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation. 21SEP05-POST#454

NFBW wrote: SUPPORTING nation building once militarily committed to regime change through use of force is normal, even obligatory.  21SEP07-POST#495

@emilyngheim wrote: Now, I happen to agree with you and others that once the decision is made to go to war, the US should follow through until it is completely resolved, or it puts the troops, the nations and security at risk. 16SEP28-POST#443-NB. 

NFBW wrote: Supporting nation building as the reason for invading Iraq, after the fact,  is not normal. In @Correll’s case it is clear that when the hidden WMD case for war dissolved before his very eyes and the national election looming as the mess in Iraq was escalating, as a Republican first and American last Correll went all in spreading BIG LIES about the ramp up to war - including the preposterous lie that nation building was actually a reason to support the decision to invade in the first place.   21SEP07-POST#495


----------



## toobfreak

NotfooledbyW said:


> toobfreak wrote: Moron, they were all found and counted long ago. 21SEP05-POST#482
> 
> 
> 
> NFBW wrote: You said there were millions of paper ballots illegally counted so you should be able to tell me counted in which state. If you can’t you are a liar. What state? 21SEP05-POST#492




It has all been documented here in numerous threads linking to many published articles about the ongoing developments and findings.  If you do not already know this then you obviously do not care, and if you are too stupid to follow these threads here or look these things up for yourself or do your own internet search, you should move to a small island in Tahiti.

However, if you need me to spend my valuable time doing these simple tasks for you, please remit $25 donation to USMB, and I will accept that as payment for my time (1 hour) and will be forthwith with all the links you can handle.


----------



## colfax_m

toobfreak said:


> It has all been documented here in numerous threads linking to many published articles about the ongoing developments and findings.  If you do not already know this then you obviously do not care, and if you are too stupid to follow these threads here or look these things up for yourself or do your own internet search, you should move to a small island in Tahiti.
> 
> However, if you need me to spend my valuable time doing these simple tasks for you, please remit $25 donation to USMB, and I will accept that as payment for my time (1 hour) and will be forthwith with all the links you can handle.



The big lie is a grift. It’s always been the grift. Top to bottom.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

toobfreak said:


> It has all been documented here in numerous threads linking to many published articles about the ongoing developments and findings.




You are a liar. 

You said there were millions of paper ballots illegally counted so you should be able to tell me counted in which state.

You cant so you are a liar.


----------



## toobfreak

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar.


And yet offer no proof of it or anything else you say.



NotfooledbyW said:


> You said there were millions of paper ballots illegally counted so you should be able to tell me counted in which state.


I didn't say that.  All the people who recorded the millions of fake ballots coming in the middle of the night after all GOP witnesses were forced home was recorded by them last Fall, by video camera, witness and affidavit!  Jesus!  Wake the fuck up, idiot!



NotfooledbyW said:


> You cant so you are a liar.


I just don't respond to nor jump for idiot trolls like you.  And since you can't corroborate any of the stupid things you say, no sense wasting further time with a leftwing moron.  IGNORE you you.  Bye, troll!  Up yers!!!


----------



## jbrownson0831

Astrostar said:


> Fact check: Some Republicans have tried to rewrite the history of January 6. Here's how | CNN Politics
> 
> 
> When the House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6 convenes for the first time, it will be against a backdrop of Republican objections and falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because history is what it is.  Despite the efforts of Trump and his Cult members in Congress to rewrite it to reflect positively on Trump, theirs is a lost cause.
> 
> Trump and his disciples, since January 6 have tried over and over to convince the American people that the insurrection was caused by Antifa, was a peaceful event with lots of love in the air or was just a guided tour of the Capital building.
> 
> We know better!  It was an aggressive attempt by white nationalists, inspired by Trump, to take over the government of the United States.  Anyone who sees it in a different light is not a loyal, patriotic American, but rather is a Trump disciple who places him above the Constitution of the United States and the welfare of the majority of the American people.
> 
> Today's congressional hearing will expose the Trump people who tried to storm the Capital for what they really are:  enemies of the American people.


Hahahahahahahahaha a Dimmer statue destroyer/book burner lecturing us on changing history hahahahahahaha


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: You do not have the right to tell me what to base my opinion on. 21SEP06-POST#489
> 
> NFBW wrote: Don’t give a damn about your opinion on nation building. I have the same exact opinion on the long term impact of nation building working out as you. 21SEP06-POST#490
> 
> NFBW wrote: Based on the fact (yes these are facts) that the US Military operation in Iraq that W decided to launch instead of allowing the peaceful process of disarming Iraq continue has been over since 2012, do you agree or disagree   with DJT that the invasion/decision to invade was a disaster? 21SEP06-POST#490




So, you are wanting to judge the invasion without looking at the long term results?

That is the most pathetic thing you have tried yet. And that is really saying something.

DUde. You have LOST.


Lets go back to talking about why you are motivated to spread hate and division. 


Why do you want to do that?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: IMO, the deciding factor as to whether or not the Invasion of Iraq was a good idea, is in the long term results. 21SEP06-POST#489
> 
> NFBW wrote:  Correll hides once again under the cover of opinion by ignoring facts. The invasion of Iraq was not a friggin’ idea. It was a serious military reaction to a perceived threat primarily that the dictator would allow his stockpile of chemical WMD to fall into the hands of terrorists. There are no long term results to we wait to come in because the WMD threat has been removed when we found they did not exist.
> 
> And we cannot compare the historical record of what would have happened if W had let the peaceful disarming of Iraq to remove the threat of WMD continue - except that peaceful inspections would not have caused half a million Iraqis to die. 21SEP07-POST#491
> 
> NFBW wrote:   I’m wishing Correll could think about those dead Iraqis in the context of the other option that was available to W besides starting a war. 21SEP07-POST#491
> 
> NFBW wrote:   And think about what a Christian poster had to say on the subject a while back.  Just food for thought 21SEP07-POST#491
> 
> NFBW 21SEP07-POST#491 wrote:   Don’t know why Correll has to piss and moan about food for thought from a Christian perspective.
> 
> @emilyngheim wrote: So people who don't BELIEVE war was necessary, but BELIEVE diplomatic solutions could be accomplished by connecting DIRECTLY with the Iraqi people and academic leaders and clergy deserved that chance, and are owed restitution for destruction caused by bypassing their right to petition to redress grievances peacefully. 16SEP28-POST#443-peace
> 
> @emilyngheim wrote: I tend to favor the decision of war once it is made. But I do recognize this decision and its justification as necessary wasn't proven to all citizens, and was faith-based. 16SEP28-POST#443-Peace Reposted by NFBW 21SEP07-POST#491




Nice word salad. Your inability to make a clear point, is always fun to see. 

But I guess spam boting shit you think is anti-American, is really all you care about.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: We can see (above) that prior to the invasion @Correll does remember that the peaceful option was absolutely available to W and it would have been fine with @Correll




That is a lie. Surely you remember that I did not believe that peaceful disarmament was possible. 

Everything after that, is based on you lying. And thus nothing but garbage.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Surely you remember that I did not believe that peaceful disarmament was possible. 21SEP07-POST#503 

NFBW wrote: Of course I remember that. It’s one of the stupidest come ments you’ve made on any subject. 21SEP07-POST#504

NFBW wrote:  The fact is you were aware at the time that W had an option to allow Iraq to be peaceably disarmed and leave SH in power. I cited your post 21MAY22-POST#1013  where you wrote that if the decision was made to NOT invade Iraq you would have been fine with that. That was the point and you have not addressed that point by falsely calling me a liar. 21SEP07-POST#504


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: The fact is you were aware at the time that W had an option to allow Iraq to be peaceably disarmed and leave SH in power. I



i was "aware" of no such thing. I did not believe that was an option. Not sure why you insist on lying about what I said.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Your inability to make a clear point, is always fun to see. 21SEP07-POST#502

Correll wrote: IMO, the deciding factor as to whether or not the Invasion of Iraq was a good idea, is in the long term results. 21SEP06-POST#489

NFBW wrote:  Why do you think the invasion oF Iraq was an idea? 21SEP07-POST#506

NFBW wrote:   The invasion of Iraq was authorized by Congress to enforce UNSC resolutions relevant to WMD disarmament. There are no long term results needing consideration. 21SEP07-POST#506


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Your inability to make a clear point, is always fun to see. 21SEP07-POST#502
> 
> Correll wrote: IMO, the deciding factor as to whether or not the Invasion of Iraq was a good idea, is in the long term results. 21SEP06-POST#489
> 
> NFBW wrote:  Why do you think the invasion oF Iraq was an idea? 21SEP07-POST#506
> 
> NFBW wrote:   The invasion of Iraq was authorized by Congress to enforce UNSC resolutions relevant to WMD disarmament. There are no long term results needing consideration. 21SEP07-POST#506




When you ask me MINE opinion on whether or not something was a success or not, it is up to me what I consider the standards to judge it by.


That  you need that explained to you, is a function of your social disorder. 

That you pretend to not realize that, is you being dishonest and a jerk.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW wrote: The fact is you were aware at the time that W had an option to allow Iraq to be peaceably disarmed and leave SH in power. 21SEP07-POST#504

Correll wrote: i was "aware" of no such thing. 21SEP07-POST#505

NFBW 21SEP07-POST#508 Did you write this, Correll: 

Correll wrote: IF, Saddam had been able to provide evidence that his wmds had been destroyed and support for the invasion collapsed and the decision was made to NOT invade Iraq, I would have been fine with that. - I realized at the time, that invasion was a costly gamble. NOT doing it would have been fine with me too.
21MAY22-POST#1013



Correll said:


> IF, Saddam had been able to provide evidence that his wmds had been destroyed and support for the invasion collapsed and the decision was made to NOT invade Iraq, I would have been fine with that.



NFBW wrote: When you wrote “and the decision was made to NOT invade Iraq” you are referring to W aren’t you Correll and it is regarding W’s option to not invade Iraq is it not? 21SEP07-POST#508


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: The fact is you were aware at the time that W had an option to allow Iraq to be peaceably disarmed and leave SH in power. 21SEP07-POST#504
> 
> Correll wrote: i was "aware" of no such thing. 21SEP07-POST#505
> 
> NFBW 21SEP07-POST#508 Did you write this, Correll:
> 
> Correll wrote: IF, Saddam had been able to provide evidence that his wmds had been destroyed and support for the invasion collapsed and the decision was made to NOT invade Iraq, I would have been fine with that. - I realized at the time, that invasion was a costly gamble. NOT doing it would have been fine with me too.
> 21MAY22-POST#1013
> 
> 
> 
> NFBW wrote: When you wrote “and the decision was made to NOT invade Iraq” you are referring to W aren’t you Correll and it is regarding W’s option to not invade Iraq is it not? 21SEP07-POST#508




I was clear that my denial was about the option of "peaceful disarmament", not, "not invading", so your pretense of not understanding that, is not credible.

So, stop talking shit.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW wrote: The fact is you were aware at the time that W had an option to allow Iraq to be peaceably disarmed and leave SH in power. 21SEP07-POST#504

Correll wrote: i was "aware" of no such thing. 21SEP07-POST#505

Correll wrote: I was clear that my denial was about the option of "peaceful disarmament", not, "not invading", 21SEP07-POST#509


NFBW 21SEP07-POST#510  Did you write this Correll?

Correll wrote:  - I am discussing the "peaceful process of disarmament" 21MAY22-POST#1013

NFBW wrote:  The record shows you were very aware that W had an option to allow Iraq to be peaceably disarmed and leave SH in power.. -  So you lied. 21SEP07-POST#510

NFBW 21SEP07-POST#510   And you answered this question: 

NFBW wrote:  Would you have still supported the war based on nation building in the event that United Nations Security Council inspectors had successfully disarmed Iraq being declared in full compliance with all United Nations Security Council resolutions as described in 1441? 21MAY14 POST#758b NFBW reposted 21SEP07-POST#510


----------



## GoBucks007

Damaged Eagle said:


> View attachment 517861
> 
> Tell us again how you feared for your life but survived the protest after the only people with firearms, namely the Capitol police, murdered a unarmed female protestor.
> 
> I'm sure you were terrified!
> 
> *****SMILE*****


It's good that she got shot...   but that's what happens.

After all, when you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.. lol.

I wonder if Trump ever sent her family any money since she gave up her life for the the orange turd?

If she has any kids... I wonder what they are going to think about their mom being an insurrectionist... and dying for a narcissist.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: The fact is you were aware at the time that W had an option to allow Iraq to be peaceably disarmed and leave SH in power. 21SEP07-POST#504
> 
> Correll wrote: i was "aware" of no such thing. 21SEP07-POST#505
> 
> Correll wrote: I was clear that my denial was about the option of "peaceful disarmament", not, "not invading", 21SEP07-POST#509
> 
> Correll wrote:  - I am discussing the "peaceful process of disarmament" 21MAY22-POST#1013
> 
> NFBW 21SEP07-POST#510    The record shows you were very aware that W had an option to allow Iraq to be peaceably disarmed and leave SH in power.. -  So you lied. 21SEP07-POST#510
> ....



That I discussed it, does not mean I agreed that it was a valid option. 


Did you seriously think, that the act of me discussing the issue that you cared about so fucking much, meant that I was thus agreeing with you that it was valid, despite my repeatedly  and clear statements to the contrary?


That you would make such an assumption, not mention it to me and then build... what? a house of cards of ideas on top of that insanely flimsy foundation,


And then attack me for not... conforming to this shit you just make up and imagined?


Seriously not. What the fuck is wrong with you? I mean, Aspergers? Does that even really cover it? Something is seriously wrong with your brain, 


OR, you are just being a trolling spam bot, spaming anti-American and anti-White and Anti-Christian bullshit. 


Which is it? And while we are at it, why do you want to spread hate and division?


----------



## Correll

GoBucks007 said:


> It's good that she got shot...   but that's what happens.
> 
> After all, when you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.. lol.
> 
> I wonder if Trump ever sent her family any money since she gave up her life for the the orange turd?
> 
> If she has any kids... I wonder what they are going to think about their mom being an insurrectionist... and dying for a narcissist.




Depends on  how shit goes. She might go down as someone dying to prevent a true shit storm, that came later because not enough people joined her at the right time.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

GoBucks007 said:


> It's good that she got shot...   but that's what happens.
> 
> After all, when you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.. lol.
> 
> I wonder if Trump ever sent her family any money since she gave up her life for the the orange turd?
> 
> If she has any kids... I wonder what they are going to think about their mom being an insurrectionist... and dying for a narcissist.








Sounds like president Biden needs to publicly award that police officer a medal of valor immediately.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW wrote: The fact is you were aware at the time that W had an option to allow Iraq to be peaceably disarmed and leave SH in power. 21SEP07-POST#504

Correll wrote: i was "aware" of no such thing. 21SEP07-POST#505

Correll wrote: That I discussed it, does not mean I agreed that it was a valid option. 21SEP07-POST#512

NFBW wrote: That you discussed it means you were fully aware at the time that W had an option to allow Iraq to be peaceably disarmed and leave SH in power. 21SEP07-POST#515


NFBW wrote: The record for reality buffs shows that  peacefully disarming Iraq  was a valid option for W all the way to at least MARCH 6 .2003  I cant see how @Correll’s ‘fuck the UN warmongering attitude mattered  or changed reality in any way. 21SEP07-POST#515





__





						President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference
					

<a href="/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.v.smil"></a>Good evening. I'm pleased to take your questions tonight, and to discuss with the American people the serious matters facing our country and the world.



					georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov
				




“”” I'm hopeful that he does disarm. But, in the name of peace and the security of our people, if he won't do so voluntarily, we will disarm him.”””


----------



## NotfooledbyW

“”” “Nothing will stop us….they can try and try and try but the storm is here and it is descending upon DC in less than 24 hours….dark to light!”  Babbitt-21JAN05-storm “””

NFBW 21SEP08-POST#516 wrote: A white female Q-Anon Biblical minded cultist joins the mob on Jan6 in DC videoing and narrating her march from where she got fighting instructions outside the White House to the Capitol. Her last recording before storming the Capitol and getting killed included emulating her Dear Leader’s penchant for exaggerating his own mob sizes over the years. 

“”” “We are walking to the Capitol in a mob. There’s an estimated over three million people here today,”  “There is a sea of nothing but red, white and blue patriots for Trump,”  “God bless America, patriots.” Babbitt-21JAN06-mob “””

Correll wrote: Depends on how shit goes. She might go down as someone dying to prevent a true shit storm, that came later because not enough people joined her at the right time. 21SEP07-POST#513

NFBW wrote: I get what you are saying Correll - are you gonna be a man and join “the storm” the next time DJT makes the call? 21SEP08-POST#516

“”” White women’s deaths have long been leveraged for propaganda, from the 19th century Klu Klux Klan to the militia movements of the 1990s to Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, which often invoked their killing at the hands of undocumented immigrants.









						'Our First Martyr.' How Ashli Babbitt Is Being Turned Into a Far-Right Recruiting Tool
					

"Are you a patriot? Are you a man? Avenge her death.”




					www.google.com
				




“Women are the tools that soften the edges of the far right,” says Seyward Darby, a journalist who researches the role of women in white-nationalist movements. For many of these groups, a white woman who is harmed or killed is the most powerful galvanizing force, Darby says. “They had been talking about how it’s a matter of life or death, but now they have an example. Are you a patriot? Are you a man? Avenge her death.”  Jan6-TIME-BabbitMartyr-a  “””


“”” In the final months of her life, Babbitt’s posts took on a biblical fervor, casting Trump’s supporters as warriors in an epic battle of good versus evil. 









						'Our First Martyr.' How Ashli Babbitt Is Being Turned Into a Far-Right Recruiting Tool
					

"Are you a patriot? Are you a man? Avenge her death.”




					www.google.com
				




Her last tweet, sent after she arrived in Washington on Jan. 5, read: “Nothing will stop us….they can try and try and try but the storm is here and it is descending upon DC in less than 24 hours….dark to light!” The reference to the “storm” is a key tenet of the QAnon conspiracy, the day adherents believe a violent reckoning will expose the deep state and bring Trump’s enemies to justice.  Jan6-TIME-BabbitMartyr-b “””

NFBW wrote: So Correll how does extreme right wing martyring of an anti-democracy lunatic prevent a true shit storm in the future when she was a huge part of the DJT inspired shitstorm trying to cancel millions of black American votes in cities like Detroit Philadelphia Atlanta Phoenix and Milwaukee? 21SEP08-POST#516


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: i was "aware" of no such thing. 21SEP07-POST#505

Correll wrote: That I discussed it, does not mean I agreed that it was a valid option. 21SEP07-POST#512

NFBW wrote: If you disagree with the damn near entire world including the Pope in Rome that Iraq could be disarmed peacefully it means as a matter of fact that you are aware of the fact that W had an option to allow Iraq to be disarmed peacefully and avoid war. 21SEP07-POST#517


----------



## Independentthinker

Astrostar said:


> Fact check: Some Republicans have tried to rewrite the history of January 6. Here's how | CNN Politics
> 
> 
> When the House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6 convenes for the first time, it will be against a backdrop of Republican objections and falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because history is what it is.  Despite the efforts of Trump and his Cult members in Congress to rewrite it to reflect positively on Trump, theirs is a lost cause.
> 
> Trump and his disciples, since January 6 have tried over and over to convince the American people that the insurrection was caused by Antifa, was a peaceful event with lots of love in the air or was just a guided tour of the Capital building.
> 
> We know better!  It was an aggressive attempt by white nationalists, inspired by Trump, to take over the government of the United States.  Anyone who sees it in a different light is not a loyal, patriotic American, but rather is a Trump disciple who places him above the Constitution of the United States and the welfare of the majority of the American people.
> 
> Today's congressional hearing will expose the Trump people who tried to storm the Capital for what they really are:  enemies of the American people.


Well, we do know that Democrats want to change history and cancel it out.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: That you discussed it means you were fully aware at the time that W had an option to allow Iraq to be peaceably disarmed and leave SH in power. 21SEP07-POST#515




No, it doesn't. I clearly and repeatedly expressed my belief that it was NOT  a viable option with long and detailed explanations.

Your belief system that the fact I discussed it, indicated agreement, is delusional at best. 



That you are holding to this nonsense, when I am expressly telling you  that I disagree, is a sign of how insane your overall logic and world view  has been, consistently.


We are talking about what I THINK, and you are arguing  with me about it, as though you are a better authority on my internal thoughts than I am.


You have all the insight into other people, of a  potted plant. 


Assuming that the potted plant  is dead.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> “”” White women’s deaths have long been leveraged for propaganda, from the 19th century Klu Klux Klan




Stopped reading here. Not. 


Only a fucking asshole would make a Klan reference like that. It is completely uncalled for. You are being a complete wace baiting  asshole now.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Stopped reading here. Not. - Only a fucking asshole would make a Klan reference like that. It is completely uncalled for. You are being a complete wace baiting asshole now 21SEP08-POST#520

NFBW 21SEP08-POST#5 wrote: If Correll stopped reading there he cannot know what this quote was in reference to.

“”” White women’s deaths have long been leveraged for propaganda, from the 19th century Klu Klux Klan “””

NFBW 21SEP08-POST#521  I have no idea why that would send Correll into a piss and moan fit. Had Correll kept reading he would have realized the quote was from TIME Magazine and was written by Seyward Darby, a journalist who researches the role of martyrdom of harmed white women like Ashley Babbitt in white-nationalist movements. No one is accused of supporting the Klan - There is no race baiting.

 Darby wrote: “”” “Women are the tools that soften the edges of the far right,” says Seyward Darby, a journalist who researches the role of women in white-nationalist movements. For many of these groups, a white woman who is harmed or killed is the most powerful galvanizing force, Darby says. “They had been talking about how it’s a matter of life or death, but now they have an example. Are you a patriot? Are you a man? Avenge her death.” Jan6-TIME-BabbitMartyr-a “””

NFBW 21SEP08-POST#521  I believe Darby’s point is relevant in a discussion about Babbitt’s death and more potential political violence by her fellow Trump supporters who have already begun leveraging Babbit’s death for propaganda purposes. 

NFBW 21SEP08-POST#521 So if Correll can find the balls to read a post to the end perhaps he can answer this question: 

“”” NFBW wrote: So Correll how does extreme right wing martyring of an anti-democracy lunatic prevent a true shit storm in the future when she was a huge part of the DJT inspired shitstorm trying to cancel millions of black American votes in cities like Detroit Philadelphia Atlanta Phoenix and Milwaukee? 21SEP08-POST#516 “””


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: We are talking about what I THINK, and you are arguing with me about it, as though you are a better authority on my internal thoughts than I am.  21SEP08-POST#519

NFBW wrote:  I am certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that @Correll’s POST#1013 on May 22 2021 is not an internal thought. 21SEP08-POST#522

NFBW wrote: Is what you put in writing Correll on MAY 22 2021 in POST#1013 your “thinking” and word that you would have been fine with W’s decision not to invade Iraq  -(no invasion and no nation building obligation) - if SH had provided evidence that his WMDs had been destroyed 21SEP08-POST#522

Correll wrote:  IF, Saddam had been able to provide evidence that his wmds had been destroyed and support for the invasion collapsed and the decision was made to NOT invade Iraq, I would have been fine with that. - I realized at the time, that invasion was a costly gamble. NOT doing it would have been fine with me too. 21MAY22-POST#1013

NFBW wrote: What authoritative process do you Correll  “THINK” would have received and considered the evidence on destroyed WMD IF, Saddam had been able to provide evidence that his wmds had been destroyed? 21SEP08-POST#522


----------



## Batcat

Damaged Eagle said:


> View attachment 517861
> 
> Tell us again how you feared for your life but survived the protest after the only people with firearms, namely the Capitol police, murdered a unarmed female protestor.
> 
> I'm sure you were terrified!
> 
> *****SMILE*****


Democrats love violent mobs if they support liberal causes and looting, burning and even murder are just fine.

Along comes an unarmed mob of Trump Deplorables and liberals piss their panties. 









						Flashback 2020: Six Months of Antifa/BLM Looting, Rioting, and Chaos
					

If there is any “two systems of justice” situation here, it’s that there are one set of rules for right-wing rioters and none for left-wing rioters who terrorized entire communities for months on end in 2020.




					legalinsurrection.com
				




_






If there is any “two systems of justice” situation here, it’s that there are one set of rules for right-wing rioters and none for left-wing rioters who terrorized entire communities for months on end in 2020

On Thursday, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris used their platforms as the next POTUS and VPOTUS of the United States to gaslight the American people with their dishonest comparison of Wednesday’s Capitol Hill riots to the Antifa/Black Lives Matter looting and riots that happened in Democrat-run cities for over six months in the aftermath of the death of George Floyd.

Biden threw gasoline on the fire by proclaiming that “No one can tell me that if it had been a group of Black Lives Matter protesting yesterday, they wouldn’t have been treated very, very differently than the mob of thugs that stormed the Capitol.”

Harris did her part in lighting a match as well, declaring that “We witnessed two systems of justice when we saw one that let extremists storm the United States Capitol, and another that released tear gas on peaceful protesters last summer.”

In reality, in most instances the radicals in BLM and Antifa were allowed to get away with their heinous actions last year, even being treated as heroes by the mainstream press and Democrats – some of whom, like Harris and the Biden campaign, promoted their bail funds._









						At least 25 Americans were killed during protests and political unrest in 2020
					

Findings from Armed Conflict Location and Event Data raise concerns about continued violence during and after election day




					www.theguardian.com
				












						More Than 2,000 Officers Injured in Summer's Protests and Riots
					

More than 2,000 law enforcement officers were injured in the first weeks of protests over the summer following the in-custody death of George Floyd, according to a report from the Major Cities Chiefs Association.




					www.policemag.com


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: I recall Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer making that argument. - There was a national debate on this issue and those who supported war, made their side's case. - And they won. 21MAY14-POST#741-debateN

NFBW wrote: There was no such national debate that war supporters won. That is one of @Correll’s futile attempts to rewrite the history of the ramp up to war in Iraq. One subset of this particular BIG LIE is the part that “nation building” as push back against Islamic extremism was part of that pre-war national debate in support of war BIG LIE. 21SEP09-POST#524


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Your belief system that the fact I discussed it, indicated agreement, is delusional at best. 21SEP08-POST#519

NFBW 21SEP09-POST#525 wrote: Aware = having knowledge or perception of a situation. Being aware of a situation does not indicate agreement or disagreement or any opinion at all.

NFBW 21SEP09-POST#525 wrote:  I am aware of Trump’s racist birtherism in 2012 when Trump in a tweet encouraged Mitt Romney, to press the birther issue during a debate. In his tweet, Trump cited a promotional booklet for Obama’s autobiography that inaccurately says he was born in Kenya. The booklet was discovered by the right wing news outlet, Breitbart, and it was published with a disclaimer that Trump, being a birther, conveniently ignored. 

NFBW 21SEP09-POST#525 wrote:  Here is the BREITBART disclaimer;

“”” Andrew Breitbart was never a “Birther,” and Breitbart News is a site that has never advocated the narrative of “Birtherism.” In fact, Andrew believed, as we do, that President Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961.

… [W]e discovered, and now present, the booklet described below — one that includes a marketing pitch for a forthcoming book by a then-young, otherwise unknown former president of the Harvard Law Review.









						Did Obama's Literary Agent Say He Was Born in Kenya?
					

A 1991 literary promotional booklet identified Barack Obama as having been born in Kenya.




					www.snopes.com
				




It is evidence — not of the President’s foreign origin, but that Barack Obama’s public persona has perhaps been presented differently at different times. DJT2012-birtherBREI “””

NFBW wrote:  So tell me Correll when I tell you am aware of proof of Trump’s Birtherism in 2012 and many other times, it means that I agree with it and I am a birther as well. 21SEP09-POST#535


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Stopped reading here. Not. - Only a fucking asshole would make a Klan reference like that. It is completely uncalled for. You are being a complete wace baiting asshole now 21SEP08-POST#520
> 
> NFBW 21SEP08-POST#5 wrote: If Correll stopped reading there he cannot know what this quote was in reference to.
> 
> “”” White women’s deaths have long been leveraged for propaganda, from the 19th century Klu Klux Klan “””
> 
> NFBW 21SEP08-POST#521  I have no idea why that would send Correll into a piss and moan fit. Had Correll kept reading he would have realized the quote was from TIME Magazine and was written by Seyward Darby, a journalist who researches the role of martyrdom of harmed white women like Ashley Babbitt in white-nationalist movements. No one is accused of supporting the Klan - There is no race baiting.
> 
> Darby wrote: “”” “Women are the tools that soften the edges of the far right,” says Seyward Darby, a journalist who researches the role of women in white-nationalist movements. For many of these groups, a white woman who is harmed or killed is the most powerful galvanizing force, Darby says. “They had been talking about how it’s a matter of life or death, but now they have an example. Are you a patriot? Are you a man? Avenge her death.” Jan6-TIME-BabbitMartyr-a “””
> 
> NFBW 21SEP08-POST#521  I believe Darby’s point is relevant in a discussion about Babbitt’s death and more potential political violence by her fellow Trump supporters who have already begun leveraging Babbit’s death for propaganda purposes.
> 
> NFBW 21SEP08-POST#521 So if Correll can find the balls to read a post to the end perhaps he can answer this question:
> 
> “”” NFBW wrote: So Correll how does extreme right wing martyring of an anti-democracy lunatic prevent a true shit storm in the future when she was a huge part of the DJT inspired shitstorm trying to cancel millions of black American votes in cities like Detroit Philadelphia Atlanta Phoenix and Milwaukee? 21SEP08-POST#516 “””




I have no idea what you are talking about. My point was your vile race baitng.


You seem to spend most of your time, doing nothing but working hard to spread hate, racism and division.


Why are you such a vile and hateful person?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: We are talking about what I THINK, and you are arguing with me about it, as though you are a better authority on my internal thoughts than I am.  21SEP08-POST#519
> 
> NFBW wrote:  I am certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that @Correll’s POST#1013 on May 22 2021 is not an internal thought. 21SEP08-POST#522
> 
> NFBW wrote: Is what you put in writing Correll on MAY 22 2021 in POST#1013 your “thinking” and word that you would have been fine with W’s decision not to invade Iraq  -(no invasion and no nation building obligation) - if SH had provided evidence that his WMDs had been destroyed 21SEP08-POST#522
> 
> Correll wrote:  IF, Saddam had been able to provide evidence that his wmds had been destroyed and support for the invasion collapsed and the decision was made to NOT invade Iraq, I would have been fine with that. - I realized at the time, that invasion was a costly gamble. NOT doing it would have been fine with me too. 21MAY22-POST#1013
> 
> NFBW wrote: What authoritative process do you Correll  “THINK” would have received and considered the evidence on destroyed WMD IF, Saddam had been able to provide evidence that his wmds had been destroyed? 21SEP08-POST#522




I was discussing my opinion on the issue. I gave you my answer.

Your attempt to assign to me, a Premise of an external Authority to judge the issue for me, is rejected.


My answer stands. Would you like to address it?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: I recall Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer making that argument. - There was a national debate on this issue and those who supported war, made their side's case. - And they won. 21MAY14-POST#741-debateN
> 
> NFBW wrote: There was no such national debate that war supporters won. That is one of @Correll’s futile attempts to rewrite the history of the ramp up to war in Iraq. One subset of this particular BIG LIE is the part that “nation building” as push back against Islamic extremism was part of that pre-war national debate in support of war BIG LIE. 21SEP09-POST#524




What is this relevant to? 

We disagree on this issue. You want to pretend that people make decisions based on singular reasons, when EVERYONE knows that is false. 


You restating our disagreement is stupid. YOu didn't even make a note of me being white.  Seems pointless even for you.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Your belief system that the fact I discussed it, indicated agreement, is delusional at best. 21SEP08-POST#519
> 
> NFBW 21SEP09-POST#525 wrote: Aware = having knowledge or perception of a situation. Being aware of a situation does not indicate agreement or disagreement or any opinion at all.
> 
> NFBW 21SEP09-POST#525 wrote:  I am aware of Trump’s racist birtherism in 2012 when Trump in a tweet encouraged Mitt Romney, to press the birther issue during a debate. In his tweet, Trump cited a promotional booklet for Obama’s autobiography that inaccurately says he was born in Kenya. The booklet was discovered by the right wing news outlet, Breitbart, and it was published with a disclaimer that Trump, being a birther, conveniently ignored.
> 
> NFBW 21SEP09-POST#525 wrote:  Here is the BREITBART disclaimer;
> 
> “”” Andrew Breitbart was never a “Birther,” and Breitbart News is a site that has never advocated the narrative of “Birtherism.” In fact, Andrew believed, as we do, that President Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961.
> 
> … [W]e discovered, and now present, the booklet described below — one that includes a marketing pitch for a forthcoming book by a then-young, otherwise unknown former president of the Harvard Law Review.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did Obama's Literary Agent Say He Was Born in Kenya?
> 
> 
> A 1991 literary promotional booklet identified Barack Obama as having been born in Kenya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.snopes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is evidence — not of the President’s foreign origin, but that Barack Obama’s public persona has perhaps been presented differently at different times. DJT2012-birtherBREI “””
> 
> NFBW wrote:  So tell me Correll when I tell you am aware of proof of Trump’s Birtherism in 2012 and many other times, it means that I agree with it and I am a birther as well. 21SEP09-POST#535




Why did you call Trump's Birtherism "racist"? How did that contribute to your question?

Cause to me, it looks like I made a  valid point, ,and instead of you addressing it, you went for a topic change and peppered it with race baiting.


Describe how that "racism" comment contributed to the question, or admit that you were just being a race baiting asshole.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Why did you call Trump's Birtherism "racist"? 21SEP09-POST#529

NFBW wrote: Because I like to see racist apologist like you piss and moan in denial they support a racist like DJT. 21SEP09-POST#530

NFBW wrote: Because it is. I am not the only one that thinks so. I agree with Colin Powell in this matter 21SEP09-POST#530

“”” “Yup, the whole birther movement was racist, that’s what the 99% believe. When Trump couldn’t keep that up he said he also wanted to see if the certificate noted that he was a Muslim." 16AUG21-C.Powell-birtherDJT “””

“”” Powell is right. Birtherism is racism. The lie that the president was not born in America was an attack on the legitimacy of America’s first black president. The lie that the president is a Muslim is a play for votes based on bigotry against Muslims and fear of Muslims—which is based on another lie, that Muslims as a group should be tarred as terrorists when the truth is the exact opposite. WPOST-Budowsky-09/16/16-DJTracist POSTED BY NFBW 21SEP09-POST#530


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Why did you call Trump's Birtherism "racist"? 21SEP09-POST#529
> 
> NFBW wrote: Because I like to see racist apologist like you piss and moan in denial they support a racist like DJT. 21SEP09-POST#530
> .....



So, it had nothing to do with your question. You admit that you were just peppering your post with wace baiting, to be a troll.


What an asshole you are being. Why are you like this?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> We disagree on this issue



No. you are a liar on this issue. There was no national debate whether to invade Iraq or not, including justifying war based on nation building as a strategic military tactic against terrorists, that took  place ending with the AUMF that was passed in October 2002 authorizing the use of military force against Iraq with only one true purpose- to disarm Iraq of WMD.

Do you have never backed up your nation building lie with anything. You are a liar. You can disagree and say the earth is not a sphere it’s flat but that’s not a disagreement that’s just proof of you are  an idiot.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> No. you are a liar on this issue. There was no national debate whether to invade Iraq or not, including justifying war based on nation building as a strategic military tactic against terrorists, that took  place ending with the AUMF that was passed in October 2002 authorizing the use of military force against Iraq with only one true purpose- to disarm Iraq of WMD.
> 
> Do you have never backed up your nation building lie with anything. You are a liar. You can disagree and say the earth is not a sphere it’s flat but that’s not a disagreement that’s just proof of you are  an idiot.




"ONE TRUE PURPOSE"?

DUde. NO ONE IS BUYING YOUR BULLSHIT THAT PEOPLE THINK LIKE MACHINES.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> I was discussing my opinion on the issue.



And the only way you could discuss your opinion on the matter was by being aware of it in the first place.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> "ONE TRUE PURPOSE"?
> 
> DUde. NO ONE IS BUYING YOUR BULLSHIT THAT PEOPLE THINK LIKE MACHINES.



It’s in the AUMF - enforce relevant UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq’s unlawful possession of WMD. There is no other reason.You have never been able to overcome that fact, the truth, that reality and you still stick to your big lie.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> And the only way you could discuss your opinion on the matter was by being aware of it in the first place.




Aware of, does not mean agreement. 


Stop being so crazy.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> It’s in the AUMF - enforce relevant UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq’s unlawful possession of WMD. There is no other reason.You have never been able to overcome that fact, the truth, that reality and you still stick to your big lie.




Your pretense that if it was not in the AUMF that it did not exist, is stupid.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Aware of, does not mean agreement



You’re a liar because I’ve made that point to you, you idiot. I have never said that aware of means agreement. I have pointed that out to you. You ignore it because you’re committed to lies.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Your pretense that if it was not in the AUMF that it did not exist, is stupid.



I have never suggested that the nation building argument did not exist. The point is in the AUMF there is only one clear precise concise explicit reason that W was being authorized by Congress to invade Iraq if necessary. Nation building is not part of it, it was never considered, there was no national debate on it.

That is the truth and when you deny it you are lying.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Your pretense that if it was not in the AUMF that it did not exist, is stupid



It is in no way a pretense you Liar and dodger. You cannot be made any clear and precise and explicit than this.

On October 2, 2002, John Kerry said, 
“The vote that I will give to the president is for one reason and one reason only, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections.” 02OCT02-KERRY-AUMF-01


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> You’re a liar because I’ve made that point to you, you idiot. I have never said that aware of means agreement. I have pointed that out to you. You ignore it because you’re committed to lies.




Your previous  post was built on conflating the two terms.

Your denial now, is you...just being a liar.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> I have never suggested that the nation building argument did not exist. The point is in the AUMF there is only one clear precise concise explicit reason that W was being authorized by Congress to invade Iraq if necessary. Nation building is not part of it, it was never considered, there was no national debate on it.
> 
> That is the truth and when you deny it you are lying.




The national debate was huge, and wide ranging. Your pretense that it not being in the AUMF, means that it was not part of it, 


is retarded.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> It is in no way a pretense you Liar and dodger. You cannot be made any clear and precise and explicit than this.
> 
> On October 2, 2002, John Kerry said,
> “The vote that I will give to the president is for one reason and one reason only, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections.” 02OCT02-KERRY-AUMF-01




Kerry was one person. His personal motivations were his. Perhaps he was an one issue person. 

That means NOTHING for anyone not him.


Your pretense of confusion on this, I hope you are just being a liar here.

If you are really this fucked in the head, I feel sorry for you.


That is not... a rhetorical device. If this is the real you, I really feel sorry for you.


Have you  talked to a real doctor about your social disorder?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Kerry was one person. His personal motivations were his. Perhaps he was an one issue person.



But Kerry demanded that his personal motivation and one reason to go to war was written into the language of the AUMF Or as he states he would not have voted for it. If you believe in the Constitution of the United States, and the separation of powers there would have been no invasion of Iraq and there definitely would have been no attempt at nation building if there was no authority for W to invade.

Is it your contention here that W was not bound by the AUMF? Do you think Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer authorized the war based on nation building and that’s why W did it? 

Answer the question Correll - Does  the language Authorizing military force in the AUMF reflect what you call the “personal motivations quote of John KERRY?

If you agree that it does it means that Senator John Kerry’s “personal motivation” was shared by every congress member and senator that voted to give W authority to use military force in Iraq if necessary.

And that means your deviation from reality on this topic is absurd


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: IF, Saddam had been able to provide evidence that his wmds had been destroyed and support for the invasion collapsed and the decision was made to NOT invade Iraq, I would have been fine with that. - I realized at the time, that invasion was a costly gamble. NOT doing it would have been fine with me too. 21MAY22-POST#1013

NFBW wrote: I pointed out that the above statement proves Correll was aware that W had the option to peacefully disarm Iraq and avoid war., 21SEP10-POST#545

NFBW wrote: We can see (above) that prior to the invasion Correll does remember that the peaceful option was absolutely available to W and it would have been fine with Correll to not take the costly gamble of invading Iraq for any reason other than disarming the dictatorship. Just keep that in mind. 21SEP07-POST#495

NFBW wrote: Correll goes on an absurd piss and moan diversion and complaint that I think I’m a better authority on his “internal thoughts” than he is. WTF is that lunatic whining about in POST#519? 21SEP10-POST#545

Correll wrote: We are talking about what I THINK, and you are arguing with me about it, as though you are a better authority on my internal thoughts than I am. 21SEP08-POST#519

NFBW wrote: Regarding the above paragraph POST#519 on  the record written by Correll, I asked the following question:  21SEP10-POST#545

NFBW wrote: Is what you put in writing Correll on MAY 22 2021 in POST#1013 your “thinking” and word that you would have been fine with W’s decision not to invade Iraq -(no invasion and no nation building obligation) - if SH had provided evidence that his WMDs had been destroyed 21SEP08-POST#522


NFBW wrote: Correll has not answered that question. 21SEP10-POST#545

NFBW wrote: The truth is, I am talking about what you think Correll based on what you write. You say “IF, Saddam had been able to provide evidence that his wmds had been destroyed …  and the decision was made to NOT invade Iraq ….. you would have been fine with that. 21SEP08-POST#545

NFBW wrote: You Correll with that statement you acknowledge, perhaps unwittingly because you are stupid, that you were aware that W had an option to peacefully disarm Iraq and avoid war. It’s called reality. 21SEP10-POST#545


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW wrote: Republicans try to change history in many ways. Correll has a very unique BIG LIE going with regard to the ramp up to war in Iraq. The Administration’s ramp up by fear-mongering on WMD that generally began around Labor Day 2002 and ended with the announcement of the start of BLITZKRIEG SHOCK and AWE by W on March 19, 2003. 21SEP10-POST#546

NFBW 21SEP10-POST#546 wrote:  On May 11, 2021 Correll answered in the affirmative (based on faulty memory which I will discuss later) that he supported the launch of  BLITZKRIEG SHOCK and AWE for the reason stated in his 21MAY11POST#639 see next paragraph.



Correll said:


> Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer



Correll wrote: Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer made a convincing argument and got me to believe that an Arab population was ready to support a democratic government, and that such a functioning nation in the middle of the ME would be our answer to Islam. 21MAY11-POST#639 * reposted by NFBW 21SEP10-POST#546

NFBW wrote: Correll ‘s BIG LIE on Iraq that begins with  POST#639 has been debunked., NFBW 21SEP10-POST#546


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> But Kerry demanded that his personal motivation and one reason to go to war was written into the language of the AUMF Or as he states he would not have voted for it. If you believe in the Constitution of the United States, and the separation of powers there would have been no invasion of Iraq and there definitely would have been no attempt at nation building if there was no authority for W to invade.
> 
> Is it your contention here that W was not bound by the AUMF? Do you think Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer authorized the war based on nation building and that’s why W did it?
> 
> Answer the question Correll - Does  the language Authorizing military force in the AUMF reflect what you call the “personal motivations quote of John KERRY?
> 
> If you agree that it does it means that Senator John Kerry’s “personal motivation” was shared by every congress member and senator that voted to give W authority to use military force in Iraq if necessary.
> 
> And that means your deviation from reality on this topic is absurd




It does not mean that Kerry's personal motivation was shared b y every congress man, nor that every congressman did NOT have additional reasons that they, not being drama queens, did not insist on being written into the bill. 

It means very little. 

Your attempt to inflate it, has failed.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: IF, Saddam had been able to provide evidence that his wmds had been destroyed and support for the invasion collapsed and the decision was made to NOT invade Iraq, I would have been fine with that. - I realized at the time, that invasion was a costly gamble. NOT doing it would have been fine with me too. 21MAY22-POST#1013
> 
> NFBW wrote: I pointed out that the above statement proves Correll was aware that W had the option to peacefully disarm Iraq and avoid war., 21SEP10-POST#545
> .....



DIscussing a hypothetical does not mean that I considered it a true, viable alternative. 


Normal people understand that. 


Is this a sign of how extreme your social disorder is, or are you just being dishonest?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: Republicans try to change history in many ways. Correll has a very unique BIG LIE going with regard to the ramp up to war in Iraq. The Administration’s ramp up by fear-mongering on WMD that generally began around Labor Day 2002 and ended with the announcement of the start of BLITZKRIEG SHOCK and AWE by W on March 19, 2003. 21SEP10-POST#546
> 
> NFBW 21SEP10-POST#546 wrote:  On May 11, 2021 Correll answered in the affirmative (based on faulty memory which I will discuss later) that he supported the launch of  BLITZKRIEG SHOCK and AWE for the reason stated in his 21MAY11POST#639 see next paragraph.
> 
> 
> 
> Correll wrote: Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer made a convincing argument and got me to believe that an Arab population was ready to support a democratic government, and that such a functioning nation in the middle of the ME would be our answer to Islam. 21MAY11-POST#639 * reposted by NFBW 21SEP10-POST#546
> 
> NFBW wrote: Correll ‘s BIG LIE on Iraq that begins with  POST#639 has been debunked., NFBW 21SEP10-POST#546




You are just being an asshole now. I made a very understandable mistake. You harping on it, is just you being an asshole.


What is your point in this, or are you  just, SOLELY being an asshole?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW wrote:  Answer the question Correll - Does the language Authorizing military force in the AUMF reflect what you call the “personal motivations quote of John KERRY? 21SEP09-POST#544


Correll wrote: It does not mean that Kerry's personal motivation was shared by every congress man,. 21SEP10-POST#547


NFBW wrote: The WMD argument Giving W authority to use military force against Iraq  was to enforce relevant UNSC Resolutions. WMD was the only argument that was voted by a majority and signed into law. 1SEP10-POST#5

Nation building was not a UNSC resolution.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> DIscussing a hypothetical does not mean that I considered it a true, viable alternative.



NFBW wrote: There is no way in anything I have ever posted that suggests that your discussing  a hypothetical means that you considered it a true, viable alternative. I say you were aware at the the time that W had the option to allow Iraq to be disarmed peacefully and no invasion to do regime change. I know you do not believe in what you were aware of because you are stupid Correll. 21SEP10-POST#551


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: @Correll ‘s BIG LIE on Iraq that begins with POST#639 has been debunked., NFBW 21SEP10-POST#546



NFBW wrote: Correll has fabricated a BIG LIE that ‘nation building’ was part of the “national debate” regarding the necessity of preemptive war against Iraq. 21SEP11-POST#552

Correll wrote: There was a national debate on this issue and those who supported war, made their side's case. And they won. 21May14- POST#741

NFBW wrote:  That claim in 21May14- POST#741 is a lie. Prior to the invasion those who supported a decision by W to invade Iraq as authorized by Congress, based their support on one defined threat - from SH using WMD himself or giving them to al Qaeda to hiding stockpiles from the 1441 inspectors. That is the ONLY reason. There was no national debate - W held all the cards on WMD due to limited public access to intelligence sources. 21SEP11-POST#552


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW wrote: In the same post that  Correll presented his fabricated BIG LIE he also exposed the reason a white cultural Christian,  Bush Republican, at the time, had to join the right wing propaganda chorus at some point after the invasion had begun as the non-existence of WMD began to undermine the actual reason and justification for war. 21SEP11-POST#553

The purpose of the BIG LIE in 21MAY13- POST#703 is to divert attention from the right wing WARMONGER failure on WMD and lack of preparation for the aftermath of regime change was to put the failure on the Iraqis for not appreciating the favor that white American Christian Republicans had so gallantly done for them. WMD had to cease to be the reason for  the war that Hillary Clinton voted to authorize. 1SEP11-POST#553

Correll Wrote: A big part of the argument for war, was that a functioning democracy in the ME would be a powerful ideological challenge to Islamic Extremism. 21MAY13-POST#703

NFBW 21SEP11-POST #553 wrote: Let’s blame the Iraqis: 

Correll Wrote: The results were fairly disappointing. The Iraqis did fairly poorly at forming and maintaining their democracy and really shitty at DEFENDING their democracy from the Islamic Terrorists.  21MAY13-POST#703 reposted by NFBW 21SEP11-POST#553


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW wrote: Correll told us that he would be fine had the peaceful disarming of Iraq worked and the decision to invade was not made by W and that meant SH was not removed from power. Yes, Correll told us what he believed to be true about his position at the time, admitting that war was not necessary if certain conditions were met - and peacefully disarming Iraq was one of those conditions. 21SEP12-POST#554

Correll wrote: IF, Saddam had been able to provide evidence that his wmds had been destroyed and support for the invasion collapsed and the decision was made to NOT invade Iraq, I would have been fine with that. - I realized at the time, that invasion was a costly gamble. NOT doing it would have been fine with me too. 21MAY22-POST#1013

NFBW wrote: I understand full well that a hypothetical question is based on supposition, opinion, personal belief or disbelief, or conjecture, and not facts. It is not based on reality. It can deal with actions and scenarios that might happen, or something that might not have happened. 21SEP12-POST#554

NFBW 21SEP12-POST#544 wrote:  So why is Correll pissing and moaning like this? 

Correll wrote: DIscussing a hypothetical does not mean that I considered it a true, viable alternative.  - Normal people understand that.  21SEP10-POST#548 

NFBW wrote:  Of course I understand that the (peaceful disarming Iraq) scenario that Correll  created in his very own hypothetical question,  did not happen. but Correll cannot ethically change his answer to the very hypothetical question he provided because he is no longer comfortable with the fact that his answer exposes a huge weakness in the BIG LIE regarding Iraq that Correll has been spreading going on for nearly to two decades. 21SEP12-POST#554


NFBW wrote: So with that explanation, I must ask,  if Correll wishes to change his answer from “ I would have been fine with that” to “ I would have NOT have been fine with that” Correll should man up and say it instead of pissing and moaning about what others do not understand. 21SEP12-POST#564


----------



## Ringo

Oddball said:


> Rewriting history is the job of you Marxist assholes.


Complete moral decay is natural for an opportunist-liberal (an american Democrat), directly following from his philosophy of achieving big goals with small efforts (for example, voting in the bourgeois parliament).
For him, theft, deception and betrayal will only become competitive advantages, eventually bringing up the ideal lackey of the master class.
I mean, don't call them marxists or communists.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote:  Answer the question Correll - Does the language Authorizing military force in the AUMF reflect what you call the “personal motivations quote of John KERRY? 21SEP09-POST#544
> 
> 
> Correll wrote: It does not mean that Kerry's personal motivation was shared by every congress man,. 21SEP10-POST#547
> 
> 
> NFBW wrote: The WMD argument Giving W authority to use military force against Iraq  was to enforce relevant UNSC Resolutions. WMD was the only argument that was voted by a majority and signed into law. 1SEP10-POST#5
> 
> Nation building was not a UNSC resolution.




I never said it was. I stated clearly that it was part of the internal debate here in America. 


For someone who is obsessive about details and dates and exact working, 


you seem to sometimes get very...sloppy.


When it serves your partisan and hate mongering purpose.


This is you being dishonest, because you know that you cannot defend your positions or actions, HONESTLY. 


You are the bad guy here, and  your goal is to spread hate and division in America.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: There is no way in anything I have ever posted that suggests that your discussing  a hypothetical means that you considered it a true, viable alternative. I say you were aware at the the time that W had the option to allow Iraq to be disarmed peacefully and no invasion to do regime change. I know you do not believe in what you were aware of because you are stupid Correll. 21SEP10-POST#551




1. Then what is the point of this line of discussion?

2. Dude. YOu are teh one here who has utterly gotten his ass kicked and who looks not "stupid" but who has been outed as a bad actor, intent on causing harm to his own society.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: Correll has fabricated a BIG LIE that ‘nation building’ was part of the “national debate” regarding the necessity of preemptive war against Iraq. 21SEP11-POST#552
> 
> Correll wrote: There was a national debate on this issue and those who supported war, made their side's case. And they won. 21May14- POST#741
> 
> NFBW wrote:  That claim in 21May14- POST#741 is a lie. Prior to the invasion those who supported a decision by W to invade Iraq as authorized by Congress, based their support on one defined threat - from SH using WMD himself or giving them to al Qaeda to hiding stockpiles from the 1441 inspectors. That is the ONLY reason. There was no national debate - W held all the cards on WMD due to limited public access to intelligence sources. 21SEP11-POST#552




Remember all the times  you insisted that you were NOT claiming that people made decisions based on singular reasons like a fucking machine?

And right above, "the ONLY reason".


I  think you even called me a liar based on it, several times. 


Now you are back to insisting it was the only reason, teh single reason.


You have argued yourself in a circle AGAIN, Wally.


Are you aware, intellectually, that if you were mentally healthy that you would feel embarrassment?


----------



## Mac-7

Astrostar said:


> We know better! It was an aggressive attempt by white nationalists, inspired by Trump, to take over the government of the United States.


You would have to more delusional than you accuse them of being to think that was an actual threat to the Deep State

they were protesting a stolen election not trying to overthrow the government


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: In the same post that  Correll presented his fabricated BIG LIE he also exposed the reason a white cultural Christian,  Bush Republican, at the time, had to join the right wing propaganda chorus at some point after the invasion had begun as the non-existence of WMD began to undermine the actual reason and justification for war. 21SEP11-POST#553
> 
> The purpose of the BIG LIE in 21MAY13- POST#703 is to divert attention from the right wing WARMONGER failure on WMD and lack of preparation for the aftermath of regime change was to put the failure on the Iraqis for not appreciating the favor that white American Christian Republicans had so gallantly done for them. WMD had to cease to be the reason for  the war that Hillary Clinton voted to authorize. 1SEP11-POST#553
> 
> Correll Wrote: A big part of the argument for war, was that a functioning democracy in the ME would be a powerful ideological challenge to Islamic Extremism. 21MAY13-POST#703
> 
> NFBW 21SEP11-POST #553 wrote: Let’s blame the Iraqis:
> 
> Correll Wrote: The results were fairly disappointing. The Iraqis did fairly poorly at forming and maintaining their democracy and really shitty at DEFENDING their democracy from the Islamic Terrorists.  21MAY13-POST#703 reposted by NFBW 21SEP11-POST#553





I have no desire or need to distract from the mistake on WMDs or the issues with nation building. 

Indeed, those issues are WHY I am in this thread. I think that there are important lessons that America should have learned.


*I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THOSE ISSUES. YOU ARE THE ONE AVOIDING THEM. *


Unfortunately, all you care about is using those issues to smear white christians as part of your goal of spreading hate and division.


THe important  point here, that you will not address, is that I have NO MOTIVE OR DESIRE TO DISTRACT FROM THE ISSUES YOU MENTIONS.


Your point is... not only wrong, but really, fucking stupid. With all due respect.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: Correll told us that he would be fine had the peaceful disarming of Iraq worked and the decision to invade was not made by W and that meant SH was not removed from power. Yes, Correll told us what he believed to be true about his position at the time, admitting that war was not necessary if certain conditions were met - and peacefully disarming Iraq was one of those conditions. 21SEP12-POST#554
> 
> Correll wrote: IF, Saddam had been able to provide evidence that his wmds had been destroyed and support for the invasion collapsed and the decision was made to NOT invade Iraq, I would have been fine with that. - I realized at the time, that invasion was a costly gamble. NOT doing it would have been fine with me too. 21MAY22-POST#1013
> 
> NFBW wrote: I understand full well that a hypothetical question is based on supposition, opinion, personal belief or disbelief, or conjecture, and not facts. It is not based on reality. It can deal with actions and scenarios that might happen, or something that might not have happened. 21SEP12-POST#554
> 
> NFBW 21SEP12-POST#544 wrote:  So why is Correll pissing and moaning like this?
> 
> Correll wrote: DIscussing a hypothetical does not mean that I considered it a true, viable alternative.  - Normal people understand that.  21SEP10-POST#548
> 
> NFBW wrote:  Of course I understand that the (peaceful disarming Iraq) scenario that Correll  created in his very own hypothetical question,  did not happen. but Correll cannot ethically change his answer to the very hypothetical question he provided because he is no longer comfortable with the fact that his answer exposes a huge weakness in the BIG LIE regarding Iraq that Correll has been spreading going on for nearly to two decades. 21SEP12-POST#554
> 
> 
> NFBW wrote: So with that explanation, I must ask,  if Correll wishes to change his answer from “ I would have been fine with that” to “ I would have NOT have been fine with that” Correll should man up and say it instead of pissing and moaning about what others do not understand. 21SEP12-POST#564




You need to clarify what you think is the conflict in my words, down to two sentences. Your current style gives you too much wiggle room to sleaze away when I crush your stupid point. 


I will not respond to a point you have not clearly made. I've made that mistake with lefties before. You people are too dishonest and without shame.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW wrote:  There was no national debate whether to invade Iraq or not, including justifying war based on nation building as a strategic military tactic against terrorists, that took place ending with the AUMF that was passed in October 2002 authorizing the use of military force against Iraq with only one true purpose - to disarm Iraq of WMD. - Do you ever back up your nation building lie with anything? You are a liar. 21SEP09-POST#532

Correll wrote: "ONE TRUE PURPOSE" - Dude. NO ONE IS BUYING YOUR BULLSHIT THAT PEOPLE THINK LIKE MACHINES. 21SEP09-POST #534

NFBW wrote: The point on the table was that…….. “the AUMF that was passed in October 2002 authorizing the use of military force against Iraq has only ONE TRUE PURPOSE  - to disarm Iraq of WMD”. …….And @Correll’s best shot at refuting that irrefutable fact is ……. “NO ONE IS BUYING YOUR BULLSHIT THAT PEOPLE THINK LIKE MACHINES”.……..What is that.   Correll is lying because there is no fucking way that an idiot like Correll speaks for every single human being on the planet. And me citing the exact language that is written in the AUMF has absolutely nothing to do with people ‘thinking like machines” .  Its called reading and understanding the most important historical and legal document produced in the ramp up to war in Iraq. But that is reality and Correll does not rely upon reality or any of the facts produced by reality in hIs perpetuation of his big lie that nation building was part of the reason Iraq was invaded and the IraqIs are to blame that the invasion was a failure. 21SEP12-POST#562

NFBW wrote: So the question I asked 21SEP09-POST#532 -  if Correll ever backs up his nation building lie with anything, goes unanswered. Well the answer was absurd - “thinking like machines” - what kind of idiot am I dealing with here. 21SEP12-POST#562


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote:  There was no national debate whether to invade Iraq or not, including justifying war based on nation building as a strategic military tactic against terrorists, that took place ending with the AUMF that was passed in October 2002 authorizing the use of military force against Iraq with only one true purpose - to disarm Iraq of WMD. - Do you ever back up your nation building lie with anything? You are a liar. 21SEP09-POST#532
> 
> Correll wrote: "ONE TRUE PURPOSE" - Dude. NO ONE IS BUYING YOUR BULLSHIT THAT PEOPLE THINK LIKE MACHINES. 21SEP09-POST #534
> 
> NFBW wrote: The point on the table was that…….. “the AUMF that was passed in October 2002 authorizing the use of military force against Iraq has only ONE TRUE PURPOSE  - to disarm Iraq of WMD”. …….And @Correll’s best shot at refuting that irrefutable fact is ……. “NO ONE IS BUYING YOUR BULLSHIT THAT PEOPLE THINK LIKE MACHINES”.……..What is that.   Correll is lying because there is no fucking way that an idiot like Correll speaks for every single human being on the planet. And me citing the exact language that is written in the AUMF has absolutely nothing to do with people ‘thinking like machines” .  Its called reading and understanding the most important historical and legal document produced in the ramp up to war in Iraq. But that is reality and Correll does not rely upon reality or any of the facts produced by reality in hIs perpetuation of his big lie that nation building was part of the reason Iraq was invaded and the IraqIs are to blame that the invasion was a failure. 21SEP12-POST#562
> 
> NFBW wrote: So the question I asked 21SEP09-POST#532 -  if Correll ever backs up his nation building lie with anything, goes unanswered. Well the answer was absurd - “thinking like machines” - what kind of idiot am I dealing with here. 21SEP12-POST#562




You got a point, state in in clear english, not this insane self quoting shit you got going on here.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> 1. Then what is the point of this line of discussion?



Because you lied when you said you were not aware at the time of the FACT that W had the option to avoid war if Afghanistan was being disarmed peacefully.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Because you lied when you said you were not aware at the time of the FACT that W had the option to avoid war if Afghanistan was being disarmed peacefully.




I assueme you mean Iraq.


You are obviously just talking shit now. 


I don't believe that it was realistically possible for Saddam to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed. 



It seems  likely that you, having failed at all your other attempts, are now trying to gin up some...something, from out of context quotes on that, and my discussion of hypotheticals with you.


Bad faith bad actors like you, are why most people refuse to discuss hypotheticals.


Why are you so driven to spread hate and racism in America?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

I





Correll said:


> I don't believe that it was realistically possible for Saddam to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed.


it does not matter what you “believed”about peacefully disarming IRAQ. You lied when you said you were not aware of the fact that W had the option.  You are a liar. That is the point.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> I
> it does not matter what you “believed”about peacefully disarming IRAQ. You lied when you said you were not aware of the fact that W had the option.  You are a liar. That is the point.




YOu are focusing on a tree, so that you can avoid the forest, ie that you have revealed that you are here to troll, that you have no concern about this issue, other than how you can use it to smear White Christian Americans.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> YOu are focusing on a tree,




NO - I am focusing on a liar and that would be you. Lying is detrimental to the survival of my country and the continuation of our Democratic process. So it is import to confront liars - and specifically those who lie about why W invaded Iraq’s


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NO - I am focusing on a liar and that would be you. Lying is detrimental to the survival of my country and the continuation of our Democratic process. So it is import to confront liars - and specifically those who lie about why W invaded Iraq’s




Are you sure you didn't want to mention how I am white and Christian in that post? Cause smearing those groups is really your goal here.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Are you sure you didn't want to mention how I am white and Christian in that post? Cause smearing those groups is really your goal here



I only smear white Christians that lie. Christians of any color should not lie.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> I only smear white Christians that lie. Christians of any color should not lie.




You have admitted that you agree with the principle of collateral damage. That makes all you whining about it, bullshit.

AND that you almost ALWAYS lump that in with extensive repetitions of your enemies being White and Christian, 


that shows that your motive AND goal, is bigotry and racism and hate and division.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> You have admitted that you agree with the principle of collateral damage.



NFBW wrote: Only when war is necessary to remove a real threat after all peaceful means have been exhausted such as disarming Iraq peacefully with support of the UN. 21SEP14-POST#572

NFBW wrote:  You on the other hand support collateral damage because you are special (white, christian and racist) and you support killing Iraqis when they were no threat and you tell the UN they can go fuck themselves. 21SEP14-POST#572

Correll wrote:,I am "special" in being an American Citizen. I have the Right of Sovereignty, and thus, can, as part of America wage war against enemies like Iraq, and the UN can go fuck itself.? POST#983. reposted by NFBW 21SEP14-POST#572


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote:  I don't believe that it was realistically possible for Saddam to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed. 21SEP14-POST#565

NFBW wrote: SH was in no way obligated to conform to your belief. He provided sufficient behavior and conduct to convince the majority on the UNSC that disarming Iraq peacefully was the proper, life saving, morally correct, and wise way to go. SH convinced a 6 to 4 majority of a Americans that he and the inspectors should be given the time needed to disarm Iraq peacefully. The six out of ten Americans that were not racist RIGHT WING warmongers told pollsters just before the invasion started that they believed that it was realistically possible for Saddam to be disarmed peacefully.
21SEP14-POST#573


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> AND that you almost ALWAYS lump that in with extensive repetitions of your enemies being White and Christian,



NFBW wrote: You are a liar. I have voted for white Christians and one black Christian twice to be President since the days of Tricky Dicky. My mother was white and Christian bless her heart. 21SEP14-POST#574


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: Only when war is necessary to remove a real threat after all peaceful means have been exhausted such as disarming Iraq peacefully with support of the UN. 21SEP14-POST#572
> 
> NFBW wrote:  You on the other hand support collateral damage because you are special (white, christian and racist) and you support killing Iraqis when they were no threat and you tell the UN they can go fuck themselves. 21SEP14-POST#572
> 
> Correll wrote:,I am "special" in being an American Citizen. I have the Right of Sovereignty, and thus, can, as part of America wage war against enemies like Iraq, and the UN can go fuck itself.? POST#983. reposted by NFBW 21SEP14-POST#572




Excellent taking quotes out of context and then lying about the context.


The only reason to do that, is if you know you are the bad guy.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote:  I don't believe that it was realistically possible for Saddam to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed. 21SEP14-POST#565
> 
> NFBW wrote: SH was in no way obligated to conform to your belief. ....




We were discussing my beliefs. That Saddam is not obligated to conform to my beliefs, is something only a retarded asshole would say.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: You are a liar. I have voted for white Christians and one black Christian twice to be President since the days of Tricky Dicky. My mother was white and Christian bless her heart. 21SEP14-POST#574




Your denial is fucking stupid. Your intent on spreading hate and anti-white racism and bigotry is clear from your actions.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote:  I don't believe that it was realistically possible for Saddam to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed. 21SEP14-POST#565

NFBW wrote: SH was in no way obligated to conform to your belief. He provided sufficient behavior and conduct to convince the majority on the UNSC that disarming Iraq peacefully was the proper, life saving, morally correct, and wise way to go. SH convinced a 6 to 4 majority of a Americans that he and the inspectors should be given the time needed to disarm Iraq peacefully. 21SEP14-POST#573

Correll wrote: We were discussing my beliefs. That Saddam is not obligated to conform to my beliefs, is something only a retarded asshole would say. 21SEP14-POST#576

NFBW wrote:  No! We are discussing your lies. You say it is your belief that it was not realistically possible for SH to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed. That false belief of yours refers to realistically what you say for the sake of argument was impossible for SH to do. So for the sake of argument I have injected the truth that SH was never obliged to comply with a lie, a false belief, a stupid rejection of reality that says SH could not give convincing evidence that Iraq was disarmed because that was not in reality what he was required to do. he needed to show cooperation and not obstruct the inspectors and that is what he did. It was W that obstructed the inspectors when he told them they best get out or be potential collateral damage.  21SEP14-POST#578


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote:  I don't believe that it was realistically possible for Saddam to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed. 21SEP14-POST#565
> 
> NFBW wrote: SH was in no way obligated to conform to your belief. He provided sufficient behavior and conduct to convince the majority on the UNSC that disarming Iraq peacefully was the proper, life saving, morally correct, and wise way to go. SH convinced a 6 to 4 majority of a Americans that he and the inspectors should be given the time needed to disarm Iraq peacefully. 21SEP14-POST#573
> 
> Correll wrote: We were discussing my beliefs. That Saddam is not obligated to conform to my beliefs, is something only a retarded asshole would say. 21SEP14-POST#576
> 
> NFBW wrote:  No! We are discussing your lies. You say it is your belief that it was not realistically possible for SH to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed. That false belief of yours refers to realistically what you say for the sake of argument was impossible for SH to do. So for the sake of argument I have injected the truth that SH was never obliged to comply with a lie, a false belief, a stupid rejection of reality that says SH could not give convincing evidence that Iraq was disarmed because that was not in reality what he was required to do. he needed to show cooperation and not obstruct the inspectors and that is what he did. It was W that obstructed the inspectors when he told them they best get out or be potential collateral damage.  21SEP14-POST#578





Your words contradict themselves. DO you believe that I am "lying" or do you believe that I am operating under a "false belief"?


Because the two are mutually contradictory and you are conflating them, and attacking me as though both are true. 


 You are either so extremely ignorant of the way normal people think, because of your social disorder, that you cannot even intellectually understand it, yet you insist of trying and being an asshole based on your utterly failed attempt,


OR, you are just being a dishonest troll, throwing  shit at your enemies, in pursuit of your goal of spreading hate and division in America.



I repeat my question, which is it...


No, fuck that. 


Exxplain to me what the fuck is wrong with you, that you are operating with TWO utterly contradictory premises, and asking me to engage in dialog with someone who is basically so out of touch with reality that they are unable to even keep a consistent narrative within a single paragraph.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: We were discussing my beliefs. That Saddam is not obligated to conform to my beliefs, is something only a retarded asshole would say. 21SEP14-POST#576

NFBW wrote: In my hometown we had a guy who firmly believed that he was Elvis Presley‘s son. He also firmly believed that he had been cheated out of his inheritance which led to actions that were detrimental to society. Whenever he saw a nice big shiny Cadillac with the big tail fins stopped at a stoplight he would run in front and pound on it and yell at the owner that he was driving his car, the one that Elvis his father bequeathed to him. He was clearly  crazy and society has no obligation to conform to his beliefs and ignore the detrimental actions that were aroused by a false belief.  21SEP14-POST#580

NFBW wrote: Similarly, Correll  has a crazy false belief that it was not be possible for SH to prove that Iraq was in fact disarmed back in 2003. That insanity helped lead to the deaths of half a million Innocent Iraqis. It led to a war that cost Americans nearly 5000 military lives and trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars. 21SEP14-POST#580

NFBW wrote: We as a society because of the detrimental effects of false beliefs and absurd opinions, have an obligation to put them away. Crazy is not good for democracy as we saw on Jan6 what happens when the Trump crazies decided to run amok of reality and were violently attempting to overturn the ejection. 21SEP14-POST#580


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: We were discussing my beliefs. That Saddam is not obligated to conform to my beliefs, is something only a retarded asshole would say. 21SEP14-POST#576
> 
> NFBW wrote: In my hometown we had a guy who firmly believed that he was Elvis Presley‘s son. He also firmly believed that he had been cheated out of his inheritance which led to actions that were detrimental to society. Whenever he saw a nice big shiny Cadillac with the big tail fins stopped at a stoplight he would run in front and pound on it and yell at the owner that he was driving his car, the one that Elvis his father bequeathed to him. He was clearly  crazy and society has no obligation to conform to his beliefs and ignore the detrimental actions that were aroused by a false belief.  21SEP14-POST#580
> 
> NFBW wrote: Similarly, Correll  has a crazy false belief that it was not be possible for SH to prove that Iraq was in fact disarmed back in 2003. That insanity helped lead to the deaths of half a million Innocent Iraqis. It led to a war that cost Americans nearly 5000 military lives and trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars. 21SEP14-POST#580
> 
> NFBW wrote: We as a society because of the detrimental effects of false beliefs and absurd opinions, have an obligation to put them away. Crazy is not good for democracy as we saw on Jan6 what happens when the Trump crazies decided to run amok of reality and were violently attempting to overturn the ejection. 21SEP14-POST#580





That's a lot of bullshit to hide from the fact that you are afraid to answer a serious question.


What the fuck is wrong  with you, that you are conflating "false belief" with "lying" and attacking me on both,  and being a complete asshole troll about it?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW wrote: Correll has a crazy false belief that it was not possible for SH to prove that Iraq was in fact disarmed back in 2003. 21SEP14-POST#580

Correll wrote: What the fuck is wrong with you, that you are conflating "false belief" with "lying" and attacking me on both, and being a complete asshole troll about it? 21SEP15-POST#581

NFBW 21SEP16-POST#582 wrote: The following was a false belief at the time of the ramp up to war that was announced publicly by Correll in the following  comments:

Correll wrote: Surely you remember that I did not believe that peaceful disarmament was possible. 21SEP06-POST#503 

Correll wrote:  I don't believe that it was realistically possible for Saddam to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed. 21SEP14-POST#565

NFBW wrote:  I can’t do anything about Correll ‘s inability to keep his lies and his false beliefs straight. Prolific Liars like Correll rarely do. 21SEP16-POST#582

NFBW 21SEP16-POST#582  wrote: But here is the lie by Correll that I originally  referenced; 

NFBW wrote: it does not matter what you “believed” about peacefully disarming IRAQ. You lied when you said you were not aware of the fact that W had the option. You are a liar. That is the point. 21SEP13-POST#566

NFBW wrote: I have conflated nothing. Correll is a liar who holds or has had a plethora of false beliefs to lie about. 21SEP16-POST#582


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: Correll has a crazy false belief that it was not possible for SH to prove that Iraq was in fact disarmed back in 2003. 21SEP14-POST#580
> 
> Correll wrote: What the fuck is wrong with you, that you are conflating "false belief" with "lying" and attacking me on both, and being a complete asshole troll about it? 21SEP15-POST#581
> 
> NFBW 21SEP16-POST#582 wrote: The following was a false belief at the time of the ramp up to war that was announced publicly by Correll in the following  comments:
> 
> Correll wrote: Surely you remember that I did not believe that peaceful disarmament was possible. 21SEP06-POST#503
> 
> Correll wrote:  I don't believe that it was realistically possible for Saddam to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed. 21SEP14-POST#565
> 
> NFBW wrote:  I can’t do anything about Correll ‘s inability to keep his lies and his false beliefs straight. Prolific Liars like Correll rarely do. 21SEP16-POST#582
> 
> NFBW 21SEP16-POST#582  wrote: But here is the lie by Correll that I originally  referenced;
> 
> NFBW wrote: it does not matter what you “believed” about peacefully disarming IRAQ. You lied when you said you were not aware of the fact that W had the option. You are a liar. That is the point. 21SEP13-POST#566
> 
> NFBW wrote: I have conflated nothing. Correll is a liar who holds or has had a plethora of false beliefs to lie about. 21SEP16-POST#582




If I don't believe that it was really a viable option, then I don't  believe that it was really an option.


Are you really unable to grasp the concept that I was able to discuss an hypothetical, that I did not believe was really possible?


My God, your brain is as flexible as a rod of glass. 


Serious, at best there is something really wrong  with you. AT worst, you are just a complete asshole troll.


----------



## Desperado

Astrostar said:


> Fact check: Some Republicans have tried to rewrite the history of January 6. Here's how | CNN Politics
> 
> 
> When the House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6 convenes for the first time, it will be against a backdrop of Republican objections and falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because history is what it is.  Despite the efforts of Trump and his Cult members in Congress to rewrite it to reflect positively on Trump, theirs is a lost cause.
> 
> Trump and his disciples, since January 6 have tried over and over to convince the American people that the insurrection was caused by Antifa, was a peaceful event with lots of love in the air or was just a guided tour of the Capital building.
> 
> We know better!  It was an aggressive attempt by white nationalists, inspired by Trump, to take over the government of the United States.  Anyone who sees it in a different light is not a loyal, patriotic American, but rather is a Trump disciple who places him above the Constitution of the United States and the welfare of the majority of the American people.
> 
> Today's congressional hearing will expose the Trump people who tried to storm the Capital for what they really are:  enemies of the American people.


Fuck you it is not the republicans removing statues and trying to remove history,  It is the low life democrats that are trying their best to rewrite history.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: If I don't believe that it was really a viable option, then I don't believe that it was really an option. - Are you really unable to grasp the concept that I was able to discuss an hypothetical, that I did not believe was really possible? 21SEP16-POST#583

NFBW wrote: It does not matter what you “believed” about peacefully disarming IRAQ. You lied when you said you were not aware of the fact that W had the option. You are a liar. That is the point. 21SEP13-POST#566 reposted by NFBW  21SEP16-POST#585

Correll wrote: DIscussing a hypothetical does not mean that I considered it a true, viable alternative.  21SEP10-POST#548

NFBW wrote: You have constantly lied for 18 years or from whenever it really was the first time you applied your false fake belief (see below) into a discussion about invading Iraq whether it was before or long after the invasion was launched. 21SEP16-POST#585

Correll wrote:  I don't believe that it was realistically possible for Saddam to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed. 21SEP14-POST#565

NFBW wrote:  What you Correll wrote in 21SEP14-POST#565 is a false belief based on a lie. It is a false belief based on a lie whether you heard the lie from an outside source or if you fabricated it entirely from within your own head. 21SEP16-POST#585

NFBW wrote:  When you say that you did not believe that “it was realistically possible for Saddam to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed.” as part of your argument and thought process that you supported the March 2003 unnecessary invasion of Iraq and subsequent killing of half a million Iraqis to implement the Gingrich/Krauthammer conceptual experiment of nation building,  you are basing you entire support for killing all those Iraqis on a lie. That is a fact. Your support for killing half a million Iraqis was based on a lie and still is. 21SEP16-POST#585

NFBW wrote:  This “it was realistically possible for Saddam to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed.” Correll is a lie and it does not matter if you believed it and still believe it. It is still a lie. 21SEP16-POST#585 

NFBW wrote:  It is a lie because SH was not required after W got 1441 passed to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed. He was required to disclose the status of WMD in Iraq and cooperate with inspectors. You are a liar Correll to falsely believe that 1441 required to provide evidence WMD that he potentially did not have. 21SEP16-POST#585


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: If I don't believe that it was really a viable option, then I don't believe that it was really an option. - Are you really unable to grasp the concept that I was able to discuss an hypothetical, that I did not believe was really possible? 21SEP16-POST#583
> 
> NFBW wrote: It does not matter what you “believed” about peacefully disarming IRAQ. You lied when you said you were not aware of the fact that W had the option. You are a liar. That is the point. 21SEP13-POST#566 reposted by NFBW  21SEP16-POST#585
> 
> Correll wrote: DIscussing a hypothetical does not mean that I considered it a true, viable alternative.  21SEP10-POST#548
> 
> NFBW wrote: You have constantly lied for 18 years or from whenever it really was the first time you applied your false fake belief (see below) into a discussion about invading Iraq whether it was before or long after the invasion was launched. 21SEP16-POST#585
> 
> Correll wrote:  I don't believe that it was realistically possible for Saddam to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed. 21SEP14-POST#565
> 
> NFBW wrote:  What you Correll wrote in 21SEP14-POST#565 is a false belief based on a lie. It is a false belief based on a lie whether you heard the lie from an outside source or if you fabricated it entirely from within your own head. 21SEP16-POST#585
> 
> NFBW wrote:  When you say that you did not believe that “it was realistically possible for Saddam to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed.” as part of your argument and thought process that you supported the March 2003 unnecessary invasion of Iraq and subsequent killing of half a million Iraqis to implement the Gingrich/Krauthammer conceptual experiment of nation building,  you are basing you entire support for killing all those Iraqis on a lie. That is a fact. Your support for killing half a million Iraqis was based on a lie and still is. 21SEP16-POST#585
> 
> NFBW wrote:  This “it was realistically possible for Saddam to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed.” Correll is a lie and it does not matter if you believed it and still believe it. It is still a lie. 21SEP16-POST#585
> 
> NFBW wrote:  It is a lie because SH was not required after W got 1441 passed to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed. He was required to disclose the status of WMD in Iraq and cooperate with inspectors. You are a liar Correll to falsely believe that 1441 required to provide evidence WMD that he potentially did not have. 21SEP16-POST#585





You are talking nonsense now. Give it up. You lost. YOu have revealed that you are nothing but a troll here to spam anti-American and racist and anti-Christian talking points.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: I am not a religious person myself, though I would describe myself as Cultural Christian. 20SEP21-POST#106 

Cultural Christian - Correll, post: 25536651 





Correll said:


> I would describe myself as Cultural Christian.



NFBW wrote: On Iraq when Correll, a self described not religious cultural Christian says that he did not and does not believe that “it was realistically possible for Saddam to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed.” as part of his argument and thought process as to why he supported the March 2003 unnecessary invasion of Iraq and the subsequent killing of half a million Iraqis in order to implement the Gingrich/Krauthammer conceptual experiment of nation building, Correll is basing his entire support for killing all those Iraqis on a lie. That is a fact. Correll ‘s support for killing half a million Iraqis was based on a lie and still is. I contend based on the above that Correll is not Christlike when it comes to his support for invading Iraq to do nation building. 21SEP17-POST#587

NFBW wrote: For pointing out the truth to Correll he accuses me of spreading anti-white Christian hate. What else can a liar say when confronted with the truth. 21SEP17-POST#587

NFBW wrote:  I don’t hate white Christians,  I hate liars. My mother was a white Christian and she was religious Christian who voted for Reagan - but five  of her six kids canceled her Republican  votes  - but we all loved her very much. 21SEP17-POST#587


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll ...., Correll is basing his entire support for killing all those Iraqis on a lie...



Hey, remember when you said you don't act as though people make decisions based on sole reasons?

LOL!! 


You are such a wally.


I'm kind of done with your silly circular debating technique. 


Do you have anything new to say, (and say it without the race baiting or partisan spamming.)  ?


----------



## Roudy

The real insurrection and terrorism occured during the Floyd riots.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW wrote: That is a fact. Correll ‘s support for killing half a million Iraqis was based on a lie and still is. I contend based on the above that Correll is not Christlike when it comes to his support for invading Iraq to do nation building. 21SEP17-POST#587

Correll wrote: Hey, remember when you said you don't act as though people make decisions based on sole reasons? 21SEP17-POST#588

NFBW wrote: Correll ‘s reply in the 21SEP17-POST#588 suggests that Correll views “lying” to be some sort of “reason” when he made the decision to support the invasion that subsequently killed half a million Iraqis. That is very interesting because I don’t believe lying should be part of the process when making any kind of decision. 21SEP17-POST#590


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: That is a fact. Correll ‘s support for killing half a million Iraqis was based on a lie and still is. I contend based on the above that Correll is not Christlike when it comes to his support for invading Iraq to do nation building. 21SEP17-POST#587
> 
> Correll wrote: Hey, remember when you said you don't act as though people make decisions based on sole reasons? 21SEP17-POST#588
> 
> NFBW wrote: Correll ‘s reply in the 21SEP17-POST#588 suggests that Correll views “lying” to be some sort of “reason” when he made the decision to support the invasion that subsequently killed half a million Iraqis. That is very interesting because I don’t believe lying should be part of the process when making any kind of decision. 21SEP17-POST#590




Why are you being such an asshole?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Did you seriously think, that the act of me discussing the issue that you cared about so fucking much, meant that I was thus agreeing with you that it was valid, despite my repeatedly and clear statements to the contrary?  21SEP07-POST#512

NFBW wrote: No! Not at all. I’m saying you were aware of the fact that not only W had the option to allow SH stay in power by disarming Iraq peacefully, and you know that W took many actions and made dozens of public statements that he preferred to disarm Iraq peacefully and avoid war. So what is your point after I answered your bogus question? 21SEP17-POST#592


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW wrote: Correll stated in August 2018 that the dictatorship in Iraq failed to live up to those 1991 UNSC ceasefire provisions and specifically, the failure to  provide evidence of the destruction of WMDs was what’s provided legal justification for W to start a war that ended up killing half a million Iraqis. 21SEP18-POST#593

NFBW 21SEP18-POST#593 wrote: In May of 2021 Correll wrote: “I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time.”21MAY14-POST#766 

NFBW 21SEP18-POST#593  wrote: In August 2021 Correll wrote: “The Persian Gulf war was ended with an Armistice, which had provisions, provisions agreed to by the Iraqi government. - The Iraqi Government failed to live up to those provisions, specifically providing evidence of the destruction of WMDs, and thus, the armistice ended,and fighting was clear to resume, legally speaking.” 18AUG19-POST#1065



Correll said:


> specifically providing evidence of the destruction of WMDs


 18AUG19-#1065 reposted by NFBW 21SEP18-POST#593

NFBW wrote : In MAY 2021 Correll explained that his support for war was not based on the issue and threat of SH being in possession of WMD - He told us he supported the invasion as a rebuttal to the ideological argument of Islamic Fundamentalism  NFBW 21SEP18-POST#593

NFBW 21SEP18-POST#593 wrote: Correll wrote: The idea of an rebuttal to the ideological argument of Islamic Fundamentalism was the more convincing argument to me. 21MAY14-POST#766 

NFBW wrote: So we are left to wonder which year Correll was mostly lying  (2021 or 2018) about why he supported the idea of invading Iraq going in. If 2018 Correll is telling the truth then 2021 Correll would not have found the WMD argument ‘not convincing’ at the time. There is no reason to have made a distinction between supporting war based on a wmd threat and an experimental idea about nation building. So what do you think was @Correll’s motive to lie in such a precise way in 2021? NFBW 21SEP18-POST#593


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Did you seriously think, that the act of me discussing the issue that you cared about so fucking much, meant that I was thus agreeing with you that it was valid, despite my repeatedly and clear statements to the contrary?  21SEP07-POST#512
> 
> NFBW wrote: No! Not at all. I’m saying you were aware of the fact that not only W had the option to allow SH stay in power by disarming Iraq peacefully, and you know that W took many actions and made dozens of public statements that he preferred to disarm Iraq peacefully and avoid war. So what is your point after I answered your bogus question? 21SEP17-POST#592




He might have stated that he wished it. That does not mean that he truly though it was a real possibility. NOr did I. 


This is simple shit, not, by pretending to not get it,  you are presenting yourself as a very stupid person. 


Especially as I have explained this to you many times. 


Wally.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: Correll stated in August 2018 that the dictatorship in Iraq failed to live up to those 1991 UNSC ceasefire provisions and specifically, the failure to  provide evidence of the destruction of WMDs was what’s provided legal justification for W to start a war that ended up killing half a million Iraqis. 21SEP18-POST#593
> 
> NFBW 21SEP18-POST#593 wrote: In May of 2021 Correll wrote: “I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time.”21MAY14-POST#766
> 
> NFBW 21SEP18-POST#593  wrote: In August 2021 Correll wrote: “The Persian Gulf war was ended with an Armistice, which had provisions, provisions agreed to by the Iraqi government. - The Iraqi Government failed to live up to those provisions, specifically providing evidence of the destruction of WMDs, and thus, the armistice ended,and fighting was clear to resume, legally speaking.” 18AUG19-POST#1065
> 
> 18AUG19-#1065 reposted by NFBW 21SEP18-POST#593
> 
> NFBW wrote : In MAY 2021 Correll explained that his support for war was not based on the issue and threat of SH being in possession of WMD - He told us he supported the invasion as a rebuttal to the ideological argument of Islamic Fundamentalism  NFBW 21SEP18-POST#593
> 
> NFBW 21SEP18-POST#593 wrote: Correll wrote: The idea of an rebuttal to the ideological argument of Islamic Fundamentalism was the more convincing argument to me. 21MAY14-POST#766
> 
> NFBW wrote: So we are left to wonder which year Correll was mostly lying  (2021 or 2018) about why he supported the idea of invading Iraq going in. If 2018 Correll is telling the truth then 2021 Correll would not have found the WMD argument ‘not convincing’ at the time. There is no reason to have made a distinction between supporting war based on a wmd threat and an experimental idea about nation building. So what do you think was @Correll’s motive to lie in such a precise way in 2021? NFBW 21SEP18-POST#593





Legal justification for a just war and a personal reason for supporting a war are two distinct and separate concepts.  As we have discussed before.

I tried to prompt a discussion as if that might be a bad idea for the separation, but you just moved on to your normal troll spamming. 

Do you have anything new to say about this issue?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Legal justification for a just war and a personal reason for supporting a war are two distinct and separate concepts. 21SEP18-POST#595

NFBW wrote:  They are distinct but highly related concepts is the reality. The utter nonsense of your support for the invasion of Iraq is that you say you were unconvinced of the legal justification of the war. So you supported the war, you say, in 2021, after the invasion although you also say in 2021 that you were not convinced that it was legally justified based on WMD. But in 2018 you argue the invasion was legally justified on the WMD threat. 21SEP18-POST#596

NFBW 21SEP18-POST#593 wrote: In May of 2021 Correll wrote: “I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time.”21MAY14-POST#766

NFBW wrote:  So which is it? What year were you lying the most? 21SEP18-POST#596

NFBW wrote: You supported the rebuilding of Iraq but were confused because the nation building started after the invasion when the legal justification (WMD threat) was falling apart. I supported the nation building after the terrible decision to invade was made but I stick with the truth that the only reason to invade was to find the WMD that was alleged to be hidden. You agreed IN 2018 the invasion was legit based on WMD but in 2021 you say that the WMD didn’t matter because nation building was another reason to justify war. And that is a lie. 21SEP18-POST#596


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW 21SEP18-POST#597 wrote: This is the question for voting age adults about whether they supported the invasion of Iraq going in or not.

"Do you think going to war with Iraq in 2003 was the right thing for the United States to do or the wrong thing?" 15MAY28-MSNBC Steve Benen 

Correll wrote: “I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time.”21MAY14-POST#766

NFBW 21SEP18-POST#597 wrote: Normally being unconvinced about the reason for launching the invasion of Iraq would cause a person to affirm that they did not support it going in. After seeing how the WMD argument for war turned out, they one would expect they would agree with the following: 

TRUMP: “Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake, all right? …. Obviously, it was a mistake. George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty.” 16FEB14-DJT-IRAQ-BigFat mistake. 

NFBW wrote: But Correll says he does not agree with DJT on the “big fat mistake” while knowing that he did not find the WMD argument to be convincing at the time. How can that be? 21SEP18-POST#597


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: The Dems are trying to rewrite History and put all the blame on the Republicans. 15NOV16-POST#7

NFBW wrote: That dishonest comment posted by Correll from November 2015 explains the motivation that produces all the lies from Correll over the past six years regarding the ramp up to war in Iraq. 21SEP19-POST#598

NFBW wrote: To start with I have not seen Correll attempt to provide some written historical record of any such attempts by DEMS to rewrite the history of the ramp up to war in Iraq. Perhaps Correll can do so now? 21SEP19-POST#598

NFBW wrote: There is only one man who decided to force the UN inspectors to leave Iraq so that one man could start an invasion on MARCH 19 2003. All Dems in prominent leadership roles were publicly opposed to W’s decision to stop the inspections.abd start the war at the time that he did. 21SEP19-POST#598

Senator Joe Biden *3: I am going to front-end guess it. I come down on the side of suggesting that another several months is not something that in any way appreciably increases any risk. (U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, FEBRUARY 2003 HEARING on Iraq•••) 

On October 2, 2002, John Kerry said, 
“The vote that I will give to the president is for one reason and one reason only, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections.” 02OCT02-KERRY-AUMF-01

“Hillary Clinton tells Irish TV she is against war with Iraq,” Irish Times, February 8, 2003 “Hillary Clinton prefers ‘peaceful solution’ in Iraq,” Associated Press March 3, 2003 “[Clinton said the US] should continue its attempts to build an international alliance rather than going to war quickly with Iraq..._nspection is preferable to war, if it works, the New York Democrat said.”_


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW 21SEP19-POST#599 wrote: Our 2021 Correll on nation building wrote: “It is too early to tell. Ask me again in twenty years.- If Iraq is a functioning democracy, and the Arab Street has taken notice, and Islamic Fundamentalism seems even a little less of an unstoppable tide, then I would have to say it worked out, despite being harder than it was supposed to.“ 21SEP06-POST#475

NFBW 21SEP19-POST#599 wrote; but 2015 Correll already wrote that nation building didn’t work out: “You don't fight a Religion with a Secular Government. We tried that in Iraq and it didn't work.”  15NOV16-POST#14


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> So you supported the war, you say, in 2021, after the invasion although you also say in 2021 that you were not convinced that it was legally justified based on WMD. But in 2018 you argue the invasion was legally justified on the WMD threat. 21SEP18-POST#596




Wow. This is new. How exciting.


I was clear that I did not find the WMD argument a convincing argument because wmd tech, much of it, is WWI era tech. I do not believe that such old tech can be contained.


That I do not  find it a convincing national security reason for supporting a war, is NOT me saying that I do  not believe that it does not meet the technical definition of a LEGAL CAUSE for war. 


We have touched on this before. Perhaps if you were less focused on peppering your posts with anti-American filler, you would have caught this long ago.


Anyway, I hope that clears it up for you, and resolves some, or at least one of your..... inabilities to understand normal thinking. 


Do you have anything relevant to add to this? Please do not pretend to not understand the concept. Please do not pretend that this is some...evul motive because I am a white male. Try to not be a race baiting asshole or any of  your related issues.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW 21SEP18-POST#597 wrote: This is the question for voting age adults about whether they supported the invasion of Iraq going in or not.
> 
> "Do you think going to war with Iraq in 2003 was the right thing for the United States to do or the wrong thing?" 15MAY28-MSNBC Steve Benen
> 
> Correll wrote: “I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time.”21MAY14-POST#766
> 
> NFBW 21SEP18-POST#597 wrote: Normally being unconvinced about the reason for launching the invasion of Iraq would cause a person to affirm that they did not support it going in. After seeing how the WMD argument for war turned out, they one would expect they would agree with the following:
> 
> TRUMP: “Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake, all right? …. Obviously, it was a mistake. George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty.” 16FEB14-DJT-IRAQ-BigFat mistake.
> 
> NFBW wrote: But Correll says he does not agree with DJT on the “big fat mistake” while knowing that he did not find the WMD argument to be convincing at the time. How can that be? 21SEP18-POST#597





Because my support for the war was for a different reason and because it is not yet clear if that reason will bear fruit or not. 


That you think this is a gotcha, does not make any sense. 


You are really trying to hard to build a molehill into a mountain here.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

"Do you think going to war with Iraq in 2003 was the right thing for the United States to do or the wrong thing?" 15MAY28-MSNBC Steve Benen

Correll wrote: “I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time.”21MAY14-POST#766

NFBW wrote: Normally being unconvinced about the reason for launching the invasion of Iraq would cause a person to affirm that they did not support it going in.  21SEP18-POST#597

Correll wrote: Because my support for the war was for a different reason and because it is not yet clear if that reason will bear fruit or not. 21SEP19-POST#601

Correll wrote: I did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT, and gave my support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation. 21SEP03-POST#428

NFBW wrote: You got yourself! 21SEP20-POST#602


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> "Do you think going to war with Iraq in 2003 was the right thing for the United States to do or the wrong thing?" 15MAY28-MSNBC Steve Benen
> 
> Correll wrote: “I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time.”21MAY14-POST#766
> 
> NFBW wrote: Normally being unconvinced about the reason for launching the invasion of Iraq would cause a person to affirm that they did not support it going in.  21SEP18-POST#597
> 
> Correll wrote: Because my support for the war was for a different reason and because it is not yet clear if that reason will bear fruit or not. 21SEP19-POST#601
> 
> Correll wrote: I did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT, and gave my support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation. 21SEP03-POST#428
> 
> NFBW wrote: You got yourself! 21SEP20-POST#602




Dude. That is the way that normal people think. I was not... required to conform to the stated reasons of the group in my thinking. And I can withhold judgement on the wisdom of the policy until we see the long term results.


That you think any of that is a "gotcha" is you being a freaking weirdo.


----------



## sartre play

SO its only a crime if its done by the Other political party? You really need to consider that if the law breaking part of one protest is criminal  so is the law breaking part of the other protest.


----------



## elektra

postman said:


> It wasn't a riot, it was an insurrection.  And it wasn't the FBI, or BLM or Antifa behind it.  It was those waiving Trump flags, and carrying the stars and bars while chanting hang Mike Pence, that were behind it.


You are right, Liberty in opposition to American Marxism is an insurrection.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: I was not... required to conform to the stated reasons of the group in my thinking.  21SEP20-POST#603.

NFBW wrote: Your being in trouble has nothing to do with whether or not you conform with one group or another’s thinking on the 2003 invasion into Iraq. It is about you contradicting yourself and the web of lies that your contradiction has produced for the record on this forum. 21SEP20-POST#606


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW wrote: Normally being unconvinced about the reason for launching the invasion of Iraq would cause a person to affirm that they did not support it going in. 21SEP18-POST#597

Correll wrote: That is the way that normal people think. 21SEP20-POST#603

NFBW wrote: In your own words you were indeed a “normal” person thinking prior to the invasion that the WMD threat was no reason to start the invasion of Iraq on March 19 2003 and that is why you did not support it going in, if your 21SEP03-POST#428 means anything - see it next paragraph.  21SEP21-POST#607

Correll wrote: I did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT, and gave my support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation. 21SEP03-POST#428


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: I was not... required to conform to the stated reasons of the group in my thinking.  21SEP20-POST#603.
> 
> NFBW wrote: Your being in trouble has nothing to do with whether or not you conform with one group or another’s thinking on the 2003 invasion into Iraq. It is about you contradicting yourself and the web of lies that your contradiction has produced for the record on this forum. 21SEP20-POST#606




Except I did not do that. YOur inability to understand nuance is... pathetic.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: Normally being unconvinced about the reason for launching the invasion of Iraq would cause a person to affirm that they did not support it going in. 21SEP18-POST#597
> 
> Correll wrote: That is the way that normal people think. 21SEP20-POST#603
> 
> NFBW wrote: In your own words you were indeed a “normal” person thinking prior to the invasion that the WMD threat was no reason to start the invasion of Iraq on March 19 2003 and that is why you did not support it going in, if your 21SEP03-POST#428 means anything - see it next paragraph.  21SEP21-POST#607
> 
> Correll wrote: I did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT, and gave my support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation. 21SEP03-POST#428




My statement that  you quoted, was not in that context that you just put it. 


Are you truly that confused, in which case, seriously, you need to talk to a medical person about your social disorder, 


or, are you just talking shit, in which case, stop being a fucking dickhead.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> My statement that you quoted, was not in that context that you just put it.



Explain your version of context then, liar.

NFBW wrote: The US invasion of Iraq led to the deaths of half a million Iraqis. Rather nonchalantly Correll tells us he supported the start of killing some Iraqis in order to do nation building by the use of military power on them. And then he blames Iraqis for not making it go smoothly. 21SEP04-POST#438



Correll said:


> Except we established that that was an error on my part. I did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT, and gave my support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation.
> 
> That you slam me for something we both know to be not true, is pretty sleazy of you.
> 
> But more important, that you feel you have to lie to slam me, shows that you know that the Truth is not something what works for you.
> 
> What is the implication of THAT, Not,?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: My statement that you quoted, was not in that context that you just put it.  21SEP20-POST#609

Correll wrote: Except we established that that was an error on my part. - I did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT, and gave my support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation. 21SEP03-POST#454

NFBW wrote: Correll has clearly and unambiguously stated that he “did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT.” That part of @Correl ‘s official 21SEP03-POST#454 statement has no other context than what Correll put in writing on August 22, 2021 and again on September 05, 2021. 21SEP22-POST#611

Correll wrote: My position has always been about the arguments made for the war and their validity and the goals of the war, and the lessons to be learned. 21AUG22-POST#3305

Correll wrote: But, now we see, (thanks I admit to your freakish attention to details), that actually I did NOT support the invasion, and did not support the nation building until after the point about the invasion was a fait accompli. 21AUG22- POST#3305

Correll, post: 27736975  21AUG22- POST#3305 : 





Correll said:


> after the point about the invasion was a fait accompli.



Correll wrote: I only bought into the nation building agenda AFTER the invasion, and AFTER the course was already set. 21AUG22- POST#3305

NFBW wrote: Correll has clearly and unambiguously stated one time that he gave his “support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation.”  and the second time that he “did not support the nation building until after the point about the invasion was a fait accompli.@ That part of @Correl ‘s official 21SEP03-POST#454 statement has no other context than what Correll put in writing on August 22, 2021 and again on September 05, 2021. 21SEP22-POST#611

NFBW wrote: It will be fun to watch how  Correll will attempt to wiggle out of the trouble he got himself into on this one. 21SEP22-POST#611


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Explain your version of context then, liar.
> 
> NFBW wrote: The US invasion of Iraq led to the deaths of half a million Iraqis. Rather nonchalantly Correll tells us he supported the start of killing some Iraqis in order to do nation building by the use of military power on them. And then he blames Iraqis for not making it go smoothly. 21SEP04-POST#438





I was referring to my "normal person" comment. YOu took it completely out of context, implying I was agreeing with something you said, which was not true. 


In my context, I was making a point about your inability to understand how normal people think, ie with multiple factors considered and complexity and nuance.


That you would use such underhanded tactics is a sign that you know you have utterly lost the debate. 


Your spin of my being "nonchalant" is also stupid. THat I am not being hysterical about decisions make over a decade ago, in order to use the suffering of others as emotional.... gist to support my argument, 


is me not being a bad person like you are doing.


You are USING those deaths for cheap partisan points against your enemies. That  makes you a vile person.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: My statement that you quoted, was not in that context that you just put it.  21SEP20-POST#609
> 
> Correll wrote: Except we established that that was an error on my part. - I did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT, and gave my support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation. 21SEP03-POST#454
> 
> NFBW wrote: Correll has clearly and unambiguously stated that he “did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT.” That part of @Correl ‘s official 21SEP03-POST#454 statement has no other context than what Correll put in writing on August 22, 2021 and again on September 05, 2021. 21SEP22-POST#611
> 
> Correll wrote: My position has always been about the arguments made for the war and their validity and the goals of the war, and the lessons to be learned. 21AUG22-POST#3305
> 
> Correll wrote: But, now we see, (thanks I admit to your freakish attention to details), that actually I did NOT support the invasion, and did not support the nation building until after the point about the invasion was a fait accompli. 21AUG22- POST#3305
> 
> Correll, post: 27736975  21AUG22- POST#3305 :
> 
> Correll wrote: I only bought into the nation building agenda AFTER the invasion, and AFTER the course was already set. 21AUG22- POST#3305
> 
> NFBW wrote: Correll has clearly and unambiguously stated one time that he gave his “support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation.”  and the second time that he “did not support the nation building until after the point about the invasion was a fait accompli.@ That part of @Correl ‘s official 21SEP03-POST#454 statement has no other context than what Correll put in writing on August 22, 2021 and again on September 05, 2021. 21SEP22-POST#611
> 
> NFBW wrote: It will be fun to watch how  Correll will attempt to wiggle out of the trouble he got himself into on this one. 21SEP22-POST#611




Seriously, you are not making any sense. I read that, and I don't see that you made a point at all. I don't even have an idea what point you thought you were making. 


A discussion of the Iraq War, should happen. I think there is a lot to discuss and much to learn. 

BUt, we can't do that, because people like you are not good faith actors. All you are here for, is to use the issue to spam anti-American, Anti-Christian and Anti-white talking points, 


in the pursuit of your goal of spreading hate and division in America.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> I was referring to my "normal person" comment.



NFBW wrote: That is not your big lie. These are your contradictory statements that drive your self deluded and rightwing crackpot lie that the-decision to invade Iraq from Congress to the White House had anything to do with the necessity of nation building Iraq as a military option to defeat global terrorists. 21SEP22-POST#614

Correll wrote: As I have told you many times, I supported the decision to invade Iraq. 21AUG08-POST#3010

Correll wrote: I did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT, and gave my support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation. 21SEP03-POST#454

NFBW wrote: There was only one reason that the US ended up as you say “committed as a nation” in Iraq and that reason was to disarm IRAQ of suspected possession of WMD. There was no other reason that influenced W’s horrendous decision to kick the UN inspectors out and start a war that ended up killing half a million Iraqis 21SEP22-POST#614


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: I was referring to my "normal person" comment. You took it completely out of context, implying I was agreeing with something you said, which was not true.  - In my context, I was making a point about your inability to understand how normal people think, ie with multiple factors considered and complexity and nuance. 21SEP20-POST#609

NFBW wrote: Everything you say in 21SEP20-POST#609 Is a lie. The discussion about “normal” was as it relates to your estrangement from reality when it comes to knowledge and knowable facts in regards to the ramp up to the March 2003 W’s decision to invade Iraq. HERE Is WHAT WENT DOWN for the record. 21SEP20-POST#615

For the record “normal people” :
"Do you think going to war with Iraq in 2003 was the right thing for the United States to do or the wrong thing?" 15MAY28-MSNBC Steve Benen

Correll wrote: “I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time.”21MAY14-POST#766

NFBW wrote: Normally being unconvinced about the reason for launching the invasion of Iraq would cause a person to affirm that they did not support it going in. 21SEP18-POST#597

Correll wrote: Because my support for the war was for a different reason and because it is not yet clear if that reason will bear fruit or not. 21SEP19-POST#601

Correll wrote: I did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT, and gave my support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation. 21SEP03-POST#428

NFBW wrote: By the way I did not support the invasion going in, however I gave my support to our fighting men and women in uniform to their nation building process once we were committed as a nation. So we agree on that don’t we? I don’t see anything out of context.  21SEP20-POST#615


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote:  I was making a point about your inability to understand how normal people think, ie with multiple factors considered and complexity and nuance. 21SEP20-POST#609

NFBW wrote: I understand that quite well. However the point in this discussion is that there was only one reason that W decided to invade Iraq on March 19, 2003. That was to disarm IRAQ of WMD that he says he believed was being hidden there. It is not complex, it is not multiple factors, it is not nuanced.  The WMD matter is the only reason that Congress authorized W to use military force in Iraq if necessary.21SEP21-POST#616


----------



## buckeye45_73

Astrostar said:


> Fact check: Some Republicans have tried to rewrite the history of January 6. Here's how | CNN Politics
> 
> 
> When the House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6 convenes for the first time, it will be against a backdrop of Republican objections and falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because history is what it is.  Despite the efforts of Trump and his Cult members in Congress to rewrite it to reflect positively on Trump, theirs is a lost cause.
> 
> Trump and his disciples, since January 6 have tried over and over to convince the American people that the insurrection was caused by Antifa, was a peaceful event with lots of love in the air or was just a guided tour of the Capital building.
> 
> We know better!  It was an aggressive attempt by white nationalists, inspired by Trump, to take over the government of the United States.  Anyone who sees it in a different light is not a loyal, patriotic American, but rather is a Trump disciple who places him above the Constitution of the United States and the welfare of the majority of the American people.
> 
> Today's congressional hearing will expose the Trump people who tried to storm the Capital for what they really are:  enemies of the American people.


When did he do that? And we know it wasn't ANTIFA, because no buildings were burned down......in fact Ja6 was the definition of Peaceful Protest....one death (by a cop) and no property damage.........that's how it's done people.......now compare that to say Kenosha......Seatle, Portland, Minneapolis.....well you get the deal..........


----------



## jbrownson0831

Astrostar said:


> Fact check: Some Republicans have tried to rewrite the history of January 6. Here's how | CNN Politics
> 
> 
> When the House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6 convenes for the first time, it will be against a backdrop of Republican objections and falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because history is what it is.  Despite the efforts of Trump and his Cult members in Congress to rewrite it to reflect positively on Trump, theirs is a lost cause.
> 
> Trump and his disciples, since January 6 have tried over and over to convince the American people that the insurrection was caused by Antifa, was a peaceful event with lots of love in the air or was just a guided tour of the Capital building.
> 
> We know better!  It was an aggressive attempt by white nationalists, inspired by Trump, to take over the government of the United States.  Anyone who sees it in a different light is not a loyal, patriotic American, but rather is a Trump disciple who places him above the Constitution of the United States and the welfare of the majority of the American people.
> 
> Today's congressional hearing will expose the Trump people who tried to storm the Capital for what they really are:  enemies of the American people.


Oh this is comical....a commie Dimmer lecturing us on changing history!  Oh my side is splitting


----------



## jbrownson0831

Winston said:


> You are the imbecile, an insurrection does not require arms.  It requires violence.


Yes, those violent flag wavers...causing horrible violence as compared to the gunbearing, match carrying, tv stealing gentle Dims burning down their rat infested cities.  Do you Dims ever look at the garbage you post??


----------



## jbrownson0831

Winston said:


> Yes, the fools didn't accomplish jackshit.  But the goal was to stop the certification of the election and keep Trump in power.  That is the definition of an insurrection attempt.


Fake leftyvirus mailins by the thousands are the definition of an insurrection


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: That is not your big lie. These are your contradictory statements that drive your self deluded and rightwing crackpot lie that the-decision to invade Iraq from Congress to the White House had anything to do with the necessity of nation building Iraq as a military option to defeat global terrorists. 21SEP22-POST#614
> 
> Correll wrote: As I have told you many times, I supported the decision to invade Iraq. 21AUG08-POST#3010
> 
> Correll wrote: I did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT, and gave my support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation. 21SEP03-POST#454
> 
> NFBW wrote: There was only one reason that the US ended up as you say “committed as a nation” in Iraq and that reason was to disarm IRAQ of suspected possession of WMD. There was no other reason that influenced W’s horrendous decision to kick the UN inspectors out and start a war that ended up killing half a million Iraqis 21SEP22-POST#614




I'm interested in where you got off taking my comment completely out of context and pretending that it meant something it did not. 


What gives you the right to lie like that?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: Everything you say in 21SEP20-POST#609 Is a lie. The discussion about “normal” was as it relates to your estrangement from reality when it comes to knowledge and knowable facts in regards to the ramp up to the March 2003 W’s decision to invade Iraq. HERE Is WHAT WENT DOWN for the record. 21SEP20-POST#615




i stopped reading here. You are lying even more now. My reference to normal was the way people make decisions based on many factors, while you keep trying to pretend they are like machines.


You  are drifting more and more into the realm of nonsense, as you search for excuses to keep spamming your anti-American, and anti-White and anti-Christian hate.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: My reference to normal was the way people make decisions based on many factors, while you keep trying to pretend they are like machines.  21SEP22-POST#622

NFBW wrote: Normally being unconvinced about the reason for launching the invasion of Iraq would cause a person to affirm that they did not support it going in. 21SEP18-POST#597

Correll wrote: Because my support for the war was for a different reason and because it is not yet clear if that reason will bear fruit or not. 21SEP19-POST#601

NFBW wrote: What was that (your specific) “different reason” prior to the actual start of the invasion on March 19, 2003? 21SEP22-POST#623

NFBW wrote:  Your answer cannot be ‘nation building’ because you have told me that you didn’t support ‘nation building’ until after W took down the government in Iraq in order to find the WMD that was allegedly being hidden there. So what is your “different reason” ? 21SEP22-POST#623


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: My reference to normal was the way people make decisions based on many factors, while you keep trying to pretend they are like machines.  21SEP22-POST#622
> 
> NFBW wrote: Normally being unconvinced about the reason for launching the invasion of Iraq would cause a person to affirm that they did not support it going in. 21SEP18-POST#597
> 
> Correll wrote: Because my support for the war was for a different reason and because it is not yet clear if that reason will bear fruit or not. 21SEP19-POST#601
> 
> NFBW wrote: What was that (your specific) “different reason” prior to the actual start of the invasion on March 19, 2003? 21SEP22-POST#623
> 
> NFBW wrote:  Your answer cannot be ‘nation building’ because you have told me that you didn’t support ‘nation building’ until after W took down the government in Iraq in order to find the WMD that was allegedly being hidden there. So what is your “different reason” ? 21SEP22-POST#623




Yeah, we covered that repeatedly.

Why are you pretending we did not? Are you still trying to milk the stupid Wally gig, to just keep spamming your hate?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: I'm interested in where you got off taking my comment completely out of context and pretending that it meant something it did not. 21SEP22-POST#622

NFBW wrote: Are you ever going to respond to the fact that you and I are in full agreement as shown below? Your pissing and moaning has included that I took your words out of context to make it look like we are in agreement. But it’s true that we are in agreement on not supporting the invasion going in but supporting the troops on the nation building after the disastrous decision that W made to kick the inspectors out and start the war that ended up killing half a million Iraqis. 21SEP22-POST#625

Correll wrote: I did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT, and gave my support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation. 21SEP03-POST#428

NFBW wrote: By the way I did not support the invasion going in, however I gave my support to our fighting men and women in uniform to their nation building process once we were committed as a nation. So we agree on that don’t we? I don’t see anything out of context. 21SEP20-POST#615


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Yeah, we covered that repeatedly




NFBW WROTE: You are a liar because you have not told us what the ‘different reason’ other than NATION BUILDING made you support the invasion prior to the start from one side of your forked tongue while the other side of your forked tongue says you didn’t support the decision to invade going in?  21SEP22-POST#626


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW wrote: Normally being unconvinced about the reason for launching the invasion of Iraq would cause a person to affirm that they did not support it going in. 21SEP18-POST#597

Correll wrote: Because my support for the war was for a different reason and because it is not yet clear if that reason will bear fruit or not. 21SEP19-POST#601

NFBW wrote: It is obvious from all that  Correll posts, that he cannot explain how he did not support the invasion going in for any reason, on the one hand but he supported it, going in,  for a different reason that was not WMD related or to do nation building. He is tangled in his own web of lies about the ramp up to war in Iraq in MARCH 2003. 21SEP22-POST#627


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: As events and discussions continued AFTER THE FORMAL CASE FOR WAR WAS MADE, President Bush allowed himself to be painted into a corner, where if Saddam had provided undeniable proof that he was disarmed, that he would have had a difficult time going to war, with that one pound weight removed. 21AUG18-POST#3240

NFBW wrote: Do you, Correll have a date or event specific for when the FORMAL CASE FOR WAR WAS MADE? Was it the date that the AUMF was passed? If so, you can type three letters Y E S or iF NO then type the date you have off the top of your head that you think it took place. That will be easier than pissing and moaning that you gave an answer already and it’s been covered.  21SEP22-POST#628


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: The case for war was not solely based on wmds. you are now lying. Again. 21JUN07-POST#1519

Correll wrote: As events and discussions continued AFTER THE FORMAL CASE FOR WAR WAS MADE, President Bush allowed himself to be painted into a corner, where if Saddam had provided undeniable proof that he was disarmed, that he would have had a difficult time going to war, with that one pound weight removed. 21AUG18-POST#3240

NFBW wrote: You don’t have to speculate Correll that W “would have had a difficult time going to war” because W revealed that he was prepared and willing to back off on the push and necessity for war if Iraq had been determined by the UNSC to be disarmed. W drafted and circulated a DRAFT RESOLUTION that said exactly what had to happen for W to make the decision that there would be no war and SH could stay in power. See partial transcript below: 21SEP22-POST#629


“”” Partial Text of UN draft resolution setting March 17 deadline for disarmament By Associated Press, 3/7/2003
Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions and to restore international peace and security in the area,
Acting under Chapter VII of the charter of the United Nations,
1. Reaffirms the need for full implementation of Resolution 1441 (2002);
2. Calls on Iraq immediately to take the decisions necessary in the interests of its people and the region;
3. Decides that Iraq will have failed to take the final opportunity afforded by Resolution 1441 (2002) unless, on or before 17 March 2003, the council concludes that Iraq has demonstrated full, unconditional, immediate, and active cooperation in accordance with its disarmament obligations under Resolution 1441 (2002) and previous relevant resolutions, and is yielding possession to UNMOVIC and the IAEA of all weapons, weapon delivery and support systems and structures, prohibited by Resolution -687 (1991) and all subsequent resolutions, and all information regarding prior destruction of such i   03MAR07-DRtoUNSConIRAQ “””


NO WAR @Correl IF “”on or before 17 March 2003, the council concludes that Iraq has demonstrated full, unconditional, immediate, and active cooperation in accordance with its disarmament obligations under Resolution 1441 (2002) and previous relevant resolutions, and is yielding possession to UNMOVIC and the IAEA of all weapons, weapon delivery and support systems “”


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: In my context, I was making a point about your inability to understand how normal people think, ie with multiple factors considered and complexity and nuance. 21SEP22-POST#612

NFBW wrote: I do not believe that you Correll get to classify yourself as a normal person who thinks and regards me as a not normal person who cannot understand and appreciate you and your refined complexity. There are a lot of you, but you do not represent any kind of majority that makes you normal and those unlike you to be grouped as abnormal and too stupid to understand your nonsense. 21SEP23-POST#6

NFBW wrote:  As a white non-churchgoing Christian nationalist Trump supporter your expressed thoughts are obsessively filled with lies and with shaded facts that you insist that anyone calling out your lies simply cannot understand the nuance and complexity of how an unchurched white Christian nationalists’ Trump supporting mind works. 21SEP23-POST#6

NFBW wrote:  I contend that your secular belief that America was founded as a white Protestant Christian nation combined with your incomprehensible moral justification and nonchalant ambivalence for the killing of a single Muslim inhabitant of Iraq let alone half a million,  for the purpose of nation building by use of deadly American military power and force combined with your false accusations against the peaceful Black Lives Matter protests combined with your refusal to accept that Trump lost the 2020 election due to fraudulent votes cast by large numbers of black voters in major cities excludes you from being considered a normal person. 21SEP23-POST#6

NFBW 21SEP23-POST#6 wrote:   I think you should be the poster TRUMP child for sociological studies such as this: 

“”” Explaining the religious vote for Trump
LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY 

The researchers were not surprised to see how Christian nationalism drove a big part of the so-called “religious vote” for Trump in 2016, but quite surprised to see that the connection was so strong for voters who don’t attend church, compared to those who do.

BATON ROUGE, November 9, 2020—
Research News - New research by LSU sociologists indicate it wasn't Christian nationalism that drove churchgoers' Trump vote in 2016. Rather, surprisingly, Christian nationalism was important among non-churchgoers. 





__





						Explaining the Religious Vote for Trump
					

New research by Louisiana State University (LSU) sociologists indicate it wasn’t Christian nationalism that drove churchgoers’ Trump vote in 2016. Rather, surprisingly, Christian nationalism was important among non-churchgoers.




					www.lsu.edu
				




Christian nationalism is thought to have been an important factor in the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States in 2016--and likely drove many of his supporters to the polls in 2020. Now, new research shows Christian nationalist support of Trump isn't tied to religious institutions or attending church on a regular basis. Instead, it's tied to not attending church.   20SEP09-CN-LSU-unchurched-A  “””


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: In my context, I was making a point about your inability to understand how normal people think, ie with multiple factors considered and complexity and nuance. 21SEP22-POST#612

NFBW wrote: I do not believe that you Correll get to classify yourself as a normal person who thinks and regards me as a not normal person who cannot understand and appreciate you and your refined complexity. There are a lot of you, but you do not represent any kind of majority that makes you normal and those unlike you to be grouped as abnormal and too stupid to understand your nonsense. 21SEP23-POST#631

NFBW wrote:  As a white non-churchgoing Christian nationalist Trump supporter your expressed thoughts are obsessively filled with lies and with shaded facts that you insist that anyone calling out your lies simply cannot understand the nuance and complexity of how an unchurched white Christian nationalists’ Trump supporting mind works. 21SEP23-POST#631

NFBW wrote:  I contend that your secular belief that America was founded as a white Protestant Christian nation combined with your incomprehensible moral justification and nonchalant ambivalence for the killing of a single Muslim inhabitant of Iraq let alone half a million,  for the purpose of nation building by use of deadly American military power and force combined with your false accusations against the peaceful Black Lives Matter protests combined with your refusal to accept that Trump lost the 2020 election due to fraudulent votes cast by large numbers of black voters in major cities excludes you from being considered a normal person. 21SEP23-POST#631

NFBW 21SEP23-POST#631 wrote:   I think you should be the poster TRUMP child for sociological studies such as this: 

“”” Explaining the religious vote for Trump
LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY 

The researchers were not surprised to see how Christian nationalism drove a big part of the so-called “religious vote” for Trump in 2016, but quite surprised to see that the connection was so strong for voters who don’t attend church, compared to those who do.

BATON ROUGE, November 9, 2020—
Research News - New research by LSU sociologists indicate it wasn't Christian nationalism that drove churchgoers' Trump vote in 2016. Rather, surprisingly, Christian nationalism was important among non-churchgoers. 





__





						Explaining the Religious Vote for Trump
					

New research by Louisiana State University (LSU) sociologists indicate it wasn’t Christian nationalism that drove churchgoers’ Trump vote in 2016. Rather, surprisingly, Christian nationalism was important among non-churchgoers.




					www.lsu.edu
				




Christian nationalism is thought to have been an important factor in the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States in 2016--and likely drove many of his supporters to the polls in 2020. Now, new research shows Christian nationalist support of Trump isn't tied to religious institutions or attending church on a regular basis. Instead, it's tied to not attending church.   20SEP09-CN-LSU-unchurched-A  “””

END of NFBW 21SEP23-POST#631


----------



## Colin norris

Correll said:


> 1. They were not "white nationalists", you are a lying asshole.
> 
> 2. Lefty agitators being responsible is a reasonable suspicion. We've seen one  on tape.
> 
> 3. Most republicans are happy to agree that the 1/6 riot, was a riot and that it was a violent crime.
> 
> 4.  YOu are a lying asshole.



They were white supremeists and republicans.  Not one Democrat participated and you have no evidence to support that.  You are a lying hate filled pig. 

You've had 6 months to openly condemn it and castigate trump for it but you sat on your hands through sheer loyalty to the idiot. You are a patriots bootlace. 
Now you're  rooting for a return of the fascist idiot.  

You loopies are enough to make people vomit. You're a disgrace to the nation.


----------



## Meathead

Astrostar said:


> Fact check: Some Republicans have tried to rewrite the history of January 6. Here's how | CNN Politics
> 
> 
> When the House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6 convenes for the first time, it will be against a backdrop of Republican objections and falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because history is what it is.  Despite the efforts of Trump and his Cult members in Congress to rewrite it to reflect positively on Trump, theirs is a lost cause.
> 
> Trump and his disciples, since January 6 have tried over and over to convince the American people that the insurrection was caused by Antifa, was a peaceful event with lots of love in the air or was just a guided tour of the Capital building.
> 
> We know better!  It was an aggressive attempt by white nationalists, inspired by Trump, to take over the government of the United States.  Anyone who sees it in a different light is not a loyal, patriotic American, but rather is a Trump disciple who places him above the Constitution of the United States and the welfare of the majority of the American people.
> 
> Today's congressional hearing will expose the Trump people who tried to storm the Capital for what they really are:  enemies of the American people.


CNN, the leader in fake news fact checking? LOL!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: DJT can spout off about his personal opinion, and that is fine. I clearly disagree with him.  21AUG21-POST#3294 

DJT SEPTEMBER 22 2021 wrote: “Bush is the one who got us into the quicksand of the Middle East and, after spending trillions of dollars and killing nearly a million people, the Middle East was left in worse shape after 21 years than it was when he started his stupidity," Trump wrote 21SEP22-DJT-email trashingW

NFBW wrote: IF I agree with DJT that “Bush is the one who got us into the quicksand of the Middle East and, after spending trillions of dollars and killing nearly a million people, the Middle East was left in worse shape after 21 years than it was when he started his stupidity," does that make me a ‘normal person ‘ or is that more of the same America trashing and anti-Christian hate that you’ve been sniffing out. 21SEP23-POST#634


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: But yes. believing that the Iraqis were yearning for Freedom and Democracy was pretty stupid.  Next time we should just put some sane person on a throne. POST #216 November 17 2015 15NOV17-POST#216



Correll said:


> Next time we should just put some sane person on a throne.



NFBW wrote: Will the real Correll please stand up? 21SEO23-POST#635

Correll wrote: Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer made a convincing argument and got me to believe that an Arab population was ready to support a democratic government, and that such a functioning nation in the middle of the ME would be our answer to Islam. 21MAY11POST#639


surada asked Correll :  What exactly did you hope to gain by war on Iraq?  21MAY22-POST#1010 

Correll  wrote: A functioning Muslim democracy in the middle of the Middle East, as a counter argument to the ideas of Islamic Fundamentalism. 21MAY22-POST#1016


----------



## surada

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: But yes. believing that the Iraqis were yearning for Freedom and Democracy was pretty stupid.  Next time we should just put some sane person on a throne. POST #216 November 17 2015 15NOV17-POST#216
> 
> NFBW wrote: Will the real Correll please stand up? 21SEO23-POST#635
> 
> Correll wrote: Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer made a convincing argument and got me to believe that an Arab population was ready to support a democratic government, and that such a functioning nation in the middle of the ME would be our answer to Islam. 21MAY11POST#639
> 
> 
> surada asked Correll :  What exactly did you hope to gain by war on Iraq?  21MAY22-POST#1010
> 
> Correll  wrote: A functioning Muslim democracy in the middle of the Middle East, as a counter argument to the ideas of Islamic Fundamentalism. 21MAY22-POST#1016




Muslims have their own consultative forms like Shoura Council and Majlis.. Its arrogant as hell to think the US can jam them up to be like us.

Concern yourself with Christian fundamentalism and leave other countries alone to come into modernity in their own unique way.

Krauthammer was an idiot propagandist.


----------



## Otis Mayfield

Astrostar said:


> Fact check: Some Republicans have tried to rewrite the history of January 6. Here's how | CNN Politics
> 
> 
> When the House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6 convenes for the first time, it will be against a backdrop of Republican objections and falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because history is what it is.  Despite the efforts of Trump and his Cult members in Congress to rewrite it to reflect positively on Trump, theirs is a lost cause.
> 
> Trump and his disciples, since January 6 have tried over and over to convince the American people that the insurrection was caused by Antifa, was a peaceful event with lots of love in the air or was just a guided tour of the Capital building.
> 
> We know better!  It was an aggressive attempt by white nationalists, inspired by Trump, to take over the government of the United States.  Anyone who sees it in a different light is not a loyal, patriotic American, but rather is a Trump disciple who places him above the Constitution of the United States and the welfare of the majority of the American people.
> 
> Today's congressional hearing will expose the Trump people who tried to storm the Capital for what they really are:  enemies of the American people.




'We won this election, and we won it by a landslide'​
'We will stop the steal'​
'We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn't happen'​
'If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore'​
'We are going to the Capitol'​

Idiot threw gasoline on a fire. He should at least be force to pay all the legal fees of the people he duped.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: I'm interested in where you got off taking my comment completely out of context and pretending that it meant something it did not. 21SEP22-POST#622
> 
> NFBW wrote: Are you ever going to respond to the fact that you and I are in full agreement as shown below? Your pissing and moaning has included that I took your words out of context to make it look like we are in agreement. But it’s true that we are in agreement on not supporting the invasion going in but supporting the troops on the nation building after the disastrous decision that W made to kick the inspectors out and start the war that ended up killing half a million Iraqis. 21SEP22-POST#625
> 
> Correll wrote: I did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT, and gave my support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation. 21SEP03-POST#428
> 
> NFBW wrote: By the way I did not support the invasion going in, however I gave my support to our fighting men and women in uniform to their nation building process once we were committed as a nation. So we agree on that don’t we? I don’t see anything out of context. 21SEP20-POST#615




We have covered all of that ad nauseum. 

What we have no discussed in your increasingly use of dishonestly to give yourself a...pretense to spew your anti-American, anti-white and anti-Christian bigotry and hate. 


I'm serious. How do you justify that to yourself? DO you tell yourself this is a game so lying is ok?

Do you tell yourself, since your goal is undermining Evul America, that the ends justify the means?


What is your justification for your increasingly bad behavior?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW WROTE: You are a liar because you have not told us what the ‘different reason’ other than NATION BUILDING made you support the invasion prior to the start from one side of your forked tongue while the other side of your forked tongue says you didn’t support the decision to invade going in?  21SEP22-POST#626




Yeah, i did. A lot. You are now just lying a lot. 



Do you realize that when you lie in a debate, you are admitting that you know you have lost the debate?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: Normally being unconvinced about the reason for launching the invasion of Iraq would cause a person to affirm that they did not support it going in. 21SEP18-POST#597
> 
> Correll wrote: Because my support for the war was for a different reason and because it is not yet clear if that reason will bear fruit or not. 21SEP19-POST#601
> 
> NFBW wrote: It is obvious from all that  Correll posts, that he cannot explain how he did not support the invasion going in for any reason, on the one hand but he supported it, going in,  for a different reason that was not WMD related or to do nation building. He is tangled in his own web of lies about the ramp up to war in Iraq in MARCH 2003. 21SEP22-POST#627




We covered all of that. I see two possibilities at this point in time.


1. YOu really can't deal with the nuance and complexity of normal human thinking. In which case seek medical advice.


2. YOu are just talking shit, to give yourself an excuse to spam your bullshit. In which case, stop being an asshole.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: As events and discussions continued AFTER THE FORMAL CASE FOR WAR WAS MADE, President Bush allowed himself to be painted into a corner, where if Saddam had provided undeniable proof that he was disarmed, that he would have had a difficult time going to war, with that one pound weight removed. 21AUG18-POST#3240
> 
> NFBW wrote: Do you, Correll have a date or event specific for when the FORMAL CASE FOR WAR WAS MADE? Was it the date that the AUMF was passed? If so, you can type three letters Y E S or iF NO then type the date you have off the top of your head that you think it took place. That will be easier than pissing and moaning that you gave an answer already and it’s been covered.  21SEP22-POST#628




Don't recall, and don't care.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: In my context, I was making a point about your inability to understand how normal people think, ie with multiple factors considered and complexity and nuance. 21SEP22-POST#612
> 
> NFBW wrote: I do not believe that you Correll get to classify yourself as a normal person who thinks and regards me as a not normal person who cannot understand and appreciate you and your refined complexity. There are a lot of you, but you do not represent any kind of majority that makes you normal and those unlike you to be grouped as abnormal and too stupid to understand your nonsense. 21SEP23-POST#6
> 
> NFBW wrote:  As a white non-churchgoing Christian nationalist Trump supporter your expressed thoughts are obsessively filled with lies and with shaded facts that you insist that anyone calling out your lies simply cannot understand the nuance and complexity of how an unchurched white Christian nationalists’ Trump supporting mind works. 21SEP23-POST#6
> 
> NFBW wrote:  I contend that your secular belief that America was founded as a white Protestant Christian nation combined with your incomprehensible moral justification and nonchalant ambivalence for the killing of a single Muslim inhabitant of Iraq let alone half a million,  for the purpose of nation building by use of deadly American military power and force combined with your false accusations against the peaceful Black Lives Matter protests combined with your refusal to accept that Trump lost the 2020 election due to fraudulent votes cast by large numbers of black voters in major cities excludes you from being considered a normal person. 21SEP23-POST#6
> 
> NFBW 21SEP23-POST#6 wrote:   I think you should be the poster TRUMP child for sociological studies such as this:
> 
> “”” Explaining the religious vote for Trump
> LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
> 
> The researchers were not surprised to see how Christian nationalism drove a big part of the so-called “religious vote” for Trump in 2016, but quite surprised to see that the connection was so strong for voters who don’t attend church, compared to those who do.
> 
> BATON ROUGE, November 9, 2020—
> Research News - New research by LSU sociologists indicate it wasn't Christian nationalism that drove churchgoers' Trump vote in 2016. Rather, surprisingly, Christian nationalism was important among non-churchgoers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explaining the Religious Vote for Trump
> 
> 
> New research by Louisiana State University (LSU) sociologists indicate it wasn’t Christian nationalism that drove churchgoers’ Trump vote in 2016. Rather, surprisingly, Christian nationalism was important among non-churchgoers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.lsu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christian nationalism is thought to have been an important factor in the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States in 2016--and likely drove many of his supporters to the polls in 2020. Now, new research shows Christian nationalist support of Trump isn't tied to religious institutions or attending church on a regular basis. Instead, it's tied to not attending church.   20SEP09-CN-LSU-unchurched-A  “””




1. I certainly do get to define my self as normal and you as not. YOu are either suffering from a fairly extreme social disorder or a completely lying troll. 


2. Your spamming of anti-American, anti-white and Anti-Christian hate talking points, is noted. Seriously, why are you such a hater? Why do you hate this country so much? Why are you so afraid to answer any relevant questions?


----------



## Correll

Colin norris said:


> They were white supremeists and republicans.  Not one Democrat participated and you have no evidence to support that.  You are a lying hate filled pig.
> 
> You've had 6 months to openly condemn it and castigate trump for it but you sat on your hands through sheer loyalty to the idiot. You are a patriots bootlace.
> Now you're  rooting for a return of the fascist idiot.
> 
> You loopies are enough to make people vomit. You're a disgrace to the nation.




1. They were not w.s. You are a lying asshole.

2. At least one leftard participated and engaged on agitation. That has been linked to on this very site, with video evidence. YOur denial is you being a lying asshole.

3. I condemned the riot immediately and repeatedly since then. You are a lying asshole.

4. Trump was well within  his rights to call for a demonstration to put political pressure on Congress. Your pretense that he called for or directed the actual violence, is just you being a lying asshole.

5.  You people are the ones engaging in fascism, with your antifa and BLM brownshirted goons, and arresting people for defending themselves. 

6. You are the disgrace. You and your lies. Go fuck yourself.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: DJT can spout off about his personal opinion, and that is fine. I clearly disagree with him.  21AUG21-POST#3294
> 
> DJT SEPTEMBER 22 2021 wrote: “Bush is the one who got us into the quicksand of the Middle East and, after spending trillions of dollars and killing nearly a million people, the Middle East was left in worse shape after 21 years than it was when he started his stupidity," Trump wrote 21SEP22-DJT-email trashingW
> 
> NFBW wrote: IF I agree with DJT that “Bush is the one who got us into the quicksand of the Middle East and, after spending trillions of dollars and killing nearly a million people, the Middle East was left in worse shape after 21 years than it was when he started his stupidity," does that make me a ‘normal person ‘ or is that more of the same America trashing and anti-Christian hate that you’ve been sniffing out. 21SEP23-POST#634





My use of "normal" is in the context of your social disorder, not your fairly normal lefty politics. 


That you try to confuse the issue, is just you doing your stupid and dishonest out of context lying again. 


Why are you so terrified of honest discussion? Are you that sure that being honest will be bad for you? How ugly are you inside, that you feel you have to lie so much?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: But yes. believing that the Iraqis were yearning for Freedom and Democracy was pretty stupid.  Next time we should just put some sane person on a throne. POST #216 November 17 2015 15NOV17-POST#216
> 
> ......





NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: But yes. believing that the Iraqis were yearning for Freedom and Democracy was pretty stupid.  Next time we should just put some sane person on a throne. POST #216 November 17 2015 15NOV17-POST#216
> 
> 
> 
> NFBW wrote: Will the real Correll please stand up? 21SEO23-POST#635
> 
> Correll wrote: Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer made a convincing argument and got me to believe that an Arab population was ready to support a democratic government, and that such a functioning nation in the middle of the ME would be our answer to Islam. 21MAY11POST#639
> 
> 
> surada asked Correll :  What exactly did you hope to gain by war on Iraq?  21MAY22-POST#1010
> 
> Correll  wrote: A functioning Muslim democracy in the middle of the Middle East, as a counter argument to the ideas of Islamic Fundamentalism. 21MAY22-POST#1016





Are you really so stupid that you imagine a contraction in these statements? Seriously?

What the fuck is wrong with you?


----------



## Colin norris

Correll said:


> 1. They were not w.s. You are a lying asshole.
> 
> 2. At least one leftard participated and engaged on agitation. That has been linked to on this very site, with video evidence. YOur denial is you being a lying asshole.
> 
> 3. I condemned the riot immediately and repeatedly since then. You are a lying asshole.
> 
> 4. Trump was well within  his rights to call for a demonstration to put political pressure on Congress. Your pretense that he called for or directed the actual violence, is just you being a lying asshole.
> 
> 5.  You people are the ones engaging in fascism, with your antifa and BLM brownshirted goons, and arresting people for defending themselves.
> 
> 6. You are the disgrace. You and your lies. Go fuck yourself.





Correll said:


> 1. They were not w.s. You are a lying asshole.
> 
> 2. At least one leftard participated and engaged on agitation. That has been linked to on this very site, with video evidence. YOur denial is you being a lying asshole.
> 
> 3. I condemned the riot immediately and repeatedly since then. You are a lying asshole.
> 
> 4. Trump was well within  his rights to call for a demonstration to put political pressure on Congress. Your pretense that he called for or directed the actual violence, is just you being a lying asshole.
> 
> 5.  You people are the ones engaging in fascism, with your antifa and BLM brownshirted goons, and arresting people for defending themselves.
> 
> 6. You are the disgrace. You and your lies. Go fuck yourself.



Getting angry and frustrated with filthy language doesn't intimidate me. 
It was Republican orchestrated and carried out.  That is undeniable. As a repuican you should now not associate with them if you hate fascism etc so much.  It was no different to a third world coup and your party is responsible for it.  
Deal with you grub.


----------



## Correll

Colin norris said:


> Getting angry and frustrated with filthy language doesn't intimidate me.
> It was Republican orchestrated and carried out.  That is undeniable. As a repuican you should now not associate with them if you hate fascism etc so much.  It was no different to a third world coup and your party is responsible for it.
> Deal with you grub.




1. I'm not trying to intimidate you. I am trying to treat you with the level of respect you have earned. 

2. Yes, the demonstration was orchestrated by republicans. A very small faction of them, got out of control and rioted. 

3. A single riot does not define the republican party. Your pretense it does, is you being a lying asshole. 

4. It was not a coup. What was a coup, was the fbi lying to a federal judge to lay the ground  work for a bullshit impeachment.


----------



## Colin norris

Correll said:


> 1. I'm not trying to intimidate you. I am trying to treat you with the level of respect you have earned.
> 
> Why should republicans be treated any different to how democrats are treated? You ignorant hate filled fool.
> 
> 2. Yes, the demonstration was orchestrated by republicans. A very small faction of them, got out of control and rioted.
> Bullshit. Everyone of  them was there for one reason  only. To do trumps  dirty work and play out his fascist wishes.  Small fraction my foot. Who do you think your fooling.  You are not true patriots. You would be better suited to north Korea.
> 
> 3. A single riot does not define the republican party. Your pretense it does, is you being a lying asshole.
> 
> Call me what you like but it was the first attempted over throw of democracy and was performed by republicans  under a fascist president. There's nothing untruthful about that.
> 
> 4. It was not a coup. What was a coup, was the fbi lying to a federal judge to lay the ground  work for a bullshit impeachment.
> 
> Trump was impeached and found guilty of quid pro quo with Ukraine. He escaped penalty by the Senate republicans have the numberd. Impeached forever son. He's a criminal like all Republican senatirs who protected him.
> 
> So cut your foul language. If that's the best defense you've got, you've got nothing.
> Every time you reply I get another whack at you.   Have another go.


----------



## Correll

Colin norris 



> Why should republicans be treated any different to how democrats are treated? You ignorant hate filled fool.




My treatment of you is based not on you being a democrat, but you using the Race Card, without cause. THat marks you as an asshole deserving of nothing but contempt.



> Call me what you like but it was the first attempted over throw of democracy and was performed by republicans under a fascist president. There's nothing untruthful about that.



It was a 4 hour riot. Your attempt to gin it up to something earth shaking is just you being a lying asshole. Especially considering the YEARS of riots of your side's goons. 




> Trump was impeached and found guilty...



The FBI had to lie to a fed judge to even get a warrant. That was how much "meat" there was to that shit sandwich that you people fed to America.  Even Mueller admitted it was nothing but shit. For you to still be beating that dead horse, is just you being a complete partisan zealot. 



> So cut your foul language. If that's the best defense you've got, you've got nothing.
> Every time you reply I get another whack at you. Have another go.




As stated above, my level of respect for you, is based on your behavior. You want civility try showing some. Until then, I will treat you like the cur you are.


----------



## Colin norris

Correll said:


> Colin norris
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My treatment of you is based not on you being a democrat, but you using the Race Card, without cause. THat marks you as an asshole deserving of nothing but contempt.
> 
> I've yet to see a Republican who wasn't a racist.  including you.  That's Why you arc up when its said.
> 
> 
> It was a 4 hour riot. Your attempt to gin it up to something earth shaking is just you being a lying asshole. Especially considering the YEARS of riots of your side's goons.
> 
> I couldn't give a shit if it went 5 minutes.
> It was an attempt to destroy democracy by a fascist you elected. Why are you defending reporting it as anything else.  The whole world saw it as that but you militant idiots thought it was your birth rite to control everything.
> You are all fascists so check the meaning of it.
> 
> 
> 
> The FBI had to lie to a fed judge to even get a warrant. That was how much "meat" there was to that shit sandwich that you people fed to America.  Even Mueller admitted it was nothing but shit. For you to still be beating that dead horse, is just you being a complete partisan zealot.
> 
> The FBI did not.lie to anyone and there is no evidence that conclusively points to it being done to destroy trump. He did it himself with your help.
> 
> I'll be hammering away at your lies and myths until my last breath. You are militant brain dead fascists disguised as patriots. You lot have the principles of alley cats. You hate with enough venom to kill on sight. You're a  disgraceful excuse for an American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As stated above, my level of respect for you, is based on your behavior. You want civility try showing some. Until then, I will treat you like the cur you are.
> 
> I want Nothing from you because you have nothing to offer me. Its not as if you're an intellectual powerhouse of truth and justice.
> You can go crazy at me forever boy.  I'll take everything you have to offer and give it in return and some.  You won't bluff me with your perceived superior
> Intelligence.  you're just another redneck brain dead ignorant republican.
> You support fascism but call yourself an American. You're not an americans arsehole.  You would make the founders embarrassed.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: It was a 4 hour riot. 21SEP23-POST#649

NFBW wrote:  It was pre-planned riot in service to a degenerate fascistic mobster who was refusing to leave office and give up his power after losing an American election. An election loser who was using his office and his cult and his shady lawyers to spread the big lie that the election was rigged against him. 21SEP23-POST#651

NFBW 21SEP23-POST#651 wrote: DJT has admitted He had a plot, a goal, a coup attempt to overturn the election when he wrote: 

"Had Mike Pence had the courage to send the Electoral College vote back to the states for recertification, …. we would right now have a Republican President” DJT-21 May15 official statement

NFBW wrote:  The rioters were obeying orders to scare Pence into doing his part to overturn the election. 21SEP23-POST#651

NFBW wrote:  It was a race riot because the means by which the election was being sought to be overturned, had Pence started the ball rolling, was to void votes from the black voters residing in Detroit, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Phoenix, and Las Vegas who would have their BIDEN votes nullified because it made Trump sad and angry to lose. 21SEP23-POST#651


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: As events and discussions continued AFTER THE FORMAL CASE FOR WAR WAS MADE, President Bush allowed himself to be painted into a corner, 21AUG18-POST#3240


NFBW wrote: If you knew on August 18
a little over a month ago, about an historical event such as “The FORMAL CASE FOR WAR” being made, why don’t you recall the date now of such an obviously recorded historical event?  21SEP24-POST#652


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Are you really so stupid that you imagine a contraction in these statements?



How are they not a contradiction?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

post: 27944933 





Correll said:


> Yeah, i did. A lot.



NFBW wrote: If you actually did you could actually and easily post it one more time to actually “prove” that I am a lying. BUT you can’t. You always end with accusing me of lying but never bring the meat. Its trickery. Its what a DJT gentle white fascist does in his or her yearning for raw power. It seems harmless but this fakery and trickery like that is a very effective political weapon in the AGE of DJT.  21SEP21-POST#654

“”” What is happening now in our nation's capital, and radiating throughout the country, is enough to put even the most cynical of politicians of past eras to shame. 









						Hypocrisy
					

I fear that we don't have an adequate framework to make complete sense of the depravity and disingenuousness of what is taking place.




					steady.substack.com
				



21SEP21-DRather-depravityGOP-a

I fear that we don't have an adequate framework to make complete sense of the depravity and disingenuousness of what is taking place. Basically, we have one political party at the national level, the Republicans, who have long since ceded any pretense of actually doing the work of government, namely making policies to solve problems. Instead, it is raw power for power's sake, and that has turned Congress into what is in essence largely a troll farm on their side of the aisle. “””


----------



## mikegriffith1

How was trying to get key swing states to conduct genuine ballot audits an attempt to "overthrow the government"?









						Tucker Carlson: Media will never admit there was no insurrection
					

Tucker Carlson highlights what's revealed by new video footage of the Jan. 6 capitol protest.




					www.foxnews.com
				




The January 6 rioters numbered about 400 people, a tiny fraction of the Trump supporters who attended the rally that day, and some of those 400 people were not even Trump supporters but were radical leftists posing as Trump supporters.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

mikegriffith1 said:


> How was trying to get key swing states to conduct genuine ballot audits an attempt to "overthrow the government"?



It was not that. It was a racially motivated attempt to overturn the election that DJT lost in a landslide. The swing state ballot audits were ‘after the fact’ to keep the BIG LIE donations coming in to a dismissed president who refused to accept he list and who encouraged an attack on an open session of Congress on Jan6 in a failed insurrection which had at the heart of it the goal of disenfranchising millions of black voters in cities like Atlanta Detroit Philadelphia Phoenix Las Vegas Milwaukee who voted for Joe Biden.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

mikegriffith1 said:


> The January 6 rioters numbered about 400 people, a tiny fraction of the Trump supporters who attended the rally that day,



NFBW wrote: Do you think the 400 violent DJT fascists would have been able to breach the US Capitol during a live session on Jan6  in order to stop the certification of the votes if they did not have 20,000 gentle DJT fascists behind them occupying police activity and cheering the violent DJT rioters on? 21SEP24-POST#657


----------



## Correll

Colin norris 

@
Colin norris





> I've yet to see a Republican who wasn't a racist. including you. That's Why you arc up when its said.




You see wacism, where you want to see wacism, because it gives you an excuse, in your mind, to be an asshole. I reject your excuse and will treat you like the asshole you are. 




> I couldn't give a shit if it went 5 minutes.
> It was an attempt to destroy democracy by a fascist you elected.



It was a riot, ie a violent crime, and I support the equal application of justice in response.

YOur pretense that it is more than that, is bullshit, pumped up to distract from your own side's far more extensive and worse rioting over hte last 4 year, AND to justify your increasing use of government power against your partisan enemies. 

Those are the real threats to democracy here. You and your behavior. 





> The FBI did not.lie to anyone and there is no evidence that conclusively points to it being done to destroy trump. He did it himself with your help.



The FBI lied. There was nothing to RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA. Even Mueller had to admit that. He looked and looked and found JACK SHIT. 





> I'll be hammering away at your lies and myths until my last breath. You are militant brain dead fascists disguised as patriots. You lot have the principles of alley cats. You hate with enough venom to kill on sight. You're a disgraceful excuse for an American.



Sure. That's why you have to pretend that every republican is a wacist and that a simple four hour riot was a serious threat to our democracy.

YOU HAVE NOTHING TO BACK UP YOUR SHIT. YOU HAVE TO LIE AND LIE AND LIE.





> I want Nothing from you because you have nothing to offer me. Its not as if you're an intellectual powerhouse of truth and justice.
> You can go crazy at me forever boy. I'll take everything you have to offer and give it in return and some. You won't bluff me with your perceived superior
> Intelligence. you're just another redneck brain dead ignorant republican.
> You support fascism but call yourself an American. You're not an americans arsehole. You would make the founders embarrassed.



I'm not an "intellectual powerhouse"? LOL, this coming from an lefty that literally thinks that every republican is a wacist.


You are a retarded child and an asshole.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: It was a 4 hour riot. 21SEP23-POST#649
> 
> NFBW wrote:  It was pre-planned riot in service to a degenerate fascistic mobster .....




Back up that shit or admit that you are just a mindless spam bot.


----------



## Colin norris

Correll said:


> Colin norris
> 
> @
> Colin norris
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see wacism, where you want to see wacism, because it gives you an excuse, in your mind, to be an asshole. I reject your excuse and will treat you like the asshole you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a riot, ie a violent crime, and I support the equal application of justice in response.
> 
> YOur pretense that it is more than that, is bullshit, pumped up to distract from your own side's far more extensive and worse rioting over hte last 4 year, AND to justify your increasing use of government power against your partisan enemies.
> 
> Those are the real threats to democracy here. You and your behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FBI lied. There was nothing to RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA. Even Mueller had to admit that. He looked and looked and found JACK SHIT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. That's why you have to pretend that every republican is a wacist and that a simple four hour riot was a serious threat to our democracy.
> 
> YOU HAVE NOTHING TO BACK UP YOUR SHIT. YOU HAVE TO LIE AND LIE AND LIE.
> 
> I hope you feel better now you've got that off your chest.  You people think you have exclusive access to this forum and reject others who don't agree.  All your hateful diatribe doesn't intimidate me son. Have another swing.
> Not even idiots like you will change my opinion unless you post the links.
> I'll wait here dickhead.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> How are they not a contradiction?




You are the one that sees a contradiction NOT. It is up to you to explain what you see. 


Seriously. WTF?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> post: 27944933
> 
> NFBW wrote: If you actually did you could actually and easily post it one more time to actually “prove” that I am a lying. BUT you can’t. You always end with accusing me of lying but never bring the meat. Its trickery. Its what a DJT gentle white fascist does in his or her yearning for raw power. It seems harmless but this fakery and trickery like that is a very effective political weapon in the AGE of DJT.  21SEP21-POST#654
> 
> “”” What is happening now in our nation's capital, and radiating throughout the country, is enough to put even the most cynical of politicians of past eras to shame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hypocrisy
> 
> 
> I fear that we don't have an adequate framework to make complete sense of the depravity and disingenuousness of what is taking place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> steady.substack.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 21SEP21-DRather-depravityGOP-a
> 
> I fear that we don't have an adequate framework to make complete sense of the depravity and disingenuousness of what is taking place. Basically, we have one political party at the national level, the Republicans, who have long since ceded any pretense of actually doing the work of government, namely making policies to solve problems. Instead, it is raw power for power's sake, and that has turned Congress into what is in essence largely a troll farm on their side of the aisle. “””




1. Calling me a "white fascist" is racist of you and a lie. 

2. The party that is a threat to democracy, is the dems, with their riots and politicization of law enforcement and now the military and their embrace of brown shirt tactics.


----------



## Colin norris

Correll said:


> 1. Calling me a "white fascist" is racist of you and a lie.
> 
> 2. The party that is a threat to democracy, is the dems, with their riots and politicization of law enforcement and now the military and their embrace of brown shirt tactics.



You have forgotten the black mark in history when trump and you lumps supported the riots to over throw democracy. Yet the democrats  are a threat???? 
Do you ever think before you post rubbish like that?


----------



## Correll

Colin norris said:


> You have forgotten the black mark in history when trump and you lumps supported the riots to over throw democracy. Yet the democrats  are a threat????
> Do you ever think before you post rubbish like that?




Trump did not support or call for a riot, and it was certainly not an attempt to overthrow thee government.

Your hysterical panic mongering is an excuse to distract from your own, far worse riots and to justify your increasing use of both brown shirt street violence and using government power against your enemies. 


Would you like to address my actual points, or are you just going to repeat your unsupported accusations and assertions again, as that is all you understand of "debate"?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW wrote: Do you, Correll have a date or event specific for when the FORMAL CASE FOR WAR WAS MADE? 21SEP22-POST#628



Correll said:


> Don't recall, and don't care.



NFBW 21SEO27-POST#665  If you don’t recall what you were thinking in 2003 and don’t care, why did you cite something that happened after something else happened but don’t know the timing of which you spoke? . 

Correll wrote: As events and discussions continued AFTER THE FORMAL CASE FOR WAR WAS MADE, President Bush allowed himself to be painted into a corner, where if Saddam had provided undeniable proof that he was disarmed, that he would have had a difficult time going to war, 21AUG18-POST#3240


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW wrote: It was pre-planned riot in service to a degenerate fascistic mobster who was refusing to leave office and give up his power after losing an American election. 21SEP23-POST#651

Correll wrote: Back up that shit or admit that you are just a mindless spam bot. 21SEP26-POST#659

NFBW wrote: Do you actually believe the Jan6 rioters did no coordination, planning or preparation to storm into the Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of the election that specific day? 21SEP26-POST#666


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW wrote: It was pre-planned riot in service to a degenerate fascistic mobster who was refusing to leave office and give up his power after losing an American election. 21SEP23-POST#651

Correll wrote: Back up that shit or admit that you are just a mindless spam bot. 21SEP26-POST#659

NFBW wrote: The backup to what was suspected of the degenerate fascistic mobster who was refusing to leave office and give up his power after losing an American election. Its the EASTMAN PLAN. I cannot make you read it, but I can ask if you are a degenerate fascist who wishes the plan had worked. Are You? If you don’t answer I accept that you wished the EASTMAN PLAN worked and DJT was still President because millions of black votes would not be counted. Those black votes would not count had the EASTMAN PLAN worked to replace Biden electors with the white fascist’s electors from 7 states with largely populated cities with black majorities.   21SEP27-POST#667


PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL January 6 scenario 7 states have transmitted dual slates of electors to the President of the Senate. 

EASTMAN PLAN Memo cited in full below
TRUMP-Jan6-COUPattempt

“”” PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL January 6 scenario 7 states have transmitted dual slates of electors to the President of the Senate. 

READ: Trump lawyer's memo on six-step plan for Pence to overturn the election
By: CNN 
Updated 8:20 AM EDT, Tue September 21, 2021









						READ: Trump lawyer's memo on six-step plan for Pence to overturn the election
					

John Eastman, a conservative lawyer working with then-President Donald Trump's legal team, outlined in a two-page memo a scheme to try to persuade then-Vice President Mike Pence to subvert the Constitution and throw out the 2020 election results on January 6.




					www.google.com
				




The 12th Amendment merely provides that “the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.” There is very solid legal authority, and historical precedent, for the view that the President of the Senate does the counting, including the resolution of disputed electoral votes (as Adams and Jefferson did while Vice President, regarding their own election as President), and all the Members of Congress can do is watch. The Electoral Count Act, which is likely unconstitutional, provides: If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State. But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. This is the piece that we believe is unconstitutional. It allows the two houses, “acting separately,” to decide the question, whereas the 12th Amendment provides only for a joint session. And if there is disagreement, under the Act the slate certified by the “executive” of the state is to be counted, regardless of the evidence that exists regarding the election, and regardless of whether there was ever fair review of what happened in the election, by judges and/or state legislatures. So here’s the scenario we propose:


1. VP Pence, presiding over the joint session (or Senate Pro Tempore Grassley, if Pence recuses himself), begins to open and count the ballots, starting with Alabama (without conceding that the procedure, specified by the Electoral Count Act, of going through the States alphabetically is required). 
2. When he gets to Arizona, he announces that he has multiple slates of electors, and so is going to defer decision on that until finishing the other States. This would be the first break with the procedure set out in the Act. 
3. At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States. That means the total number of “electors appointed” – the language of the 12th Amendment -- is 454. This reading of the 12th Amendment has also been advanced by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe (here). A “majority of the electors appointed” would therefore be 228. There are at this point 232 votes for Trump, 222 votes for Biden. Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected. 
4. Howls, of course, from the Democrats, who now claim, contrary to Tribe’s prior position, that 270 is required. So Pence says, fine. Pursuant to the 12th Amendment, no candidate has achieved the necessary majority. That sends the matter to the House, where the “the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote . . . .” Republicans currently control 26 of the state delegations, the bare majority needed to win that vote. President Trump is re-elected there as well. 
5. One last piece. Assuming the Electoral Count Act process is followed and, upon getting the objections to the Arizona slates, the two houses break into their separate chambers, we should not allow the Electoral Count Act constraint on debate to control. That would mean that a prior legislature was determining the rules of the present one — a constitutional no-no (as Tribe has forcefully argued). So someone – Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, etc. – should demand normal rules (which includes the filibuster). That creates a stalemate that would give the state legislatures more time to weigh in to formally support the alternate slate of electors, if they had not already done so. 6. The main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking for permission – either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court. Let the other side challenge his actions in court, where Tribe (who in 2001 conceded the President of the Senate might be in charge of counting the votes) and others who would press a lawsuit would have their past position -- that these are non-justiciable political questions – thrown back at them, to get the lawsuit dismissed. The fact is that the Constitution assigns this power to the Vice President as the ultimate arbiter. We should take all of our actions with that in mind.    TRUMP-Jan6-COUPattempt  “””


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: 4. Trump was well within his rights to call for a demonstration to put political pressure on Congress. 21SEP23-POST#642

NFBW 21SEP27-POST#668 wrote: Political pressure for a Congress to do what exactly on Jan6?

Here is what DJT wanted to happen on Jan6: 

When Pence or Grassley gets to Arizona, he lies by announcing that he has multiple slates of electors, and so is going to defer decision on that until finishing the other States.  ***  At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes regarding all the mostly black Biden votes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States. That means the total number of “electors appointed” – the language of the 12th Amendment -- is 454. *** When the Democrats object saying that 270 is required, Pence or Grassley says, fine. Pursuant to the 12th Amendment, no candidate has achieved the necessary majority. That sends the matter to the House, where the “the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote . . . .” Republicans currently control 26 of the state delegations, the bare majority needed to win that vote. President Trump is re-elected.

NFBW wrote: Is that the pressure you say Correll that DJT called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress so he could overturn the election despite the vast majority of Americans who voted (7 million more than those who worship him) are sick of the ignorant hate-filled fascist bastard and want him to go to hell where he belongs. 
21SEP27-POST#668


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: It was pre-planned riot in service to a degenerate fascistic mobster who was refusing to leave office and give up his power after losing an American election. 21SEP23-POST#651
> 
> Correll wrote: Back up that shit or admit that you are just a mindless spam bot. 21SEP26-POST#659
> 
> NFBW wrote: Do you actually believe the Jan6 rioters did no coordination, planning or preparation to storm into the Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of the election that specific day? 21SEP26-POST#666




And that is you failing. You made an accusation you cannot support.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: 4. Trump was well within his rights to call for a demonstration to put political pressure on Congress. 21SEP23-POST#642
> 
> NFBW 21SEP27-POST#668 wrote: Political pressure for a Congress to do what exactly on Jan6?
> 
> Here is what DJT wanted to happen on Jan6:
> 
> When Pence or Grassley gets to Arizona, he lies by announcing that he has multiple slates of electors, and so is going to defer decision on that until finishing the other States.  ***  At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes regarding all the mostly black Biden votes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States. That means the total number of “electors appointed” – the language of the 12th Amendment -- is 454. *** When the Democrats object saying that 270 is required, Pence or Grassley says, fine. Pursuant to the 12th Amendment, no candidate has achieved the necessary majority. That sends the matter to the House, where the “the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote . . . .” Republicans currently control 26 of the state delegations, the bare majority needed to win that vote. President Trump is re-elected.
> 
> NFBW wrote: Is that the pressure you say Correll that DJT called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress so he could overturn the election despite the vast majority of Americans who voted (7 million more than those who worship him) are sick of the ignorant hate-filled fascist bastard and want him to go to hell where he belongs.
> 21SEP27-POST#668




Stripped of your race baiting spin, yes.

President Trump believes that the election was corrupted by fraud and massive changes in the rules on voting. 


He was well within his right to argue that case, and to use political pressure as part of that.

The bit where you act like it was some great...Evul, is just you being an asshole.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: I am not respecting the peaceful transfer of power either. I do not consider BIden's election to be legitimate nor do I consider him to be a legitimate President. 21FEB27-POST#257

Correll wrote: I'm not ignoring the 1/6 riot. I'm happy to discuss how it was a riot, a violent and criminal act, and refute the stupid claims that it was more than that. - You are the one who is on the side of the liars. 21SEP03-POST#426 

NFBW wrote: When we combine your statements 21FEB27-POST#257 & 21SEP03-POST#426 we find that you Correll agree with why the rioters acted on Jan6 and you agree that it was a riot with the definite goal to put the rightful election winner in the White House and send the illegitimate Biden home to Delaware. Do you have an objection to my interpretation of the words you have so kindly put on record. 21SEP30-POST#671


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: President Trump believes that the election was corrupted by fraud and massive changes in the rules on voting. 21SEP28-POST#670

NFBW wrote: But there was no election that was corrupted by fraud in any state that he lost or that he won for that matter. Do you Correll agree there is no evidence of fraud in the 2020 election that DJT lost? 21SEP30-POST#672


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW wrote: Do you actually believe the Jan6 rioters did no coordination, planning or preparation to storm into the Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of the election that specific day? 21SEP26-POST#666

Correll wrote: And that is you failing. You made an accusation you cannot support. 21SEP28-POST#669

NFBW wrote: How did I fail? You Correll did not answer the question Do you actually believe the Jan6 rioters did no coordination, planning or preparation to storm into the Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of the election that specific day? Are you going to answer it? 21SEP39-POST#673


----------



## NotfooledbyW

@lamartiewhitefox wrote: No riot at the capital. People said were in. Official people politely let them in standing to one side. Liars are against Trump. 21SEP28-POST#3504

Correll wrote: I'm not ignoring the 1/6 riot. I'm happy to discuss how it was a riot, a violent and criminal act, and refute the stupid claims that it was more than that. - You are the one who is on the side of the liars. 21SEP03-POST#426

NFBW wrote:  You Correll are in the DJTcult with the likes of @lamartiewhitefox, except you are an aberration when it comes to knowing for a fact that the Jan6 Stop the Steal rally in DC included a full blown riot. Do you condone or condemn the members in your cult who lie so brazenly. 21SEP30-POST#674


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Astrostar said:


> Fact check: Some Republicans have tried to rewrite the history of January 6. Here's how | CNN Politics
> 
> 
> When the House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6 convenes for the first time, it will be against a backdrop of Republican objections and falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because history is what it is.  Despite the efforts of Trump and his Cult members in Congress to rewrite it to reflect positively on Trump, theirs is a lost cause.
> 
> Trump and his disciples, since January 6 have tried over and over to convince the American people that the insurrection was caused by Antifa, was a peaceful event with lots of love in the air or was just a guided tour of the Capital building.
> 
> We know better!  It was an aggressive attempt by white nationalists, inspired by Trump, to take over the government of the United States.  Anyone who sees it in a different light is not a loyal, patriotic American, but rather is a Trump disciple who places him above the Constitution of the United States and the welfare of the majority of the American people.
> 
> Today's congressional hearing will expose the Trump people who tried to storm the Capital for what they really are:  enemies of the American people.


the OP as always proves what a dumbass paid shill  he is with his sad obsession over trump.  To no surprise everyone that gave a thumbs up is a resident paid troll of USMB same as the OP.  you trolls are pathetic with your obsession.when Obomination got in office,I did not obsess over him for several months after him being out of office,I focuses on the now. sad you trolls cant do that.

Trump is the first president sense carter to follow the constitution and serve the people instead of the war machine trollboy, funny how trollboy ignores as well it is the commir dem party that has taken over control of the government.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: Do you actually believe the Jan6 rioters did no coordination, planning or preparation to storm into the Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of the election that specific day? 21SEP26-POST#666
> 
> Correll wrote: And that is you failing. You made an accusation you cannot support. 21SEP28-POST#669
> 
> NFBW wrote: How did I fail? You Correll did not answer the question Do you actually believe the Jan6 rioters did no coordination, planning or preparation to storm into the Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of the election that specific day? Are you going to answer it? 21SEP39-POST#673


boy are you ever a dumbass,the videos clearly show the police letting them in willingly.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Oddball said:


> Rewriting history is the job of you Marxist assholes.




the UNDERSTATEMENT of the CENTURY.

this dumbass uses fact check as his source,they are a mouthpiece of the government.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: I have no way of knowing if the riots were truly spontaneous or not. 21SEP28-POST#3498 

NFBW wrote: Correll also has no way of knowing who instigated and participated in any riot unless actual individuals are  caught by authorities, prosecuted and convicted or when we have a confession. 21OCT01-POST#678

NFBW wrote: boogaloo white boi impersonates BLM supporter seeking to spark a civil war fires AK-47 into police station 21OCT01-POST#678 

“”” 21OCT01-boogaloo “””    Ivan Harrison Hunter, 24, a member of an extremist group that seeks to spark a civil war, pleaded guilty to a single count of rioting this Thursday, Minnesota Public Radio reports. 
Prosecutors contend that Hunter travelled from Texas to Minneapolis to sow chaos after George Floyd was killed by police.

'Boogaloo Boi' who impersonated Black Lives Matter supporter and shot up police station pleads guilty

"Prosecutors say Hunter came to Minneapolis in the days following Floyd's murder after corresponding on Facebook with Michael Solomon of New Brighton, Minn., and Benjamin Teeter of Hampstead, N.C. The men had been part of the 'Boogaloo Bois,' a group that exploits tensions to further violence," MPR reports. "According to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the group presents itself as libertarian and race-blind and calls for armed insurrection against what they see as government tyranny. But the [Southern Poverty Law Center] says the Boogaloo Bois' origins are violently racist. The group emerged online early in the last decade, and 'boogaloo' was associated with a call for a race war. The term is often used by white nationalists and those seeking to generate chaos."

Hunter admitted that he fired 13 rounds from an assault rifle into the 3rd precinct police station on May 28, 2020, as other rioters looted and set fire to the building after police evacuated. No one was hurt by the gunfire.

As the Daily Beast notes, Hunter posed as a supporter of the Black Lives Matter movement and was caught on security footage yelling, "Justice for Floyd!" after opening fire on the building.

If convicted, Hunter faces a maximum prison term of five years. 21OCT01-boogaloo  “””


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Why should 4 hours of rioting get more attention that 4 years of rioting? 21MAY24-POST#163

NFBW wrote: Not one single riot in the history of riots in America until the Jan6 attack on a live joint session of Congress that was fulfilling a Constitutional ACT for the peaceful transfer of power !!! riot !!! shocked the entire world, was inspired egged on by a sitting US president who had a plan to disrupt Congress on that specific  day that would overturn the election and keep the loser in office for four more years. 21OCT01-POST#679


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: I am not respecting the peaceful transfer of power either. I do not consider BIden's election to be legitimate nor do I consider him to be a legitimate President. 21FEB27-POST#257
> 
> Correll wrote: I'm not ignoring the 1/6 riot. I'm happy to discuss how it was a riot, a violent and criminal act, and refute the stupid claims that it was more than that. - You are the one who is on the side of the liars. 21SEP03-POST#426
> 
> NFBW wrote: When we combine your statements 21FEB27-POST#257 & 21SEP03-POST#426 we find that you Correll agree with why the rioters acted on Jan6 and you agree that it was a riot with the definite goal to put the rightful election winner in the White House and send the illegitimate Biden home to Delaware. Do you have an objection to my interpretation of the words you have so kindly put on record. 21SEP30-POST#671



There is nothing in those two statements that support your conclusion. 


As you did not even try to explain  your "logic" there is no more for me to say.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: President Trump believes that the election was corrupted by fraud and massive changes in the rules on voting. 21SEP28-POST#670
> 
> NFBW wrote: But there was no election that was corrupted by fraud in any state that he lost or that he won for that matter. Do you Correll agree there is no evidence of fraud in the 2020 election that DJT lost? 21SEP30-POST#672




My opinion of the election was that you cannot have a free and fair election with 

1. large numbers of violent brown shirts rioting in the streets.

2. raising the strong likely hood that the "wrong" outcome will lead to widespread violence.

3. massive propaganda and censorship of information. Informed consent of the governed is thus impossible.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: Do you actually believe the Jan6 rioters did no coordination, planning or preparation to storm into the Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of the election that specific day? 21SEP26-POST#666
> 
> Correll wrote: And that is you failing. You made an accusation you cannot support. 21SEP28-POST#669
> 
> NFBW wrote: How did I fail? You Correll did not answer the question Do you actually believe the Jan6 rioters did no coordination, planning or preparation to storm into the Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of the election that specific day? Are you going to answer it? 21SEP39-POST#673




YOU  made the accusation. It is on YOU to support it, not on me to disprove it.


D'uh.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> @lamartiewhitefox wrote: No riot at the capital. People said were in. Official people politely let them in standing to one side. Liars are against Trump. 21SEP28-POST#3504
> 
> Correll wrote: I'm not ignoring the 1/6 riot. I'm happy to discuss how it was a riot, a violent and criminal act, and refute the stupid claims that it was more than that. - You are the one who is on the side of the liars. 21SEP03-POST#426
> 
> NFBW wrote:  You Correll are in the DJTcult with the likes of @lamartiewhitefox, except you are an aberration when it comes to knowing for a fact that the Jan6 Stop the Steal rally in DC included a full blown riot. Do you condone or condemn the members in your cult who lie so brazenly. 21SEP30-POST#674




And once again, Not shows that he is unable to consider the possibility of actual, legitimate differences of opinion. 


Any disagreement, must mean someone is lying. 


That is a failure on YOUR part, one we have discussed at length, yet you have made NO effort to address it.


Are you really that incapable of growth, or are you just refusing to, because you like doing that, so you have an excuse to attack people?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: I have no way of knowing if the riots were truly spontaneous or not. 21SEP28-POST#3498
> 
> NFBW wrote: Correll also has no way of knowing who instigated and participated in any riot unless actual individuals are  caught by authorities, prosecuted and convicted or when we have a confession. 21OCT01-POST#678
> 
> NFBW wrote: boogaloo white boi impersonates BLM supporter seeking to spark a civil war fires AK-47 into police station 21OCT01-POST#678
> 
> “”” 21OCT01-boogaloo “””    Ivan Harrison Hunter, 24, a member of an extremist group that seeks to spark a civil war, pleaded guilty to a single count of rioting this Thursday, Minnesota Public Radio reports.
> Prosecutors contend that Hunter travelled from Texas to Minneapolis to sow chaos after George Floyd was killed by police.
> 
> 'Boogaloo Boi' who impersonated Black Lives Matter supporter and shot up police station pleads guilty
> 
> "Prosecutors say Hunter came to Minneapolis in the days following Floyd's murder after corresponding on Facebook with Michael Solomon of New Brighton, Minn., and Benjamin Teeter of Hampstead, N.C. The men had been part of the 'Boogaloo Bois,' a group that exploits tensions to further violence," MPR reports. "According to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the group presents itself as libertarian and race-blind and calls for armed insurrection against what they see as government tyranny. But the [Southern Poverty Law Center] says the Boogaloo Bois' origins are violently racist. The group emerged online early in the last decade, and 'boogaloo' was associated with a call for a race war. The term is often used by white nationalists and those seeking to generate chaos."
> 
> Hunter admitted that he fired 13 rounds from an assault rifle into the 3rd precinct police station on May 28, 2020, as other rioters looted and set fire to the building after police evacuated. No one was hurt by the gunfire.
> 
> As the Daily Beast notes, Hunter posed as a supporter of the Black Lives Matter movement and was caught on security footage yelling, "Justice for Floyd!" after opening fire on the building.
> 
> If convicted, Hunter faces a maximum prison term of five years. 21OCT01-boogaloo  “””





Not knowing if a riot was truly spontaneous or planed does not mean I do not know, generally speaking, what group(s) or type of individuals are rioting.


A few examples of false flag infiltraters, does not negate the massive evidence of the large scale movement, done mostly by leftards of various types.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Why should 4 hours of rioting get more attention that 4 years of rioting? 21MAY24-POST#163
> 
> NFBW wrote: Not one single riot in the history of riots in America until the Jan6 attack on a live joint session of Congress that was fulfilling a Constitutional ACT for the peaceful transfer of power !!! riot !!! shocked the entire world, was inspired egged on by a sitting US president who had a plan to disrupt Congress on that specific  day that would overturn the election and keep the loser in office for four more years. 21OCT01-POST#679




Scores dead, over a billion dollars in damages, communities permanently harmed, millions terrorized, DURING A CAMPAIN...


imo, is still a much bigger issue. 


Your hissy fit over the formal certification, that was delayed a few hours, does not seem to be of the same scale.

BIden took office without a hitch. There was no effect from that riot.


The scores of people dead? They will ALWAYS be dead.

The people hurt? Many will NEVER be the same.


The building and business destroyed? Many will NEVER be replaced. And those business represented LIFETIMES of work of innocent people.


Some of those communities might never recover. Even those that do, could take decades. That is whole generations of people, growing up with stunted lives, because of your lefty riots. 


The millions terrified? They are still living in fear, because not only are the mobs still out there, but now their allies are in charge of the fed government and big tech.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: My opinion of the election was that you cannot have a free and fair election with  1. large numbers of violent brown shirts rioting in the streets. 2. raising the strong likely hood that the "wrong" outcome will lead to widespread violence. 21OCT03-POST#681

NFBW wrote: Did DJT run for president in 2020? If yes, If DJ T had won,  would he have declined his victory because the election was not free and fair?  21OCT03-POST#686


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: My opinion of the election was that you cannot have a free and fair election with  1. large numbers of violent brown shirts rioting in the streets. 2. raising the strong likely hood that the "wrong" outcome will lead to widespread violence. 21OCT03-POST#681
> 
> NFBW wrote: Did DJT run for president in 2020? If yes, If DJ T had won,  would he have declined his victory because the election was not free and fair?  21OCT03-POST#686




I gave you my answer. My answer stands regardless of Donald Trump hypothetical actions. 


You may address my points, or not. It is up to you. You may NOT imply that something someone else might or might not do, is a reason to dismiss my argument WITHOUT ADDRESSING IT'S POINTS.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW wrote: Here is an example of Correll being a liar. His lie is in 21OCT03-POST#687 when he wrote, “ I gave you my answer.” it is a lie because my question was, “Do you Correll agree there is no evidence of fraud in the 2020 election that DJT lost” (POST#672) after Correll wrote (POST#670) that President Trump believes that the election was corrupted by fraud. 21OCT03-POST#688

Correll wrote: President Trump believes that the election was corrupted by fraud and massive changes in the rules on voting. 21SEP28-POST#670

NFBW wrote: But there was no election that was corrupted by fraud in any state that he lost or that he won for that matter. Do you Correll agree there is no evidence of fraud in the 2020 election that DJT lost? 21SEP30-POST#672

NFBW wrote: I did not ask for Correll ‘s ludicrous opinion or for an opinion about violence having an effect on free and fair elections but that was Correll ‘s reply in POST#681 and then,  see below, my response after he evaded the original question. 21OCT03-POST#688

Correll wrote: My opinion of the election was that you cannot have a free and fair election with 1. large numbers of violent brown shirts rioting in the streets. 2. raising the strong likely hood that the "wrong" outcome will lead to widespread violence. 21OCT03-POST#681

NFBW wrote: Did DJT run for president in 2020? If yes, If DJT had won, would he have declined his victory because the election was not free and fair? 21OCT03-POST#686

Correll Wrote: I gave you my answer. My answer stands regardless of Donald Trump hypothetical actions. 21OCT03-POST#687

NFBW wrote: So there is Correll lying as he very often does by evading a question and then lying that he answered it and that his answer “stands” on his ability to lie and to lie and to lie. 21OCT03-POST#688


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: Here is an example of Correll being a liar. His lie is in 21OCT03-POST#687 when he wrote, “ I gave you my answer.” it is a lie because my question was, “Do you Correll agree there is no evidence of fraud in the 2020 election that DJT lost” (POST#672) after Correll wrote (POST#670) that President Trump believes that the election was corrupted by fraud. 21OCT03-POST#688
> 
> Correll wrote: President Trump believes that the election was corrupted by fraud and massive changes in the rules on voting. 21SEP28-POST#670
> 
> NFBW wrote: But there was no election that was corrupted by fraud in any state that he lost or that he won for that matter. Do you Correll agree there is no evidence of fraud in the 2020 election that DJT lost? 21SEP30-POST#672
> 
> NFBW wrote: I did not ask for Correll ‘s ludicrous opinion or for an opinion about violence having an effect on free and fair elections but that was Correll ‘s reply in POST#681 and then,  see below, my response after he evaded the original question. 21OCT03-POST#688
> 
> Correll wrote: My opinion of the election was that you cannot have a free and fair election with 1. large numbers of violent brown shirts rioting in the streets. 2. raising the strong likely hood that the "wrong" outcome will lead to widespread violence. 21OCT03-POST#681
> 
> NFBW wrote: Did DJT run for president in 2020? If yes, If DJT had won, would he have declined his victory because the election was not free and fair? 21OCT03-POST#686
> 
> Correll Wrote: I gave you my answer. My answer stands regardless of Donald Trump hypothetical actions. 21OCT03-POST#687
> 
> NFBW wrote: So there is Correll lying as he very often does by evading a question and then lying that he answered it and that his answer “stands” on his ability to lie and to lie and to lie. 21OCT03-POST#688





I could expand on my answer some. 


I have not paid close attention to the details of the debate about the ballots, because I was of the opinion that the election was tainted well before that, as I said.


I will expand on it, that the changes made to the election, ie massively extended voting and mail in voting, 


AND the hysterical RESIST of liberals, demonstrating that they are willing to lie, cheat, break the law, in order to stop Trump or conservatives or whatever boogie man they pretend they are fighting, 


that believing that libs would and could cheat, is a completely reasonable fear.


What of it?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll Wrote: Scores dead, over a billion dollars in damages, communities permanently harmed, millions terrorized, DURING A CAMPAIN...imo, is still a much bigger issue. 21OCT03-POST#685

NFBW wrote: I put your excuse for the “Stop The Steal Riot” in the category of “the nasty negroes all summer made us do it.” And FYI Correll “nasty negroes who riot are not allies or representative of the millions of black Americans who don’t riot but want an end to racism and chose to vote for Biden. There is no reason to cancel the black votes in major cities because it made DJT and his most fervently racist supporters so angry that DJT lost, that they felt the need to riot in support of winning the election for the loser through violence. 21OCT03-POST#690


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll Wrote: Scores dead, over a billion dollars in damages, communities permanently harmed, millions terrorized, DURING A CAMPAIN...imo, is still a much bigger issue. 21OCT03-POST#685
> 
> NFBW wrote: I put your excuse for the “Stop The Steal Riot” in the category of “the nasty negroes all summer made us do it.” And FYI Correll “nasty negroes who riot are not allies or representative of the millions of black Americans who don’t riot but want an end to racism and chose to vote for Biden. There is no reason to cancel the black votes in major cities because it made DJT and his most fervently racist supporters so angry that DJT lost, that they felt the need to riot in support of winning the election for the loser through violence. 21OCT03-POST#690




Interesting. I reference the antifa and blm riots of the last four years, and you only hear "black". 


Well, that's on you, not me. 


Moving on, your "point" about "black votes" is still just you saying "wacism" like a retarded child. 


My point about the 4 years of lefty riots being far worse than the one 4 hour righty riot stands.


You can say "wacism" till the cows come home, doesn't change the fact that YOU KNOW I AM RIGHT.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW wrote: Do you Correll agree there is no evidence of fraud in the 2020 election that DJT lost? 21SEP30-POST#672

Correll Wrote: I will expand on it, that the changes made to the election, ie massively extended voting and mail in voting, AND the hysterical RESIST of liberals, demonstrating that they are willing to lie, cheat, break the law, in order to stop Trump or conservatives or whatever boogie man they pretend they are fighting, that believing that libs would and could cheat, is a completely reasonable fear. 21OCT03-POST#689

NFBW  wrote: There was no election that was corrupted by fraud in any state that DJT lost or that DJT won for that matter. 

NFBW  wrote: Do you Correll accept the reality that DJT knew when he entered the 2020 race that there were changes made to the election, ie massively extended voting and mail in voting and every single rule applied to all candidates? 21OCT03-POST#692

NFBW  wrote: Do you accept the reality Correll that changes made to the election, ie massively extended voting and mail in voting are not election fraud? Changes are not fraud when every ballot cast is a legal ballot cast when the voter is a legal voter who casts only one vote no matter how or when their legal ballot was cast and counted? 21OCT03-POST#692

NFBW  wrote: So I will ask you again Correll  considering the reality mentioned in the two paragraphs above, Do you Correll agree there is no evidence of fraud in the 2020 election that DJT lost? 21OCT03-POST#692


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Yeah, they pretend that the 4 hour delay was an "insurrection" but ignore the OPENLY STATED AND CELEBRATED FORMAL INSURRECTIONS of their side, because..... they are lying scum. 21JUL29-POST#329

NFBW wrote: Correll is a liar. There is no organized or planned insurrection to overturn an election on the left, liberal, Democratic Party side. NEVER HAPPENED. The only insurrection was the Jan6 riot to keep DJT and his racism in office for four more years. Race related violence that occurred during Trump’s failed first term benefited DJT’s chances for reelection. Its much of the reason why DJT got more votes IN 2020 than he did in 2016.  The racist cockroaches came out of the woodwork to vote for one of their own to stay in the White House. 21OCT03-POST#693

“”“ The more chaos and anarchy and vandalism and violence reigns, the better it is for the very clear choice on who’s best on public safety and law and order,” Ms. Conway said on “Fox & Friends.” 20AUG27-KConway “””

NFBW wrote: Correll says the left celebrates riots and violence. The is absurd. Political institutions do not support activities that destroy them politically. 21OCT03-POST#693


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: Do you Correll agree there is no evidence of fraud in the 2020 election that DJT lost? 21SEP30-POST#672
> 
> Correll Wrote: I will expand on it, that the changes made to the election, ie massively extended voting and mail in voting, AND the hysterical RESIST of liberals, demonstrating that they are willing to lie, cheat, break the law, in order to stop Trump or conservatives or whatever boogie man they pretend they are fighting, that believing that libs would and could cheat, is a completely reasonable fear. 21OCT03-POST#689
> 
> NFBW  wrote: There was no election that was corrupted by fraud in any state that DJT lost or that DJT won for that matter.
> 
> NFBW  wrote: Do you Correll accept the reality that DJT knew when he entered the 2020 race that there were changes made to the election, ie massively extended voting and mail in voting and every single rule applied to all candidates? 21OCT03-POST#692
> 
> NFBW  wrote: Do you accept the reality Correll that changes made to the election, ie massively extended voting and mail in voting are not election fraud? Changes are not fraud when every ballot cast is a legal ballot cast when the voter is a legal voter who casts only one vote no matter how or when their legal ballot was cast and counted? 21OCT03-POST#692
> 
> NFBW  wrote: So I will ask you again Correll  considering the reality mentioned in the two paragraphs above, Do you Correll agree there is no evidence of fraud in the 2020 election that DJT lost? 21OCT03-POST#692




Funny. You left out the concern that the massively extended voting times and the massive expansion of mail in voting, increases the possibility or likelyhood of fraud...

Which is the real question. 

Funny you left that out. Almost like you were TRYING to make the debate about something that was not... the real issue.


Now why would a person DO that? 


Would it be because they are CONFIDENT in their position and want honest and clear discussion so that the TRUTH of their beliefs can be demonstrated?


Or, is it the OPPOSITE OF THAT?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Yeah, they pretend that the 4 hour delay was an "insurrection" but ignore the OPENLY STATED AND CELEBRATED FORMAL INSURRECTIONS of their side, because..... they are lying scum. 21JUL29-POST#329
> 
> NFBW wrote: Correll is a liar. There is no organized or planned insurrection to overturn an election on the left, liberal, Democratic Party side. NEVER HAPPENED. The only insurrection was the Jan6 riot to keep DJT and his racism in office for four more years. Race related violence that occurred during Trump’s failed first term benefited DJT’s chances for reelection. Its much of the reason why DJT got more votes IN 2020 than he did in 2016.  The racist cockroaches came out of the woodwork to vote for one of their own to stay in the White House. 21OCT03-POST#693
> 
> “”“ The more chaos and anarchy and vandalism and violence reigns, the better it is for the very clear choice on who’s best on public safety and law and order,” Ms. Conway said on “Fox & Friends.” 20AUG27-KConway “””
> 
> NFBW wrote: Correll says the left celebrates riots and violence. The is absurd. Political institutions do not support activities that destroy them politically. 21OCT03-POST#693





1. Nice qualifier you added there, to "lefty Insurrections", in order to give yourself an excuse to deny them happening. That is you admitting that you know they did happen, btw.


2. And you are still crying wacism like a retarded child. 



Consider this NOT. 


If you cannot make an argument for your position without crying WACISM, 


then you cannot make an argument for your position.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll Wrote: 1. Nice qualifier you added there, to "lefty Insurrections", in order to give yourself an excuse to deny them happening. 21OCT03-POST#695

NFBW wrote: Who is the “they” in your 21JUL29-POST#329 Correll ? 21OCT04-POST#696

Correll wrote: Yeah, they pretend that the 4 hour delay was an "insurrection" but ignore the OPENLY STATED AND CELEBRATED FORMAL INSURRECTIONS of their side, because..... they are lying scum. 21JUL29-POST#329

NFBW wrote: No need to answer Correll . You already told us you are accusing the “LEFT” of multiple insurrections which is a lie. 21OCT04-POST#696

Correll wrote: How do you feel about the filthy unwashed treasonous mobs from the left that were burning and killing for the entire 4 years of Trump's presidency? 21JUL29-POST#50

NFBW wrote:  You are an idiot Correll because the “they” in your 21JUL29-POST#329 is in response to Soupnazi630 ‘s reference to “the left” seen below. 21OCT04-POST#696

Soupnazi630 wrote: Supported and defended by the left. No deflection but deny away 21JUL28-POST#275

NFBW wrote: You can lie but you can’t get away from it here Correll because they don’t delete posts to save liars from getting caught. You Correll are a liar 21OCT04-POST#696


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll Wrote: Funny. You left out the concern that the massively extended voting times and the massive expansion of mail in voting, increases the possibility or likelyhood of fraud... 21OCT03-POST#694

NFBW wrote: Quit dodging this question. Do you Correll agree there is no evidence of fraud in the 2020 election that DJT lost? The reality is that the losing side’s “concern that the massively extended voting times and the massive expansion of mail in voting, increases the possibility or likelyhood of fraud...” is not evidence of voter fraud. So the question remains for you Correll Do you Correll agree there is no evidence of fraud in the 2020 election that DJT lost now that the cyber ninjas say they found more votes for Biden so DJT lost by more votes than the certified official Arizona count. 21OCT04-POST#697


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: I am not respecting the peaceful transfer of power either. I do not consider BIden's election to be legitimate nor do I consider him to be a legitimate President. 21FEB27-POST#257

Correll wrote: I'm not ignoring the 1/6 riot. I'm happy to discuss how it was a riot, a violent and criminal act, and refute the stupid claims that it was more than that.21SEP03-POST#426

NFBW wrote: When we combine your statements 21FEB27-POST#257 & 21SEP03-POST#426 we find that you Correll agree with why the rioters acted on Jan6 and you agree that it was a riot with the definite goal to put the rightful election winner in the White House and send the illegitimate Biden home to Delaware. Do you have an objection to my interpretation of the words you have so kindly put on record. 21SEP30-POST#671

Correll wrote: There is nothing in those two statements that support your conclusion. - As you did not even try to explain your "logic" there is no more for me to say 21OCT03-POST#680

NFBW wrote: This is pure logic equating your exact statements with the Jan6 ‘logic’ of the DJT rioters and rally attendees as follows: 21OCT04-POST#698

A: You as a matter of fact Correll wrote (  21FEB27-POST#257 ) that you are “not respecting the peaceful transfer of power either” just like the Jan6 rioters have no respect for the peaceful transfer of power. Conclusion you are all pro-violence snd anti-peace if your candidate does not win.

B: You as a matter of fact Correll wrote (  21FEB27-POST#257 ) that you “do not consider BIden's election to be legitimate”  
just like the Jan6 rioters did not consider BIden's election to be legitimate when they attacked an “in session” US Congress to stop an illegitimate candidate by terrorizing members of Congress to do what DJT was earlier in the day demanding. 

C: You as a matter of fact Correll wrote (  21FEB27-POST#257 ) after seeing the Jan6 rioters fail to achieve DJT’s goal to overturn the ejection that you continue to refuse to consider Biden to be a legitimate President. 

D: You as a matter of fact Correll wrote (   21SEP03-POST#426 ) your admission that Jan6 was a riot, a violent and criminal act in order to redress A B and C above which is at odds with many in the CULT45 camp otherwise known as DJT Republicans. 

NFBW wrote: So why do you object without explanation to the only obvious conclusion that can be taken from your words that you Correll agree with “why”the rioters acted on Jan6 in a violent anti-democracy insurrection that was planned and inspired by DJT according to the EASTMAN PLAN TRUMP-Jan6-COUPattempt. 21OCT04-POST#698


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll Wrote: Your hissy fit over the formal certification, that was delayed a few hours, does not seem to be of the same scale. 21OCT03-POST#685

NFBW wrote: Since you are a brain dead victim of DJT’s Un-American big lie I understand that your mental scale is broken beyond repair. You have chosen DJT chaos over democracy by rejecting one of the most freest and fairest elections in US history because you lost.  21OCT03-POST#699

21OCT04-JWright-TBL
'These are not PATRIOTS': Skeletons replace Capitol rioters in massive Halloween display     'The Big Lie' (that Trump actually won the 2020 election) is what culminated in the Capitol Insurrection – this is no minor issue," Warshauer writes. "What has always set America apart is our citizens' willingness to accept elections and the peaceful transition of political power. Without that essential commitment, our Union will fracture; we will be reduced to just another rogue political state. The 'Great Experiment' in representative government will fail."


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: 2. The party that is a threat to democracy, is the dems, with their riots 21SEP26-POST#662 

NFBW wrote: You are a liar Correll. The Democratic Party does not have riots. And why would DEMS promote and organize ANY riot when racial justice riots hurt the PARTY’s chances to win elections by turning off white voters. Take Trump’s top political strategist word for it that riots and looting etc helps Republicans. . 21OCT04-POST#700

“The more chaos and anarchy and vandalism and violence reigns, the better it is for the very clear choice on who’s best on public safety and law and order,” Ms. Conway said on “Fox & Friends.” 20AUG27-KConway


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: And once again, Not shows that he is unable to consider the possibility of actual, legitimate differences of opinion. 21OCT03-POST#683

NFBW wrote: OK, Correll are you trying to tell me that @lamartiewhitefox ‘s ( 21SEP28-POST#3504 ) commentary that there was “No riot at the Capitol” because  “official people politely let them in standing to one side” is true? Do you Correll accept that there was no Jan6 riot at the Capitol and that no riot is an  actual, legitimate FACT and should be presented in discussions regarding the survival of American democracy to be a fact? 21OCT04-POST#701


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW wrote: Do you actually believe the Jan6 rioters did no coordination, planning or preparation to storm into the Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of the election that specific day? 21SEP26-POST#666

Correll wrote: YOU made the accusation. It is on YOU to support it, not on me to disprove it. 21OCT03-POST#682

NFBW wrote: Its not an accusation that you are being asked to dispute. I am asking you to tell me whether or not you Correll believe it to be true that the Jan6 rioters did no coordination, planning or preparation to storm into the Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of the election that specific day? 21OCT04-POST#702


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll  wrote: Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress. - That some people were able to use that to spark a riot, is on those people that did that. 21FEB14-POST#340

NFBW wrote. The pressure on Congress that DJT needed in order to reject the will of millions of voters who live in major cities located in the seven states that DJT lost is by definition a coup attempt and the votes DJT wanted thrown out were mostly black and therefore it wax a racist coup attempt. 

Doyou Correll reject DJT’s failed attempt to reject all the black majority votes in Wayne County thus flipping the state to DJT as the winner? 21OCT05-POST#703

“”””Trump and his allies have lobbied for votes in Wayne County, home to majority-Black Detroit, to be thrown out. By Anya van Wagtendonk on November 21, 2020 12:09 pm”””  

Detroit is typical of all the several majority black counties in seven states that loser DJT’s pressure on Congress was supposed  to reject and flip the entire state. DJT had an actual plan in writing to  overturn the results of the election - 

“”” EASTMAN PLAN
TRUMP-Jan6-COUPattempt

“”” PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL January 6 scenario 7 states have transmitted dual slates of electors to the President of the Senate. 

READ: Trump lawyer's memo on six-step plan for Pence to overturn the election
By: CNN  Updated 8:20 AM EDT, Tue September 21, 2021









						READ: Trump lawyer's memo on six-step plan for Pence to overturn the election
					

John Eastman, a conservative lawyer working with then-President Donald Trump's legal team, outlined in a two-page memo a scheme to try to persuade then-Vice President Mike Pence to subvert the Constitution and throw out the 2020 election results on January 6.




					www.google.com
				




1. VP Pence, presiding over the joint session (or Senate Pro Tempore Grassley, if Pence recuses himself), begins to open and count the ballots, starting with Alabama (without conceding that the procedure, specified by the Electoral Count Act, of going through the States alphabetically is required). 
2. When he gets to Arizona, he announces that he has multiple slates of electors, and so is going to defer decision on that until finishing the other States. This would be the first break with the procedure set out in the Act. 
3. At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States. That means the total number of “electors appointed” – the language of the 12th Amendment -- is 454. This reading of the 12th Amendment has also been advanced by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe (here). A “majority of the electors appointed” would therefore be 228. There are at this point 232 votes for Trump, 222 votes for Biden. Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected. 
4. Howls, of course, from the Democrats, who now claim, contrary to Tribe’s prior position, that 270 is required. So Pence says, fine. Pursuant to the 12th Amendment, no candidate has achieved the necessary majority. That sends the matter to the House, where the “the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote . . . .” Republicans currently control 26 of the state delegations, the bare majority needed to win that vote. President Trump is re-elected there as well. 
5. One last piece. Assuming the Electoral Count Act process is followed and, upon getting the objections to the Arizona slates, the two houses break into their separate chambers, we should not allow the Electoral Count Act constraint on debate to control. That would mean that a prior legislature was determining the rules of the present one — a constitutional no-no (as Tribe has forcefully argued). So someone – Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, etc. – should demand normal rules (which includes the filibuster). That creates a stalemate that would give the state legislatures more time to weigh in to formally support the alternate slate of electors, if they had not already done so. 6. The main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking for permission – either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court. Let the other side challenge his actions in court, where Tribe (who in 2001 conceded the President of the Senate might be in charge of counting the votes) and others who would press a lawsuit would have their past position -- that these are non-justiciable political questions – thrown back at them, to get the lawsuit dismissed. The fact is that the Constitution assigns this power to the Vice President as the ultimate arbiter. We should take all of our actions with that in mind.    TRUMP-Jan6-COUPattempt  “””


----------



## NotfooledbyW

“The more chaos and anarchy and vandalism and violence reigns, the better it is for the very clear choice on who’s best on public safety and law and order,” Ms. Conway said on “Fox & Friends.” 20AUG27-KConwayNb


Correll wrote: The rioters of the left are not being pursued with the zeal and determination that the rioters of 1/6 are.  21MAY14-POST#741 

NFBW: So are you thinking DJT was way too soft on violent crime for four years and now Biden is being too tough on rioting criminals and traitors to democracy. You being a DJT asswiper Correll I find it interesting that you’re pissing and moaning about DJT being so soft on crime when according to Kellyanne Conway DJT was very hopeful there would be more social justice riots against white supremacy and racist fascism so he could have had a much better chance at being reelected even though 60% of the voting public reject the fear mongering and divisive hatred that DJT uses to enjoy his power and the grifting that goes with it. 21OCT05-POST#704


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll Wrote: 1. Nice qualifier you added there, to "lefty Insurrections", in order to give yourself an excuse to deny them happening. 21OCT03-POST#695
> 
> NFBW wrote: Who is the “they” in your 21JUL29-POST#329 Correll ? 21OCT04-POST#696
> 
> Correll wrote: Yeah, they pretend that the 4 hour delay was an "insurrection" but ignore the OPENLY STATED AND CELEBRATED FORMAL INSURRECTIONS of their side, because..... they are lying scum. 21JUL29-POST#329
> 
> NFBW wrote: No need to answer Correll . You already told us you are accusing the “LEFT” of multiple insurrections which is a lie. 21OCT04-POST#696
> 
> Correll wrote: How do you feel about the filthy unwashed treasonous mobs from the left that were burning and killing for the entire 4 years of Trump's presidency? 21JUL29-POST#50
> 
> NFBW wrote:  You are an idiot Correll because the “they” in your 21JUL29-POST#329 is in response to Soupnazi630 ‘s reference to “the left” seen below. 21OCT04-POST#696
> 
> Soupnazi630 wrote: Supported and defended by the left. No deflection but deny away 21JUL28-POST#275
> 
> NFBW wrote: You can lie but you can’t get away from it here Correll because they don’t delete posts to save liars from getting caught. You Correll are a liar 21OCT04-POST#696




I have no idea what you are raving about.

THe fact remains. Lefties like you are pretending that a 4 hour riot is worse than the four YEARS of riots from your side, for bullshit reasons. 


You are going after the Right, like they have been rampaging though the streets killing and looting for years, for political reasons and goals, 


when actually it is you people that have been doing that. 


And while cracking down heavily on righties, you are giving your own, far more numerous and violent criminals, a pass.


You think we don't see that? You think you can do that and pretend it is still a free society?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll Wrote: Funny. You left out the concern that the massively extended voting times and the massive expansion of mail in voting, increases the possibility or likelyhood of fraud... 21OCT03-POST#694
> 
> NFBW wrote: Quit dodging this question. Do you Correll agree there is no evidence of fraud in the 2020 election that DJT lost? The reality is that the losing side’s “concern that the massively extended voting times and the massive expansion of mail in voting, increases the possibility or likelyhood of fraud...” is not evidence of voter fraud. So the question remains for you Correll Do you Correll agree there is no evidence of fraud in the 2020 election that DJT lost now that the cyber ninjas say they found more votes for Biden so DJT lost by more votes than the certified official Arizona count. 21OCT04-POST#697




I do not agree with that statement.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW wrote: Do you Correll agree there is no evidence of fraud in the 2020 election that DJT lost? 21OCT04-POST#697

Correll Wrote: I do not agree with that statement. 21OCT05-POST#706

NFBW wrote: Thank you Correll that was not so hard, was it? Now for the sake of clarity and to prevent any misunderstanding on my part, do you Correll agree there is no evidence of fraud in the 2020 election that DJT lost sufficient to overturn the original results of the 2020 election and naming DJT as the certified winner on JANUARY 6 2021 in a joint session of Congress in accordance with the Cobstitution. 21OCT05-POST#707


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: I am not respecting the peaceful transfer of power either. I do not consider BIden's election to be legitimate nor do I consider him to be a legitimate President. 21FEB27-POST#257
> 
> Correll wrote: I'm not ignoring the 1/6 riot. I'm happy to discuss how it was a riot, a violent and criminal act, and refute the stupid claims that it was more than that.21SEP03-POST#426
> 
> NFBW wrote: When we combine your statements 21FEB27-POST#257 & 21SEP03-POST#426 we find that you Correll agree with why the rioters acted on Jan6 and you agree that it was a riot with the definite goal to put the rightful election winner in the White House and send the illegitimate Biden home to Delaware. Do you have an objection to my interpretation of the words you have so kindly put on record. 21SEP30-POST#671
> 
> Correll wrote: There is nothing in those two statements that support your conclusion. - As you did not even try to explain your "logic" there is no more for me to say 21OCT03-POST#680
> 
> NFBW wrote: This is pure logic equating your exact statements with the Jan6 ‘logic’ of the DJT rioters and rally attendees as follows: 21OCT04-POST#698
> 
> A: You as a matter of fact Correll wrote (  21FEB27-POST#257 ) that you are “not respecting the peaceful transfer of power either” just like the Jan6 rioters have no respect for the peaceful transfer of power. Conclusion you are all pro-violence snd anti-peace if your candidate does not win.
> 
> B: You as a matter of fact Correll wrote (  21FEB27-POST#257 ) that you “do not consider BIden's election to be legitimate”
> just like the Jan6 rioters did not consider BIden's election to be legitimate when they attacked an “in session” US Congress to stop an illegitimate candidate by terrorizing members of Congress to do what DJT was earlier in the day demanding.
> 
> C: You as a matter of fact Correll wrote (  21FEB27-POST#257 ) after seeing the Jan6 rioters fail to achieve DJT’s goal to overturn the ejection that you continue to refuse to consider Biden to be a legitimate President.
> 
> D: You as a matter of fact Correll wrote (   21SEP03-POST#426 ) your admission that Jan6 was a riot, a violent and criminal act in order to redress A B and C above which is at odds with many in the CULT45 camp otherwise known as DJT Republicans.
> 
> NFBW wrote: So why do you object without explanation to the only obvious conclusion that can be taken from your words that you Correll agree with “why”the rioters acted on Jan6 in a violent anti-democracy insurrection that was planned and inspired by DJT according to the EASTMAN PLAN TRUMP-Jan6-COUPattempt. 21OCT04-POST#698




Are you really pretending to be so stupid as to not understand that people can reach the same conclusion, for different reasons and/or have different responses to the same situation?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll Wrote: Your hissy fit over the formal certification, that was delayed a few hours, does not seem to be of the same scale. 21OCT03-POST#685
> 
> NFBW wrote: Since you are a brain dead victim of DJT’s Un-American big lie I understand that your mental scale is broken beyond repair. You have chosen DJT chaos over democracy by rejecting one of the most freest and fairest elections in US history because you lost.  21OCT03-POST#699
> 
> 21OCT04-JWright-TBL
> 'These are not PATRIOTS': Skeletons replace Capitol rioters in massive Halloween display     'The Big Lie' (that Trump actually won the 2020 election) is what culminated in the Capitol Insurrection – this is no minor issue," Warshauer writes. "What has always set America apart is our citizens' willingness to accept elections and the peaceful transition of political power. Without that essential commitment, our Union will fracture; we will be reduced to just another rogue political state. The 'Great Experiment' in representative government will fail."




1. The rioters of 1/6 were wrong to riot. But they were not trying to overthrow the government. 

2. The lefty rioters of the Trump term, sometimes were, and caused great harm to many communities that many never heal.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: 2. The party that is a threat to democracy, is the dems, with their riots 21SEP26-POST#662
> 
> NFBW wrote: You are a liar Correll. The Democratic Party does not have riots. And why would DEMS promote and organize ANY riot when racial justice riots hurt the PARTY’s chances to win elections by turning off white voters. Take Trump’s top political strategist word for it that riots and looting etc helps Republicans. . 21OCT04-POST#700
> 
> “The more chaos and anarchy and vandalism and violence reigns, the better it is for the very clear choice on who’s best on public safety and law and order,” Ms. Conway said on “Fox & Friends.” 20AUG27-KConway




The dem party certainly "has riots". They have agreed with the stated reasons of hte rioters, they have celebrated the movement itself, they have ordered cops to stand down, they have ordered cops to disarm people that their mobs wanted to attack, they have arrested people for resisting the rioters, they have fired a cop for arresting rioters, they have just dropped charges against rioters so that  they can riot some more, they have bailed out rioters so they can riot more, 


and that is off the top of my head.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: And once again, Not shows that he is unable to consider the possibility of actual, legitimate differences of opinion. 21OCT03-POST#683
> 
> NFBW wrote: OK, Correll are you trying to tell me that @lamartiewhitefox ‘s ( 21SEP28-POST#3504 ) commentary that there was “No riot at the Capitol” because  “official people politely let them in standing to one side” is true? Do you Correll accept that there was no Jan6 riot at the Capitol and that no riot is an  actual, legitimate FACT and should be presented in discussions regarding the survival of American democracy to be a fact? 21OCT04-POST#701




Actually, my post clearly stated the opposite of what you just asked me. Are you...


Seriously, wtf are you even doing?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: Do you actually believe the Jan6 rioters did no coordination, planning or preparation to storm into the Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of the election that specific day? 21SEP26-POST#666
> 
> Correll wrote: YOU made the accusation. It is on YOU to support it, not on me to disprove it. 21OCT03-POST#682
> 
> NFBW wrote: Its not an accusation that you are being asked to dispute. I am asking you to tell me whether or not you Correll believe it to be true that the Jan6 rioters did no coordination, planning or preparation to storm into the Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of the election that specific day? 21OCT04-POST#702




I believe that for the vast majority of the rioters, it was a spontaneous and emotional outburst.

They may have been a few people that had some plans, and hopes of sparking something off.


Donald Trump was NOT one of them. Only an idiot would say he was.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> pretending



NFBW wrote: You are squealing like a stuck pig every time you use that term  ….   You have not produced one single incident large or small in what you call “lefty riot” that compares in any way in significance to doing damage to the peaceful transfer of power and the entire concept of every person one vote including black people that live in cities like Detroit Atlanta and Philly .. The 2020 black voters whose predecessors were burned hung and bled and died to get that right to vote. You have not cited one single riot that was the result of a single top Democratic Party official or politically elected leader scheme to benefit them and their party by attempting to block Congress from doing the work and the will of the voters they serve. 21OCT05-POST#713

NFBW wrote:  You cannot Correll find a comparison to the Jan6 insurrection because that Riot is a criminal act that is directly linked and related to the Republican Party from DJT, to 100 of its members of Congress,  down to the lowest Q-anon dingbat and riflemanic gun worshipper that also worships DJT as a god. 21OCT05-POST#713


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll  wrote: Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress. - That some people were able to use that to spark a riot, is on those people that did that. 21FEB14-POST#340
> 
> NFBW wrote. The pressure on Congress that DJT needed in order to reject the will of millions of voters who live in major cities located in the seven states that DJT lost is by definition a coup attempt and the votes DJT wanted thrown out were mostly black and therefore it wax a racist coup attempt.
> 
> Doyou Correll reject DJT’s failed attempt to reject all the black majority votes in Wayne County thus flipping the state to DJT as the winner? 21OCT05-POST#703
> 
> “”””Trump and his allies have lobbied for votes in Wayne County, home to majority-Black Detroit, to be thrown out. By Anya van Wagtendonk on November 21, 2020 12:09 pm”””
> 
> Detroit is typical of all the several majority black counties in seven states that loser DJT’s pressure on Congress was supposed  to reject and flip the entire state. DJT had an actual plan in writing to  overturn the results of the election -
> 
> “”” EASTMAN PLAN
> TRUMP-Jan6-COUPattempt
> 
> “”” PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL January 6 scenario 7 states have transmitted dual slates of electors to the President of the Senate.
> 
> READ: Trump lawyer's memo on six-step plan for Pence to overturn the election
> By: CNN  Updated 8:20 AM EDT, Tue September 21, 2021
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> READ: Trump lawyer's memo on six-step plan for Pence to overturn the election
> 
> 
> John Eastman, a conservative lawyer working with then-President Donald Trump's legal team, outlined in a two-page memo a scheme to try to persuade then-Vice President Mike Pence to subvert the Constitution and throw out the 2020 election results on January 6.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. VP Pence, presiding over the joint session (or Senate Pro Tempore Grassley, if Pence recuses himself), begins to open and count the ballots, starting with Alabama (without conceding that the procedure, specified by the Electoral Count Act, of going through the States alphabetically is required).
> 2. When he gets to Arizona, he announces that he has multiple slates of electors, and so is going to defer decision on that until finishing the other States. This would be the first break with the procedure set out in the Act.
> 3. At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States. That means the total number of “electors appointed” – the language of the 12th Amendment -- is 454. This reading of the 12th Amendment has also been advanced by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe (here). A “majority of the electors appointed” would therefore be 228. There are at this point 232 votes for Trump, 222 votes for Biden. Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected.
> 4. Howls, of course, from the Democrats, who now claim, contrary to Tribe’s prior position, that 270 is required. So Pence says, fine. Pursuant to the 12th Amendment, no candidate has achieved the necessary majority. That sends the matter to the House, where the “the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote . . . .” Republicans currently control 26 of the state delegations, the bare majority needed to win that vote. President Trump is re-elected there as well.
> 5. One last piece. Assuming the Electoral Count Act process is followed and, upon getting the objections to the Arizona slates, the two houses break into their separate chambers, we should not allow the Electoral Count Act constraint on debate to control. That would mean that a prior legislature was determining the rules of the present one — a constitutional no-no (as Tribe has forcefully argued). So someone – Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, etc. – should demand normal rules (which includes the filibuster). That creates a stalemate that would give the state legislatures more time to weigh in to formally support the alternate slate of electors, if they had not already done so. 6. The main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking for permission – either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court. Let the other side challenge his actions in court, where Tribe (who in 2001 conceded the President of the Senate might be in charge of counting the votes) and others who would press a lawsuit would have their past position -- that these are non-justiciable political questions – thrown back at them, to get the lawsuit dismissed. The fact is that the Constitution assigns this power to the Vice President as the ultimate arbiter. We should take all of our actions with that in mind.    TRUMP-Jan6-COUPattempt  “””




Condense that shit down.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: Do you Correll agree there is no evidence of fraud in the 2020 election that DJT lost? 21OCT04-POST#697
> 
> Correll Wrote: I do not agree with that statement. 21OCT05-POST#706
> 
> NFBW wrote: Thank you Correll that was not so hard, was it? Now for the sake of clarity and to prevent any misunderstanding on my part, do you Correll agree there is no evidence of fraud in the 2020 election that DJT lost sufficient to overturn the original results of the 2020 election and naming DJT as the certified winner on JANUARY 6 2021 in a joint session of Congress in accordance with the Cobstitution. 21OCT05-POST#707




No, I do not agree with that.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: You are squealing like a stuck pig every time you use that term  ….   You have not produced one single incident large or small in what you call “lefty riot” that compares in any way in significance to doing damage to the peaceful transfer of power and the entire concept of every person one vote including black people that live in cities like Detroit Atlanta and Philly .. The 2020 black voters whose predecessors were burned hung and bled and died to get that right to vote. You have not cited one single riot that was the result of a single top Democratic Party official or politically elected leader scheme to benefit them and their party by attempting to block Congress from doing the work and the will of the voters they serve. 21OCT05-POST#713
> 
> NFBW wrote:  You cannot Correll find a comparison to the Jan6 insurrection because that Riot is a criminal act that is directly linked and related to the Republican Party from DJT, to 100 of its members of Congress,  down to the lowest Q-anon dingbat and riflemanic gun worshipper that also worships DJT as a god. 21OCT05-POST#713




The bit where you define the incident so precisely, based on YOUR take on it, so that no other incident, that might be violent and/or fit the definition of insurrection, doesn't make the cut as an equal example.


is you admitting that you know there are PLENTY OF EXAMPLEs, that you have to invent excuses to dismiss.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Condense that shit down.



NFBW wrote: Do you Correll reject and condemn DJT’s failed attempt on Jan6 to reject all the black majority votes in Wayne County MICHIGAN thus flipping the entire state to DJT as the winner? 21OCT05-POST#703 reposted amended  21OCT05-POST#717


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: Do you Correll reject and condemn DJT’s failed attempt on Jan6 to reject all the black majority votes in Wayne County MICHIGAN thus flipping the entire state to DJT as the winner? 21OCT05-POST#703 reposted amended  21OCT05-POST#717




I reject your spin on his actions. I do not share your obsession with wace.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Lefties like you are pretending that a 4 hour riot is worse than the four YEARS of riots from your side, for bullshit reasons. 21OCT05-POST#705

NFBW wrote: The word “riot” is similar to the word “fruit”.   We do not compare apples to bananas and try to grow them in the same environment or sell them for the same price. They are different in nature. Its the same for riots. They cannot be compared because they occur for extremely different situations and for entirely different reasons. Looting is an offshoot of riots and in nearly every case it is a spontaneous outburst of criminal activity that rises because police presence is needed elsewhere. Criminal activity such as looting and destroying property is not a riot from my side or a riot on your side or any political side. It is criminal activity for the purpose of benefiting the perp’s unlawful desire to acquire free stuff or to satisfy a desire just to destroy something out of anger. You Correll are dishonest when you compare an apple to a banana just because the banana happens more often in a free society than the apple. The apple riot required a presidential election with an incumbent president that loses a bid for a second term, who’s party controls both the House and Senate, and a president with the lack of integrity and respect for the will of the voters who never accept the certified fact that he lost. So the facts are that the apple riot has a once in a millennia chance to ever happen again. So to compare the one apple riot to overturn an election as part of a sitting President’s plan to the banana multiple common riots that occur because there are out of control violent criminal element’s in a free society is dishonest, deceitful, and lacking in reason and facts. 21OCT05-POST#719.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW wrote: Do you Correll reject and condemn DJT’s failed attempt on Jan6 to reject all the black majority votes in Wayne County MICHIGAN thus flipping the entire state to DJT as the winner? 21OCT05-POST#703 reposted amended 21OCT05-POST#717

Correll wrote: I reject your spin on his actions. 21OCT05-POST#706

NFBW wrote: I have identified one of the results of what you call DJT putting pressure on Congress on January 6. The Eastman memo describes what DJT wanted to be done on that date. It is not spin that the 80 percent majority black votes in the Detroit area would have been thrown out and Michigan would be flipped to DJT as the winner.   21OCT05-POST#720

Correll  wrote: Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress. 21FEB14-POST#340

NFBW wrote: Part of that pressure on Congress would have led to the black voters in the Detroit area having their votes thrown out. That is a fact. You can try to deny it as a fact but you’re a liar. So I take it that you are OK with the fact that DJT schemed and carried out a plan for January 6 that would disenfranchise hundreds of thousands if not millions of black votes in the seven states that he lost. Because you’re OK with that it’s justified to label you as a racist. Because you are. 21OCT05-POST#720


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Lefties like you are pretending that a 4 hour riot is worse than the four YEARS of riots from your side, for bullshit reasons. 21OCT05-POST#705
> 
> NFBW wrote: The word “riot” is similar to the word “fruit”.   We do not compare apples to bananas and try to grow them in the same environment or sell them for the same price. They are different in nature. Its the same for riots. They cannot be compared because they occur for extremely different situations and for entirely different reasons. Looting is an offshoot of riots and in nearly every case it is a spontaneous outburst of criminal activity that rises because police presence is needed elsewhere. Criminal activity such as looting and destroying property is not a riot from my side or a riot on your side or any political side. It is criminal activity for the purpose of benefiting the perp’s unlawful desire to acquire free stuff or to satisfy a desire just to destroy something out of anger. You Correll are dishonest when you compare an apple to a banana just because the banana happens more often in a free society than the apple. The apple riot required a presidential election with an incumbent president that loses a bid for a second term, who’s party controls both the House and Senate, and a president with the lack of integrity and respect for the will of the voters who never accept the certified fact that he lost. So the facts are that the apple riot has a once in a millennia chance to ever happen again. So to compare the one apple riot to overturn an election as part of a sitting President’s plan to the banana multiple common riots that occur because there are out of control violent criminal element’s in a free society is dishonest, deceitful, and lacking in reason and facts. 21OCT05-POST#719.




That is a lot of blather, that I covered already, when I mentioned that you had "bullshit reasons" for your obviously self serving bullshit.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: Do you Correll reject and condemn DJT’s failed attempt on Jan6 to reject all the black majority votes in Wayne County MICHIGAN thus flipping the entire state to DJT as the winner? 21OCT05-POST#703 reposted amended 21OCT05-POST#717
> 
> Correll wrote: I reject your spin on his actions. 21OCT05-POST#706
> 
> NFBW wrote: I have identified one of the results of what you call DJT putting pressure on Congress on January 6. The Eastman memo describes what DJT wanted to be done on that date. It is not spin that the 80 percent majority black votes ....




I stopped reading at black. I don't care about your assumptions about his motives. I don't give a fuck about your wace baiting.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll  wrote: Your desire to hold the President responsible for the actions of other people, is you showing that you are willing to make up shit to justify jailing your political enemies. 21FEB14-POST#340

NFBW wrote: You are a liar because I do not hold DJT responsible for the  criminal attack, trespassing, attacks on cops at the Capitol on Jan6 to overturn the election so he can stay around for a second term after he lost an extremely free and fair election. I hold DJT responsible for the Big LIE that he won and for having a plan to have states throw out black votes in major cities  and replace the actual Biden electors from seven states with the White People Party’s electors on JAN6 all according to the EASTMAN PLAN. 21OCT05-POST#723


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll  wrote: Your desire to hold the President responsible for the actions of other people, is you showing that you are willing to make up shit to justify jailing your political enemies. 21FEB14-POST#340
> 
> NFBW wrote: You are a liar because I do not hold DJT responsible for the  criminal attack, trespassing, attacks on cops at the Capitol on Jan6 to overturn the election so he can stay around for a second term after he lost an extremely free and fair election. I hold DJT responsible for the Big LIE that he won and for having a plan to have states throw out black votes in major cities  and replace the actual Biden electors from seven states with the White People Party’s electors on JAN6 all according to the EASTMAN PLAN. 21OCT05-POST#723




I'm getting kind of disgusted with your constant race baiting.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: As the country becomes assimilated into the Third World, and less American, it becomes hard to see how the gop will win national elections. 21FEB11-POST#193

NFBW wrote. Can you Correll name any  highly poverty stricken Third World countries that are populated mostly with white Christian people? So Why would immigrants from the Third World make America less American? 21OCT05-POST#725


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> I'm getting kind of disgusted with your constant race baiting.



NFBW wrote: DJT was applying an agenda tied to his big Jan6 rally that if it was successful would have resulted in Wayne County Michigan and its 80 percent majority of black voters in Detroit finding out their vote did not count and DJT wins Michigan.  They don’t throw out the votes in any white majority counties just the highly populated black one. You are a liar calling that fact “race baiting” .  Here is what “race baiting” is; 21OCT05-POST#726

“”” RACE BAITING when a political ad baits voters by preying on their fears of black men’s inherent criminality or on resentment of black women laziness gaming the welfare system. The current usage is a bastardization of a term that actually has real meaning. The right has co-opted the term “race baiting,” but here’s context for its proper usage:
In 1986 George H.W. Bush’s presidential campaign released an advertisement attacking his opponent Michael Dukakis for supporting prison furloughs:

Willie Horton 1988 Attack Ad

How Michael Dukakis' tank ad symbolized his 1988 campaign l FiveThirtyEight

" target="_blank">Try watching this video on www.youtube.com</a>,
The advertisement baits voters by preying on their fears of black men’s inherent criminality.
Another example: During his campaign for presidency in 1976, Ronald Reagan warned of a “welfare queen” from Chicago who defrauded the government by using “127 names” and posing “as a mother of 14 children at one time.” Reagan went on, “Her tax-free cash income alone has been running $150,000 a year.”
Reagan—like Bush did after him— perpetuated the stereotype of black people as lazy. Instead of focusing on America’s poverty, Reagan named black people as the problem. A beautiful distraction.  “””


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: As the country becomes assimilated into the Third World, and less American, it becomes hard to see how the gop will win national elections. 21FEB11-POST#193
> 
> NFBW wrote. Can you Correll name any  highly poverty stricken Third World countries that are populated mostly with white Christian people? So Why would immigrants from the Third World make America less American? 21OCT05-POST#725




Your question is delusional.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: DJT was applying an agenda tied to his big Jan6 rally that if it was successful would have resulted in Wayne County Michigan and its 80 percent majority of black voters in Detroit finding out their vote did not count and DJT wins Michigan.  They don’t throw out the votes in any white majority counties just the highly populated black one. You are a liar calling that fact “race baiting” .  Here is what “race baiting” is; 21OCT05-POST#726
> 
> “”” RACE BAITING when a political ad baits voters by preying on their fears of black men’s inherent criminality or on resentment of black women laziness gaming the welfare system. The current usage is a bastardization of a term that actually has real meaning. The right has co-opted the term “race baiting,” but here’s context for its proper usage:
> In 1986 George H.W. Bush’s presidential campaign released an advertisement attacking his opponent Michael Dukakis for supporting prison furloughs:
> 
> Willie Horton 1988 Attack Ad
> 
> How Michael Dukakis' tank ad symbolized his 1988 campaign l FiveThirtyEight
> 
> " target="_blank">Try watching this video on www.youtube.com</a>,
> The advertisement baits voters by preying on their fears of black men’s inherent criminality.
> Another example: During his campaign for presidency in 1976, Ronald Reagan warned of a “welfare queen” from Chicago who defrauded the government by using “127 names” and posing “as a mother of 14 children at one time.” Reagan went on, “Her tax-free cash income alone has been running $150,000 a year.”
> Reagan—like Bush did after him— perpetuated the stereotype of black people as lazy. Instead of focusing on America’s poverty, Reagan named black people as the problem. A beautiful distraction.  “””




Michael Dukakis made decisions and policies that led to a convicted murder being released and he raped and tortured an innocent couple. 


That showed terrible judgement, which was a valid campaign issue. 


That you people cried WACISM and made it stick, shows that vile liars you are, nothing more. 


YOu are an asshole to support that.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Michael Dukakis made decisions and policies that led to a convicted murderer being released and he raped and tortured an innocent couple.  -  That showed terrible judgement, which was a valid campaign issue. 21OCT05-POST#722

NFBW wrote: the point was to teach you Correll what race baiting is but now because you are a racist I need to teach you the truth behind the Willie Horton race baiting ad. 21OCT06-POST#729

NFBW wrote: You Correll are a liar. Dukakis did not “make” the Massachusetts furlough program policy. Dukakis Inherited the policy from a Republican governor, Francis W. Sargent, who signed it into law in 1972.  Also in nearby New York Republican Gov.Nelson Rockefeller's administration created a similar furlough program.  - A 1984 survey found that 38 states offered some form of home furloughs and that included California where Reagan supported the same policy even after one furloughed prisoner killed a cop and  another killed a man in an armed robbery. 21OCT06-POST#72

“”” GOP, STATES BACK FURLOUGHS FOR FELONS  88OCT24 MIKE BILLINGTON, Staff Writer SUN-SENTINEL
While on a three-day furlough to look for work, an inmate committed a robbery and killed a police officer. - After escaping from a work-release program, another inmate killed a man he had just robbed.  





__





						Redirect Notice
					





					www.google.com
				




Both incidents took place in California; the first in late 1971, the second early in 1972.
Then-Gov. Ronald Reagan did not abolish the state's work-release and prison furlough programs. 88OCT24 “””


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CrusaderFrank wrote: Marxists will burn down all our major cities if President Trump wins 20AUG18-POST#27 



Correll said:


> Funny,



Correll wrote: Funny, you don't deny that your side has murderous mobs in the street, to influence the election... 20SEP26-POST#157 

“The more chaos and anarchy and vandalism and violence reigns, the better it is for the very clear choice on who’s best on public safety and law and order,” Ms. Conway said on “Fox & Friends.” 20AUG27-KConway

NFBW wrote: Will Correll ever explain why he thinks now and thought then that Democrats of any rank would have murderous mobs in the street, to influence the election in DJT’s favor?  21OCT06-POST#730


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Your question is delusional. 21OCT05-POST#727


Correll wrote: As the country becomes assimilated into the Third World, and less American, 21FEB11-POST#193


NFBW wrote: Why would anyone believe that if America were currently taking in large numbers of white Christian immigrants Correll would not be pissing and moaning like that about them causing  America to be less American. It is not delusional to believe and accept that non-white, non-Christian people can come here, be successful and keep America - America. Unless of course you are a racist. 21OCT06-POST#731


----------



## NotfooledbyW

rightwinger wrote: Was it a fair election or not? 20DEC08-POST#20

Correll wrote: With violent mobs backed up by the police, terrorizing the streets and the media being nothing but propaganda outlets for the dem party? - FUCK NO, it was not a fair election. 20DEC08-POST#73

NFBW wrote: If you were afraid Correll to go out and vote in person on Election Day because you were afraid of the violent mobs backed up by the police, terrorizing the streets keeping you from getting there, I would be interested to know if you had the option to vote by mail in your state and why you did not take advantage of that during the COVID-19 pandemic since you appear to be the only voter in America afraid of lefty mobs and the police. There was massive turnout every except apparently wherever you vote if you are to be believed.. 21OCT06-POST#732


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: The people who died in the race riots of the last four years? They died so that you dems could win elections. 21JUN15-POST#1090

NFBW wrote: No!  Racial violence helped DJT according to DJT’s Senior Political Counselor in the White House. Is your credibility Correll , on the topic, higher than that of Kellyanne Conway, an American political consultant and pollster, who served as Senior Counselor to President DJT for three years, following her position as DJT’s campaign manager. Conway is the first woman to have run a successful U.S. presidential campaign. She was formerly the president and CEO of the Polling Company/WomanTrend? Or are you just blowing smoke out of your ass as usual on most every other topic being discussed? 21OCT06-POST#733

“The more chaos and anarchy and vandalism and violence reigns, the better it is for the very clear choice on who’s best on public safety and law and order,” Ms. Conway said on “Fox & Friends.” 20AUG27-KConway


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Michael Dukakis made decisions and policies that led to a convicted murderer being released and he raped and tortured an innocent couple.  -  That showed terrible judgement, which was a valid campaign issue. 21OCT05-POST#722
> 
> NFBW wrote: the point was to teach you Correll what race baiting is but now because you are a racist I need to teach you the truth behind the Willie Horton race baiting ad. 21OCT06-POST#729
> ....




Dukakis was responsible for Horton being released. Your denial is you being ignorant. REad more.


The point stands. Releasing a violent murderer/rapist to rape and torture citizens, is a valid campaign issue.


That lefties like yourself cried WACISM about it, IS race baiting.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> CrusaderFrank wrote: Marxists will burn down all our major cities if President Trump wins 20AUG18-POST#27
> 
> 
> 
> Correll wrote: Funny, you don't deny that your side has murderous mobs in the street, to influence the election... 20SEP26-POST#157
> 
> “The more chaos and anarchy and vandalism and violence reigns, the better it is for the very clear choice on who’s best on public safety and law and order,” Ms. Conway said on “Fox & Friends.” 20AUG27-KConway
> 
> NFBW wrote: Will Correll ever explain why he thinks now and thought then that Democrats of any rank would have murderous mobs in the street, to influence the election in DJT’s favor?  21OCT06-POST#730




Are you pretending to respect KConway as an Authority?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Your question is delusional. 21OCT05-POST#727
> 
> 
> Correll wrote: As the country becomes assimilated into the Third World, and less American, 21FEB11-POST#193
> 
> 
> NFBW wrote: Why would anyone believe that if America were currently taking in large numbers of white Christian immigrants Correll would not be pissing and moaning like that about them causing  America to be less American. It is not delusional to believe and accept that non-white, non-Christian people can come here, be successful and keep America - America. Unless of course you are a racist. 21OCT06-POST#731




So, all you have AGAIN, is just crying "wacist" like a retarded child?


You are getting very boring.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> rightwinger wrote: Was it a fair election or not? 20DEC08-POST#20
> 
> Correll wrote: With violent mobs backed up by the police, terrorizing the streets and the media being nothing but propaganda outlets for the dem party? - FUCK NO, it was not a fair election. 20DEC08-POST#73
> 
> NFBW wrote: If you were afraid Correll to go out and vote in person on Election Day because you were afraid of the violent mobs backed up by the police, terrorizing the streets keeping you from getting there, I would be interested to know if you had the option to vote by mail in your state and why you did not take advantage of that during the COVID-19 pandemic since you appear to be the only voter in America afraid of lefty mobs and the police. There was massive turnout every except apparently wherever you vote if you are to be believed.. 21OCT06-POST#732




I said nothing about being PERSONALLY afraid.


My point stands. YOU cannot have a Free and Fair elections, with brown shirted mobs roaming the streets and the media being nothing but propaganda outlets for the dems. 


YOu want to address that point, or are you going to dodge it some more?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: The people who died in the race riots of the last four years? They died so that you dems could win elections. 21JUN15-POST#1090
> 
> NFBW wrote: No!  Racial violence helped DJT according to DJT’s Senior Political Counselor in the White House. Is your credibility Correll , on the topic, higher than that of Kellyanne Conway, an American political consultant and pollster, who served as Senior Counselor to President DJT for three years, following her position as DJT’s campaign manager. Conway is the first woman to have run a successful U.S. presidential campaign. She was formerly the president and CEO of the Polling Company/WomanTrend? Or are you just blowing smoke out of your ass as usual on most every other topic being discussed? 21OCT06-POST#733
> 
> “The more chaos and anarchy and vandalism and violence reigns, the better it is for the very clear choice on who’s best on public safety and law and order,” Ms. Conway said on “Fox & Friends.” 20AUG27-KConway




Are you pretending to accept Kellyanne Conway as an Authority?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Pro-life blacks alone, would have put him over the top. 21JUN15-POST#1090

NFBW wrote: But you say Correll the election was corrupted by election fraud sufficient to swing the election to Biden and you said there is ‘evidence’ that proves it. 21OCT06-POST#

Correll wrote: President Trump believes that the election was corrupted by fraud 21SEP28-POST#67

NFBW wrote: But in June this year you Correll wrote that Pro-life blacks alone, would have put DJT over the top. DJT’s failure to get pro-life blacks to vote for him in Detroit Philly and Atlanta is not evidence of election fraud. 21OCT06-POST#


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Are you pretending to accept Kellyanne Conway as an Authority?  21OCT06-POST#738

NFBW wrote: She is a conservative polling professional and her synopsis is not an outlier when compared to all other polling firms and experts. Can you find any political science that rejects her conclusion?  I see no reason to dispute what she said. On the other hand that smoke you’ve been  blowing out of your ass is based on nothing that I could find in an extensive search of your posts. 21OCT06-POST#740

JUST LOOK AT THIS SHIT FROM YOUR BRAIN Correll:

Correll wrote: Funny, you don't deny that your side has murderous mobs in the street, to influence the election... 20SEP26-POST#157

Correll wrote: that is a completely reasonable fear, and that fear of mob violence from the left will taint any leftist victory. 20AUG19-POST#29

Correll wrote: you want elections to be respected? start respecting them. stop beating and killing people in the streets. stop burning down shit.  20AUG20-POST#34

Correll wrote: It is not Trump who is damaging the system, but the refusal of the dems to respect the peaceful transfer of power.  20AUG20-POST#36

Correll wrote: your side has decided that it is prepared to use violence to achieve it's goals. the choice the rest of us have, is to let you, or fight you. 20AUG20-POST#41

Correll wrote: it has to do with what i said. the dems are not respecting the peaceful transfer of power. -  that is the system breaking down, not trump. 20AUG20-POST#49

Correll wrote: The violence won't stop until your forces are met and defeated with force. That is what defines reality on the streets.  20AUG20-POST#62

Correll wrote: An election with murderous mobs in the streets and the almost certainty of increased violence if the mob is not happy with outcome of the election AND mayors ordering cops to stand down so the mob can rampage without restraint AND, with democrats in office ordering the arrest of people that defend themselves from the mobs,  any Biden victory is tainted, and not legitimate  20AUG20-POST#62

Correll wrote: With violent mobs backed up by the police, terrorizing the streets and the media being nothing but propaganda outlefts for the dem party? - FUCK NO, it was not a fair election. 20DEC08-POST#73


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Pro-life blacks alone, would have put him over the top. 21JUN15-POST#1090
> 
> NFBW wrote: But you say Correll the election was corrupted by election fraud sufficient to swing the election to Biden and you said there is ‘evidence’ that proves it. 21OCT06-POST#
> ....



I said no such thing. Seriously, wtf if wrong with  you, that you cannot read a simple sentence without making up shit?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Pro-life blacks alone, would have put him over the top. 21JUN15-POST#1090

NFBW wrote: But you say Correll the election was corrupted by election fraud sufficient to swing the election to Biden and you said there is ‘evidence’ that proves it. 21OCT06-POST#739

Correll wrote: I said no such thing. Seriously, wtf is wrong with you, that you cannot read a simple sentence without making up shit? 21OCT06-POST#741

NFBW wrote: No, you wrote it: 21OCT06-POST#742 



Correll said:


> Pro-life blacks alone, would have put him over the top.


  post: 27295386,


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: One riot, in a pattern of peaceful demonstrations, is believable as an isolated, spontaneous event. 21OCT05-POST#50

NFBW wrote: How many riots in your formula Correll do not start in a pattern of peaceful demonstrations? The Kenosha riot was closest to the election so I will use that particular event as an example as to why your formula is flawed. 21OCT06-POST#743

“”” Sunday August 23  - Protests in Kenosha began on Sunday after video of the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a 29-year-old black man, went viral. The demonstrations quickly got violent, leading to looting and vandalism, and on Tuesday, the shooting that killed two people occurred. Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old from Illinois, has been arrested and charged in connection with the shooting.
Redirect Notice “””

NFBW wrote: The Kenosha riot was not a part of a BLM peaceful organized planned event because no one at BLM knows when police are going to shoot a black person. How do you account for that reality in your formula based on the premise that race riots start in a pattern of peaceful demonstrations organized by the Democratic Party.? 21OCT06-POST#743


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Dukakis was responsible for Horton being released. 21OCT06-POST#734 

NFBW wrote: Your original point did not stand because it was a lie. I see you Correll have revised it. 21OCT06-POST#744

Correll wrote: Michael Dukakis made decisions and policies that led to a convicted murderer being released  21OCT05-POST#722

NFBW wrote: Dukakis did not make the policy that furloughed Willie Horton so you lied and got caught. 21OCT06-POST#744

NFBW wrote: So because you lied about a racial issue I don’t trust your revised point that Dukakis was responsible for Horton being released. You don’t know that.so prove me wrong with the facts. 21OCT06-POST#744


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Are you pretending to accept Kellyanne Conway as an Authority?  21OCT06-POST#738
> 
> NFBW wrote: She is a conservative polling professional and her synopsis is not an outlier when compared to all other polling firms and experts. Can you find any political science that rejects her conclusion?  I see no reason to dispute what she said. On the other hand that smoke you’ve been  blowing out of your ass is based on nothing that I could find in an extensive search of your posts. 21OCT06-POST#740
> 
> JUST LOOK AT THIS SHIT FROM YOUR BRAIN Correll:
> 
> Correll wrote: Funny, you don't deny that your side has murderous mobs in the street, to influence the election... 20SEP26-POST#157
> 
> Correll wrote: that is a completely reasonable fear, and that fear of mob violence from the left will taint any leftist victory. 20AUG19-POST#29
> 
> Correll wrote: you want elections to be respected? start respecting them. stop beating and killing people in the streets. stop burning down shit.  20AUG20-POST#34
> 
> Correll wrote: It is not Trump who is damaging the system, but the refusal of the dems to respect the peaceful transfer of power.  20AUG20-POST#36
> 
> Correll wrote: your side has decided that it is prepared to use violence to achieve it's goals. the choice the rest of us have, is to let you, or fight you. 20AUG20-POST#41
> 
> Correll wrote: it has to do with what i said. the dems are not respecting the peaceful transfer of power. -  that is the system breaking down, not trump. 20AUG20-POST#49
> 
> Correll wrote: The violence won't stop until your forces are met and defeated with force. That is what defines reality on the streets.  20AUG20-POST#62
> 
> Correll wrote: An election with murderous mobs in the streets and the almost certainty of increased violence if the mob is not happy with outcome of the election AND mayors ordering cops to stand down so the mob can rampage without restraint AND, with democrats in office ordering the arrest of people that defend themselves from the mobs,  any Biden victory is tainted, and not legitimate  20AUG20-POST#62
> 
> Correll wrote: With violent mobs backed up by the police, terrorizing the streets and the media being nothing but propaganda outlefts for the dem party? - FUCK NO, it was not a fair election. 20DEC08-POST#73




Are  you saying that you accept her as an Authority on political matters?

Simple question. Why are you afraid to answer it. You are CITING her, AS THOUGH you think she is an Authority to be respected, even DEFERRED TO, so, is that you INTENT?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Pro-life blacks alone, would have put him over the top. 21JUN15-POST#1090
> 
> NFBW wrote: But you say Correll the election was corrupted by election fraud sufficient to swing the election to Biden and you said there is ‘evidence’ that proves it. 21OCT06-POST#739
> 
> Correll wrote: I said no such thing. Seriously, wtf is wrong with you, that you cannot read a simple sentence without making up shit? 21OCT06-POST#741
> 
> NFBW wrote: No, you wrote it: 21OCT06-POST#742
> 
> post: 27295386,




Wow. I an amazed at how stupid you are being. Seriously, I mean, you have acted retarded for MONTHS now, but you are acting even MORE retarded now.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: One riot, in a pattern of peaceful demonstrations, is believable as an isolated, spontaneous event. 21OCT05-POST#50
> 
> NFBW wrote: How many riots in your formula Correll do not start in a pattern of peaceful demonstrations? The Kenosha riot was closest to the election so I will use that particular event as an example as to why your formula is flawed. 21OCT06-POST#743
> 
> “”” Sunday August 23  - Protests in Kenosha began on Sunday after video of the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a 29-year-old black man, went viral. The demonstrations quickly got violent, leading to looting and vandalism, and on Tuesday, the shooting that killed two people occurred. Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old from Illinois, has been arrested and charged in connection with the shooting.
> Redirect Notice “””
> 
> NFBW wrote: The Kenosha riot was not a part of a BLM peaceful organized planned event because no one at BLM knows when police are going to shoot a black person. How do you account for that reality in your formula based on the premise that race riots start in a pattern of peaceful demonstrations organized by the Democratic Party.? 21OCT06-POST#743




BLM, and Antifa don't NEED to know when it will happen. THe reactions of the libs in question are all...predictable.


A white cop kills a black criminal? 

The BLM and Antifa and allied though leaders, had already set up the preconceptions that any such event is assumed to be wacist, and unjust.

The Libtards in teh media, jump  on it, and fan the flames. 


The thugs know what is coming and know that this is an excuse for crime and looting. 

The local dems order the cops to stand down.


Antifa and/or BLM mobilize to get forces there to rile up or keep it going. 


What part of this, doesn't  make sense for you?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Dukakis was responsible for Horton being released. 21OCT06-POST#734
> 
> NFBW wrote: Your original point did not stand because it was a lie. I see you Correll have revised it. 21OCT06-POST#744
> 
> Correll wrote: Michael Dukakis made decisions and policies that led to a convicted murderer being released  21OCT05-POST#722
> 
> NFBW wrote: Dukakis did not make the policy that furloughed Willie Horton so you lied and got caught. 21OCT06-POST#744
> 
> NFBW wrote: So because you lied about a racial issue I don’t trust your revised point that Dukakis was responsible for Horton being released. You don’t know that.so prove me wrong with the facts. 21OCT06-POST#744




I'm not going to bother looking up the exact sequence of events, because you already know that Dukakis was responsible for Horton being released. 


It was a valid campaign issue and  that you liberals managed to make it part of hte Conventional Wisdom that that was Wace Baiting, 


is a testimony to, not only what Soulless Liars you are, but how GOOD you are at lying.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Are you saying that you accept her as an Authority on political matters? 21OCT06-POST#745 

NFBW wrote: Define the specific political matters you want to know about. I certainly have stated I respect her conclusion about racial violence benefiting her former boss. She is right about that so, yes she is a qualified authority and I easily accept her conclusion on that specific political matter. 21OCT06-POST#749


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Are you saying that you accept her as an Authority on political matters? 21OCT06-POST#745
> 
> NFBW wrote: Define the specific political matters you want to know about. I certainly have stated I respect her conclusion about racial violence benefiting her former boss. She is right about that so, yes she is a qualified authority and I easily accept her conclusion on that specific political matter. 21OCT06-POST#




But if I waste teh time to find an example of her DEFENDING  Trump suddenly you wouldn't give a damn about her opinion, right?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: BLM, and Antifa don't NEED to know when it will happen. 21OCT06-POST#747

NFBW wrote: That is not what you claim as you are comparing the one Jan6 peaceful protest to the multitude of BLM peaceful protests. Your entire argument is based on DJT organizing the peaceful Jan6 stop the steal protest where a violent criminal riot and assault on CONGRESS broke out. Its DONT BLAME DJT because it was spontaneous and unplanned by the organizers and it only happened once. 21OCT06-POST#751

Correll wrote: One riot, in a pattern of peaceful demonstrations, is believable as an isolated, spontaneous event. 21OCT05-POST#50

NFBW wrote: As you can see in your mind the white nationalistic DJT riot was a one time spontaneous outbreak therefore not the responsibility of the organizer. But now you tell me BLM organizers don't NEED to know when a peaceful protests will be organized because violence has already broken out so unlike DJT who is white by the way, BLM organizers are to blame for the spontaneous violence when having nothing to do with it. And you don’t believe you are racist. 21OCT06-POST#751


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: A white cop kills a black criminal? 21OCT06-POST#747

NFBW wrote: What sparked the spontaneous riot Correll at the Jan6 peaceful protest to stop the steal for DJT.  21OCT07-POST#752


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: A white cop kills a black criminal? 21OCT06-POSTED #747

Correll wrote: The BLM and Antifa and allied thought leaders, had already set up the preconceptions that any such event is assumed to be racist, and unjust. 21OCT06-POST#747

NFBW wrote: The direct witnesses on the scene at the George Floyd murder, none of which reacted with violence, would not have seen something very wrong, racially motivated and unjust had it not been for some kind of advance thought policing or mind control by the BLM and Antifa and allied thought leaders? Am I reading that correctly? 21OCT07-POST#753


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: The Libtards in the media, jump on it, and fan the flames. 21OCT06-POST#747

NFBW wrote: Because they want DJT and rightwingers to win by making sure black chaos and blank anarchy and black vandalism and black violence reigns on tv screens throughout white American because FOX NEWSMAX and OAN are not enough. 21OCT07-POST#754

“The more chaos and anarchy and vandalism and violence reigns, the better it is for the very clear choice on who’s best on public safety and law and order,” Ms. Conway said on “Fox & Friends.” 20AUG27-KConway


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: My opinion of the election was that you cannot have a free and fair election with  1. large numbers of violent brown shirts rioting in the streets.  21OCT03-POST#681

NFBW wrote: That is odd and assbackward because as you can see DJTjr welcoming rioting, looting and vandalism by black brownshirts to help daddy win. 21OCT03-POST#755

“It’s almost like this election is shaping up to be church, work and school versus rioting, looting and vandalism,”  20AUG25-DJTjr-KenoshaBlake



			https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/08/25/jacob-blake-kenosha-police-shooting/?outputType=amp
		


the president’s eldest child, Donald Trump Jr., said in his prime-time speech Monday night


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: BLM, and Antifa don't NEED to know when it will happen. 21OCT06-POST#747
> 
> NFBW wrote: That is not what you claim as you are comparing the one Jan6 peaceful protest to the multitude of BLM peaceful protests. Your entire argument is based on DJT organizing the peaceful Jan6 stop the steal protest where a violent criminal riot and assault on CONGRESS broke out. Its DONT BLAME DJT because it was spontaneous and unplanned by the organizers and it only happened once. 21OCT06-POST#751
> 
> Correll wrote: One riot, in a pattern of peaceful demonstrations, is believable as an isolated, spontaneous event. 21OCT05-POST#50
> 
> NFBW wrote: As you can see in your mind the white nationalistic DJT riot was a one time spontaneous outbreak therefore not the responsibility of the organizer. But now you tell me BLM organizers don't NEED to know when a peaceful protests will be organized because violence has already broken out so unlike DJT who is white by the way, BLM organizers are to blame for the spontaneous violence when having nothing to do with it. And you don’t believe you are racist. 21OCT06-POST#751




Correct. I am not  racist. I am judging these people NOT by their skin colors, or races, but by their actions.

Indeed, I'm not the one constantly pointing out the skin color of the people involved, or ignoring the actions of specific racial groups when it does not fit my narrative. That is you.


Teh 1/6 riot was an isolated event, Donald Trump had no reason to expect that, when he called for a large demonstration that it would erupt into violence because he had called for or had organized HUNDREDs of large demonstrations  without violence. 


Antifa and BLM though, have had the OPPOSITE experiences of having HUNDREDS of examples of "demonstrations" turning violent. 


I look at the actions of the people involved. you look at their skin color. YOU are the actual racist here.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: A white cop kills a black criminal? 21OCT06-POST#747
> 
> NFBW wrote: What sparked the spontaneous riot Correll at the Jan6 peaceful protest to stop the steal for DJT.  21OCT07-POST#752



Depends what you mean by "spark" here. THe people were motivated to show up, by a belief that the election was tainted by fraud. Though the motivation among the small group of people that started the violence, is a different matter. 


The one person I saw, on video at the forefront of the riot, really agitating violence, seemed to be motivated by a desire to get good video for his reporting. Though he was a lefty so there could be the motivation of encouraging a situation that would make his enemies, the righties, look bad.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: A white cop kills a black criminal? 21OCT06-POSTED #747
> 
> Correll wrote: The BLM and Antifa and allied thought leaders, had already set up the preconceptions that any such event is assumed to be racist, and unjust. 21OCT06-POST#747
> 
> NFBW wrote: The direct witnesses on the scene at the George Floyd murder, none of which reacted with violence, would not have seen something very wrong, racially motivated and unjust had it not been for some kind of advance thought policing or mind control by the BLM and Antifa and allied thought leaders? Am I reading that correctly? 21OCT07-POST#753





Incorrect. That is not what "preconceptions" means. Try again.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: The Libtards in the media, jump on it, and fan the flames. 21OCT06-POST#747
> 
> NFBW wrote: Because they want DJT and rightwingers to win by making sure black chaos and blank anarchy and black vandalism and black violence reigns on tv screens throughout white American because FOX NEWSMAX and OAN are not enough. 21OCT07-POST#754
> 
> “The more chaos and anarchy and vandalism and violence reigns, the better it is for the very clear choice on who’s best on public safety and law and order,” Ms. Conway said on “Fox & Friends.” 20AUG27-KConway




Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy UNLESS the Authority is accepted as a valid authority to be deferred to. 

I have asked you if you defer to her on political matters and you have not answered the question. 


It is also cowardly of you, to put forth a point  you want to... use, but are afraid to defend yourself. 


MY POINT, is that the libtards fan the flames to rile up racist violence and strife and tension, as part of my larger argument as to why BLM and Antifa do get held responsible for the violence led by OR inspired by, their movement.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: But if I waste the time to find an example of her ( Conway ) DEFENDING Trump suddenly you wouldn't give a damn about her opinion, right? 21OCT06-POST#750

NFBW wrote: No, Correll , dry your tears,  find an example and then I will explain to you and all the readers why a competent intelligent professional pollster and political consultant can make choices in life that contradict the education and training that the American dream provided him or her. Please provide an example. I’m chomping at the bit.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: My opinion of the election was that you cannot have a free and fair election with  1. large numbers of violent brown shirts rioting in the streets.  21OCT03-POST#681
> 
> NFBW wrote: That is odd and assbackward because as you can see DJTjr welcoming rioting, looting and vandalism by black brownshirts to help daddy win. 21OCT03-POST#755
> 
> “It’s almost like this election is shaping up to be church, work and school versus rioting, looting and vandalism,”  20AUG25-DJTjr-KenoshaBlake
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/08/25/jacob-blake-kenosha-police-shooting/?outputType=amp
> 
> 
> 
> the president’s eldest child, Donald Trump Jr., said in his prime-time speech Monday night




Do  you defer to Donald Trump as an Authority on political matters?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Do you defer to Donald Trump as an authority on political matters? 21OCT07-POST#761

NFBW wrote: I prefer the word refer over defer. I have referred to DJTjr as an insider source authority on his fucked up father’s racist campaign and presidency and exit. It was a hugely racist exit by seeking to void black votes. So dry your tears Correll  and focus on explaining why you are at odds with DJT’s son and DJT’s top political and campaign adviser on the reality that racial violence helped DJT get more white votes and Biden get fewer white votes. Its about who gets the most votes to win an election . We count them and determine the winner the black ones and the white ones in America now. 21OCT07-POST#762

“The more chaos and anarchy and vandalism and violence reigns, the better it is for the very clear choice on who’s best on public safety and law and order,” Ms. Conway said on “Fox & Friends.” 20AUG27-KConway

Correll wrote: My opinion of the election was that you cannot have a free and fair election with 1. large numbers of violent brown shirts rioting in the streets. 21OCT03-POST#681

“It’s almost like this election is shaping up to be church, work and school versus rioting, looting and vandalism,” 20AUG25-DJTjr-KenoshaBlake


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy UNLESS the Authority is accepted as a valid authority to be deferred to. 21OCT07-POST#759

NFBW wrote: I am not appealing to Kellyanne Conway or DJTJr as an authority. I am referencing their publicly stated conclusions regarding the benefit of racial violence on DJT’s Campaign for reelection. That was to point out the absurdity of your conclusion that Democrats BLM the left wing news media we’re fanning the flames in 2020 to hurt DJT’s chances of winning reelection. You got nothing Correll  21OCT07-POST#763


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: MY POINT, is that the libtards fan the flames to rile up racist violence and strife and tension, as part of my larger argument as to why BLM and Antifa do get held responsible for the violence led by OR inspired by, their movement. 21OCT07-POST#759

NFBW wrote: Do you understand BLM to be an organization that has specific people in leadership roles? On what basis do you connect those people you Correll refer to as “Libtard‘s fanning the flames” to the leadership of the BLM organization? 21OCT07-POST#764


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: MY POINT, is that the libtards fan the flames to rile up racist violence and strife and tension, as part of my larger argument as to why BLM and Antifa do get held responsible for the violence led by OR inspired by, their movement. 21OCT07-POST#759

NFBW wrote: At the exact moment when the public is first being made aware on social media about a black person being shot severely injured or killed by police do you Correll agree that people in the community where the incident happened and also  the people around the country as the word spreads out,  have a first amendment right to be upset concerned and angry to go to the streets in order to peacefully gather and protest the police action they just found out about? Can you establish as a matter of fact that the leadership of the BLM organization has control over the peaceful protests in those instances of spontaneous protest sufficiently and authoritatively to prevent any and all outbreaks of violence looting and property destruction from happening? 21OCT07-POST#765


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: My opinion of the election was that you cannot have a free and fair election with 1. large numbers of violent brown shirts rioting in the streets. 21OCT03-POST#681

NFBW wrote: So could you tell us in a real number what you consider to be large numbers of violent brown shirts rioting in the streets? 21OCT07-POST#766


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: The local dems order the cops to stand down. 21OCT06-POST#747

NFBW wrote: Let’s focus on Kenosha. There should be a record of an ‘order’ issued by the ‘Dems’ forcing the police to stand down. Can you provide a link that shows what authority wrote the order and the date rank and badge number of the police officer who received it? 21OCT07-POST#767


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: A white cop kills a black criminal? 21OCT06-POSTED #747

Correll wrote: The BLM and Antifa and allied thought leaders, had already set up the preconceptions that any such event is assumed to be racist, and unjust. 21OCT06-POST#747

NFBW wrote: The direct witnesses on the scene at the George Floyd murder, none of which reacted with violence, would not have seen something very wrong, racially motivated and unjust had it not been for some kind of advance thought policing or mind control by the BLM and Antifa and allied thought leaders? Am I reading that correctly? 21OCT07-POST#753

Correll wrote: Incorrect. That is not what "preconceptions" means. Try again. 21OCT07-POST#758

NFBW wrote: Words can have multiple meanings. You have asserted that the BLM and Antifa and allied thought leaders,
 “set up” certain conceptions or opinions prior to all the police shootings or suffocating of black people. How does BLM “set up” preconceptions in your racist conspiracy theory?  21OCT07-POST#768


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Do you defer to Donald Trump as an authority on political matters? 21OCT07-POST#761
> 
> NFBW wrote: I prefer the word refer over defer. I have referred to DJTjr as an insider source authority on his fucked up father’s racist campaign and presidency and exit. It was a hugely racist exit by seeking to void black votes. .....KenoshaBlake



I stopped reading here. If all you want to do is spam bullshit, then we are done.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy UNLESS the Authority is accepted as a valid authority to be deferred to. 21OCT07-POST#759
> 
> NFBW wrote: I am not appealing to Kellyanne Conway or DJTJr as an authority. I am referencing their publicly stated conclusions regarding the benefit of racial violence on DJT’s Campaign for reelection. That was to point out the absurdity of your conclusion that Democrats BLM the left wing news media we’re fanning the flames in 2020 to hurt DJT’s chances of winning reelection. You got nothing Correll  21OCT07-POST#763




If you want to use a point in a debate, make it yourself, instead of hiding behind a source that you don't even believe in. 


I mean, that's just fucking lame of you.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: MY POINT, is that the libtards fan the flames to rile up racist violence and strife and tension, as part of my larger argument as to why BLM and Antifa do get held responsible for the violence led by OR inspired by, their movement. 21OCT07-POST#759
> 
> NFBW wrote: Do you understand BLM to be an organization that has specific people in leadership roles? On what basis do you connect those people you Correll refer to as “Libtard‘s fanning the flames” to the leadership of the BLM organization? 21OCT07-POST#764




On the basis I have repeatedly explained. Try addressing it, instead of playing dumb.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: MY POINT, is that the libtards fan the flames to rile up racist violence and strife and tension, as part of my larger argument as to why BLM and Antifa do get held responsible for the violence led by OR inspired by, their movement. 21OCT07-POST#759
> 
> NFBW wrote: At the exact moment when the public is first being made aware on social media about a black person being shot severely injured or killed by police do you Correll agree that people in the community where the incident happened and also  the people around the country as the word spreads out,  have a first amendment right to be upset concerned and angry to go to the streets in order to peacefully gather and protest the police action they just found out about? Can you establish as a matter of fact that the leadership of the BLM organization has control over the peaceful protests in those instances of spontaneous protest sufficiently and authoritatively to prevent any and all outbreaks of violence looting and property destruction from happening? 21OCT07-POST#765




YOu are trying to gin up a strawman in order to avoid my point. That is very cowardly of you.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: The local dems order the cops to stand down. 21OCT06-POST#747
> 
> NFBW wrote: Let’s focus on Kenosha. There should be a record of an ‘order’ issued by the ‘Dems’ forcing the police to stand down. Can you provide a link that shows what authority wrote the order and the date rank and badge number of the police officer who received it? 21OCT07-POST#767




There should be a record of it. Of course, there might not be. Whether there is or not, I do not have it. 


People don't become police officers so that can stand there and watch human scum of the earth, riot and rampage though their communities and do nothing. 

Yet, in dem led areas, that is increasingly becoming the normal response.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: There should be a record of it. Of course, there might not be. Whether there is or not, I do not have it. 21OCT07-POST#773

NFBW wrote: You Correll have been blowing that smoke out of your ass for over a year. No Dem ordered the cops to stand down, ever, following a police shooting. In Kenosha not only did the cops stand up they let the militia goons patrol the streets, including the little punk NAZI Rittenhouse who you say…. Correll wrote:  …. was defending the United States. 20NOV03-POST#185. Sorry Correll that young punk vigilante with no police training being allowed to patrol in a riot situation is not standing down. You are a liar. 21OCT07-POST#774


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: MY POINT, is that the libtards fan the flames to rile up racist violence and strife and tension, as part of my larger argument as to why BLM and Antifa do get held responsible for the violence led by OR inspired by, their movement. 21OCT07-POST#759

NFBW wrote: At the exact moment when the public is first being made aware on social media about a black person being shot severely injured or killed by police do you Correll agree that people in the community where the incident happened and also the people around the country as the word spreads out, have a first amendment right to be upset concerned and angry to go to the streets in order to peacefully gather and protest the police action they just found out about? Can you establish as a matter of fact that the leadership of the BLM organization has control over the peaceful protests in those instances of spontaneous protest sufficiently and authoritatively to prevent any and all outbreaks of violence looting and property destruction from happening? 21OCT07-POST#765

Correll wrote: You are trying to gin up a strawman in order to avoid my point. 21OCT07-POST#772

NFBW wrote: When you answer the questions your point will be addressed. Here are the abbreviated questions again. 21OCT07-POST#775

NFBW wrote: … when the public first becomes aware of a police shooting involving race do you Correll agree they have a first amendment right to to go to the streets to peacefully gather and protest? 

NFBW wrote: … Can you make a case that the leadership of the BLM organization has control over spontaneous peaceful protests (see ? above) sufficiently to prevent outbreaks of violence looting and property destruction from happening?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: On the basis I have repeatedly explained. 21OCT07-POST#771

NFBW wrote; I did a full search of all your posts. You did not ever reply to anything resembling the following question . It is a direct question. I only need a yes or no answer for now. 21OCT07-POST#776

NFBW wrote: Do you understand BLM to be an organization that has specific people in leadership roles? 21OCT07-POST#764


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: On the basis I have repeatedly explained. 21OCT07-POST#771

NFBW wrote; I did a full search of all your posts. You did not ever reply to anything resembling the following question .21OCT07-POST#777

NFBW wrote: On what basis do you connect those people you Correll refer to as “Libtard‘s fanning the flames” to the leadership of the BLM organization? 21OCT07-POST#764


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: If you want to use a point in a debate, make it yourself, instead of hiding behind a source that you don't even believe in. 21OCT07-POST#770

NFBW wrote: I did make my point. The point is DJT’s campaign benefited from racial justice violence and to help make that universally accepted point, I cited DJTjr and Kellyanne Conway’s public statements that confirm and support it. Which means you cannot argue that you have reality on your side every time you ignorantly repeat this: 21OCT07-POST#778 : 

Correll wrote: My opinion of the election was that you cannot have a free and fair election with 1. large numbers of violent brown shirts rioting in the streets. 21OCT03-POST#681

NFBW wrote:  You are an idiot Correll Your DJT gladly ran in a free and fair election with racial justice violence going on in a few places by angry negroes running wild burning and looting in the streets ahead of the vote. Violence by blacks helped DJT get votes but he lost anyway. Dry your tears. 21OCT07-POST#778


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> I stopped reading here.



NFBW wrote: So dry your tears Correll and focus on explaining why you are at odds with DJT’s son and DJT’s top political and campaign adviser on the reality that racial violence helped DJT get more white votes and Biden get fewer white votes. 21OCT07-POST#762

NFBW wrote: I do understand why you don’t want to be asked to explain the stupid things you believe, but why do you keep saying your point stands when you can’t explain why? 21OCT07-POST#779.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: The Libtards in the media, jump on it, and fan the flames. 21OCT06-POST#747

NFBW wrote: When you follow the logic that Libtards in the media intended to fan the flames of black riots you end up with what I wrote next: 21OCT07-POST#780

NFBW wrote: Because they want DJT and rightwingers to win by making sure black chaos and blank anarchy and black vandalism and black violence reigns on tv screens throughout white America because FOX,  NEWSMAX and OAN are not enough. 21OCT07-POST#754

NFBW wrote: Does it make any sense that the Libtard media wanted DJT to win? Hell no but that is @Correll’s argument. It is an  argument with a premise and conclusion that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. 

“The more chaos and anarchy and vandalism and violence reigns, the better it is for the very clear choice on who’s best on public safety and law and order,” Ms. Conway said on “Fox & Friends.” 20AUG27-KConway

Correll wrote: Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy UNLESS the Authority is accepted as a valid authority to be deferred to. 21OCT07-POST#759

NFBW wrote: I am not “appealing to authority” which is not a legal fallacy anyway. But wtf is going on inside the DJT duped head of Correll These days? 21OCT07-POST#780

Logical fallacies are flawed, deceptive, or false arguments that can be proven wrong with reasoning. There are two main types of fallacies:
* 		A formal fallacy is an argument with a premise and conclusion that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
* 		An informal fallacy is an error in the form, content, or context of the argument


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: The local dems order the cops to stand down. 21OCT06-POST#747

Correll wrote:   People don't become police officers so they can stand there and watch human scum of the earth, riot and rampage though their communities and do nothing. 21OCT07-POST#773

“”” Minneapolis also saw one of the more high-profile acts of violence involving protesters. 20OCT23-WAPO-Floyd 


			https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/investigations/george-floyd-protesters-arrests/
		

On May 28, demonstrators overran and set fire to a police precinct station. In the aftermath, four men — two from the city and two from rural Minnesota — were arrested. The U.S. Justice Department is prosecuting those four for federal crimes related to the arson. “””

zNFBW wrote: The arsonists who were responsible for burning down a police station during the May 2020 George Floyd riots are being prosecuted. So anyone who says “ police officers stand there and watch human scum of the earth, riot and rampage though their communities and do nothing” are liars. And you Correll are one of them. 21OCT08-POST#781


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Trump thought that something could have been done to decertify the voting as fraudulent, at that time. I think he was kidding himself. 21SEP05-POST#451

NFBW wrote: Quite the dangerous unconstitutional election meddling kind of “kidding” don’t you think? DJT damn near got the 2nd and 3rd in line to the presidency killed. Remember this?

NFBW wrote: 
Fact: McC asks DJT to call off riot
FacT: DJT tells McC the rioters care 
Fact: minutes go by
Fact: minutes go by
Fact: obvious Capitol not well defended
Fact: minutes go by
Fact: minutes go by
Fact: Correll concludes that DJT had every reason to believe that the people in charge of the capitol security were competent and well funded, thus DJT was not needed to do whatever could be done to protect the congressmen and vp from harm,
Fact: DJT tweets Pence is coward
Fact: riot continues - no help from DJT 
Fact: Pence assumes Admin leadership role 
Fact: Pence coordinates restoration of order 
Fact: Pence/Congress resume certification 
Fsct: Biden is confirmed Pres-Elect.
Fact: DJT coup attempt fails.
FACT: weeks later Correll firmly in the belief that DJT was proper to do nothing whatever to protect the congressmen and vp from harm during the entire duration of the riot  21FEB20-POST#782


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Trump's rise to political power and his administration was characterized by completely normal, mainstream policies supported by good, working class and middle class Americans. 21FEB09-POST#45

NFBW wrote: Among DJT’s good, working class American coalition, nearly half that voted for him in 2016 were white evangelical Christians according to the following 21OCT08-POST#783 :

“”” Size, demographics and voting habits of white evangelicals  20APR06-BROOKINGS-WhiteDJTevangelicals 








						Why Trump is reliant on white evangelicals
					

Jason Husser writes that new polling data from the Elon University Poll show that white evangelical voters are significantly more likely to align with the Republican party on several key issues, making them a key demographic for the president to persuade in his reelection campaign.




					www.google.com
				



About one in four American adults belongs to an evangelical Christian denomination according to a Pew Research Center 2014 study, making evangelicals the most common religious group just ahead of those without a religious affiliation. “”” 

“”” The 2016 National Election Pool Exit Survey had Donald Trump leading Hillary Clinton among white evangelicals by a staggering 79% to 16%. In that exit survey, white evangelicals composed 46% of Trump’s coalition compared to 9% of Clinton’s coalition BROOKINGS-WhiteDJTevangelicals-a “””

NFBW wrote: So when Correll speaks of “completely normal, mainstream policies” he is really citing policies designed to please voting habits of white evangelicals which are not all normal or mainstream. Its just a trick that Correll plays on many subjects as he continues to defend DJT’s Big LIE designed to abandon liberal multicultural enlightenment DEMOCRACY for authoritarian strongman rule disguised as favorable to American Christianity. That ain’t normal. 21OCT08-POST#783


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: There should be a record of it. Of course, there might not be. Whether there is or not, I do not have it. 21OCT07-POST#773
> 
> NFBW wrote: You Correll have been blowing that smoke out of your ass for over a year. No Dem ordered the cops to stand down, ever, following a police shooting. In Kenosha not only did the cops stand up they let the militia goons patrol the streets, including the little punk NAZI Rittenhouse who you say…. Correll wrote:  …. was defending the United States. 20NOV03-POST#185. Sorry Correll that young punk vigilante with no police training being allowed to patrol in a riot situation is not standing down. You are a liar. 21OCT07-POST#774




1. Most police where these riots have occurred, have been ordered to NOT interfere, or interfere minimally. Hell, often the cops end up being told to SUPPORT the "demonstrations". I have seen it with my own eyes.

2. The militia was protecting property and people. That is a GOOD thing. That the cops did not interfere made complete sense. 

3. Only an asshole would claim Rittenhouse was a "nazi". YOu are that asshole. 

4. So, you want the cops to take action to stop people from protecting property and people from the rioters? That is what you want? That is your idea of what should be done? Incredible.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: MY POINT, is that the libtards fan the flames to rile up racist violence and strife and tension, as part of my larger argument as to why BLM and Antifa do get held responsible for the violence led by OR inspired by, their movement. 21OCT07-POST#759
> 
> NFBW wrote: At the exact moment when the public is first being made aware on social media about a black person being shot severely injured or killed by police do you Correll agree that people in the community where the incident happened and also the people around the country as the word spreads out, have a first amendment right to be upset concerned and angry to go to the streets in order to peacefully gather and protest the police action they just found out about? Can you establish as a matter of fact that the leadership of the BLM organization has control over the peaceful protests in those instances of spontaneous protest sufficiently and authoritatively to prevent any and all outbreaks of violence looting and property destruction from happening? 21OCT07-POST#765
> 
> Correll wrote: You are trying to gin up a strawman in order to avoid my point. 21OCT07-POST#772
> 
> NFBW wrote: When you answer the questions your point will be addressed. Here are the abbreviated questions again. 21OCT07-POST#775
> 
> NFBW wrote: … when the public first becomes aware of a police shooting involving race do you Correll agree they have a first amendment right to to go to the streets to peacefully gather and protest?
> 
> NFBW wrote: … Can you make a case that the leadership of the BLM organization has control over spontaneous peaceful protests (see ? above) sufficiently to prevent outbreaks of violence looting and property destruction from happening?




I've said nothing against the right to assemble. My point was about the incitement to violence. 


NOthing in your post, addresses my point.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: On the basis I have repeatedly explained. 21OCT07-POST#771
> 
> NFBW wrote; I did a full search of all your posts. You did not ever reply to anything resembling the following question . It is a direct question. I only need a yes or no answer for now. 21OCT07-POST#776
> 
> NFBW wrote: Do you understand BLM to be an organization that has specific people in leadership roles? 21OCT07-POST#764




I have repeatedly explained my position.  You want to confuse the issue by minute discussion of...shit. 


Make your  point, and I will address it, though I would bet a large sum of money, that it is a point I have already addressed multiple times.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: If you want to use a point in a debate, make it yourself, instead of hiding behind a source that you don't even believe in. 21OCT07-POST#770
> 
> NFBW wrote: I did make my point. The point is DJT’s campaign benefited from racial justice violence....




I disagree. I think that the rioting HELPED the dems, by creating, with the assistance of the vile MSM, the illusion that the Trump Administration was the "not normal" situation that was causing the period of racial strife, instead of the people actually doing the violence. 


And of course, the thread of more violence if Trump won.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: So dry your tears Correll and focus on explaining why you are at odds with DJT’s son and DJT’s top political and campaign adviser on the reality that racial violence helped DJT get more white votes and Biden get fewer white votes. 21OCT07-POST#762
> 
> NFBW wrote: I do understand why you don’t want to be asked to explain the stupid things you believe, but why do you keep saying your point stands when you can’t explain why? 21OCT07-POST#779.




I can explain why. Explaining the fact that I don't always agree with Trump's son?


WHO THE FUCK CARES ABOUT THAT? IT IS IRRELEVANT BULLSHIT OF A TYPE THAT ONLY SOMEONE LOSING THE DEBATE WOULD REACH FOR.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: The local dems order the cops to stand down. 21OCT06-POST#747
> 
> Correll wrote:   People don't become police officers so they can stand there and watch human scum of the earth, riot and rampage though their communities and do nothing. 21OCT07-POST#773
> 
> “”” Minneapolis also saw one of the more high-profile acts of violence involving protesters. 20OCT23-WAPO-Floyd
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/investigations/george-floyd-protesters-arrests/
> 
> 
> On May 28, demonstrators overran and set fire to a police precinct station. In the aftermath, four men — two from the city and two from rural Minnesota — were arrested. The U.S. Justice Department is prosecuting those four for federal crimes related to the arson. “””
> 
> zNFBW wrote: The arsonists who were responsible for burning down a police station during the May 2020 George Floyd riots are being prosecuted. So anyone who says “ police officers stand there and watch human scum of the earth, riot and rampage though their communities and do nothing” are liars. And you Correll are one of them. 21OCT08-POST#781




I was driving home from work. I saw a "peaceful demonstration" in the street, blocking traffic from getting onto a bridge. Hundreds of people, were trapped in their cars.


This was a violation of the law. People were suffering. 


Teh cops were there. They did not arrest those causing the problem, the "peaceful demonstrators". 


They were there to prevent "violence" which would have been the people in the cars, getting out as forcing the assholes OFF THE FUCKING ROAD.


This has the effect of the police PROTECTING AND ASSISTING THE CRIMINALS IN THEIR LAWBREAKING. 


I have talked to local police. They are aware of this and have complained. But this is a dem city and the dem politicians give the orders. 



That some people managed to be... blatant enough in their criminality that the cops find a cause to arrest them, that the

 dem politicians feel uncomfortable ordering them released, SOMETIMES, does not mean that the general policy is not


 clear.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Trump thought that something could have been done to decertify the voting as fraudulent, at that time. I think he was kidding himself. 21SEP05-POST#451
> 
> NFBW wrote: Quite the dangerous unconstitutional election meddling kind of “kidding” don’t you think? DJT damn near got the 2nd and 3rd in line to the presidency killed. Remember this?
> .....




Bullshit. One cop fired his gun, when he didn't really need to. If anyone was in real danger, the cops would have and could have escalated the violence to break up the mob.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Trump's rise to political power and his administration was characterized by completely normal, mainstream policies supported by good, working class and middle class Americans. 21FEB09-POST#45
> 
> NFBW wrote: Among DJT’s good, working class American coalition, nearly half that voted for him in 2016 were white evangelical Christians according to the following 21OCT08-POST#783 :
> 
> “”” Size, demographics and voting habits of white evangelicals  20APR06-BROOKINGS-WhiteDJTevangelicals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Trump is reliant on white evangelicals
> 
> 
> Jason Husser writes that new polling data from the Elon University Poll show that white evangelical voters are significantly more likely to align with the Republican party on several key issues, making them a key demographic for the president to persuade in his reelection campaign.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About one in four American adults belongs to an evangelical Christian denomination according to a Pew Research Center 2014 study, making evangelicals the most common religious group just ahead of those without a religious affiliation. “””
> 
> “”” The 2016 National Election Pool Exit Survey had Donald Trump leading Hillary Clinton among white evangelicals by a staggering 79% to 16%. In that exit survey, white evangelicals composed 46% of Trump’s coalition compared to 9% of Clinton’s coalition BROOKINGS-WhiteDJTevangelicals-a “””
> 
> NFBW wrote: So when Correll speaks of “completely normal, mainstream policies” he is really citing policies designed to please voting habits of white evangelicals which are not all normal or mainstream. Its just a trick that Correll plays on many subjects as he continues to defend DJT’s Big LIE designed to abandon liberal multicultural enlightenment DEMOCRACY for authoritarian strongman rule disguised as favorable to American Christianity. That ain’t normal. 21OCT08-POST#783




They are the largest single religious category, according to your link. They are a quarter of the population.


AND, it is worth nothing that Trump's primary policy planks were TRADE and IMMIGRATION.


Completely normal political issues and ones that are NOT specifically aimed at Evangelical priorities.



You are just trying to spin up... anti-Christian bigotry by presenting completely normal shit, but in a style pretending it is...alarming or shocking.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote:  They are the largest single religious category, according to your link. They are a quarter of the population. 21OCT08-POST#791

NFBW wrote: White Evangelical Christians as a voting bloc are huge and they are the most loyal, motivated and dedicated voting bloc in American politics. So it’s important for all GOP politicians to serve their primary interests to keep the most devoted Republican voting bloc from defecting. 21OCT08-POST#792


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote:  AND, it is worth (noting) that Trump's primary policy planks were TRADE and IMMIGRATION. - Completely normal political issues and ones that are NOT specifically aimed at Evangelical priorities. 21OCT08-POST#791

NFBW wrote: which ‘immigration policy’ is normal in your head Correll? The Anti-Muslim xenophobic rightwing Christian  one that DJT stereotypes immigrants as diseased, filthy and rapists or the one that welcomes immigrant legally regardless of race, religion or country? The country is split politically on immigration. There is no normal immigration policy to be had.  21OCT08-POST#793


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: AND, it is worth (noting) that Trump's primary policy planks were TRADE and IMMIGRATION. - Completely normal political issues and ones that are NOT specifically aimed at Evangelical priorities. 21OCT08-POST#791

NFBW wrote: Rightwing immigration policy is laser focused on the white evangelical Christian Republican voting base and all the rightwing racist militia scum who love DJT enough to plan and carry out an assault on live Congress members who were certifying the result of the election that DJT lost. DJT continues to lie that he won. 21OCT08-POST#794


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> pretending



NFBW wrote: You Correll are squealing like a stuck pig every time you use that trick. 21OCT08-POST#795


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Trump thought that something could have been done to decertify the voting as fraudulent, at that time. I think he was kidding himself. 21SEP05-POST#451

NFBW wrote: Quite the dangerous unconstitutional election meddling kind of “kidding” don’t you think? DJT damn near got the 2nd and 3rd in line to the presidency killed. Remember this?

Fact: DJT tweets Pence is coward
Fact: riot continues - no help from DJT 

Correll wrote: Bullshit. One cop fired his gun, when he didn't really need to. If anyone was in real danger, the cops would have and could have escalated the violence to break up the mob. 21OCT08-POST#790

NFBW wrote:  Fact:  In the middle of the attack by his supporters against the certification of the vote at a time when the outcome, the weapons, the explosives and the sustainability of the defense of the lawmakers and staff was unknown DJT Tweets that PENCE IS A COWARD.  A rioter with a bullhorn reads DJT’s tweet to the attacking mob. And we get Correll ‘s reaction - Bullshit. Nobody was in real danger. Really? @Correl reveals how deep into the DJTcult he has fallen. His duty comes across to ‘normalize’ every disgusting anti-normal unChristian insane behavior DJT comes up with. The Trump tweet that PENCE (a Christian) IS A COWARD was in a riot where DJT’s militant believers were engaged with a mobile gallows from which to hang his loyal VP from. To Correll the DJT tweet is normal for a President who is so attractive to his white evangelical Christian base. 21OCT08-POST#796


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote:  They are the largest single religious category, according to your link. They are a quarter of the population. 21OCT08-POST#791
> 
> NFBW wrote: White Evangelical Christians as a voting bloc are huge and they are the most loyal, motivated and dedicated voting bloc in American politics. So it’s important for all GOP politicians to serve their primary interests to keep the most devoted Republican voting bloc from defecting. 21OCT08-POST#792




More loyal than blacks? Please support that claim. 

Speaking of blacks, what happens to party affiliation if you drop race?


Mmm, could find a break down of just by religion, the ones I found, all broke blacks out. I did find this.










						Religious Landscape Study
					

Explore the geographic distribution and demographics of America's major religious groups.




					www.pewforum.org
				






Party affiliationVery importantSomewhat importantNot too importantNot at all importantDon't knowSample SizeRepublican/lean Rep.61%23%9%6%< 1%13,731No lean51%25%10%12%2%5,658Democrat/lean Dem.47%25%13%15%1%15,682




Mmm, seems religion and religious voters are pretty important on  your side of the aisle too. 


And, btw, from info I saw while looking for that, religious blacks are much more loyal voters for the dems, than white evangelicals are for the republicans. If you are of the impression that loyalty is a bad thing.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> clear



where? DATE?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote:  AND, it is worth (noting) that Trump's primary policy planks were TRADE and IMMIGRATION. - Completely normal political issues and ones that are NOT specifically aimed at Evangelical priorities. 21OCT08-POST#791
> 
> NFBW wrote: which ‘immigration policy’ is normal in your head Correll? The Anti-Muslim xenophobic rightwing Christian  one that DJT stereotypes immigrants as diseased, filthy and rapists or the one that welcomes immigrant legally regardless of race, religion or country? The country is split politically on immigration. There is no normal immigration policy to be had.  21OCT08-POST#793




The country is split on the issue. Quite a lot people are for high or even higher levels of immigration while quite a lot think that we need less, or far less immigration. 


Both positions are well within the mainstream of political thought here in America, and have been for a long time. 


That you libs are increasingly NEEDING to pretend that any opposition to you is beyond the pale, is just you people being dishonest hysterics. 


Oh, and your asshole spin is noted and dismissed. You are an asshole.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: You Correll are squealing like a stuck pig every time you use that trick. 21OCT08-POST#795




That was a fucking retarded response. My point stands.


Evangelical Christians are the largest single religious category, according to your link. They are a quarter of the population.


AND, it is worth nothing that Trump's primary policy planks were TRADE and IMMIGRATION.


Completely normal political issues and ones that are NOT specifically aimed at Evangelical priorities.



You are just trying to spin up... anti-Christian bigotry by presenting completely normal shit, but in a style pretending it is...alarming or shocking.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Trump thought that something could have been done to decertify the voting as fraudulent, at that time. I think he was kidding himself. 21SEP05-POST#451
> 
> NFBW wrote: Quite the dangerous unconstitutional election meddling kind of “kidding” don’t you think? DJT damn near got the 2nd and 3rd in line to the presidency killed. Remember this?
> 
> Fact: DJT tweets Pence is coward
> Fact: riot continues - no help from DJT
> 
> Correll wrote: Bullshit. One cop fired his gun, when he didn't really need to. If anyone was in real danger, the cops would have and could have escalated the violence to break up the mob. 21OCT08-POST#790
> 
> NFBW wrote:  Fact:  In the middle of the attack by his supporters against the certification of the vote at a time when the outcome, the weapons, the explosives and the sustainability of the defense of the lawmakers and staff was unknown DJT Tweets that PENCE IS A COWARD.  A rioter with a bullhorn reads DJT’s tweet to the attacking mob. And we get Correll ‘s reaction - Bullshit. Nobody was in real danger. Really? @Correl reveals how deep into the DJTcult he has fallen. His duty comes across to ‘normalize’ every disgusting anti-normal unChristian insane behavior DJT comes up with. The Trump tweet that PENCE (a Christian) IS A COWARD was in a riot where DJT’s militant believers were engaged with a mobile gallows from which to hang his loyal VP from. To Correll the DJT tweet is normal for a President who is so attractive to his white evangelical Christian base. 21OCT08-POST#796




Plenty of Presidents have used strong language in partisan politics. Even in the context of periods of strife or rioting.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> pretend



You are squealing like a stuck pig again


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are squealing like a stuck pig again




My point stands.


The country is split on the immigration issue. Quite a lot people are for high or even higher levels of immigration while quite a lot think that we need less, or far less immigration.


Both positions are well within the mainstream of political thought here in America, and have been for a long time.


That you libs are increasingly NEEDING to pretend that any opposition to you is beyond the pale, is just you people being dishonest hysterics.


Oh, and your asshole spin is noted and dismissed. You are an asshole.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Plenty of Presidents have used strong language in partisan politics. Even in the context of periods of strife or rioting. 21OCT08-POST#801

NFBW wrote: not once ever in American history was there a sitting president who just lost his bid for a second term and  subsequently planned and plotted a scheme to overturn that election needing his vice president to go against the constitution to assist in that endeavor. Not once in American history did that insidious assault on our democracy lead to an attack on the US capital threatening the lives  of all the lawmakers who had a duty on that date to uphold the Constitution and certify the will of the people. Not once in American history during a riot in Congress on certification day when the vice president was in the capital to do his constitutional part., when the loser president tweets out to the rioters, his supporters, who were chanting they wanted to hang the Vice President, They receive an update from the loser that MIKE PENCE IS A COWARD. But it’s all normal business as usual to Correll. There is no excuse for any American to be that high on the ignorance scale. 21OCT08-POST#804


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Plenty of Presidents have used strong language in partisan politics. Even in the context of periods of strife or rioting. 21OCT08-POST#801
> 
> NFBW wrote: not once ever in American history was there a sitting president who just lost his bid for .....




Yes, every event can be defined to the point that  you can argue a difference with other events. 

I made a general statement that was true and I stand by it.


Plenty of Presidents have used strong language in partisan politics even in teh context of periods of strife or rioting. 


If you want to disagree with me, you have to explain how and why you are disagreeing. That this event was not precisely like any other event, if nothing else, the date was different, does not mean that my point is not true.



You libs are just more and more in the habit of just stating normal shit and doing so in such an hysterical manner, AND WITH YOUR LEGION OF SHEEP IN THE MEDIA AND POP CULTURE, AND ELSEWHERE, backing you up, 


to create the illusion of credibility, with even the most obviously stupid and/or false claims.


Do you realize that such behavior, indicates that you know that you are on the wrong side?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> I made a general statement that was true and I stand by it.




NFBW wrote: Because general statements are nothing but mealymouthed mush in a discussion about the enormous unnecessary threat to American democracy that  Donald J Trump has inflicted upon us. It’s your duty obviously to normalize the monster and There is no way to do it based on detail, facts,  reason, education, awareness, truth and honor. You cannot do it based on all the “normal“ guidelines for living in a society like ours. Thank you very much for admitting it. 21OCT08-POST#80


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: Because general statements are nothing but mealymouthed mush ....0




See the theatrics for the tourists. Your inability to make a serious defense of this point has been established. 


Are you ready to move the discussion forward now?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Yes, every event can be defined to the point that you can argue a difference with other events. 21OCT08-POST#805

NFBW wrote: I am not arguing the “Pence is a Coward” message to DJT’s  rioters is different than any other message by other presidents to their rioters. There is nothing to argue there. Of course DJT’s message to his rioters is different than every other message by a US president in history. Of course strong language might be common.  I am defining that one unique Jan6 tweet by DJT to be abnormal and amoral to the normal expectations of BEHAVIOR by the Chief Law enforcement officer in the land and defender of the CONSTITUTION. I find Correll ‘s consideration of DJT’s behavior to be normal and common to be repulsive and dangerous to our democracy and must be reviled for what it is .. a personality cult delusion. 21OCT08-POST#808


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: I made a general statement that was true and I stand by it.  Plenty of Presidents have used strong language in partisan politics even in the context of periods of strife or rioting 21OCT08-POST#805

NFBW wrote: I agree that your general statement is true. There is no disagreement there. The disagreement is that you have concluded that a US president, chief law-enforcement officer in the land, is behaving ethically, presidentially and  normal by refusing to respond when a US Congressman under deadly siege by that president’s angry supporters calls him and pleads for help. The President’s Response to the play was to inflame the rioters even more by telling them on social media that his vice president was a coward for not doing what he and the rioters wanted him to do. That conduct cannot be normal. That you Correll want it to be normal Is the disagreement. 21OCT08-POST#809


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Trump's rise to political power and his administration was characterized by completely normal, mainstream policies supported by good, working class and middle class Americans. 21FEB09-POST#45

NFBW wrote: which ‘immigration policy’ is normal in your head Correll?
There is no normal immigration policy to be had. 21OCT08-POST#793

Correll wrote: The country is split on the issue. 21OCT08-POST#799

Correll: The country is split on the immigration issue. 21OCT08-POST#803

NFBW wrote: Tell me Correll are there non-religious Americans that support MUSLIM Immigration and oppose Trump’s border wall policy and support citizenship for Dreamers  that fit you category of good, working class and middle class Americans who support one completely normal mainstream immigration policy? 21OCT08-POST#810


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: All politicians lie. But nothing Trump has ever said, HELL, EVERYTHING, Trump has ever said, fades to insignificance compared to the LIE of telling America one of the candidates is a fucking WHITE SUPREMACIST. You did that to win the election. And it worked. Which makes it FRAUD BY DECEPTION. And thus not legitimate 21JUN09-POST#531

NFBW wrote: Wipe your tears Correll. Maybe it was DJT’s racism tinged Birther debut onto the political scene that kept him from dismissing the charges of racism against him. He won some he lost some. Toughen up Correll . There is no such thing as ELECTION FRAUD BY DECEPTION. In America every citizen gets one vote. And then we count the votes no matter how nasty rotten and mean the campaigns were. Whoever gets the most electoral college votes wins. No matter which method the voter used to cast their vote it gets counted if legal. If not they don’t get counted. In PENNSYLVANIA there were three voters who tried to vote twice - all for Trump. Their second votes were not counted - Trump and his allies claimed that over 4,000 people voted twice in Pennsylvania. THAT WAS A LIE. NO DOUBLE VOTING TOOK PLACE IN PENNSYLVANIA. Those Trump lies about voter fraud harm democracy. 21OCT08-POST#811

“””  "In reality, only three actual efforts to vote twice have been identified to date in the state of Pennsylvania, and all three were attempts to vote twice for Trump," said the report. This Trump claim of 'voter fraud' in Pennsylvania blew up in his face in spectacular fashion: Senate report
 "The false claim of over 4,000 double votes stems from a printing error that caused more than 4,000 voters to mistakenly receive two absentee ballots apiece. But that did not translate into any duplicate votes because, as the Pennsylvania Department of State explained, 'all the duplicate ballots are coded for the same voter, so if a voter tried to submit more than one, the system would literally prevent the second ballot from being counted.'"  In other words: All of the people who committed voter fraud using this method were Trump voters. “””


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: I've said nothing against the right to assemble. My point was about the incitement to violence. 21OCT08-POST#785

NFBW wrote: You put restrictions Correll ( 21MAR03-POST-#899 ) on any individual who organizes a peaceful protest. You &Cirrelk made them up. They are not mentioned in the Constitution. 21OCT09-POST#812

Correll wrote:  You call for a demonstration and it gets out of control ONCE, that is believable. - - - You do it twice and you are being reckless. -  - - You do it several hundred times, and it is obvious that when you say "demonstration" you mean, "riot".  21MAR03-POST-#899


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: You call for a demonstration and it gets out of control ONCE, that is believable. - - - You do it twice and you are being reckless. - - - You do it several hundred times, and it is obvious that when you say "demonstration" you mean, "riot". 21MAR03-POST-#899

NFBW wrote: Just wondering Correll have you labeled the Jan6 ‘Stop the Steal” demonstration as reckless since it was the second DJT rally in DC in two months? 21OCT09-POST#813

“””” Proud Boys sparked clashes during pro-Trump rally, D.C. officials say
Dec 14, 2020 — Pro-Trump protesters came “seeking violence,” said D.C. Council Chair Phil Mendelson.””””


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote:  Your lie here, is part of a larger lie, that republicans are {r}acist, so that you people can keep your lock on the minority votes. 21JUN15-POST#1063

NFBW wrote: I have the utmost respect for my fellow Americans who are black including their intellectual ability to judge for themselves which political party is associated with racism and which political party is not. How dare you Correll write on this forum that what you refer to as “you people” that are somehow systematically lying to black voters who in your racist way of thinking comes across as white intellectual superiority. Your attitude Correll combined with all the nasty abnormalities of DJT it is no wonder why most in the black community consider DJT to be a racist and the spiritual head of a party that welcomes white supremacy within its ranks. 21Oct09-POST#814


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: I disagree. I think that the rioting HELPED the dems, by creating, with the assistance of the vile MSM, the illusion that the Trump Administration was the "not normal" situation that was causing the period of racial strife, instead of the people actually doing the violence. 21OCT08-POST#787

NFBW wrote: You “think rioting HELPED the dems” - I have scientific statistical data plus “strategic actions by the DJT campaign plus quotes by the DJT campaign officials ( KConway & DJTjr ) to KNOW that you put you ass on backwards and overdosed on smoke pills so that you are frantically blowing an exorbitant amount of smoke out of your backward ass to THINK social justice protests bring hijacked by violent criminals arsonists looters and agents provocateur HELP the DEMS. 21OCT09-POST#815

NFBW wrote: If violence “helped” the DEMS why did the DJT campaign In the final stages shift its “law and order” messaging to target local Democratic Party politicians from urban areas, particularly on the campaign trail (NPR, 27 August 2020)? 21OCT08-POST#815

See 20SEP03-acleddata-disproportionate

“”” disproportionate coverage of violent demonstrations (Business Insider, 11 June 2020; Poynter, 25 June 2020).

Research from the University of Washington indicates that this disparity stems from political orientation and biased media framing (Washington Post, 24 August 2020), such as disproportionate coverage of violent demonstrations (Business Insider, 11 June 2020; Poynter, 25 June 2020).   

20SEP03-acleddata-disproportionate









						Demonstrations and Political Violence in America: New Data for Summer 2020
					

Preliminary analysis of key trends from May to August.




					acleddata.com
				




Groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) have documented organized disinformation campaigns aimed at spreading a “deliberate mischaracterization of groups or movements [involved in the protests], such as portraying activists who support Black Lives Matter as violent extremists or claiming that antifa is a terrorist organization coordinated or manipulated by nebulous external forces” (ADL, 2020). 
“””

“”” These disinformation campaigns may be contributing to the decline in public support for the BLM movement after the initial increase following Floyd’s killing, especially amongst the white population (USA Today, 31 August 2020; Civiqs, 30 August 2020a, 30 August 2020b). 

((( 20SEP03-acleddata-disproportionate )))

This waning support also comes as the Trump administration recently shifted its “law and order” messaging to target local Democratic Party politicians from urban areas, particularly on the campaign trail (NPR, 27 August 2020).


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: They are the largest single religious category, according to your link. They are a quarter of the population. 21OCT08-POST#791 

NFBW wrote: The one most significant group that traded lust for white Christian nationalistic power for having a sympathetic autocratic demonic soulless crass asshole in the White House who wouldn’t leave when he lost. They should be ashamed of themselves.? 21OCT09-POST#816

“”” According to the editorial, "The interim report by the Senate Judiciary Committee shows how Trump's Jan. 6 incitement of a mob of his supporters to attack the Capitol was only his most publicly visible attempt to overturn an election he clearly lost. In the days prior, Trump was maneuvering behind the scenes, trying to weaponize his Justice Department to validate his already-disproven claims of election fraud."  21OCT09-RS-DJTshithead

'Dooms him to the trash bin of history': Heartland newspaper bashes Trump's attempted coup in scathing editorial 

They then drew a parallel to Watergate which eventually brought down the presidency of fellow Republican Richard Nixon, saying Trump's attempt to subvert democracy is miles worse and that he and his enablers should forever live in infamy “””


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Yes, every event can be defined to the point that you can argue a difference with other events. 21OCT08-POST#805
> 
> NFBW wrote: I am not arguing the “Pence is a Coward” message to DJT’s  rioters is different than any other message by other presidents to their rioters. There is nothing to argue there. Of course DJT’s message to his rioters is different than every other message by a US president in history. Of course strong language might be common.  I am defining that one unique Jan6 tweet by DJT to be abnormal and amoral to the normal expectations of BEHAVIOR by the Chief Law enforcement officer in the land and defender of the CONSTITUTION. I find Correll ‘s consideration of DJT’s behavior to be normal and common to be repulsive and dangerous to our democracy and must be reviled for what it is .. a personality cult delusion. 21OCT08-POST#808




If you state the REASON that you find that behavior so bad, then I can easily point out other Presidents that have done similar events. Or point out that you are lying about what that behavior was or meant. 


Do so. Your spamming talking points is boring and stupid of you.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: I made a general statement that was true and I stand by it.  Plenty of Presidents have used strong language in partisan politics even in the context of periods of strife or rioting 21OCT08-POST#805
> 
> NFBW wrote: I agree that your general statement is true. There is no disagreement there. The disagreement is that you have concluded that a US president, chief law-enforcement officer in the land, is behaving ethically, presidentially and  normal by refusing to respond when a US Congressman under deadly siege by that president’s angry supporters calls him and pleads for help. The President’s Response to the play was to inflame the rioters even more by telling them on social media that his vice president was a coward for not doing what he and the rioters wanted him to do. That conduct cannot be normal. That you Correll want it to be normal Is the disagreement. 21OCT08-POST#809



Isn't it? There have been hundreds of riots over the last 5 years. Plenty of our leaders have NOT done shit, while the riots were going on. Or said shit that could be interpreted as inflammatory. 

Do you have a hissy fit when Dem leaders talk up Wacism and W.S, as though they are real issues, that that could be inflammatory to the Antifa and BLM members/rioters, that have been rioting and killing and burning shit all over this nation?


Or do you only have hissy fits, when it serves your partisan purpose?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Trump's rise to political power and his administration was characterized by completely normal, mainstream policies supported by good, working class and middle class Americans. 21FEB09-POST#45
> 
> NFBW wrote: which ‘immigration policy’ is normal in your head Correll?
> There is no normal immigration policy to be had. 21OCT08-POST#793
> 
> Correll wrote: The country is split on the issue. 21OCT08-POST#799
> 
> Correll: The country is split on the immigration issue. 21OCT08-POST#803
> 
> NFBW wrote: Tell me Correll are there non-religious Americans that support MUSLIM Immigration and oppose Trump’s border wall policy and support citizenship for Dreamers  that fit you category of good, working class and middle class Americans who support one completely normal mainstream immigration policy? 21OCT08-POST#810




Yes, of course.  Hell, I'm married to one. 


Not, consider this next sentence seriously.


That you even asked that question, reveals that you have learned NOTHING about me, despite our massive interaction over the last few months, and are still operating primarily based on your preconceived assumptions, ie your mind is completely closed.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: All politicians lie. But nothing Trump has ever said, HELL, EVERYTHING, Trump has ever said, fades to insignificance compared to the LIE of telling America one of the candidates is a fucking WHITE SUPREMACIST. You did that to win the election. And it worked. Which makes it FRAUD BY DECEPTION. And thus not legitimate 21JUN09-POST#531
> 
> NFBW wrote: Wipe your tears Correll. Maybe it was DJT’s racism tinged Birther debut onto the political scene that kept him from dismissing the charges of racism against him.



Do you even realize how insanely circular  your "logic" is?

You assume Birthism is wacism, so that means it is ok to lie about Trump saying something wacist. Of course, moving forward, people who believe the Lie, will use that to assume wacism in the future. 


To be clear, imo, Birtherism was not about racism. You just assume that because it supports your cool narrative where you are the Hero fighting the evul wacists. 




NotfooledbyW said:


> He won some he lost some. Toughen up Correll . There is no such thing as ELECTION FRAUD BY DECEPTION. In America every citizen gets one vote. And then we count the votes no matter how nasty rotten and mean the campaigns were. Whoever gets the most electoral college votes wins. No matter which method the voter used to cast their vote it gets counted if legal. If not they don’t get counted.



Two points. 

1. Obviously I disagree.

2. YOur supporting argument does not explain why there cannot be Fraud By Deception, it just tells how votes are counted, not that the voters could be being misled by a massive Lie.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: I've said nothing against the right to assemble. My point was about the incitement to violence. 21OCT08-POST#785
> 
> NFBW wrote: You put restrictions Correll ( 21MAR03-POST-#899 ) on any individual who organizes a peaceful protest. You &Cirrelk made them up. They are not mentioned in the Constitution. 21OCT09-POST#812
> 
> Correll wrote:  You call for a demonstration and it gets out of control ONCE, that is believable. - - - You do it twice and you are being reckless. -  - - You do it several hundred times, and it is obvious that when you say "demonstration" you mean, "riot".  21MAR03-POST-#899




Funny. A moment ago, I was reading you talk shit about how "inflammatory" Trump's tweet was, in relation to the 1/6 riot, and you were presenting it as though he was thus responsible, though not explicitly stating it, so that you had plausible deniability, 

and here, you are acting as though, people can talk up the most INFLAMMATORY shit, and it means nothing to the massive and repeated riots that follow. 


Mmmm,


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: You call for a demonstration and it gets out of control ONCE, that is believable. - - - You do it twice and you are being reckless. - - - You do it several hundred times, and it is obvious that when you say "demonstration" you mean, "riot". 21MAR03-POST-#899
> 
> NFBW wrote: Just wondering Correll have you labeled the Jan6 ‘Stop the Steal” demonstration as reckless since it was the second DJT rally in DC in two months? 21OCT09-POST#813
> 
> “””” Proud Boys sparked clashes during pro-Trump rally, D.C. officials say
> Dec 14, 2020 — Pro-Trump protesters came “seeking violence,” said D.C. Council Chair Phil Mendelson.””””




Did the Proud Boys attack Antifa or was it the other way around?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote:  Your lie here, is part of a larger lie, that republicans are {r}acist, so that you people can keep your lock on the minority votes. 21JUN15-POST#1063
> 
> NFBW wrote: I have the utmost respect for my fellow Americans who are black including their intellectual ability to judge for themselves which political party is associated with racism and which political party is not. How dare you Correll write on this forum that what you refer to as “you people” that are somehow systematically lying to black voters who in your racist way of thinking comes across as white intellectual superiority. Your attitude Correll combined with all the nasty abnormalities of DJT it is no wonder why most in the black community consider DJT to be a racist and the spiritual head of a party that welcomes white supremacy within its ranks. 21Oct09-POST#814




Anyone can be lied to. It is fucking retarded of you, to imply that saying someone was lied to, implies anything about their intelligence. 

This is bullshit. How can anyone have a discussion in this country, when half the country is spouting retarded bullshit?

To be clear, you are being an asshole and saying retarded shit.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> ...
> 
> NFBW wrote: If violence “helped” the DEMS why did the DJT campaign In the final stages shift its “law and order” messaging to target local Democratic Party politicians from urban areas, particularly on the campaign trail (NPR, 27 August 2020)? 21OCT08-POST#815
> 
> ....



I deleted all the...useless filler crap.


This is really all you said of valve. It would be better if you stopped wasting my time burying your points in bullshit. Just saying.


Anyways, the answer to your question is, 


Because they looked at the situation and tried to spin it to their advantage.


IMO, they failed, because they could not compete with the loudness of the MSM, and pop culture pushing the idea that the riots were "mostly peaceful" and justified by "Wacism", and the overall meme that this was because Trump's presidency was soooo terrible ie "not normal".


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Your lie here, is part of a larger lie, that republicans are {r}acist, so that you people can keep your lock on the minority votes. 21JUN15-POST#1063

NFBW wrote: I have the utmost respect for my fellow Americans who are black including their intellectual ability to judge for themselves which political party is associated with racism and which political party is not. 21Oct09-POST#814

Correll wrote: Anyone can be lied to. 21OCT10-POST#823

NFBW wrote: I agree. So I ask you, Correll specifically, do you agree that anyone in the black American community can reject and not be influenced by your so-called (hypothetical existence of some sort of systematic brainwashing Democrat Party lie to black people that RepublIcans are racist) that you have introduced into this discussion? 21OCT10-POST#825

So I ask you, Correll specifically, do you agree that anyone in the black American community is capable of intellectually and objectively ascertaining the truth from what they experience in their own lives and hearing what Republicans stand for and what Republicans stand against in the past and in the present? 21OCT10-POST#825

NFBW wrote: Is “kidding oneself”  lying to oneself as you Correll ( 21SEP05-POST#451 ) explained Trump was doing  on Jan6: 21OCT10-POST#825

Correll wrote: Trump thought that something could have been done to decertify the voting as fraudulent, at that time. I think he was kidding himself. 21SEP05-POST#451

NFBW wrote: Do you Correll see what DJT said at his rally in Iowa yesterday October 9 (see next para) is a continuation of kidding himself? 21OCT10-POST#825

“”” DJT IOWA rally "We had plenty of material to challenge the election. He {Mitch McConnell} should have challenged the election. Schumer would have challenged the election." 21OCT09-DJT-MitchCoward








						Trump complains about Mitch McConnell's refusal to overturn the election at Iowa rally
					

Donald Trump appears to be fixated on pushing his "Big Lie" of election fraud.At a Saturday rally at the Iowa State Fair, Trump bragged about refusing to concede, complained about the Supreme Court not overturning the election, and revealed that he pushes the conspiracy theory because of the...




					www.rawstory.com
				



"Mitch McConnell did not have the courage to challenge the election. He is only a leader because he raises a lot of money and gives it to senators, that is his only form of leadership," Trump said. "He should have challenged the election." “”” 

NFBW wrote: DJT is a Republican, right Correll ? He is a Republican who is  spewing the huge lie still that he actually won and defeated his opponent that the vast majority of black voters chose to be President. Even you Correll, a devoted  DJT Republican, was able to ascertain that DJT is fucking kidding himself with the Big Lie. So why do you think black Americans specifically need help from a Dem Party brainwashing campaign to see what you see about DJT’s BIG LIE?  Had DJT successfully stayed in office after kidding himself that he won it would have nullified every single black vote for Biden and a rejection of Trumpism by the vast majority of black Americans nationwide. Why can’t you let black people “know that” on their own? Why do they have to be fucking lied to in order to know that Correll ? 21OCT10-POST#825


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW wrote: If violence “helped” the DEMS why did the DJT campaign In the final stages shift its “law and order” messaging to target local Democratic Party politicians from urban areas, particularly on the campaign trail (NPR, 27 August 2020)? 21OCT08-POST#815

Correll wrote: Anyways, the answer to your question is, Because they looked at the situation and tried to spin it to their advantage. - - - IMO, they failed, because they could not compete with the loudness of the MSM, and pop culture pushing the idea that the riots were "mostly peaceful" and justified by "Racism", and the overall meme that this was because Trump's presidency was soooo terrible ie "not normal". 21OCT10-POST#824 

NFBW wrote: Actually the idea that the riots were "mostly peaceful" and justified by racism in support of BLM among white Americans was strong in June but went into steep decline among white voters going into the election. Thus producing headlines such as this:  21OCT10-POST#826

“”” Rioting is beginning to turn people off to BLM and protests while Biden has no solution  21AUG31-USAtoday-Robbins - - - Rioting is beginning to turn people off to BLM and protests while Biden has no solution - - - Jacob Blake's shooting has sparked more rioting and as violence escalates, people are turning away from BLM, protesting, and social justice. James S. Robbins “””

Riots are turning people off to BLM

“””Democrats may have hoped that the national reckoning on race would be a favorable issue for 2020. But the street violence has overwhelmed their reform message. CNN’s Don Lemon bemoaned the fact that the rioting is “showing up in the polling” and “showing up in focus groups.” He said the “rioting has to stop” because “it is the only thing right now that is sticking." “””

NFBW wrote: Here is the data on the decline in BLM demonstrations. : 21OCT10-POST#826

20SEP03-acleddata-summer protests 

Demonstrations & Political Violence in America: New Data for Summer 2020 | ACLED 21OCT10-POST#82






“”” Yet, despite data indicating that demonstrations associated with the BLM movement are overwhelmingly peaceful, one recent poll suggested that 42% of respondents believe “most protesters [associated with the BLM movement] are trying to incite violence or destroy property” (FiveThirtyEight, 5 June 2020). This is in line with the Civiqs tracking poll which finds that “net approval for the Black Lives Matter movement peaked back on June 3 [the week following the killing of George Floyd when riots first began to be reported] and has fallen sharply since” (USA Today, 31 August 2020; Civiqs, 29 August 2020). “””


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: If you state the REASON that you find that behavior so bad, then I can easily point out other Presidents that have done similar events. 21OCT10-POST#817

NFBW wrote: No you cannot point out that any other president in history issued an equally menacing and dangerous message in a similar way that the Jan6 message DJT (kidding himself) sent to a mob of rioters inside the Capitol that his VP was a coward.  And that is because it happened on January 6 involving the Constitutionality mandated procedure for the peaceful transfer of power of a first term president to the winner of the election -making the winner the President Elect. No other US President attempted to overturn the election during a Jan6 constitutionally required act of Congress. TRUMP was the first. Pence was not a coward to refuse what DJT and the rioters wanted him to do. 21OCT10-POST#827


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Your lie here, is part of a larger lie, that republicans are {r}acist, so that you people can keep your lock on the minority votes. 21JUN15-POST#1063
> 
> NFBW wrote: I have the utmost respect for my fellow Americans who are black including their intellectual ability to judge for themselves which political party is associated with racism and which political party is not. 21Oct09-POST#814
> 
> Correll wrote: Anyone can be lied to. 21OCT10-POST#823
> 
> NFBW wrote: I agree. So I ask you, Correll specifically, do you agree that anyone in the black American community can reject and not be influenced by your so-called (hypothetical existence of some sort of systematic brainwashing Democrat Party lie to black people that RepublIcans are racist) that you have introduced into this discussion? 21OCT10-POST#825
> 
> So I ask you, Correll specifically, do you agree that anyone in the black American community is capable of intellectually and objectively ascertaining the truth from what they experience in their own lives and hearing what Republicans stand for and what Republicans stand against in the past and in the present? 21OCT10-POST#825
> 
> NFBW wrote: Is “kidding oneself”  lying to oneself as you Correll ( 21SEP05-POST#451 ) explained Trump was doing  on Jan6: 21OCT10-POST#825
> 
> Correll wrote: Trump thought that something could have been done to decertify the voting as fraudulent, at that time. I think he was kidding himself. 21SEP05-POST#451
> 
> NFBW wrote: Do you Correll see what DJT said at his rally in Iowa yesterday October 9 (see next para) is a continuation of kidding himself? 21OCT10-POST#825
> 
> “”” DJT IOWA rally "We had plenty of material to challenge the election. He {Mitch McConnell} should have challenged the election. Schumer would have challenged the election." 21OCT09-DJT-MitchCoward
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump complains about Mitch McConnell's refusal to overturn the election at Iowa rally
> 
> 
> Donald Trump appears to be fixated on pushing his "Big Lie" of election fraud.At a Saturday rally at the Iowa State Fair, Trump bragged about refusing to concede, complained about the Supreme Court not overturning the election, and revealed that he pushes the conspiracy theory because of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.rawstory.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Mitch McConnell did not have the courage to challenge the election. He is only a leader because he raises a lot of money and gives it to senators, that is his only form of leadership," Trump said. "He should have challenged the election." “””
> 
> NFBW wrote: DJT is a Republican, right Correll ? He is a Republican who is  spewing the huge lie still that he actually won and defeated his opponent that the vast majority of black voters chose to be President. Even you Correll, a devoted  DJT Republican, was able to ascertain that DJT is fucking kidding himself with the Big Lie. So why do you think black Americans specifically need help from a Dem Party brainwashing campaign to see what you see about DJT’s BIG LIE?  Had DJT successfully stayed in office after kidding himself that he won it would have nullified every single black vote for Biden and a rejection of Trumpism by the vast majority of black Americans nationwide. Why can’t you let black people “know that” on their own? Why do they have to be fucking lied to in order to know that Correll ? 21OCT10-POST#825




I do NOT agree that anyone is capable of intellectually and objectively ascertaining the truth from what they experience in their own lives, when the vast majority of the information sources they have access to, have been reduced to propaganda sources.


Also, I note that by injecting the qualifier "black Americans" you tried to spin it, that my answer, if not agreeing with you, would be a wacist statement instead of a statement about the way ALL people think. 


You are a race baiting asshole.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: If violence “helped” the DEMS why did the DJT campaign In the final stages shift its “law and order” messaging to target local Democratic Party politicians from urban areas, particularly on the campaign trail (NPR, 27 August 2020)? 21OCT08-POST#815
> 
> Correll wrote: Anyways, the answer to your question is, Because they looked at the situation and tried to spin it to their advantage. - - - IMO, they failed, because they could not compete with the loudness of the MSM, and pop culture pushing the idea that the riots were "mostly peaceful" and justified by "Racism", and the overall meme that this was because Trump's presidency was soooo terrible ie "not normal". 21OCT10-POST#824
> 
> NFBW wrote: Actually the idea that the riots were "mostly peaceful" and justified by racism in support of BLM among white Americans was strong in June but went into steep decline among white voters going into the election. Thus producing headlines such as this:  21OCT10-POST#826
> 
> “”” Rioting is beginning to turn people off to BLM and protests while Biden has no solution  21AUG31-USAtoday-Robbins - - - Rioting is beginning to turn people off to BLM and protests while Biden has no solution - - - Jacob Blake's shooting has sparked more rioting and as violence escalates, people are turning away from BLM, protesting, and social justice. James S. Robbins “””
> 
> Riots are turning people off to BLM
> 
> “””Democrats may have hoped that the national reckoning on race would be a favorable issue for 2020. But the street violence has overwhelmed their reform message. CNN’s Don Lemon bemoaned the fact that the rioting is “showing up in the polling” and “showing up in focus groups.” He said the “rioting has to stop” because “it is the only thing right now that is sticking." “””
> 
> NFBW wrote: Here is the data on the decline in BLM demonstrations. : 21OCT10-POST#826
> 
> 20SEP03-acleddata-summer protests
> 
> Demonstrations & Political Violence in America: New Data for Summer 2020 | ACLED 21OCT10-POST#82
> 
> View attachment 549978
> 
> “”” Yet, despite data indicating that demonstrations associated with the BLM movement are overwhelmingly peaceful, one recent poll suggested that 42% of respondents believe “most protesters [associated with the BLM movement] are trying to incite violence or destroy property” (FiveThirtyEight, 5 June 2020). This is in line with the Civiqs tracking poll which finds that “net approval for the Black Lives Matter movement peaked back on June 3 [the week following the killing of George Floyd when riots first began to be reported] and has fallen sharply since” (USA Today, 31 August 2020; Civiqs, 29 August 2020). “””




1. So, some people agreed with you? THat means it must be true. NOT. 

2. Funny the moment that Dems started thinking that the riots were not workign for them, blm started doing less demonstrations? How odd. That indicates both a high degree of coordination between the Dems and teh BLM, AND, that BOTH of them associate the demonstrations with the riots. Just like I do. And like you claim to NOT do.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: If you state the REASON that you find that behavior so bad, then I can easily point out other Presidents that have done similar events. 21OCT10-POST#817
> 
> NFBW wrote: No you cannot point out that any other president in history issued an equally menacing and dangerous message in a similar way that the Jan6 message DJT (kidding himself) sent to a mob of rioters inside the Capitol that his VP was a coward.  And that is because it happened on January 6 involving the Constitutionality mandated procedure for the peaceful transfer of power of a first term president to the winner of the election -making the winner the President Elect. No other US President attempted to overturn the election during a Jan6 constitutionally required act of Congress. TRUMP was the first. Pence was not a coward to refuse what DJT and the rioters wanted him to do. 21OCT10-POST#827




Are you implying that if it were not for the "procedure" going on, that was interrupted, that you would have no problem with Trump's actions leading up to and during the riot?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Are you implying that if it were not for the "procedure" going on, that was interrupted, that you would have no problem with Trump's actions leading up to and during the riot? 21OCT10-POST#830  


NFBW wrote: I am not implying that at all. The president bad mouthing his Vice President sometimes may be for a good reason. But DJT called PENCE a coward for not doing the unconstitutional despicable act of helping DJT ATTEMPT to overturn the election that he lost. When you defend DJT for that you are just as despicable as the lying ex president is. 21OCT10-POST#831


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Are you implying that if it were not for the "procedure" going on, that was interrupted, that you would have no problem with Trump's actions leading up to and during the riot? 21OCT10-POST#830
> 
> 
> NFBW wrote: I am not implying that at all. The president bad mouthing his Vice President sometimes may be for a good reason. But DJT called PENCE a coward for not doing the unconstitutional despicable act of helping DJT ATTEMPT to overturn the election that he lost. When you defend DJT for that you are just as despicable as the lying ex president is. 21OCT10-POST#831



So, you say it was not about the procedure, and then you immediately talk about how it was about the procedure. 


THanks. REally, you are just talking shit to justify your pretense that this one little riot is somehow worse than your side's four years of riots. 


YOu are just spamming negative sounding spin. You people have given up on making real, persuasive arguments, and are just doing propaganda now.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: They are the largest single religious category, according to your link. They are a quarter of the population. 21OCT08-POST#791 

NFBW wrote: The one most significant group that traded lust for white Christian nationalistic power for having a sympathetic autocratic demonic soulless crass asshole in the White House who wouldn’t leave when he lost. They should be ashamed of themselves.? 21OCT09-POST#816

“”” According to the editorial, "The interim report by the Senate Judiciary Committee shows how Trump's Jan. 6 incitement of a mob of his supporters to attack the Capitol was only his most publicly visible attempt to overturn an election he clearly lost. In the days prior, Trump was maneuvering behind the scenes, trying to weaponize his Justice Department to validate his already-disproven claims of election fraud." 21OCT09-RS-DJTshithead

'Dooms him to the trash bin of history': Heartland newspaper bashes Trump's attempted coup in scathing editorial 

They then drew a parallel to Watergate which eventually brought down the presidency of fellow Republican Richard Nixon, saying Trump's attempt to subvert democracy is miles worse and that he and his enablers should forever live in infamy “””

Correll wrote: Yes, every event can be defined to the point that you can argue a difference with other events. 21OCT08-POST#805

NFBW wrote: I am not arguing the “Pence is a Coward” message to DJT’s rioters is different than any other message by other presidents to their rioters. There is nothing to argue there. Of course DJT’s message to his rioters is different than every other message by a US president in history. Of course strong language might be common. I am defining that one unique Jan6 tweet by DJT to be abnormal and amoral to the normal expectations of BEHAVIOR by the Chief Law enforcement officer in the land and defender of the CONSTITUTION. I find Correll ‘s consideration of DJT’s behavior to be normal and common to be repulsive and dangerous to our democracy and must be reviled for what it is .. a personality cult delusion. 21OCT08-POST#808

Correll wrote: If you state the REASON that you find that behavior so bad, then I can easily point out other Presidents that have done similar events. 21OCT10-POST#817

NFBW wrote: No you cannot point out that any other president in history issued an equally menacing and dangerous message in a similar way that the Jan6 message DJT (kidding himself) sent to a mob of rioters inside the Capitol that his VP was a coward. And that is because it happened on January 6 involving the Constitutionality mandated procedure for the peaceful transfer of power of a first term president to the winner of the election -making the winner the President Elect. No other US President attempted to overturn the election during a Jan6 constitutionally required act of Congress. TRUMP was the first. Pence was not a coward to refuse what DJT and the rioters wanted him to do. 21OCT10-POST#827

Correll wrote: Are you implying that if it were not for the "procedure" going on, that was interrupted, that you would have no problem with Trump's actions leading up to and during the riot? 21OCT10-POST#830 

NFBW wrote: I am not implying that at all. The president bad mouthing his Vice President sometimes may be for a good reason. But DJT called PENCE a coward for not doing the unconstitutional despicable act of helping DJT ATTEMPT to overturn the election that he lost. When you defend DJT for that you are just as despicable as the lying ex president is. 21OCT10-POST#831

Correll wrote: So, you say it was not about the procedure, and then you immediately talk about how it was about the procedure. 21OCT10-POST#832

NFBW wrote: It is not about the procedure. Its about how DJT attempted to use the “procedure” by getting his VP involving. You can see Correll if you want  truth, I’ve been saying Trump's attempt to subvert democracy is rotten to the core. And white evangelical Christians put him in the White House and look the other way when DJT attempted to overturn the election that he lost. 21OCT11-POST#833


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW wrote:  I am defining that one unique Jan6 tweet by DJT to be abnormal and amoral to the normal expectations of BEHAVIOR by the Chief Law enforcement officer in the land and defender of the CONSTITUTION. I find Correll ‘s consideration of DJT’s behavior to be normal and common to be repulsive and dangerous to our democracy and must be reviled for what it is .. a personality cult delusion. 21OCT08-POST#808

Correll wrote: If you state the REASON that you find that behavior so bad, then I can easily point out other Presidents that have done similar events. 21OCT10-POST#817

NFBW wrote: The very fact that Correll has to ask why DJT’s racist-tinged attempt to subvert democracy, including doing nothing to stop his deranged  riotous supporters halfway through the cop-beating-with-Trump-flag-attack on a joint session of Congress, should be enough to give his morally defunct opinions about anything regarding sober thought about right and wrong no consideration whatsoever. But on top of all that we have Correll questioning why anyone would see - as abnormal - DJT’s message to his supporters including those who took his request to fight to stop the steal to save America literally to the point of openly seeking to use deadly force against DJT’s sitting VP and also the next in line to the presidency just to loyally satisfy DJT’s ambition to stay in power. That message in the midst of an ongoing riot inside the world’s Capitol of Democracy was to let his supporters and his rioters know that Pence was too much of a coward to help them stop the steal and thus fail to even try to save America. Correll says DJT’s tweet is tough politics as usual. Everybody does it mom. I suggest we lock people away in mental institutions for perceptions of reality much less unstable than that. 21OCT11-POST#834


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Your lie here, is part of a larger lie, that republicans are {r}acist, so that you people can keep your lock on the minority votes. 21JUN15-POST#1063

NFBW wrote: I have the utmost respect for my fellow Americans who are black including their intellectual ability to judge for themselves which political party is associated with racism and which political party is not. 21Oct09-POST#814

Correll wrote: Anyone can be lied to. 21OCT10-POST#823

NFBW wrote: I agree. So I ask you, Correll specifically, do you agree that anyone in the black American community can reject and not be influenced by your so-called (hypothetical existence of some sort of systematic brainwashing Democrat Party lie to black people that RepublIcans are racist) that you have introduced into this discussion? 21OCT10-POST#825

Correll wrote: I do NOT agree that anyone is capable of intellectually and objectively ascertaining the truth from what they experience in their own lives, when the vast majority of the information sources they have access to, have been reduced to propaganda sources. 21OCT10-POST#828

NFBW wrote: But you Correll as a white cultural Christian being of the true and real American heritage along with all the white evangelical Christian DJT supporters and real Americans just like you, are capable of intellectually and objectively ascertaining the truth from what they experience in their own lives. Aren’t you special. 21OCT11-POST#835


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: 2. Funny the moment that Dems started thinking that the riots were not working  be  for them, blm started doing less demonstrations? How odd. 21OCT10-POST#829

NFBW wrote: You are a liar Correll. Dems never thought riots worked for them. 21OCT10-POST#836


----------



## Staidhup

You don’t escape liability, dimbo’s promoted racism and riots. Take a look at the public statements by the likes of the squad, Nancy, and Maxine for starters.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: 2. Funny the moment that Dems started thinking that the riots were not working for them, blm started doing less demonstrations? How odd. 21OCT10-POST#829

NFBW wrote: If what you Correll wrote above is true, then what you wrote below is not true. 21OCT12-POST#838

Correll wrote: Funny, you don't deny that your side has murderous mobs in the street, to influence the election... 20SEP26-POST#157

NFBW wrote: NO! Correll my side did not have murderous mobs in the street, to influence the election. The election was influenced in favor of DJT by the disproportionate coverage of violent demonstrations. A peaceful demonstration is not news to either side. 21OCT12-POST#838

“”” disproportionate coverage of violent demonstrations (Business Insider, 11 June 2020; Poynter, 25 June 2020).

Research from the University of Washington indicates that this disparity stems from political orientation and biased media framing (Washington Post, 24 August 2020), such as disproportionate coverage of violent demonstrations (Business Insider, 11 June 2020; Poynter, 25 June 2020).   

20SEP03-acleddata-disproportionate









						Demonstrations and Political Violence in America: New Data for Summer 2020
					

Preliminary analysis of key trends from May to August.




					acleddata.com
				




Groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) have documented organized disinformation campaigns aimed at spreading a “deliberate mischaracterization of groups or movements [involved in the protests], such as portraying activists who support Black Lives Matter as violent extremists or claiming that antifa is a terrorist organization coordinated or manipulated by nebulous external forces” (ADL, 2020). “””

NFBW wrote: Why don’t you Correll ,  if you are truly not a racist, apply the same rule that you have for a white organization that promotes peaceful protests to a black organization that promotes peaceful protests. The 21FEB14-POST#340 rule. 21OCT12-POST#838

Correll  wrote: Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress.  - That some people were able to use that to spark a riot, is on those people that did that. 21FEB14-POST#340


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Staidhup wrote: You don’t escape liability, dimbo’s promoted racism and riots. Take a look at the public statements by the likes of the squad, Nancy, and Maxine for starters 21OCT11-POST#837

NFBW wrote: Because DJT promotes the BIG LIE and plotted the Stop the Steal attempt at the Capitol on Jan6,  does DJT escape liability for the riotous attempt to keep the loser if the ejection in power? 21OCT12-POST#839


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote:  I am defining that one unique Jan6 tweet by DJT to be abnormal and amoral to the normal expectations of BEHAVIOR by the Chief Law enforcement officer in the land and defender of the CONSTITUTION. I find Correll ‘s consideration of DJT’s behavior to be normal and common to be repulsive and dangerous to our democracy and must be reviled for what it is .. a personality cult delusion. 21OCT08-POST#808
> 
> Correll wrote: If you state the REASON that you find that behavior so bad, then I can easily point out other Presidents that have done similar events. 21OCT10-POST#817
> 
> NFBW wrote: The very fact that Correll has to ask why DJT’s racist-tinged attempt to subvert democracy, including doing nothing to stop his deranged  riotous supporters halfway through the cop-beating-with-Trump-flag-attack on a joint session of Congress, should be enough to give his morally defunct opinions about anything regarding sober thought about right and wrong no consideration whatsoever. But on top of all that we have Correll questioning why anyone would see - as abnormal - DJT’s message to his supporters including those who took his request to fight to stop the steal to save America literally to the point of openly seeking to use deadly force against DJT’s sitting VP and also the next in line to the presidency just to loyally satisfy DJT’s ambition to stay in power. That message in the midst of an ongoing riot inside the world’s Capitol of Democracy was to let his supporters and his rioters know that Pence was too much of a coward to help them stop the steal and thus fail to even try to save America. Correll says DJT’s tweet is tough politics as usual. Everybody does it mom. I suggest we lock people away in mental institutions for perceptions of reality much less unstable than that. 21OCT11-POST#834




What if Trump was right and the voting was corrupted by fraud?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote:  .... similar events. 21OCT10-POST#817
> 
> NFBW wrote: The very fact that Correll has to ask why DJT’s racist-tinged attempt to subvert democracy,...



The reason I have to ask you to clarify your reason, is because you stuff your posts with partisan shit fillers, that do nothing but spam your various hates. 


I ask for clarification so that I can seriously and honestly address what is your real point. And to a lesser extent, because seeing your hate like that is disgusting to me and to any normal person.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Your lie here, is part of a larger lie, that republicans are {r}acist, so that you people can keep your lock on the minority votes. 21JUN15-POST#1063
> 
> NFBW wrote: I have the utmost respect for my fellow Americans who are black including their intellectual ability to judge for themselves which political party is associated with racism and which political party is not. 21Oct09-POST#814
> 
> Correll wrote: Anyone can be lied to. 21OCT10-POST#823
> 
> NFBW wrote: I agree. So I ask you, Correll specifically, do you agree that anyone in the black American community can reject and not be influenced by your so-called (hypothetical existence of some sort of systematic brainwashing Democrat Party lie to black people that RepublIcans are racist) that you have introduced into this discussion? 21OCT10-POST#825
> 
> Correll wrote: I do NOT agree that anyone is capable of intellectually and objectively ascertaining the truth from what they experience in their own lives, when the vast majority of the information sources they have access to, have been reduced to propaganda sources. 21OCT10-POST#828
> 
> NFBW wrote: But you Correll as a white cultural Christian being of the true and real American heritage along with all the white evangelical Christian DJT supporters and real Americans just like you, are capable of intellectually and objectively ascertaining the truth from what they experience in their own lives. Aren’t you special. 21OCT11-POST#835




You obsession with race is disturbing. 

Your assumption that my "whiteness" makes me immune to lying, is not one I share.  It has nothing to do with anything I ever said, and if you are trying to imply that that is my position, You are lying right there. 

And you can shove that up your race baiting ass.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: 2. Funny the moment that Dems started thinking that the riots were not working  be  for them, blm started doing less demonstrations? How odd. 21OCT10-POST#829
> 
> NFBW wrote: You are a liar Correll. Dems never thought riots worked for them. 21OCT10-POST#836




When they started talking about how the riots were hurting them in the polls, 


suddenly the number of demonstrations dropped dramatically. According to YOUR sources.



So, couple of points here, NOT.


1. This indicates that the real motivation for BLM was not wacial justice but partisan advantage. Because when it turned out to be hurting the dems,  they vastly reduced teh number of demonstrations. 


2. It indicates that the BLM people organizing the demonstrations, in their mind, AGREED with me that their demonstrations had a pattern of leading to riots. They were informed that riots were hurting their dem allies and their response was to do far fewer demonstrations.


3. It strongly implies coordination between the dem party and BLM. Though BLM just operating without direction is possible.


----------



## Staidhup

NotfooledbyW said:


> Staidhup wrote: You don’t escape liability, dimbo’s promoted racism and riots. Take a look at the public statements by the likes of the squad, Nancy, and Maxine for starters 21OCT11-POST#837
> 
> NFBW wrote: Because DJT promotes the BIG LIE and plotted the Stop the Steal attempt at the Capitol on Jan6,  does DJT escape liability for the riotous attempt to keep the loser if the ejection in power? 21OCT12-POST#839


Please present the unequivocal evidence and text from his speech, or additional sources, directing his followers to storm the capital building, riot….and seize power? The events during the ceremonial and procedural function of 1-6 were inexcusable and yet absolutely avoidable, however to point the finger at one person is unjustified and callous.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: 2. Funny the moment that Dems started thinking that the riots were not working for them, blm started doing less demonstrations? How odd. 21OCT10-POST#829
> 
> NFBW wrote: If what you Correll wrote above is true, then what you wrote below is not true. 21OCT12-POST#838
> 
> Correll wrote: Funny, you don't deny that your side has murderous mobs in the street, to influence the election... 20SEP26-POST#157
> 
> NFBW wrote: NO! Correll my side did not have murderous mobs in the street, to influence the election. The election was influenced in favor of DJT by the disproportionate coverage of violent demonstrations. A peaceful demonstration is not news to either side. 21OCT12-POST#838
> 
> “”” disproportionate coverage of violent demonstrations (Business Insider, 11 June 2020; Poynter, 25 June 2020).
> 
> Research from the University of Washington indicates that this disparity stems from political orientation and biased media framing (Washington Post, 24 August 2020), such as disproportionate coverage of violent demonstrations (Business Insider, 11 June 2020; Poynter, 25 June 2020).
> 
> 20SEP03-acleddata-disproportionate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrations and Political Violence in America: New Data for Summer 2020
> 
> 
> Preliminary analysis of key trends from May to August.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> acleddata.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) have documented organized disinformation campaigns aimed at spreading a “deliberate mischaracterization of groups or movements [involved in the protests], such as portraying activists who support Black Lives Matter as violent extremists or claiming that antifa is a terrorist organization coordinated or manipulated by nebulous external forces” (ADL, 2020).




1. Fuck the ADL. BLM and Antifa are violent terrrorist organizations.

2. Many of the "demonstrations" that did not erupt into riots were still not peaceful. 

3. The mobs were in the streets to influence the election. That at some point polling suggested to dems that it was not working and they took steps to dial the violence down, does not change their initial intent. 

4. It is grossly retarded of you, that you needed that explained  to you. 





NotfooledbyW said:


> “””
> 
> NFBW wrote: Why don’t you Correll ,  if you are truly not a racist, apply the same rule that you have for a white organization that promotes peaceful protests to a black organization that promotes peaceful protests. The 21FEB14-POST#340 rule. 21OCT12-POST#838
> 
> Correll  wrote: Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress.  - That some people were able to use that to spark a riot, is on those people that did that. 21FEB14-POST#340




For the obvious reason I suggested. A claim of a peaceful demonstration erupting into riot by accident, is believable the first time it happened. Especially in the pattern of HUNDREDs of peaceful protests without riots.


When it is the 200th time it happens, your pretense of being shocked and surprised is not credible.


I've lost count of how many times, I have explained this simple concept to you. Seriously, it is pathetic of you.


If you have to pretend to be this fucking retarded to avoid admitting you were wrong,  it is time to just admit it.


Be a man. Stop this stupid shit.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Staidhup wrote: Please present the unequivocal evidence and text from his speech, or additional sources, directing his followers to storm the capital building, riot….and seize power? The events during the ceremonial and procedural function of 1-6 were inexcusable and yet absolutely avoidable, however to point the finger at one person is unjustified and callous 21OCT12-POST#844

NFBW wrote: Trump’s rally was to ‘pressure CONGRESS through Mike Pence to overturn the election by voiding black votes in Detroit and all the major cites in the swing states that DJT lost. CANCELING black American’s votes is racist and it is a form of white supremacy and white on black oppression. It is therefore violence Trump was seeking to do the entire campaign and post election plotting and tampering with the election result. 21OCT12-POST#846

NFBW wrote: And while you are here I’ll ask what you asked me. Please present the unequivocal evidence and text from the squad, Nancy, and Maxine directing their followers to loot  and riot.  21OCT12-POST#846

Staidhup wrote: You don’t escape liability, dimbo’s promoted racism and riots. Take a look at the public statements by the likes of the squad, Nancy, and Maxine for starters 21OCT11-POST#837


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Staidhup wrote: Please present the unequivocal evidence and text from his speech, or additional sources, directing his followers to storm the capital building, riot….and seize power? The events during the ceremonial and procedural function of 1-6 were inexcusable and yet absolutely avoidable, however to point the finger at one person is unjustified and callous 21OCT12-POST#844
> 
> NFBW wrote: Trump’s rally was to ‘pressure CONGRESS through Mike Pence to overturn the election by voiding black votes in Detroit and all the major cites in the swing states that DJT lost. CANCELING black American’s votes is racist and it is a form of white supremacy and white on black oppression. It is therefore violence Trump was seeking to do the entire campaign and post election plotting and tampering with the election result. 21OCT12-POST#846
> 
> NFBW wrote: And while you are here I’ll ask what you asked me. Please present the unequivocal evidence and text from the squad, Nancy, and Maxine directing their followers to loot  and riot.  21OCT12-POST#846
> 
> Staidhup wrote: You don’t escape liability, dimbo’s promoted racism and riots. Take a look at the public statements by the likes of the squad, Nancy, and Maxine for starters 21OCT11-POST#837












						Maxine Waters encourages supporters to harass Trump administration officials | CNN Politics
					

Rep. Maxine Waters called on her supporters to publicly confront and harass members of the Trump administration in response to the "zero tolerance" policy that led to the separation of families at the border.




					www.cnn.com
				






Rep. Maxine Waters called on her supporters ....

“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote:  Rep. Maxine Waters called on her supporters ....

“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.  21OCT12-POST#847 

NFBW wrote: not seeing the promotion of racism and riots. so Correll you are a liar.  21OCT12-POST#848

Staidhup wrote: You don’t escape liability, dimbo’s         

       promoted racism and riots.         

Take a look at the public statements by the likes of the squad, Nancy, and Maxine for starters 21OCT11-POST#837


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote:  Rep. Maxine Waters called on her supporters ....
> 
> “Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.  21OCT12-POST#847
> 
> NFBW wrote: not seeing the promotion of racism and riots. so Correll you are a liar.  21OCT12-POST#848
> 
> Staidhup wrote: You don’t escape liability, dimbo’s
> 
> promoted racism and riots.
> 
> Take a look at the public statements by the likes of the squad, Nancy, and Maxine for starters 21OCT11-POST#837




Gather a crowd and "push back on them" and let them know "they are not welcome ANYWHERE".


Yes, a lawyer might be able to say with a straight face that that is not a call for violence. No one who is not a professional liar, though.


But you are the one who has been pretending that Trump's far less inciteful language was him calling for a riot.


Seems if it weren't for double standards, you libtards would have no standards at all.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> But you are the one who has been pretending that Trump's far less inciteful language was him calling for a riot.



Trump’s plan we know now was to kill the votes of black Americans solely because he is sad and angry that he lost. Depriving Americans from black districts of their right to have their vote counted by only counting votes from majority white districts is racism and violence. Just because DJT did not succeed his intent was to do harm to the black community.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Trump’s plan we know now was to kill the votes of black Americans solely because he is sad and angry that he lost. Depriving Americans from black districts of their right to have their vote counted by only counting votes from majority white districts is racism and violence. Just because DJT did not succeed his intent was to do harm to the black community.




Funny, you made a challenge to show dem leaders inciting violence or rioting, ,and I did so, and now you want to talk about something else?

How funny that you would suddenly feel the urge to talk about SOMETHING else, at this point in time. 


VERY FUNNY. 


LAUGH OUT LOUD FUNNY. 


It is ok not. I know that you are incapable of admitting when a valid point has been made that you disagree with. YOu just don't have that level of emotional maturity or moral courage. 


Anyhow. So, it is established, by your dodging. Dems leaders incite violence and rioting.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Funny, you made a challenge to show dem leaders inciting violence or rioting, ,and I did so,




There was no inciting violence in the Waters’ qoute you cited. You are a liar Correll


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: But you are the one who has been pretending that Trump's far less inciteful language was him calling for a riot. 21OCT12-POST#849

NFBW wrote: You are a liar Correll. I make no claim that DJT called for a riot because DJT didn’t call for a riot. I am saying the rioters were doing what DJT wanted them to do. -  Stop the steal. The rioters figured out that stopping the steal was not possible by standing around in a peaceful protest. So they did what realistic wannabee patriots would do to save America. Attempt  to stop the certification of the election by violently storming the Capitol and hanging  Mike Pence. Stopping the Steal is a meaningless phrase if it were not for DJT’s big lie. DJT is responsible for telling the Big LIE to his most serious fanatics. The Big Lie incited the Jan6 riot - but you cannot argue against that so you say Correll that I pretend something else because you care a liar. 21OCT13-POST#853. 

NFBW wrote:  Now what was it that incited the George Floyd riots. Keep in mind that video recordings do not lie.. but DJT lies as much as he breathes. 21OCT13-POST#853


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW wrote: It is easy to spot Correll ‘s  logical fallacies. Here is one great example. 21OCT13-POST#854

Correll wrote:  You call for a demonstration and it gets out of control ONCE, that is believable. - - - You do it twice and you are being reckless. -  - - You do it several hundred times, and it is obvious that when you say "demonstration" you mean, "riot".  21MAR03-POST-#899 

NFBW wrote: No matter how many times criminals hijack peaceful demonstrations to riot and loot, it is not obvious that when the organizers of a demonstration say "demonstration" they  mean, "riot".  That’s unless one needs to render language meaningless as Correll does much of the time. Stuck in his logical fallacy explains why @Correl does not appear to be able to discuss it when I try to move the discussion for comparative purposes to the actual motive of rioters on Jan6 compared to the summer of social justice protests leading up to the 2020 election that DJT lost. I will be surprised if Correll deals with motive in any forthcoming reply to my POST#853  That I posted earlier this morning. 21OCT13-POST#854

NFBW wrote:  I am saying the rioters were doing what DJT wanted them to do. - Stop the steal. The rioters figured out that stopping the steal was not possible by standing around in a peaceful protest. So they did what realistic wannabee patriots would do to save America. Attempt to stop the certification of the election by violently storming the Capitol and hanging Mike Pence. 21OCT13-POST#853


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: The violence won't stop until your forces are met and defeated with force. That is what defines reality on the streets.  20AUG20-POST#62

NFBW wrote: Have you ever asked yourself Correll why it is that DJT has never complained about what you call the lefty riots being the reason that he was not handed a second term last January? Perhaps you should ask yourself that Correll. 21OCT13-POST#855 

“”” "If we don't solve the Presidential Election Fraud of 2020 (which we have thoroughly and conclusively documented), Republicans will not be voting in '22 or '24," Trump said. "It is the single most important thing for Republicans to do."  21OCT13-DJT-RepubsNOTvote “””

NFBW wrote: If you agree that there is zero chance in hell that we will not solve the Presidential Election Fraud of 2020 to DJT’s satisfaction (making DJT the winner) does that mean you will not be voting in 2022 or 2024? If you will be voting tell us why you would do that when the Dems control the outcome at will anyway? Do you think it’s time for DJT to start rallying the right wing troops to meet the lefty mobs with right wing force to win the reality on the streets because you  can’t win at the ballot box? 21OCT13-POST#855


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW wrote: Here we see exactly the extent of lying Correll commits on this forum. My response was directly related to Correll ‘s comment on the far less inciteful language, but Correll replies that I change the subject so he wins or some bullshit. 21OCT13-POST#856

Correll wrote: But you are the one who has been pretending that Trump's far less inciteful language was him calling for a riot. 21OCT12-POST#849

NFBW wrote: Trump’s plan we know now was to kill the votes of black Americans solely because he is sad and angry that he lost. Depriving Americans from black districts of their right to have their vote counted by only counting votes from majority white districts is racism and violence. Just because DJT did not succeed, his intent was to do harm to the black community 21OCT12-POST#850

Correll wrote: How funny that you would suddenly feel the urge to talk about SOMETHING else, at this point in time.  21OCT12-POST#851 

NFBW wrote: Correll has a pattern of avoiding any talk about DJT’s and the rioters end goal of the Jan6 rally and riot. Its for a reason for sure. 21OCT13-POST#856


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Trump's rise to political power and his administration was characterized by completely normal, mainstream policies supported by good, working class and middle class Americans. 21FEB09-POST#45

NFBW wrote: which ‘immigration policy’ is normal in your head Correll?
There is no normal immigration policy to be had. 21OCT08-POST#793

Correll wrote: The country is split on the issue. 21OCT08-POST#799

Correll: The country is split on the immigration issue. 21OCT08-POST#803

NFBW wrote: Tell me Correll are there non-religious Americans that support MUSLIM Immigration and oppose Trump’s border wall policy and support citizenship for Dreamers that fit you category of good, working class and middle class Americans who support one completely normal mainstream immigration policy? 21OCT08-POST#810

Correll wrote: Yes, of course. 21OCT10-POST#819

NFBW wrote: Did DJT rise to power because he opposes putting up a wall on the border and he supports Muslim for immigration and he supports citizenship for Dreamers? 21OCT14-POST#857


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Rep. Maxine Waters called on her supporters ....

“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere. 21OCT12-POST#847

NFBW wrote: Can you tell me Correll where in the above quote is the  unequivocal evidence that Maxine is directing anybody to loot and riot. 21OCT14-POST#858


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: But you are the one who has been pretending that Trump's far less inciteful language was him calling for a riot. 21OCT12-POST#849
> 
> NFBW wrote: You are a liar Correll. I make no claim that DJT called for a riot because DJT didn’t call for a riot. I am saying the rioters were doing what DJT wanted them to do. -  Stop the steal. The rioters figured out that stopping the steal was not possible by standing around in a peaceful protest. So they did what realistic wannabee patriots would do to save America. Attempt  to stop the certification of the election by violently storming the Capitol and hanging  Mike Pence. Stopping the Steal is a meaningless phrase if it were not for DJT’s big lie. DJT is responsible for telling the Big LIE to his most serious fanatics. The Big Lie incited the Jan6 riot - but you cannot argue against that so you say Correll that I pretend something else because you care a liar. 21OCT13-POST#853.
> 
> NFBW wrote:  Now what was it that incited the George Floyd riots. Keep in mind that video recordings do not lie.. but DJT lies as much as he breathes. 21OCT13-POST#853




Your words games are dismissed. You have been pretending that TRump's far less inciteful language was  him calling for a riot, if not "insurrection".

Meanwhile you are giving a pass not only to dems who use even more inciteful language and now, even to BLM organizers who's own actions demonstrate that THEY agree with me, on the link between their "demonstrations" and the riots.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: It is easy to spot Correll ‘s  logical fallacies. Here is one great example. 21OCT13-POST#854
> 
> Correll wrote:  You call for a demonstration and it gets out of control ONCE, that is believable. - - - You do it twice and you are being reckless. -  - - You do it several hundred times, and it is obvious that when you say "demonstration" you mean, "riot".  21MAR03-POST-#899
> 
> NFBW wrote: No matter how many times criminals hijack peaceful demonstrations to riot and loot, it is not obvious that when the organizers of a demonstration say "demonstration" they  mean, "riot".  That’s unless one needs to render language meaningless as Correll does much of the time. Stuck in his logical fallacy explains why @Correl does not appear to be able to discuss it when I try to move the discussion for comparative purposes to the actual motive of rioters on Jan6 compared to the summer of social justice protests leading up to the 2020 election that DJT lost. I will be surprised if Correll deals with motive in any forthcoming reply to my POST#853  That I posted earlier this morning. 21OCT13-POST#854
> 
> NFBW wrote:  I am saying the rioters were doing what DJT wanted them to do. - Stop the steal. The rioters figured out that stopping the steal was not possible by standing around in a peaceful protest. So they did what realistic wannabee patriots would do to save America. Attempt to stop the certification of the election by violently storming the Capitol and hanging Mike Pence. 21OCT13-POST#853





When the blm organizers started hearing the opinion that the riots were hurting the dems at the polls, they greatly reduced their demonstrations. 


Seems that they believed that their demonstrations had a pattern of leading to riots. 


That means that they knew that, WHEN THEY WERE ORGANIZING THE DEMONSTRATIONS BEFORE THAT, THAT THEY WERE LEADING TO RIOTS, AND PEOPLE DYING AND THEY STILL DID IT. 


Trump, after hundreds of peaceful right leaning demonstrations without riots, was not expecting the next demonstration to lead to a riot.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: The violence won't stop until your forces are met and defeated with force. That is what defines reality on the streets.  20AUG20-POST#62
> 
> NFBW wrote: Have you ever asked yourself Correll why it is that DJT has never complained about what you call the lefty riots being the reason that he was not handed a second term last January? Perhaps you should ask yourself that Correll. 21OCT13-POST#855
> ......



No. Why would I?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: Here we see exactly the extent of lying Correll commits on this forum. My response was directly related to Correll ‘s comment on the far less inciteful language, but Correll replies that I change the subject so he wins or some bullshit. 21OCT13-POST#856
> 
> Correll wrote: But you are the one who has been pretending that Trump's far less inciteful language was him calling for a riot. 21OCT12-POST#849
> 
> NFBW wrote: Trump’s plan we know now was to kill the votes of black .....




Shove your race baiting up your ass.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Trump's rise to political power and his administration was characterized by completely normal, mainstream policies supported by good, working class and middle class Americans. 21FEB09-POST#45
> 
> NFBW wrote: which ‘immigration policy’ is normal in your head Correll?
> There is no normal immigration policy to be had. 21OCT08-POST#793
> 
> Correll wrote: The country is split on the issue. 21OCT08-POST#799
> 
> Correll: The country is split on the immigration issue. 21OCT08-POST#803
> 
> NFBW wrote: Tell me Correll are there non-religious Americans that support MUSLIM Immigration and oppose Trump’s border wall policy and support citizenship for Dreamers that fit you category of good, working class and middle class Americans who support one completely normal mainstream immigration policy? 21OCT08-POST#810
> 
> Correll wrote: Yes, of course. 21OCT10-POST#819
> 
> NFBW wrote: Did DJT rise to power because he opposes putting up a wall on the border and he supports Muslim for immigration and he supports citizenship for Dreamers? 21OCT14-POST#857




Obviously not. He won the primaries and then the general based on a BUILDING a wall, and restricting immigration in many ways, and other mainstream policies. 


Make your point, which I can already tell is going to be really stupid.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Rep. Maxine Waters called on her supporters ....
> 
> “Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere. 21OCT12-POST#847
> 
> NFBW wrote: Can you tell me Correll where in the above quote is the  unequivocal evidence that Maxine is directing anybody to loot and riot. 21OCT14-POST#858




The goal was to show incitement for violence. Getting a "Crowd" together and using that "crowd" to deny people access to ANY PUBLIC SPACE, even private property such as a restaurant, or a gas station, 

is using the threat of violence to deprive people of the ability to live their life.  In this context, that "crowd" is a "mob" and to the extent that people did that, they were using violence to intimidate their political enemies.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: The goal was to show incitement for violence.  21OCT14-POST#864


NFBW wrote: Where in the Maxine Waters quote does she state her goal was to incite violence? And how many confrontations with DJT cabinet members influenced by WATER’s words resulted in violence, rioting and looting. I’m looking for evidence not your racially biased conjecture. 21OCT14-POST#865


“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere. 21OCT12-POST#847


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: The goal was to show incitement for violence.  21OCT14-POST#864
> 
> 
> NFBW wrote: Where in the Maxine Waters quote does she state her goal wax to incite viok nice? And how many confrontations with DJT cabinet members influenced by WATER’s words resulted in violence, rioting and looting. I’m looking for evidence not your racially biased conjecture. 21OCT14-POST#865
> 
> 
> “Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere. 21OCT12-POST#847



Where she tells people to from mobs and use the threat of violence to prevent their enemies from going anywhere or doing anything, in public. 


The threat of violence is generally considered violence, especially when it is a very credible threat. 


That is her inciting violence.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Where she tells people to form mobs and use the threat of violence to prevent their enemies from going anywhere or doing anything, in public. 21OCT14-POST#866

NFBW wrote: WATER’s never says that in her quote Correll. She did not say that. You are a liar. 21OCT14-POST#867

NFBW wrote: Where in the Maxine Waters quote does she state her goal was to use the threat of violence or incite violence?  ….. I’m looking for evidence not your racially biased conjecture. 21OCT14-POST#865

Waters: “Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere. 21OCT12-POST#847

NFBW wrote: Why didn’t you answer the following question? 21OCT14-POST#867


NFBW wrote: And how many confrontations with DJT cabinet members influenced by WATER’s words resulted in violence, rioting and looting. I’m looking for evidence not your racially biased conjecture. 21OCT14-POST#865


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Where she tells people to form mobs and use the threat of violence to prevent their enemies from going anywhere or doing anything, in public. 21OCT14-POST#866
> 
> NFBW wrote: WATER’s never says that in her quote Correll. She did not say that. You are a liar. 21OCT14-POST#867
> 
> NFBW wrote: Where in the Maxine Waters quote does she state her goal was to use the threat of violence or incite violence?  ….. I’m looking for evidence not your racially biased conjecture. 21OCT14-POST#865
> 
> Waters: “Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere. 21OCT12-POST#847
> 
> NFBW wrote: Why didn’t you answer the following question? 21OCT14-POST#867
> 
> 
> NFBW wrote: And how many confrontations with DJT cabinet members influenced by WATER’s words resulted in violence, rioting and looting. I’m looking for evidence not your racially biased conjecture. 21OCT14-POST#865




When you harass someone so much that they have to leave a restaurant, that is the threat of violence. 


Her words are far more inciting that Donald Trump's. They both called for confrontation, but Trump was only calling for it, as a political demonstration, at a public place, 


while Waters was calling for a constant campaign of harassment and intimidation, in every public place in the country.


That you attack Trump while giving Waters a pass, is you being a partisan hack.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote   …. but Trump was only calling for it, as a political demonstration, at a public place, 21OCT14-POST#868 


NFBW Wrote:  That is not true Correll We know now that Trump was not only calling for it as a political demonstration in a public place he wanted to disrupt Congress enacting the peaceful transfer of power from the losing Incumbent candidate to the winner and president elect. In the process of calling for a demonstration had DJT and his plans succeeded he would’ve disenfranchised millions of voters directed mostly at black communities who live in large cities who voted for Biden. That is the violent intent of your beloved dear leader DJT calling  for a demonstration on a specific day January 6, 2021 with the intent (overturning the election that he lost) that he was going to be able to stay in office if he had his way. While  DJT did not directly call in words for his demonstrators to become violent he certainly set up the most conducive conditions possible to make the actual riot that actually happened possible. Without DJ T’s big lie that he won the election and there would’ve been no absolutely none possibility of a riot at the capital like we saw on January 6. You cannot deny that Trump lover. 21OCT14-POST#869


PS: Congresswoman Maxine Waters words even as you interpret them Correll did not spark actual violence or a full-blown riot like the one we saw as Donald Trump’s sat on his fat ass and seemingly ate popcorn and watched as his peaceful demonstration turned into a riot inside the capital For the entire world to see the shame of it all. 21OCT14-POST#869


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Her (Water’s) words are far more inciting that Donald Trump's. They both called for confrontation, 21OCT14-POST#868 


NFBW wrote: Yet Water’s words sparked no violence or riots or insurrections whatsoever.  DJT’s thoughts plans words and deeds sparked an assault on the American democratic process including the video recorded riot with Trump and Jesus and QAnon flags flying everywhere  amongst the chaos. And look at you Correll going on about how a black congresswoman’s words are worse than what the former President of white America is still doing to feed the white grievance you and he thrive on. 21OCT15-POST#870


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Trump thought that something could have been done to decertify the voting as fraudulent, at that time. I think he was kidding himself. 21SEP05-POST#451

NFBW wrote: Do you Correll think DJT Is kidding himself because he really lost or because he really won but can’t change it?    21OCT15-POST#871


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW wrote: I am defining that one unique Jan6 tweet by DJT to be abnormal and amoral to the normal expectations of BEHAVIOR by the Chief Law enforcement officer in the land and defender of the CONSTITUTION. I find Correll ‘s consideration of DJT’s behavior to be normal and common to be repulsive and dangerous to our democracy and must be reviled for what it is .. a personality cult delusion. 21OCT08-POST#808

Correll wrote: What if Trump was right and the voting was corrupted by fraud?
21OCT12-POST#840

NFBW wrote: DJT is not right. He cannot be right. There is no evidence whatsoever that the voting was corrupted by fraud whereas DJT won a single state he has questioned and contested. DJT is a big liar. DJT lost. Give up Correll you are helping to perpetuate DJT’s fraud. 21OCT15-POST#872


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: What if Trump was right and the voting was corrupted by fraud?
21OCT12-POST#840

NFBW wrote: Where?    Detroit?   Atlanta?   Milwaukee? You probably need all three counties where all those Biden voters with the majority being black voters committing fraud and DJT can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, right Correll ? 21OCT15-POST#873


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Name the biggest "attack" that "white men" are committing against ANYONE, in this country, 21SEP12-POST#30

NFBW wrote: The Jan6 Coup attempt by DJT and his lawyers and his white Christian Ak47manic nationalistic Confederate flag flying mob were attacking the diversified. "traditionally disadvantaged" voters residing in Detroit, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Phoenix, and Las Vegas. The EASTMAN PLAN TRUMP-Jan6-COUPattempt targeted precincts in the states where racial minorities gave Biden his margin of victory over DJT. 21OCT04-POST#46

Correll wrote: No, they weren't. They were attacking Joe Biden, an old, rich, ,white man, and the Deep State. 21OCT05-POST#50 

NFBW wrote: The Joe Biden that beat the sore loser DJT BY 7 million votes. Had DJT and his lawyers and his white Christian Ak47manic nationalistic Confederate flag flying mob been successful on Jan6 to stop by using violence, without a lick of evidence of fraud, the certification of the Biden victory over DJT would’ve ended up allowing the Minority Party (Republicans) in the 2021 House of Representatives to decide that DJT was the winner. Here’s how;  21OCT16-POST#874

“”” If neither candidate gets to 270 electors due to disputed ballots, the House would have to decide the election. - - - Though the House has a Democratic majority, such an outcome would almost certainly benefit Trump. Here’s why: In a concession to small states concerned their voices would be marginalized if the House was called upon to choose the president, the founders gave only one vote to each state. House delegations from each state meet to decide how to cast their single vote. - - - That voting procedure gives equal representation to California – population 40 million – and Wyoming, population 600,000.








						Congress could select the president in a disputed election
					

Judges are generally reluctant to decide elections, as the Supreme Court controversially did in 2000. As a result, Trump’s flurry of litigation could wind up throwing the election to the House.




					www.google.com
				



This arrangement favors Republicans. The GOP has dominated the House delegations of 26 states since 2018 – exactly the number required to reach a majority under the rules of House presidential selection. But it’s not the current House that would decide a contested 2020 election; it is the newly elected House, and many Nov. 3 congressional races remain undecided. So far, though, Republicans have retained control of the 26 congressional delegations they currently hold, and Democrats have lost control of two states, Minnesota and Iowa. “””

NFBW wrote: Therefore 80 million Biden voters would have been drastically harmed  by the “Start the DJT Steal” rally and attack on Jan6  if it had succeeded in the way that DJT planned and wanted it to go. Harm is violence and much more significant harm  than a few DJT cabinet members being heckled in a few restaurants. 21OCT16-POST#874


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: The blm rioters felt they had justification for their violence. 21JAN08-POST#190.

NFBW wrote: Why don’t you refer to criminals who loot and riot for the sake of racial justice according to the incident between a black person and the police that mostly sparked the spontaneous and unorganized violence during the summer of 2020. In May 2020 there were the George Floyd Riots - nothing to do with BLM. In August 2020 there were the Jacob  Blake riots - nothing to do with BLM. 21OCT16-POST#875

NFBW wrote: When you can organize your thoughts around the facts in such a way Correll you can begin to understand how your racist animosity toward the phrase that BLACK LIVES MATTER is in control of your mind and emotions. Racism caused you to first assert that Dems think riots “work for them” and secondly you generalize that black “race riots” and black “race demonstrations”  are synonymous when they are not. But white MAGA “election fraud” riots and white MAGA “election fraud” demonstrations have absolutely nothing to do with each other. 21OCT16-POST#875

Correll wrote: Funny the moment that Dems started thinking that the riots were not working for them, blm started doing less demonstrations? How odd. 21OCT10-POST#829

NFBW wrote: Without racist animosity in your heart Correll you would have constructed the above statement correctly so we could check the data to verify if what you said is true. You should have said “Funny the moment that Dems started thinking that the demonstrations were not working for them, blm started doing less demonstrations? How odd. 21OCT16-POST#875


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote   …. but Trump was only calling for it, as a political demonstration, at a public place, 21OCT14-POST#868
> 
> 
> NFBW Wrote:  That is not true Correll We know now that Trump was not only calling for it as a political demonstration in a public place he wanted to disrupt Congress enacting the peaceful transfer of power from the losing Incumbent candidate to the winner and president elect. In the process of calling for a demonstration had DJT and his plans succeeded he would’ve disenfranchised millions of voters directed mostly at black communities.....




I stopped reading here.. I'm done with your race baiting. 

Trump called for a demonstration to put political pressure on Congress. You saying "disrupt" is you lying. 

You keep up the race baiting and I will stop responding to your posts.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Her (Water’s) words are far more inciting that Donald Trump's. They both called for confrontation, 21OCT14-POST#868
> 
> 
> NFBW wrote: Yet Water’s words sparked no violence or riots or insurrections whatsoever.  DJT’s thoughts plans words and deeds sparked an assault on the American democratic process including the video recorded riot with Trump and Jesus and QAnon flags flying everywhere  amongst the chaos. And look at you Correll going on about how a black congresswoman’s words are worse than what the former President of white America is still doing to feed the white grievance you and he thrive on. 21OCT15-POST#870




Water's words were part of the din of incitement coming from lefty politicians and leaders and the media and pop culture. 

There was plenty of confrontation and violence during that period of time. 


Again, you keep up with the race baiting, and I will stop responding to you.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Trump thought that something could have been done to decertify the voting as fraudulent, at that time. I think he was kidding himself. 21SEP05-POST#451
> 
> NFBW wrote: Do you Correll think DJT Is kidding himself because he really lost or because he really won but can’t change it?    21OCT15-POST#871




I don't know. Both are plausible.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: I am defining that one unique Jan6 tweet by DJT to be abnormal and amoral to the normal expectations of BEHAVIOR by the Chief Law enforcement officer in the land and defender of the CONSTITUTION. I find Correll ‘s consideration of DJT’s behavior to be normal and common to be repulsive and dangerous to our democracy and must be reviled for what it is .. a personality cult delusion. 21OCT08-POST#808
> 
> Correll wrote: What if Trump was right and the voting was corrupted by fraud?
> 21OCT12-POST#840
> 
> NFBW wrote: DJT is not right. He cannot be right. There is no evidence whatsoever that the voting was corrupted by fraud whereas DJT won a single state he has questioned and contested. DJT is a big liar. DJT lost. Give up Correll you are helping to perpetuate DJT’s fraud. 21OCT15-POST#872




He could certainly be right.  That you refuse to conceded that, is you being completely dishonest. 


Does President Trump have the right to free speech, to speak out to advocate for his interests?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: What if Trump was right and the voting was corrupted by fraud?
> 21OCT12-POST#840
> 
> NFBW wrote: Where?    Detroit?   Atlanta?   Milwaukee? You probably need all three counties where all those Biden voters with the majority being black voters committing fraud and DJT can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, right Correll ? 21OCT15-POST#873




Shove your race baiting up your ass.


It was a simple question. That you are afraid to answer it, is very telling. 


What if Trump was right and the voting was corrupted by fraud?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Name the biggest "attack" that "white men" are committing against ANYONE, in this country, 21SEP12-POST#30
> 
> NFBW wrote: The Jan6 Coup attempt by DJT and his lawyers and his white Christian Ak47manic nationalistic Confederate flag flying mob were attacking the diversified. "traditionally disadvantaged" voters....




I stopped reading here. There might be a point buried under your race baiting and racism. If you want me to address it, make the post again, without the race baiting and racism.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: The blm rioters felt they had justification for their violence. 21JAN08-POST#190.
> 
> NFBW wrote: Why don’t you refer to criminals who loot and riot for the sake of racial justice according to the incident between a black person and the police that mostly sparked the spontaneous and unorganized violence during the summer of 2020. In May 2020 there were the George Floyd Riots - nothing to do with BLM. In August 2020 there were the Jacob  Blake riots - nothing to do with BLM. 21OCT16-POST#875
> 
> NFBW wrote: When you can organize your thoughts around the facts in such a way Correll you can begin to understand how your racist animosity toward the phrase that BLACK LIVES MATTER is in control of your mind and emotions. Racism caused you to first assert that Dems think riots “work for them” and secondly you generalize that black “race riots” and black “race demonstrations”  are synonymous when they are not. But white MAGA “election fraud” riots and white MAGA “election fraud” demonstrations have absolutely nothing to do with each other. 21OCT16-POST#875
> 
> Correll wrote: Funny the moment that Dems started thinking that the riots were not working for them, blm started doing less demonstrations? How odd. 21OCT10-POST#829
> 
> NFBW wrote: Without racist animosity in your heart Correll you would have constructed the above statement correctly so we could check the data to verify if what you said is true. You should have said “Funny the moment that Dems started thinking that the demonstrations were not working for them, blm started doing less demonstrations? How odd. 21OCT16-POST#875




Three points.

1. In my view, teh riots were Antia and BLM, a mostly white leftard organization and a mostly black organization. It is you that wants to make this racial. Your assumption that wacism has anything to do with this is just you being an asshole.


2. It was YOUR link that made the point that blm started doing massively fewer "demonstrations" when dems starting thinking that the riots were not working for them. 


3. My point remains. YOU pretend to be so upset over the 1/6 riot, and attack President Trump for supposedly calling for it. BUT, you give a pass to people, who's own actions, reveal that THEY THEMSELVES conflated their "demonstrations" with the riots that so often broke out during them. 

So, while they were organizing those demonstrations, IN THEIR MINDS, they did so, with the full expectations that riots would often occur. 

And that is BEST CASE SCENARIO, assuming that there were NOT steps taking to make sure of it.


----------



## Correll

Correll said:


> 1. They were not "white nationalists", you are a lying asshole.
> 
> 2. Lefty agitators being responsible is a reasonable suspicion. We've seen one  on tape.
> 
> 3. Most republicans are happy to agree that the 1/6 riot, was a riot and that it was a violent crime.
> 
> 4.  YOu are a lying asshole.




Aldo disagreed with this. But couldn't even try to explain where I went wrong. Because he knows that everything I said was true. 

It is not that he "disagreed", it is that he does "not like" when people speak the TRuth.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW wrote: See how Correll lies. #829 It was “Dems started thinking that the riots were not working ”  I corrected Correll #836 “ Dems never thought riots worked for them.  #843 Correll understood and acknowledged and made a correction “ When they started talking about how the riots were hurting them” And then sucking liar Correll in #882 says I posted the link that made the point that blm started doing massively fewer "demonstrations" when dems starting thinking that the riots were not working for them. 21OCT16-POST#884

Correll wrote: 2. Funny the moment that Dems started thinking that the riots were not working be for them, blm started doing less demonstrations? How odd. 21OCT10-POST#829

NFBW wrote: You are a liar Correll. Dems never thought riots worked for them. 21OCT10-POST#836

Correll wrote: When they started talking about how the riots were hurting them in the polls, ….  21OCT12-POST#843

Correll wrote 2. It was YOUR link that made the point that blm started doing massively fewer "demonstrations" when dems starting thinking that the riots were not working for them. 21OCT16- POST#882

NFBW wrote: I’ll say it again Correll you are a liar. Dems never “thought”  riots worked for them and there is no link that says they did. 21OCT16-POST#884

NFBW wrote: RACE Riots work for Republicans. “The more chaos and anarchy and vandalism and violence reigns, the better it is for the very clear choice on who’s best on public safety and law and order,” Ms. Conway said on “Fox & Friends.” 20AUG27-KConway


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: See how Correll lies. #829 It was “Dems started thinking that the riots were not working ”  I corrected Correll #836 “ Dems never thought riots worked for them.  #843 Correll understood and acknowledged and made a correction “ When they started talking about how the riots were hurting them” ....




Don't be a fucktard. I did not make a correction. I made the same point with some minor variations in wording. 


That you leapt on that, adn claimed it as a victory, is pathetic. 



Not, I don't know if you are getting worse, or if I am just, finally, losing patience with you. 


Either way, If you cannot be more... of an honest debater, I will stop responding soon.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Trump called for a demonstration to put political pressure on Congress. You saying "disrupt" is you lying.  21OCT16-POST#882

NFBW wrote: political pressure to do what Correll ? 21OCT16-POST#886

NFBW wrote: It’s laid out in the Eastman Memo: { } mine!  21OCT16-POST#886

1. VP Pence, presiding over the joint session (or Senate Pro Tempore Grassley, if Pence recuses himself), begins to open and count the ballots,….

2. When he gets to Arizona, he announces that he has multiple slates of electors, and so is going to defer decision on that until finishing the other States.  [FIRST DISRUPTION >> }This would be the first break with the procedure set out in the Act. 

3. At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States. 
{You don’t think this would be a disruption Correll >>>} Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected there as well

{ EASTMAN tells DJT It’s disruptive>>>}4. Howls, of course, from the Democrats, who now claim, contrary to Tribe’s prior position, that 270 is required. So Pence says, fine. Pursuant to the 12th Amendment, no candidate has achieved the necessary majority. That sends the matter to the House, where the “the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote . . . .” Republicans currently control 26 of the state delegations, the bare majority needed to win that vote. President Trump is re-elected there as well. 

5. One last piece. Assuming the Electoral Count Act process is followed and, upon getting the objections to the Arizona slates, the two houses break into their separate chambers, we should not allow the Electoral Count Act constraint on debate to control. That would mean that a prior legislature was determining the rules of the present one — a constitutional no-no (as Tribe has forcefully argued). So someone – Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, etc. – should demand normal rules (which includes the filibuster). That creates a stalemate that would give the state legislatures more time to weigh in to formally support the alternate slate of electors, if they had not already done so. 


{But PENCE WAS A COWARD AFTER THE DISRUPTION of the riot was over AND STUCK WITH THE PROCESS >>>} 6. The main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking for permission – either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court. Let the other side challenge his actions in court, where Tribe (who in 2001 conceded the President of the Senate might be in charge of counting the votes) and others who would press a lawsuit would have their past position -- that these are non-justiciable political questions – thrown back at them, to get the lawsuit dismissed. The fact is that the Constitution assigns this power to the Vice President as the ultimate arbiter. We should take all of our actions with that in mind.    TRUMP-Jan6-COUPattempt  “””


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Trump called for a demonstration to put political pressure on Congress. You saying "disrupt" is you lying.  21OCT16-POST#882
> 
> NFBW wrote: political pressure to do what Correll ? 21OCT16-POST#
> 
> NFBW wrote: It’s laid out in the Eastman Memo: { } mine!  21OCT16-POST#8
> 
> 1. VP Pence, presiding over the joint session (or Senate Pro Tempore Grassley, if Pence recuses himself), begins to open and count the ballots,….
> 
> 2. When he gets to Arizona, he announces that he has multiple slates of electors, and so is going to defer decision on that until finishing the other States.  [FIRST DISRUPTION >> }This would be the first break with the procedure set out in the Act.
> 
> 3. At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States.
> {You don’t think this would be a disruption Correll >>>} Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected there as well
> 
> { EASTMAN tells DJT It’s disruptive>>>}4. Howls, of course, from the Democrats, who now claim, contrary to Tribe’s prior position, that 270 is required. So Pence says, fine. Pursuant to the 12th Amendment, no candidate has achieved the necessary majority. That sends the matter to the House, where the “the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote . . . .” Republicans currently control 26 of the state delegations, the bare majority needed to win that vote. President Trump is re-elected there as well.
> 
> 5. One last piece. Assuming the Electoral Count Act process is followed and, upon getting the objections to the Arizona slates, the two houses break into their separate chambers, we should not allow the Electoral Count Act constraint on debate to control. That would mean that a prior legislature was determining the rules of the present one — a constitutional no-no (as Tribe has forcefully argued). So someone – Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, etc. – should demand normal rules (which includes the filibuster). That creates a stalemate that would give the state legislatures more time to weigh in to formally support the alternate slate of electors, if they had not already done so.
> 
> 
> {But PENCE WAS A COWARD AFTER THE DISRUPTION of the riot was over AND STUCK WITH THE PROCESS >>>} 6. The main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking for permission – either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court. Let the other side challenge his actions in court, where Tribe (who in 2001 conceded the President of the Senate might be in charge of counting the votes) and others who would press a lawsuit would have their past position -- that these are non-justiciable political questions – thrown back at them, to get the lawsuit dismissed. The fact is that the Constitution assigns this power to the Vice President as the ultimate arbiter. We should take all of our actions with that in mind.    TRUMP-Jan6-COUPattempt  “””




1. Is it not Pence's job to do make that call himself? 

2. IF Pence believed that the ballots were fraudulent, is that not what SHOULD have happened?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Trump called for a demonstration to put political pressure on Congress. You saying "disrupt" is you lying.  21OCT16-POST#882
> 
> NFBW wrote: political pressure to do what Correll ? 21OCT16-POST#
> 
> NFBW wrote: It’s laid out in the Eastman Memo: { } mine!  21OCT16-POST#8
> 
> 1. VP Pence, presiding over the joint session (or Senate Pro Tempore Grassley, if Pence recuses himself), begins to open and count the ballots,….
> 
> 2. When he gets to Arizona, he announces that he has multiple slates of electors, and so is going to defer decision on that until finishing the other States.  [FIRST DISRUPTION >> }This would be the first break with the procedure set out in the Act.
> 
> 3. At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States.
> {You don’t think this would be a disruption Correll >>>} Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected there as well
> 
> { EASTMAN tells DJT It’s disruptive>>>}4. Howls, of course, from the Democrats, who now claim, contrary to Tribe’s prior position, that 270 is required. So Pence says, fine. Pursuant to the 12th Amendment, no candidate has achieved the necessary majority. That sends the matter to the House, where the “the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote . . . .” Republicans currently control 26 of the state delegations, the bare majority needed to win that vote. President Trump is re-elected there as well.
> 
> 5. One last piece. Assuming the Electoral Count Act process is followed and, upon getting the objections to the Arizona slates, the two houses break into their separate chambers, we should not allow the Electoral Count Act constraint on debate to control. That would mean that a prior legislature was determining the rules of the present one — a constitutional no-no (as Tribe has forcefully argued). So someone – Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, etc. – should demand normal rules (which includes the filibuster). That creates a stalemate that would give the state legislatures more time to weigh in to formally support the alternate slate of electors, if they had not already done so.
> 
> 
> {But PENCE WAS A COWARD AFTER THE DISRUPTION of the riot was over AND STUCK WITH THE PROCESS >>>} 6. The main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking for permission – either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court. Let the other side challenge his actions in court, where Tribe (who in 2001 conceded the President of the Senate might be in charge of counting the votes) and others who would press a lawsuit would have their past position -- that these are non-justiciable political questions – thrown back at them, to get the lawsuit dismissed. The fact is that the Constitution assigns this power to the Vice President as the ultimate arbiter. We should take all of our actions with that in mind.    TRUMP-Jan6-COUPattempt  “””




Separate point: 

What was lost from your point, by dropping the race baiting? Was anything lost?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> I did not make a correction. I made the same point with some minor variations in wording.



It was not a minor variation in wording. 

“Dems started thinking that the riots were not working ” 

“When they started talking about how the riots were hurting them” 


you are a liar when you say “Dems started thinking that the riots were not working ”  because you are starting that they thought riots were working until a specific moment in time. THEY WERE PRO/Riot. and that is a lie because they were never PRO/Riot. 

you are a liar when you say “When they started talking about how the riots were hurting them” because ”talking about” the effects of riots on the PARTY goes back decades beyond the sixties when civil rights and anti war protests and riots harmed them in the polls because they were up against the Law and ORDER REPUBLICANS. 

“The more chaos and anarchy and vandalism and violence reigns, the better it is for the very clear choice on who’s best on public safety and law and order,” Ms. Conway said on “Fox & Friends.” 20AUG27-KConway


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> It was not a minor variation in wording.
> 
> “Dems started thinking that the riots were not working ”
> 
> “When they started talking about how the riots were hurting them”
> 
> 
> you are a liar when you say “Dems started thinking that the riots were not working ”  because you are starting that they thought riots were working until a specific moment in time. THEY WERE PRO/Riot. and that is a lie because they were never PRO/Riot.
> 
> you are a liar when you say “When they started talking about how the riots were hurting them” because ”talking about” the effects of riots on the PARTY goes back decades beyond the sixties when civil rights and anti war protests and riots harmed them in the polls because they were up against the Law and ORDER REPUBLICANS.
> 
> “The more chaos and anarchy and vandalism and violence reigns, the better it is for the very clear choice on who’s best on public safety and law and order,” Ms. Conway said on “Fox & Friends.” 20AUG27-KConway




The wording reveals my beliefs about them and their actions and what they were thinking.

That I do not use the exact same wording each time I make a point, means nothing.


YOu are being weird.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: 1. Is it not Pence's job to make that call himself? 21OCT16-POST#887

NFBW wrote: If you want to live in an Autocracy you would be for PENCE to decide that majority white counties will be counted in the seven swing states that the TRUMP/Pence ticket lost but the large metropolitan counties with black majorities would not be counted because that is where all the fraud is supposed to be. 21OCT16-POST#891

“Pence Had to Ask Dan Quayle If American Democracy Should Continue
The former vice president did the right thing, but it’s terrifying how close we came to autocracy “”









						Pence Had to Ask Dan Quayle If American Democracy Should Continue
					

The former vice president did the right thing, but it’s terrifying how close we came to autocracy




					www.google.com
				




“”” Trump at the time was frantically trying to find a way to cling to power. He was spreading lies that rampant election fraud took place, pushing election officials in Georgia to undermine their state’s results and pushing the Justice Department to “just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the [Republican] congressmen.” And he was privately and publicly pressuring Pence.

During their conversation, Quayle said Pence had no wiggle room and told him to certify the election results. “Mike, you have no flexibility on this. None. Zero. Forget it. Put it away,” Quayle told him.
“I know, that’s what I’ve been trying to tell Trump,” Pence responded. “But he really thinks he can. And there are other guys in there saying I’ve got this power.”
Pence then brought up Trump’s allegations of voter fraud and the lawsuits filed by Trump supporters in Arizona attempting to decertify Biden as the winner in the state. “Well, there’s some stuff out in Arizona,” Pence said to Quayle, who immediately shot him down.
“Mike, I live in Arizona,” Quayle said. “There’s nothing out here.””””


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: 1. Is it not Pence's job to make that call himself? 21OCT16-POST#887
> 
> NFBW wrote: If you want to live in an Autocracy you would be for PENCE to decide that majority white counties....




If you can't answer without being a race baiting asshole, we are done here. 


My question stands. Was it not Pence's job to make that call himself?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> 1. Is it not Pence's job to do make that call himself?



Think about it you idiot. Pence is on the ticket do you think the framers of this great American experiment would put the decision to  ignore the will of the people because both of the two people  on the ticket feels like there might be some fraud because they are sad and angry that they lost. 



Correll said:


> If you can't answer without being a race baiting asshole, we are done here.




Don't let the door hit you in the ass after pissing and moaning about having to hear the fact that DJT’s plan to overturn the election on Jan6 would have resulted in canceling the votes of majority black voters in all the major cities in selective swing states that DJT lost white counting the white votes from rural areas that broke for Trump.  That is established fact. If you want to run away by falsely claiming that it is race baiting then go for it. When you cannot deny facts and reality to suit your corrupt political opinions you threaten to run away. I’m not race baiting. You don’t even comprehend what it means. I won’t stop presenting you with facts involving race because you’re self-deluded, so go. You left plenty of material here for me to work with so thanks and goodbye


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: The wording reveals my beliefs about them and their actions and what they were thinking.  - - - That I do not use the exact same wording each time I make a point, means nothing. 21OCT16-POST#890

“Dems started thinking that the riots were not working ”

“When they started talking about how the riots were hurting them”

NFBW wrote: Actually Correll in those two statements is making a statement of fact about Dems. The first one is a lie. It is false.  The second is true but absolutely worthless in significance to Correll ‘s point.   21OCT17-POST#894


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Think about it you idiot. Pence is on the ticket do you think the framers of this great American experiment would put the decision to  ignore the will of the people because both of the two people  on the ticket feels like there might be some fraud because they are sad and angry that they lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't let the door hit you in the ass after pissing and moaning about having to hear the fact that DJT’s plan to overturn the election on Jan6 would have resulted in canceling the votes of majority black voters in all the major cities in selective swing states that DJT lost white counting the white votes from rural areas that broke for Trump.  That is established fact. If you want to run away by falsely claiming that it is race baiting then go for it.....




Hey, if you had not done so much race baiting earlier, maybe I would listen. It has been informative. I will see you around.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Hey, if you had not done so much race baiting earlier, maybe I would listen. 21OCT17-POST#895 

NFBW wrote:  I have never practiced race baiting. Presenting facts about race issues relevant to a discussion is not race baiting. Of course, I have never needed to attempt to defend a president that I voted for who is such a sore loser when going for a second term that he would try to throw out all the black votes in all the major cities in the states that he lost so he could be declared the winner. I never had to defend such a pathetic miserable loser, but I understand your need to run away from any serious factual discussion about what DJT was attempting to do on Jan06. 21OCT17-POST#896


----------



## Lastamender

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Hey, if you had not done so much race baiting earlier, maybe I would listen. 21OCT17-POST#895
> 
> NFBW wrote:  I have never practiced race baiting. Presenting facts about race issues relevant to a discussion is not race baiting. Of course, I have never needed to attempt to defend a president that I voted for who is such a sore loser when going for a second term that he would try to throw out all the black votes in all the major cities in the states that he lost so he could be declared the winner. I never had to defend such a pathetic miserable loser, but I understand your need to run away from any serious factual discussion about what DJT was attempting to do on Jan06. 21OCT17-POST#896


The fraud was planned and executed in Black neighborhoods so they could yell racist. You are being had.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll And NOTHING Trump has done, is any kind of step to a "return to white domination" 20MAR29-POST#43

NFBW Except there is the Big Lie engaged to convince conservative Christian white voters that their votes were not counted because Dominican machines could be programmed to flip votes from the real winner to make him or her lose. 21OCT18-POST#898

Trump: "Dominion deleted 2.7 million Trump votes nationwide."

#2 Sydney the Kracken Powell: “First of all, I never say anything I can’t prove… and President Trump won by not just hundreds of thousands of votes, but by millions of votes that were shifted by this software that was designed expressly for that purpose.

Lastamender: Patriotic people did. {believe what DJT said about election fraud} Dominion needs to be held accountable. 21MAR22-POST#13 

Lastamender wrote: There was massive and obvious fraud, and it will be proven. As if the courts refusing to hear evidence, states withholding ballots and machines from audit, and censorship is not proof enough already.  21APR13-POST#49

Lastamender wrote: The fraud was planned and executed in Black neighborhoods so they could yell racist. You are being had. 21OCT18-POST#897


----------



## Lastamender

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll And NOTHING Trump has done, is any kind of step to a "return to white domination" 20MAR29-POST#43
> 
> NFBW Except there is the Big Lie engaged to convince conservative Christian white voters that their votes were not counted because Dominican machines could be programmed to flip votes from the real winner to make him or her lose. 21OCT18-POST#898
> 
> Trump: "Dominion deleted 2.7 million Trump votes nationwide."
> 
> #2 Sydney the Kracken Powell: “First of all, I never say anything I can’t prove… and President Trump won by not just hundreds of thousands of votes, but by millions of votes that were shifted by this software that was designed expressly for that purpose.
> 
> Lastamender: Patriotic people did. {believe what DJT said about election fraud} Dominion needs to be held accountable. 21MAR22-POST#13
> 
> Lastamender wrote: There was massive and obvious fraud, and it will be proven. As if the courts refusing to hear evidence, states withholding ballots and machines from audit, and censorship is not proof enough already.  21APR13-POST#49
> 
> Lastamender wrote: The fraud was planned and executed in Black neighborhoods so they could yell racist. You are being had. 21OCT18-POST#897


OK. What is your problem? I stand by what I said.


----------



## rupol2000

The United States is already a "white" country, black only in the "south".
And Trump looks like a decoy duck. He was loyal to the left-wing Kremlin and signed the surrender of Afghanistan. His policy was leftist.


----------



## Lastamender

rupol2000 said:


> The United States is already a "white" country, black only in the "south".
> And Trump looks like a decoy duck. He was loyal to the left-wing Kremlin and signed the surrender of Afghanistan. His policy was leftist.


Have you been to MN.?


----------



## rupol2000

Lastamender said:


> Have you been to MN


According to my information, they are not there.






 In fact, these are the legacy of British colonization, the British were settled in the northeast and blacks mainly in the southeast.
The east coast is both black and left-handed. It will ruin America. I have nothing against blacks, but this is essentially a blatant displacement of indigenous peoples. This dirty policy prepares public opinion for de facto "black America". Foreigners think blacks are everywhere in the United States. In sports and cinema, there are now more of them than whites


----------



## rupol2000

Even the word "south" smells of politics, because it is the southeast and not the south.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Lastamender wrote: OK. What is your problem? I stand by what I said. 21OCT18-POST#899

NFBW wrote: I don’t have a problem, you do. What you predicted last April has not come true. You wrote - - - There was massive and obvious fraud, and it will be proven.. 21APR13-POST#49 - - - You've had six months plus the ninja election fraud clown show in Arizona and they found more votes for Biden and less for DJT. You just updated your problem when you wrote, - - - “ The fraud was planned and executed in Black neighborhoods so they could yell racist.” 21OCT18-POST#897. - - -  You made the claim so you must have answers at the ready. ‘Planned and executed’ by whom specifically? Have you notified the proper authorities? Given them names of the culprits. What cities and what black neighborhoods are you talking about? What was the fraud that these Black people did in their neighborhoods? If you don’t have answers to these questions it’s pretty clear you are a racist blaming Black people because Trump couldn’t win a second term. Hillary was correct you are deplorable. Being deplorable is a problem. Refusing to understand that you have a problem is deplorable. 21OCT18-POST#904


----------



## Lastamender

NotfooledbyW said:


> Lastamender wrote: OK. What is your problem? I stand by what I said. 21OCT18-POST#899
> 
> NFBW wrote: I don’t have a problem, you do. What you predicted last April has not come true. You wrote - - - There was massive and obvious fraud, and it will be proven.. 21APR13-POST#49 - - - You've had six months plus the ninja election fraud clown show in Arizona and they found more votes for Biden and less for DJT. You just updated your problem when you wrote, - - - “ The fraud was planned and executed in Black neighborhoods so they could yell racist.” 21OCT18-POST#897. - - -  You made the claim so you must have answers at the ready. ‘Planned and executed’ by whom specifically? Have you notified the proper authorities? Given them names of the culprits. What cities and what black neighborhoods are you talking about? What was the fraud that these Black people did in their neighborhoods? If you don’t have answers to these questions it’s pretty clear you are a racist blaming Black people because Trump couldn’t win a second term. Hillary was correct you are deplorable. Being deplorable is a problem. Refusing to understand that you have a problem is deplorable. 21OCT18-POST#904


Here real quick, something I can hope you understand. People with 0 credibility are telling us there was no fraud. That is just not good enough. If there was no fraud any audit or investigation should not bother you a bit. Got that?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Lastamender wrote: People with 0 credibility are telling us there was no fraud. 21OCT18-POST#905

NFBW wrote: Your problem remains because what you predicted last April has not come true. You wrote, …  these are your words Lastamender - - - “There was massive and obvious fraud, and it will be proven” 21APR13-POST#49. Now you are telling me that there can be no credibility by any election official unless they certify that DJT won. The loser no longer will be expected to concede because the loser no longer has to prove there was sufficient fraud that would flip the outcome. The loser merely must hold rallies and declare himself the winner. Those who say DJT didn't win have zero CREDIBILITY because DJT supporters say so on accountahhhh DJT supporters are the only gun loving real Americans and they want DJT to be their President. In other words we no longer have “one American one vote” democracy. We have ‘loser gets to audit audit and audit’ non-democracy ad infinitum. 21OCT18-POST#906.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Lastamender wrote: People with 0 credibility are telling us there was no fraud. That is just not good enough. If that ere was no fraud any audit or investigation should not bother you a bit. Got that? 21OCT18-POST#905

NFBW wrote: Biden won NC, Florida and Texas you know. We need audits there because people with 0 credibility are telling us there was no fraud in those  states. Got that? 21OCT18-POST#907


----------



## Viktor

Astrostar said:


> Fact check: Some Republicans have tried to rewrite the history of January 6. Here's how | CNN Politics
> 
> 
> When the House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6 convenes for the first time, it will be against a backdrop of Republican objections and falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because history is what it is.  Despite the efforts of Trump and his Cult members in Congress to rewrite it to reflect positively on Trump, theirs is a lost cause.
> 
> Trump and his disciples, since January 6 have tried over and over to convince the American people that the insurrection was caused by Antifa, was a peaceful event with lots of love in the air or was just a guided tour of the Capital building.
> 
> We know better!  It was an aggressive attempt by white nationalists, inspired by Trump, to take over the government of the United States.  Anyone who sees it in a different light is not a loyal, patriotic American, but rather is a Trump disciple who places him above the Constitution of the United States and the welfare of the majority of the American people.
> 
> Today's congressional hearing will expose the Trump people who tried to storm the Capital for what they really are:  enemies of the American people.


Here is one part of their history that the Democrats can never change









						Dixiecrat - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Lastamender

NotfooledbyW said:


> Lastamender wrote: People with 0 credibility are telling us there was no fraud. That is just not good enough. If that ere was no fraud any audit or investigation should not bother you a bit. Got that? 21OCT18-POST#905
> 
> NFBW wrote: Biden won NC, Florida and Texas you know. We need audits there because people with 0 credibility are telling us there was no fraud in those  states. Got that? 21OCT18-POST#907


Knock yourself out. Just don't bother the other audits.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Lastamender wrote: Knock yourself out. Just don't bother the other audits. 21OCT18-POST#909

NFBW wrote: Won’t bother DJT’s audits. So far the big one in AZ turned up more votes for Biden and fewer for DJT. Where are the other audits? How many years of audits do you intend to give a sore loser like DJT  anyway?


----------



## Lastamender

NotfooledbyW said:


> Lastamender wrote: Knock yourself out. Just don't bother the other audits. 21OCT18-POST#909
> 
> NFBW wrote: Won’t bother DJT’s audits. So far the big one in AZ turned up more votes for Biden and fewer for DJT. Where are the other audits? How many years of audits do you intend to give a sore loser like DJT  anyway?


That is not the topic of this thread. Go to one of the many threads on fraud. I will be more than happy to expose your lies there.


----------



## danielpalos

Viktor said:


> Here is one part of their history that the Democrats can never change
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dixiecrat - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


They all seem to vote right-wing in modern times.  

The republicans seem to prefer to be Rebels without a Cause.


----------



## sealybobo

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: That is not your big lie. These are your contradictory statements that drive your self deluded and rightwing crackpot lie that the-decision to invade Iraq from Congress to the White House had anything to do with the necessity of nation building Iraq as a military option to defeat global terrorists. 21SEP22-POST#614
> 
> Correll wrote: As I have told you many times, I supported the decision to invade Iraq. 21AUG08-POST#3010
> 
> Correll wrote: I did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT, and gave my support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation. 21SEP03-POST#454
> 
> NFBW wrote: There was only one reason that the US ended up as you say “committed as a nation” in Iraq and that reason was to disarm IRAQ of suspected possession of WMD. There was no other reason that influenced W’s horrendous decision to kick the UN inspectors out and start a war that ended up killing half a million Iraqis 21SEP22-POST#614


Republicans like to say Bush didn't lie us into Iraq.  Well, it's not just us liberals saying it.  Trump even said he lied when he ran for president.  Said it at a GOP debate.  It was taboo to say it at the time.

And you can't say it's just us liberals who think Bush lied us into Iraq.  Ask Iraq









						‘He Lied’: Iraqis Still Blame Colin Powell For Role In Iraq War
					

Powell's testimony before the U.N. Security Council in 2003 made the case for war against Iraq with false claims of weapons of mass destruction.




					www.huffpost.com


----------



## NotfooledbyW

"I'm not a racist person*. I support the BLM movement,* I support peacefully demonstrating," 21NOV21-FoxNews-kRittenhouse

Correll wrote referring to BLM: The movement and the organization are violent and racist. - - -  You support them because you are hateful and racist. 21SEP28-POST#3508

NFBW wrote: Tell us Correll  Are all supporters of BLM hateful and racist? 21NOV23-POST#914


"I'm not a racist person. I support the BLM movement, I support peacefully demonstrating,"

Kyle Rittenhouse says he's 'not a racist person,' backs Black Lives Matter in Fox News appearance

Rittenhouse tells Carlson in excerpts of the interview released by Fox News ahead of its airing


----------



## LuckyDuck

The two main things wrong with BLM and why I'm not on board with them:
1.  They aren't addressing or actively involved in stemming black on black crime and single motherhood.
2.  They are admitted Marxists.  Karl Marx was a Communist.  Communism is and always has been, a political party that only allows One-Political Party to exist in its nations....Communism.   ALL One-Party governments share the same common traits:  Authoritarianism, Oppression, Persecution, Tyranny and Murder.  81,000 of my fellow military personnel died fighting Marxism and 7.3 million people fled Marxism for freedom and work.  Supporting Marxism, spits on the graves of the military personnel who died fighting it and is a slap in the face on those that fled it to leave tyranny and have freedom.
So, I will never side with BLM as they are the enemy of our Constitutional Republic.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*LuckyDuck wrote*: Every time BLM members and supporters riot, they need to be rounded up and flown to Nigeria or some other African nation where they would feel more comfortable,  21NOV19-POST#07

*LuckyDuck wrote: *So, I will never side with BLM as they are the enemy of our Constitutional Republic. 21NOV-POST#07

*LuckyDuck wrote:* We need more Rittenhouse's armed and protecting businesses from the Communist garbage of BLM and Antifa. 21SEP19-POST#024

*GREAT WHITE real cool AR15 HOPE Kyle Rittenhouse speaks: *"I'm not a racist person. *I support the BLM movement,* I support peacefully demonstrating," 21NOV21-FoxNews-kRittenhouse

*Correll wrote referring to BLM:* The movement and the organization are violent and racist. - - -* You support them because you are hateful and racist. *21SEP28-POST#3508

*NFBW wrote:* Tell us Correll Are all supporters of BLM hateful and racist? 21NOV23-POST#914

*NFBW wrote*: Tell us LuckyDuck , are all supporters of BLM hateful and racist as Correll has enlightened all of us that they certainly are?  That includes Rittenhouse - - - Do you still want Kyle Rittenhouse out on the streets of America armed and protecting businesses from the Communist garbage of BLM now knowing that Rittenhouse and maybe his mommy support BLM and are therefore according to you,  “*they are the enemy of our Constitutional Republic*”   21NOV23-POST#916

Kyle Rittenhouse says he's 'not a racist person,' backs Black Lives Matter in Fox News appearance


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*LuckyDuck wrote*: Every time BLM members and supporters riot, they need to be rounded up and flown to Nigeria or some other African nation where they would feel more comfortable, 21NOV19-POST#07

*NFBW wrote*: I’m with Kyle Rittenhouse in support of BLM but I believe in being armed only with the facts when peacefully exercising first amendment rights with others on the public streets of America. - - -  So LuckyDuck since I am a white supporter of BLM (just like Kyle) when the Boogaloo Bois and My Pilliw Guy get DJT re-instated (I think it’s moved back to Turkey Day) Do you think me and my extended family - all proud BLM supporters like Lil Rittenhouse could be deported to the South of France or Portugal. I have vacationed in both places and wouid gjadly live there when Democracy comes to an end here. Will the Boogaloo allow me to sell my assets tax free of course after they win the race war?   21NOV23 -POST#917 Just wondering!!!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

LuckyDuck said:


> 2. They are admitted Marxists.


I’m not a Marxist.- My wife grew up in Soviet  Russia and became a Doctor befire decided and was able to leave. We support BLM like Kyle Rittenhouse does


----------



## LuckyDuck

NotfooledbyW said:


> I’m not a Marxist.- My wife grew up in Soviet  Russia and became a Doctor befire decided and was able to leave. We support BLM like Kyle Rittenhouse does


Rittenhouse is 17 and ignorant of what true Marxism is all about, if he was adequately educated he wouldn't be on their side.  I don't blame people for their ignorance.


----------



## Ringo

LuckyDuck said:


> 81,000 of my fellow military personnel died fighting Marxism


Where on Earth did they fight Marxism?  Or you talking about nazies? Which Hitler satellite do you have in mind?  Finland comes closest to this figure with the number of people killed (according to Wikipedia) - 83 000


----------



## NotfooledbyW

LuckyDuck wrote: Rittenhouse is 17 and ignorant of what true Marxism is all about, if he was adequately educated he wouldn't be on their side. I don't blame people for their ignorance. 21NOV24-POST#919

NFBW wrote: Rittenhouse told Tucker Carlson that he supported BLM Protests. BLM is not Marxist. Do you know for a fact that KR is uneducated and ignorant of what true Marxism is all about? I know what Marxism is and I reject it, but I support BLM because their mission has nothing to do with Marxism. Why didn’t you stick with the fact that KR said he supports BLM? What reality are you hiding from? 21NOV24-POST#921


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> "I'm not a racist person*. I support the BLM movement,* I support peacefully demonstrating," 21NOV21-FoxNews-kRittenhouse
> 
> Correll wrote referring to BLM: The movement and the organization are violent and racist. - - -  You support them because you are hateful and racist. 21SEP28-POST#3508
> 
> NFBW wrote: Tell us Correll  Are all supporters of BLM hateful and racist? 21NOV23-POST#914
> 
> 
> "I'm not a racist person. I support the BLM movement, I support peacefully demonstrating,"
> 
> Kyle Rittenhouse says he's 'not a racist person,' backs Black Lives Matter in Fox News appearance
> 
> Rittenhouse tells Carlson in excerpts of the interview released by Fox News ahead of its airing




IMO, Rittenhouse is probably naive, and trusts, or trusted the media narrative that the riots were "mostly peaceful" and the violence was caused by unconnected criminal elements that showed up. 

This tracks with statements made by the leader of that group, early on.


YOU support the movement because you are an anti-white racist and hateful. 


I hope that cleared things up for you.


----------



## sealybobo

Oddball said:


> Rewriting history is the job of you Marxist assholes.



Rewrite this









						Former President George Bush Calls Iraq Invasion 'Unjustified' In Cringey Slip-Up
					

Bush blamed his age for the embarrassing mistake during a speech in Dallas on Wednesday.




					www.huffpost.com
				




Bush admits his invasion was unjustified!!!!  I love it!!!!

“The decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq, I mean, of Ukraine”

Freudian slip?


----------



## DudleySmith

Since only morons think it was 'unjustified', he's in good company, like you, for instance.


----------



## DudleySmith

NotfooledbyW said:


> I know what Marxism is and I reject it, but I support BLM because their mission has nothing to do with Marxism.



lol you're a liar; we know who founded BLM, and we know what they said they were themselves, and you support them, commie piece of shit.


----------



## Godboy

sealybobo said:


> Rewrite this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Former President George Bush Calls Iraq Invasion 'Unjustified' In Cringey Slip-Up
> 
> 
> Bush blamed his age for the embarrassing mistake during a speech in Dallas on Wednesday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush admits his invasion was unjustified!!!!  I love it!!!!
> 
> “The decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq, I mean, of Ukraine”
> 
> Freudian slip?


If you were to ask the Iraqi people today if they could turn back the clock and erase the war, but bring back Saddam and his psycho sons, what do you think they would say?


----------



## sealybobo

Godboy said:


> If you were to ask the Iraqi people today if they could turn back the clock and erase the war, but bring back Saddam and his psycho sons, what do you think they would say?


OMG, here is a 5th time today I'm agreeing with someone I'm arguing with.  What's going on?  You are correct.


----------



## JackOfNoTrades

DudleySmith said:


> Since only morons think it was 'unjustified', he's in good company, like you, for instance.


Iraq??..It was WHOLLY unjustified. No reason at all to go. And that was BEFORE the lie of "weapons of mass destruction" was discovered.


----------



## Godboy

sealybobo said:


> OMG, here is a 5th time today I'm agreeing with someone I'm arguing with.  What's going on?  You are correct.


Thats why the Iraq war was a good thing. A lot of people died, but the Iraqi people are better off for it today.


----------



## Godboy

JackOfNoTrades said:


> Iraq??..It was WHOLLY unjustified. No reason at all to go. And that was BEFORE the lie of "weapons of mass destruction" was discovered.


What about taking out Saddam? That wasnt extremely valuable for us AND the Iraqi people?


----------



## Polishprince

sealybobo said:


> Rewrite this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Former President George Bush Calls Iraq Invasion 'Unjustified' In Cringey Slip-Up
> 
> 
> Bush blamed his age for the embarrassing mistake during a speech in Dallas on Wednesday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush admits his invasion was unjustified!!!!  I love it!!!!
> 
> “The decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq, I mean, of Ukraine”
> 
> Freudian slip?




Sleepy Joe voted for the Iraq invasion.

OTOH, The Donald is opposed to war and always has been.   Trump's ideology has always been Peace and Prosperity, which is in direct opposition to Biden's idea of War and Malaise.     

Supposedly the people in November 2020 voted overwhelmingly for the latter, or at least felt it was better to suffer through war and depression in the FDR tradition than to tolerate mean tweets.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Godboy said:


> If you were to ask the Iraqi people today


 Do the half a million dead Iraqis have a say? 

THey did not have a say when Bush th decider decided they must die be wounded and lose everything so he couid look For WMD that was not there. 

The UN eas on the verge of finding no WMD without getting anybody killed and or displaced and then having to deal with ISIS terror on top of all that.

Yoy can’t whitewash Iraqi blood off Bush’s hands.


----------



## sealybobo

JackOfNoTrades said:


> Iraq??..It was WHOLLY unjustified. No reason at all to go. And that was BEFORE the lie of "weapons of mass destruction" was discovered.



I'll give you $2 trillion reasons why I don't give a shit if Iraqi's are better off without Saddam.

I want to ask Republicans a question.  Would they pay $2 trillion dollars to get rid of Kim Jong Un and bring democracy to North Korea?

Neta Crawford, chair of the political science department at Boston University, in her Costs of War Project, estimated the long term cost of the Iraq War for the United States at $1.922 trillion.


----------



## JackOfNoTrades

Godboy said:


> What about taking out Saddam? That wasnt extremely valuable for us AND the Iraqi people?


You had Saddam contained to just over a third of his country. You finally had a measure of weak stability in the country (better than the abortion it turned into).

Valuable for US??? You aren't high are you? How many thousands of American soldiers?..dead, wounded, scarred for life. Close to a million dead Iraqi civilians?
A decade and a half quagmire costing trillions of dollars?

Look, President Cheney took office and whispered in the puppet GW's ear the moment the inauguration was over and said, "let's get this bastard". He was incensed
Jr's father had pulled up short of Baghdad and let Saddam go. Yes, the guy was a piece of shit. But as soon as he was gone, the situation descended into hell.


----------



## Godboy

sealybobo said:


> I'll give you $2 trillion reasons why I don't give a shit if Iraqi's are better off without Saddam.
> 
> I want to ask Republicans a question.  Would they pay $2 trillion dollars to get rid of Kim Jong Un and bring democracy to North Korea?
> 
> Neta Crawford, chair of the political science department at Boston University, in her Costs of War Project, estimated the long term cost of the Iraq War for the United States at $1.922 trillion.


Getting rid of the NK regime would easily be worth 2 trillion.


----------



## sealybobo

NotfooledbyW said:


> Do the half a million dead Iraqis have a say?
> 
> THey did not have a say when Bush th decider decided they must die be wounded and lose everything so he couid look For WMD that was not there.
> 
> The UN eas on the verge of finding no WMD without getting anybody killed and or displaced and then having to deal with ISIS terror on top of all that.
> 
> Yoy can’t whitewash Iraqi blood off Bush’s hands.



Bush's slip up said it perfectly

“The decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq, I mean, of Ukraine”


----------



## Godboy

JackOfNoTrades said:


> You had Saddam contained to just over a third of his country. You finally had a measure of weak stability in the country (better than the abortion it turned into).
> 
> Valuable for US??? You aren't high are you? How many thousands of American soldiers?..dead, wounded, scarred for life. Close to a million dead Iraqi civilians?
> A decade and a half quagmire costing trillions of dollars?
> 
> Look, President Cheney took office and whispered in the puppet GW's ear the moment the inauguration was over and said, "let's get this bastard". He was incensed
> Jr's father had pulled up short of Baghdad and let Saddam go. Yes, the guy was a piece of shit. But as soon as he was gone, the situation descended into hell.


Ill ask you the same question...

Are the Iraqi people better off today from us removing Saddam? Do you think Iraqis want to turn back the clock and erase the war?


----------



## JackOfNoTrades

Godboy said:


> Getting rid of the NK regime would easily be worth 2 trillion.


Why bother? Let Lil Kim rattle his sabre all he wants. He's not coming across that parallel. He can threaten nukes if he'd like but everyone knows he won't. Even he does.
NK is isolated. Best to just manage them as outsiders and let what happened to the USSR happen. Let it implode from within. When the NK people get sick and tired enough
of Lil Kim, they'll 86 him.


----------



## JackOfNoTrades

Godboy said:


> Ill ask you the same question...
> 
> Are the Iraqi people better off today from us removing Saddam? Do you think Iraqis want to turn back the clock and erase the war?


From removing Saddam then? NO. And they kinda hated us for it at the time. Are they better off now that we've spent trillions of dollars and the blood of thousands of soldiers building their country up?
My guess is yes. Look around the web for answers to your question. We're talking at the time. And please don't forget, who enable Saddam in the first place. You know, the enemy of my enemy is my friend?


----------



## Polishprince

JackOfNoTrades said:


> Why bother? Let Lil Kim rattle his sabre all he wants. He's not coming across that parallel. He can threaten nukes if he'd like but everyone knows he won't. Even he does.
> NK is isolated. Best to just manage them as outsiders and let what happened to the USSR happen. Let it implode from within. When the NK people get sick and tired enough
> of Lil Kim, they'll 86 him.




President Un seems very popular in North Korea.  During the last election cycle, his faction was elected unanimously and the electorate turned out for a 99.99% turnout- better than any other country.


----------



## JackOfNoTrades

Polishprince said:


> President Un seems very popular in North Korea.  During the last election cycle, his faction was elected unanimously and the electorate turned out for a 99.99% turnout- better than any other country.


I'm sure they did. You can say that in a country that has actually taken the guns of most of its citizens and given a nod that if you don't vote for the leader for life....you're gone.
Doesn't matter who you are. Authoritarian dictatorships are like that.


----------



## sealybobo

Godboy said:


> Ill ask you the same question...
> 
> Are the Iraqi people better off today from us removing Saddam? Do you think Iraqis want to turn back the clock and erase the war?


Did you answer my question?  I'm assuming you are a conservative?  Would you ok our government to pay $2 trillion dollars to get rid of Kim Jong Un?  Because that's what it cost us to make Iraqi's happy.  

You may say yes you would pay $2 trillion to get ride of Kim.  But Kim is dangerous.  He practices sending long range missiles around the world.  So potentially, he's a threat to us and dangerous.  Or is he?  That could be propoganda.  Like Saddam talked a lot of shit, so does Kim Jung.  He can though because he has nukes.  Saddam didn't have that kind of power.  And from Kim's perspective, the USA is a threat.  Maybe he's more afraid of us than we are of him.  Maybe he is developing weapons to defend himself against us, the great invaders.  Maybe we want to "liberate" the North Koreans next.  

Even you might say you'd pay $2 trillion to take him out.  

So which other world leaders of soverign nations would you assassinate?

And what if another country did that to President Bush because of his authoritarian ways?


----------



## sealybobo

JackOfNoTrades said:


> I'm sure they did. You can say that in a country that has actually taken the guns of most of its citizens and given a nod that if you don't vote for the leader for life....you're gone.
> Doesn't matter who you are. Authoritarian dictatorships are like that.


One of the important lessons Americans learned from Donald Trump’s election in 2016—and one still difficult for some of us to process almost four years later—is just how many of our fellow citizens are predisposed to authoritarianism.

What I found is that approximately 18 percent of Americans are highly disposed to authoritarianism, according to their answers to four simple survey questions used by social scientists to estimate this disposition. A further 23 percent or so are just one step below them on the authoritarian scale. This roughly 40 percent of Americans tend to favor authority, obedience and uniformity over freedom, independence and diversity.

When activated by fear, authoritarian-leaning Americans are predisposed to trade civil liberties for strongman solutions to secure law and order; and they are ready to strip civil liberties from those defined as the “other”—a far cry from the image of America as a country built on a shared commitment to liberty and democratic governance.

*So what do authoritarians in the US believe?* More likely to agree that our country should be governed by a strong leader who doesn’t have to bother with Congress or elections. They are more likely to support limiting the freedom of the press and agree that the media is the enemy of the people rather than a valuable independent institution. They are also more likely to think the president should have the power to limit the voice and vote of opposition parties, while believing that those who disagree with them are a threat to our country

Sound familiar?  









						Trump Is an Authoritarian. So Are Millions of Americans
					

It’s not how we think of our fellow-citizens, but no matter who wins in November, the impulse will be very much alive in the country. What do they want?




					www.politico.com
				




American authoritarians fear diversity. They are more likely to agree that increasing racial, religious and ethnic diversity is a clear and present threat to national security. They are more fearful of people of other races, and agree with the statement that “sometimes other groups must be kept in their place.” 

These results explain, in part, how Trump can remain popular with his base despite any number of policies that would have been considered unconstitutional, anti-American and perhaps even criminal in the past by members of both parties. He has sent paramilitary forces from the Department of Homeland Security to quell nonviolent protests, looked the other way when a foreign power interferes in American elections, celebrated the wounding of a journalist by police as “a beautiful sight,” and spent an election year casting doubt on the very basis of our democracy, the electoral system, rather than working to protect it—all without eroding his main base of support.


----------



## Godboy

JackOfNoTrades said:


> From removing Saddam then? NO. And they kinda hated us for it at the time. Are they better off now that we've spent trillions of dollars and the blood of thousands of soldiers building their country up?
> My guess is yes. Look around the web for answers to your question. We're talking at the time. And please don't forget, who enable Saddam in the first place. You know, the enemy of my enemy is my friend?


Then you agree, the Iraq war was a positive gain for the Iraqi people. Thank you.


----------



## Godboy

sealybobo said:


> Did you answer my question?  I'm assuming you are a conservative?  Would you ok our government to pay $2 trillion dollars to get rid of Kim Jong Un?  Because that's what it cost us to make Iraqi's happy.
> 
> You may say yes you would pay $2 trillion to get ride of Kim.  But Kim is dangerous.  He practices sending long range missiles around the world.  So potentially, he's a threat to us and dangerous.  Or is he?  That could be propoganda.  Like Saddam talked a lot of shit, so does Kim Jung.  He can though because he has nukes.  Saddam didn't have that kind of power.  And from Kim's perspective, the USA is a threat.  Maybe he's more afraid of us than we are of him.  Maybe he is developing weapons to defend himself against us, the great invaders.  Maybe we want to "liberate" the North Koreans next.
> 
> Even you might say you'd pay $2 trillion to take him out.
> 
> So which other world leaders of soverign nations would you assassinate?
> 
> And what if another country did that to President Bush because of his authoritarian ways?


Yes, i answered your question. My answer was... 2 trillion is a bargain to get rid of NK.


----------



## Faun

Godboy said:


> What about taking out Saddam? That wasnt extremely valuable for us AND the Iraqi people?



Oh? How do you quantify the average Iraqi is better off today?


----------



## DudleySmith

JackOfNoTrades said:


> Iraq??..It was WHOLLY unjustified. No reason at all to go. And that was BEFORE the lie of "weapons of mass destruction" was discovered.



Oh poor commie, terrified he might one day get drafted and be useful for something.


----------



## Godboy

Faun said:


> Oh? How do you quantify the average Iraqi is better off today?


Well, they dont have madmen  leading them who use nerve gas on their own citizens, women arent being abducted, raped and murdered by the leaders son, there are no more torture camps, they arent the enemy of the west, they dont have sanctions, they have freedom... how many things do you want me to list?


----------



## Lesh

DudleySmith said:


> Since only morons think it was 'unjustified', he's in good company, like you, for instance.


A. Of COURSE it was unjustified

B. This was just a stupid slip of the tongue


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Godboy said:


> Do you think Iraqis want to turn back the clock and erase the war?


You can’t turn back the clock for dead and displaced people.


We tore a young woman’s  body in half in the initial phase of Shock and Awe . 

What dues SHAMS AMIN Think of W’s Iraq invasion. We will never know. 


Toby Kieth: 'Cos we'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way.

Correll #661    America had been terribly attacked and was not afraid in a mood to put up with any shit.

...number 058 of 500,000 got the American boot up the ass.  Salma Amin 50 Mansour district, Baghdad 8 Apr 2003



Because  Correll sez:      #669

Arabs suck at democracy.

.... 059 Mohammed Amin 27 (son of Salma) Mansour district, Baghdad 8 Apr 2003
.... 060 Said Amin 24 (son of Salma) Mansour district, Baghdad 8 Apr 2003

(The Angry American) Toby Kieth & 

struth May 2, 2021 #296  

Saddam was half hearted and wouldn't fully open up, or produce all the documents. 

Toby Keith: Hey, Uncle Sam put your name(s) at the top of his list,
.....061 Shams Amin 20 (daughter of Salma) Mansour district, Baghdad 8 Apr 2003
The Pentagon reported on 7 April that .A B2 bomber dropped four 2000-pound laser-guided GBU-24 bunker-buster bombs on the Al Saa Restaurant in the al Mansour District of Baghdad that Intelligence sources claimed was a meeting place of Saddam Hussein, his two sons, and senior Iraqi regime leaders.

Toby Kieth: And it'll feel like the whole wide world is raining down on you.

Ah, brought to you, courtesy of the red, white and blue.


When the broken body of the 20-year-old woman was brought out -- torso first, then the head -- her mother started crying uncontrollably, then collapsed.

That must be Shams Amin, daughter of Salma Amin and sister to Mohammed and Said Amin, who were all killed by the four 2000 lb BGU bunker buster bombs inside or near the Al Saa Restaurant in the Mansour District of Baghdad, Iraq on April 7 2003.

The percentage of Americans who say America did the right thing in going to war in Iraq {Putting a BOOT in their ASS} Toby . Correll and struth  )  now stands at 37 percent. Fifty-nine percent say the war was a mistake, up from 55 percent in March of last year. While most Democrats and independents say the United States should not have gone to war, 63 percent of Republicans say it was the right thing to do.

Only one in five say the war was worth the loss of life and other costs that came with it. Seventy-two percent say the war was not worth it. The opinions of households with Iraq veterans mirror the opinions of all Americans on this question


----------



## DudleySmith

Lesh said:


> A. Of COURSE it was unjustified




OF COURSE it was, very much so.


Lesh said:


> B. This was just a stupid slip of the tongue



So what?


----------



## DudleySmith

NotfooledbyW said:


> Only one in five say the war was worth the loss of life and other costs that came with it. Seventy-two percent say the war was not worth it. The opinions of households with Iraq veterans mirror the opinions of all Americans on this question



So what?  Sorry they don't feel like they got their share of the plunder. They were all volunteers, so tough. Joined up for the bennies, then got sent out to do military stuff. Wah WAh


----------



## Lesh

DudleySmith said:


> OF COURSE it was, very much so.
> 
> 
> *So what?*


"Very much so"...unjustified...of course...there were no WMDs and no ties to Al Quada

So what? Exactly. I was defending him. This slip of the tongue means nothing


----------



## Faun

Godboy said:


> Well, they dont have madmen  leading them who use nerve gas on their own citizens, women arent being abducted, raped and murdered by the leaders son, there are no more torture camps, they arent the enemy of the west, they dont have sanctions, they have freedom... how many things do you want me to list?



I'm still waiting for you to show where they're better off. Far more were killed, raped and tortured following our invasion; which was founded on bullshit to begin with.


----------



## struth

NotfooledbyW said:


> You can’t turn back the clock for dead and displaced people.
> 
> 
> We tore a young woman’s  body in half in the initial phase of Shock and Awe .
> 
> What dues SHAMS AMIN Think of W’s Iraq invasion. We will never know.
> 
> 
> Toby Kieth: 'Cos we'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way.
> 
> Correll #661    America had been terribly attacked and was not afraid in a mood to put up with any shit.
> 
> ...number 058 of 500,000 got the American boot up the ass.  Salma Amin 50 Mansour district, Baghdad 8 Apr 2003
> 
> 
> 
> Because  Correll sez:      #669
> 
> Arabs suck at democracy.
> 
> .... 059 Mohammed Amin 27 (son of Salma) Mansour district, Baghdad 8 Apr 2003
> .... 060 Said Amin 24 (son of Salma) Mansour district, Baghdad 8 Apr 2003
> 
> (The Angry American) Toby Kieth &
> 
> struth May 2, 2021 #296
> 
> Saddam was half hearted and wouldn't fully open up, or produce all the documents.
> 
> Toby Keith: Hey, Uncle Sam put your name(s) at the top of his list,
> .....061 Shams Amin 20 (daughter of Salma) Mansour district, Baghdad 8 Apr 2003
> The Pentagon reported on 7 April that .A B2 bomber dropped four 2000-pound laser-guided GBU-24 bunker-buster bombs on the Al Saa Restaurant in the al Mansour District of Baghdad that Intelligence sources claimed was a meeting place of Saddam Hussein, his two sons, and senior Iraqi regime leaders.
> 
> Toby Kieth: And it'll feel like the whole wide world is raining down on you.
> 
> Ah, brought to you, courtesy of the red, white and blue.
> 
> 
> When the broken body of the 20-year-old woman was brought out -- torso first, then the head -- her mother started crying uncontrollably, then collapsed.
> 
> That must be Shams Amin, daughter of Salma Amin and sister to Mohammed and Said Amin, who were all killed by the four 2000 lb BGU bunker buster bombs inside or near the Al Saa Restaurant in the Mansour District of Baghdad, Iraq on April 7 2003.
> 
> The percentage of Americans who say America did the right thing in going to war in Iraq {Putting a BOOT in their ASS} Toby . Correll and struth  )  now stands at 37 percent. Fifty-nine percent say the war was a mistake, up from 55 percent in March of last year. While most Democrats and independents say the United States should not have gone to war, 63 percent of Republicans say it was the right thing to do.
> 
> Only one in five say the war was worth the loss of life and other costs that came with it. Seventy-two percent say the war was not worth it. The opinions of households with Iraq veterans mirror the opinions of all Americans on this question


Not really sure why I am being tagged in your Toby Keith song.....or what this is even about

With that said, I prefer his "Red Solo Cup" song.


----------



## DudleySmith

Lesh said:


> "Very much so"...unjustified...of course...there were no WMDs and no ties to Al Quada



Too bad; Saddam shouldn't have said he had them, and he shouldn't have invaded countries we had mutual defense agreements with. 

Sucks for assorted commies and Burb Brats we used to honor our agreements, right?


Lesh said:


> So what? Exactly. I was defending him. This slip of the tongue means nothing



So what?


----------



## hadit

martybegan said:


> It wouldn't have done squat. They would have had to prevent the certification for weeks.
> 
> Meanwhile in CHAZ/CHOP you had the actual takeover of a public space from the control of local and State government for months......


It's not even controversial that CHAZ/CHOP was outright insurrection and rebellion against the US. Let a rancher in the Southwest declare his ranch to be an autonomous zone, free from the authority of the US and watch what happens to him. Let a bunch of leftists take over several city blocks, do the same thing, and the left applauds. Only when the rebels discover that they get hungry when no one feeds them does it finally stop.


----------



## martybegan

hadit said:


> It's not even controversial that CHAZ/CHOP was outright insurrection and rebellion against the US. Let a rancher in the Southwest declare his ranch to be an autonomous zone, free from the authority of the US and watch what happens to him. Let a bunch of leftists take over several city blocks, do the same thing, and the left applauds. Only when the rebels discover that they get hungry when no one feeds them does it finally stop.



Technically it was an insurrection against the authority of State in question, as well as any home rule sublevels of government with authority over the area.


----------



## hadit

martybegan said:


> Technically it was an insurrection against the authority of State in question, as well as any home rule sublevels of government with authority over the area.


True, but the way liberals think, there is no local authority, it all flows from the White House.


----------



## Godboy

Faun said:


> I'm still waiting for you to show where they're better off. Far more were killed, raped and tortured following our invasion; which was founded on bullshit to begin with.


The post you just quoted showed you. Did you not read the post that you quoted?


----------



## bodecea

Correll said:


> 1. They were not "white nationalists", you are a lying asshole.
> 
> 2. Lefty agitators being responsible is a reasonable suspicion. We've seen one  on tape.
> 
> 3. Most republicans are happy to agree that the 1/6 riot, was a riot and that it was a violent crime.
> 
> 4.  YOu are a lying asshole.


They were Republican white-winger thugs.


----------



## Roudy

Lesh said:


> A. Of COURSE it was unjustified
> 
> B. This was just a stupid slip of the tongue


Iraq war was justified, but a stupid move strategically, since Sadam was a Sunni strongman dictator standing as a counter balance to Iran’s Shiite barbaric mullahs In the region. In other words the genie is out of the bottle now.  As we saw, Iran, the worlds greatest promoter of terrorism ended up taking over Iraq, expanded its reach into Lebanon, and a major threat to the Saudis and rest of the Sunni nations. Not to mention the thousands of US soldiers it was directly and indirectly responsible for killing in Iraq.


----------



## Faun

Godboy said:


> The post you just quoted showed you. Did you not read the post that you quoted?



Since deaths, rape and torture escalated once we invaded, your points are moot.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

struth said:


> Not really sure why I am being tagged


We just got one of your fellow Iraq invasion war mongers putting up an announcement that the trillion dollar cost plus lives lost and destruction from the Iraq invasion was worth every penny and every ounce of blood shed.

Even after Trump tells you that Bush lied and it was a waste of resources and lives you are one of those who still lies For your beloved W just had the greatest Freudian slip ever. Putin will probably bring up what was said if we ever get Putin to The Hague for a war crimes trial


your lie: 
“Saddam was half hearted and wouldn't fully open up, or produce all the documents.”


----------



## struth

NotfooledbyW said:


> We just got one of your fellow Iraq invasion war mongers putting up an announcement that the trillion dollar cost plus lives lost and destruction from the Iraq invasion was worth every penny and every ounce of blood shed.
> 
> Even after Trump tells you that Bush lied and it was a waste of resources and lives you are one of those who still lies For your beloved W just had the greatest Freudian slip ever. Putin will probably bring up what was said if we ever get Putin to The Hague for a war crimes trial
> 
> 
> your lie:
> “Saddam was half hearted and wouldn't fully open up, or produce all the documents.”


That's not a lie at all...it's totally true.  

I could careless what Trump's opinion of the war was.  Taking out Saddam was the right thing to do, I agree with Xiden, Clinton, and Bush on that


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Roudy said:


> Iraq war was justified,





DudleySmith said:


> Too bad; Saddam shouldn't have said he had them


No it was bush that should not have said that he had them since it was a lie..

In fact after 911 SH said he didn’t have any. SH actually invited the CIA and M I six to come in with the inspectorsTo search for a legend WMD Wherever they want it.

It was reported on Fox too:

Sunday, December 22, 2002 FOX NEWS WASHINGTON — Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development. 



Al-Saadi also said during a news conference in Baghdad that Iraq was prepared to answer any questions raised by the United States and Britain.

"We are ready to deal with each of those questions if you ask us," he said.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

struth said:


> That's not a lie at all...it's totally true.



This was not half hearted. You are a liar. 


Sunday, December 22, 2002 FOX NEWS WASHINGTON — Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development. 

 Al-Saadi also said during a news conference in Baghdad that Iraq was prepared to answer any questions raised by the United States and Britain.

"We are ready to deal with each of those questions if you ask us," he said.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Astrostar said:


> Fact check: Some Republicans have tried to rewrite the history of January 6. Here's how | CNN Politics
> 
> 
> When the House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6 convenes for the first time, it will be against a backdrop of Republican objections and falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because history is what it is.  Despite the efforts of Trump and his Cult members in Congress to rewrite it to reflect positively on Trump, theirs is a lost cause.
> 
> Trump and his disciples, since January 6 have tried over and over to convince the American people that the insurrection was caused by Antifa, was a peaceful event with lots of love in the air or was just a guided tour of the Capital building.
> 
> We know better!  It was an aggressive attempt by white nationalists, inspired by Trump, to take over the government of the United States.  Anyone who sees it in a different light is not a loyal, patriotic American, but rather is a Trump disciple who places him above the Constitution of the United States and the welfare of the majority of the American people.
> 
> Today's congressional hearing will expose the Trump people who tried to storm the Capital for what they really are:  enemies of the American people.


Democrats are the ones that try to rewrite history.


----------



## struth

NotfooledbyW said:


> This was not half hearted. You are a liar.
> 
> 
> Sunday, December 22, 2002 FOX NEWS WASHINGTON — Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development.
> 
> Al-Saadi also said during a news conference in Baghdad that Iraq was prepared to answer any questions raised by the United States and Britain.
> 
> "We are ready to deal with each of those questions if you ask us," he said.


Yeah it was, that was  day late and a dollar short, and after the UN found chemical weapons. 

Regardless, taking out Saddam was more then just about his WMD program.  He was a brutal tyrant, and killer....

"
Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production. ...

Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits. ...

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons. ...

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. ...

— President Clinton ~ 1998


----------



## DudleySmith

NotfooledbyW said:


> No it was bush that should not have said that he had them since it was a lie..
> 
> In fact after 911 SH said he didn’t have any. SH actually invited the CIA and M I six to come in with the inspectorsTo search for a legend WMD Wherever they want it.
> 
> It was reported on Fox too:
> 
> Sunday, December 22, 2002 FOX NEWS WASHINGTON — Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development.
> 
> 
> 
> Al-Saadi also said during a news conference in Baghdad that Iraq was prepared to answer any questions raised by the United States and Britain.
> 
> "We are ready to deal with each of those questions if you ask us," he said.



Sorry, we aren't as gullible as you would like; you're just too simple minded and have to parrot old nonsense. You should stay over at DU where your mentally ill peers hang out.

Not only did your Hero Saddam claim he was going to use his weapons, he attacked several countries we had defense agreements with, so WMDs is not even a real issue anyway, just a fake 'talking point' for disgruntled morons who don't have squat..


----------



## NotfooledbyW

struth said:


> Yeah it was, that was day late and a dollar short, and after the UN found chemical weapons.



BUSH didn’t invade Iraq in 1998.  The UN FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF chemical weapons in 2003,

This was bold  face lie:
“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

DudleySmith said:


> Sorry, we aren't as gullible a


YOU are A LIAR.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

DudleySmith said:


> Not only did your Hero Saddam claim he was going to use his weapons


Not after September 11 2001? You are a liar because you cannot provide a quote:


----------



## struth

NotfooledbyW said:


> BUSH didn’t invade Iraq in 1998.  The UN FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF chemical weapons in 2003,
> 
> This was bold  face lie:
> “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.


I didn’t say he invaded in 1998. 

Saddam continued violations of the UN Resolutions, and attempts to continue to develop WMDs, is merely one of the numerous reasons to take out saddam


----------



## struth

NotfooledbyW said:


> Not after September 11 2001? You are a liar because you cannot provide a quote:


yes, you might be right..saddam might of stopped threatening to use them after he became aware that the US was going to actually do something about his regime of terror and death


----------



## Godboy

Faun said:


> Since deaths, rape and torture escalated once we invaded, your points are moot.


Uhuh, whatever you say.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

DudleySmith said:


> he attacked several countries we had defense agreements with



Not after September 11 2001? You are a liar because you cannot provide a link showing SH attacking any countries we had defense agreements with


----------



## NotfooledbyW

struth said:


> yes, you might be right..saddam might of stopped threatening to use them after he became aware that the US was going to actually do something about his regime of terror and death



YOU are still a liar because SH said  HE DIDNT HAVE WMD and was cooperating with inspectors proactively according to Blix’s last report.

THE UN found nothing being hidden because there were none to be found in IRAQ.

nobody had to die to find no WMD. The UN wanted a few more months to wrap things up.

Biden and Clinton wanted Bush to wait three months and let the inspectors finish the peaceful work / no one had to die except for Dubya’s lie.


So this was the BIG lie for 2003
“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003


----------



## Lesh

struth said:


> Regardless, taking out Saddam was more then just about his WMD program. He was a brutal tyrant, and killer....


So we're invading the Philippines and Russia next?

There were no WMDs and the invasion was a foolish disaster


----------



## struth

NotfooledbyW said:


> YOU are still a liar because SH said  HE DIDNT HAVE WMD and was cooperating with inspectors proactively according to Blix’s last report.
> 
> THE UN found nothing being hidden because there were none to be found in IRAQ.
> 
> nobody had to die to find no WMD. The UN wanted a few more months to wrap things up.
> 
> Biden and Clinton wanted Bush to wait three months and let the inspectors finish the peaceful work / no one had to die except for Dubya’s lie.
> 
> 
> So this was the BIG lie for 2003
> “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003


well Saddam said! hahah


----------



## struth

Lesh said:


> So we're invading the Philippines and Russia next?
> 
> There were no WMDs and the invasion was a foolish disaster


maybe…who knows what will be needed to clean up Xiden’s mess. 

Doubt a russian invasion will ever happen though since they are a nuclear power


----------



## NotfooledbyW

struth said:


> well Saddam said! hahah



SH said he didn’t have any  - Bush said he had them.   - Do you thinj it’s funny that our President was wrong and Iraq’s dictator was right therefore Bush gets 5000 Americans and half a million Iraqis killed for being wrong and proving SH was right.


----------



## JackOfNoTrades

Godboy said:


> Then you agree, the Iraq war was a positive gain for the Iraqi people. Thank you.


No, it wasn't. Please stop posting shit. 
Thank You!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

struth said:


> Yeah it was, that was day late and a dollar short, and after the UN found chemical weapons.


Congress did not and would not have ever authorized W to invade and occupy Iraq without removing the threat of WMD or to do regime change for regime change sake.

Regime change was necessary because BUSH lied that SH was hiding WMD from the inspectors in 2003.

BUSH Didn’t prearranged for regime change either,


BUSH LIED TO HAVE AN EXCISE FOR REGIME CHANGE:

HUGE LIE;

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003


----------



## struth

NotfooledbyW said:


> SH said he didn’t have any  - Bush said he had them.   - Do you thinj it’s funny that our President was wrong and Iraq’s dictator was right therefore Bush gets 5000 Americans and half a million Iraqis killed for being wrong and proving SH was right.


Yeah, Saddam is a known liar, dictator, killer, rapist, tyrant....not surprised some dembot is siding with him today


----------



## struth

JackOfNoTrades said:


> No, it wasn't. Please stop posting shit.
> Thank You!


well, it was, until Obama and Xiden surrendered it to ISIS and Iran.  

Now, it's tough to say if they are better off then when Saddam and his socialist crew were raping, murdering, and torturing people.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

struth said:


> Yeah, Saddam is a known liar, dictator, killer, rapist, tyrant....not surprised some dembot is siding with him today



Telling the truth is siding with the truth. You don’t tell the truth so you wouid know.


----------



## Godboy

JackOfNoTrades said:


> No, it wasn't. Please stop posting shit.
> Thank You!


Yes it was, obviously.


----------



## Faun

struth said:


> I didn’t say he invaded in 1998.
> 
> Saddam continued violations of the UN Resolutions, and attempts to continue to develop WMDs, is merely one of the numerous reasons to take out saddam



You quoted Clinton pointing out WMD's in *1998*. That's irrelevant because that was before Clinton & Blare destroyed those WMD. By 2003, almost nothing was left and what was there was known by the U.N..


----------



## struth

NotfooledbyW said:


> Telling the truth is siding with the truth. You don’t tell the truth so you wouid know.


Saddam isn't the truth.  Siding with Saddam is siding with a evil, brutal socialist dictator.  Thanks for highlighting just how radical the dembots have become since the turn of the century.


----------



## Faun

struth said:


> well, it was, until Obama and Xiden surrendered it to ISIS and Iran.
> 
> Now, it's tough to say if they are better off then when Saddam and his socialist crew were raping, murdering, and torturing people.



LOL

Biden surrendered Iraq? How'd he do that? You know he wasn't Commander-in-Chief, right?


----------



## struth

Faun said:


> You quoted Clinton pointing out WMD's in *1998*. That's irrelevant because that was before Clinton & Blare destroyed those WMD. By 2003, almost nothing was left and what was there was known by the U.N..


Clinton stated that in 1998, as he was signing the Iraq Liberation Act, making it US Policy to over throw Saddam.   There are numerous reasons, the fact that he had used WMDs, and made clear he use them again, was one of the many reasons. 

But, by 2001, it was already policy of the United States to overthrow Saddam.

I am curious though, if you believe Clinton, what did Saddam do with all his WMDs?


----------



## struth

Faun said:


> LOL
> 
> Biden surrendered Iraq? How'd he do that? You know he wasn't Commander-in-Chief, right?


Obama AND Xiden...they were President and VP, number 1 and 2. 

Moreover, Xiden stated, he was personally responsbile for getting 150K troops out of Iraq, and surrendered to ISIS.....

he bragged about it....https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/national-international/joe-biden-i-was-responsible-for-getting-150000-combat-troops-out-of-iraq/2169029/

of course we had to go right back in after he did that because of the threat the "JV" team created,


----------



## Faun

struth said:


> Clinton stated that in 1998, as he was signing the Iraq Liberation Act, making it US Policy to over throw Saddam.   There are numerous reasons, the fact that he had used WMDs, and made clear he use them again, was one of the many reasons.
> 
> But, by 2001, it was already policy of the United States to overthrow Saddam.
> 
> I am curious though, if you believe Clinton, what did Saddam do with all his WMDs?



Can't you read? I already pointed out Clinton & Blair destroyed those WMD.

CNN - Saddam Hussein proclaims 'victory' after airstrikes end - U.S., Britain: Mission accomplished - December 20, 1998

The Pentagon reported 97 sites had been hit and produced aerial photographs of what it said were damaged missile production facilities, collapsed Republican Guard barracks and a government building in Baghdad struck by three cruise missiles.

Both Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the mission -- *to stop Iraq from continuing to make and store weapons of mass destruction -- was accomplished.*​


----------



## Faun

struth said:


> Obama AND Xiden...they were President and VP, number 1 and 2.
> 
> Moreover, Xiden stated, he was personally responsbile for getting 150K troops out of Iraq, and surrendered to ISIS.....
> 
> he bragged about it....https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/national-international/joe-biden-i-was-responsible-for-getting-150000-combat-troops-out-of-iraq/2169029/
> 
> of course we had to go right back in after he did that because of the threat the "JV" team created,



Again, for the hard of learning, Biden was not the Comander-in-Chief. He had zero authority to make any military decisions. You shouldn't let your BDS dictate your thoughts.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

struth said:


> well, it was, until Obama and Xiden surrendered it to ISIS and Iran.


Bush and MALIKI December 2008 negotiated the date all US TROOOS HAD TO BE OUT. if you want to call it surrender it was BUsh’s


----------



## struth

Faun said:


> Can't you read? I already pointed out Clinton & Blair destroyed those WMD.
> 
> CNN - Saddam Hussein proclaims 'victory' after airstrikes end - U.S., Britain: Mission accomplished - December 20, 1998​​The Pentagon reported 97 sites had been hit and produced aerial photographs of what it said were damaged missile production facilities, collapsed Republican Guard barracks and a government building in Baghdad struck by three cruise missiles.​​Both Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the mission -- *to stop Iraq from continuing to make and store weapons of mass destruction -- was accomplished.*​


so Clinton blew up chemical weapons ans bio weapons all over the ME?  

the article only says they said it was a success from continuing to make them, not that it got rid of existing ones.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

struth said:


> Saddam isn't the truth.


I did not say SH was the truth.  He told the truth in 2002, and 2003 about having no WMD.  Bush lied  SH did not. ITS A FACT. that is the truth. Thus is not a Trump cult page where truth is whatever you want it to be.


----------



## struth

Faun said:


> Again, for the hard of learning, Biden was not the Comander-in-Chief. He had zero authority to make any military decisions. You shouldn't let your BDS dictate your thoughts.


He said he was personally responsible. Is he a liar?


----------



## struth

NotfooledbyW said:


> I did not say SH was the truth.  He told the truth in 2002,and 2003,having no WMD.  Bush lied  SH did not. ITS A FACT. that is the truth. Thus I’d not a Trump cult page where truth is whatever you want it to be.


keeping siding with deadly dictators.  It’s what leftist do 

next you’re gonna tell us how Pol Pot was misunderstood


----------



## Faun

struth said:


> so Clinton blew up chemical weapons ans bio weapons all over the ME?
> 
> the article only says they said it was a success from continuing to make them, not that it got rid of existing ones.



Not all over the Middle East. No one even said that so who knows why your brain went there. And we know Clinton & Blair were successful since the U.N. went back into Iraq in 2002 and found nothing they hadn't already secured.


----------



## Lesh

struth said:


> well Saddam said! hahah


Actually the Inspectors "said".

And none were subsequently found


----------



## struth

Lesh said:


> Actually the Inspectors "said".
> 
> And none were subsequently found


nah the inspectors said he didn’t cooperate


----------



## Leo123

Astrostar said:


> Fact check: Some Republicans have tried to rewrite the history of January 6. Here's how | CNN Politics
> 
> 
> When the House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6 convenes for the first time, it will be against a backdrop of Republican objections and falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because history is what it is.  Despite the efforts of Trump and his Cult members in Congress to rewrite it to reflect positively on Trump, theirs is a lost cause.
> 
> Trump and his disciples, since January 6 have tried over and over to convince the American people that the insurrection was caused by Antifa, was a peaceful event with lots of love in the air or was just a guided tour of the Capital building.
> 
> We know better!  It was an aggressive attempt by white nationalists, inspired by Trump, to take over the government of the United States.  Anyone who sees it in a different light is not a loyal, patriotic American, but rather is a Trump disciple who places him above the Constitution of the United States and the welfare of the majority of the American people.
> 
> Today's congressional hearing will expose the Trump people who tried to storm the Capital for what they really are:  enemies of the American people.


Here we go again, the left blaming people for shit that they always do.  The Marxist jig is up.  Let's send the radicals packing.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

struth said:


> keeping siding with deadly dictators.


Keep lying. ITS ALL YOU KNOW HIW TO FO


struth said:


> nah the inspectors said he didn’t cooperate


No BLIX reported proactive cooperation from Iraq a month before the invasion. 


Direct proactive cooperation was offered to the White House in December 02 But Bush refused to take it. 

Sunday, December 22, 2002 FOX NEWS WASHINGTON — Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development. 

Al-Saadi also said during a news conference in Baghdad that Iraq was prepared to answer any questions raised by the United States and Britain.

"We are ready to deal with each of those questions if you ask us," he said.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

struth said:


> nah the inspectors said he didn’t cooperate




Our SEC OF STATE in Jan 2003 said SH was cooperating and war was not inevitable.


MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Finally, sir, that mobilization is occurring in Iraq right now, or in the region around Iraq.  But at the same time, Iraq seems to be cooperating with the inspectors.  I know your views on the Iraqi declaration, but aside from that, do you have any other evidence that Iraq is not complying with the UN resolution?

SECRETARY POWELL:  Well, the declaration is certainly noncompliant.  There is no question about it.  I don't think anybody is defending that declaration.


Colin Powell's remarks on ABC's This Week with George Stephanoplous: war is not “inevitable”  DECEMBER 2002

Interview on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos

*They have been cooperating with the inspectors and we'll see if that cooperation continues.*

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  And if it does, war is not inevitable?

 SECRETARY POWELL:  We've never said that war is inevitable.  The President has always said that he is interested in a peaceful solution.
If invading IRAQ  was not inevitable In January 2003 because of Iraqi cooperation according to Colin Powell,  then how does an invasion become necessary in MARCH with continued Iraqi cooperation to a point of being proactive.

Your absolutely dishonest defense of BUSH killing half a million Iraqis at a cost of 5000 American soldiers and $1 trillion of American money Is flawed and absurd. You have nothing that supports any of your pure bullshit lies


----------



## Correll

bodecea said:


> They were Republican white-winger thugs.



1. They were Repubicans.

2. They were, mostly white.

3. They were mostly regular people, outraged over political matters and crossing a line from protest to rioting. 

4. Your hysteria seems uncalled for. For you to be this hysterical over one riot, the antics of Antfia and BLM must have put you nearly at death's door. Or was that "different" for some reason?


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Democrats are the ones who try to rewrite history.


*Dumbing Down, Downer, Downest*


The Blue-State Union's required school textbook on American History is titled _Those Horrible White People._


----------



## DudleySmith

NotfooledbyW said:


> Not after September 11 2001? You are a liar because you cannot provide a quote:



Why would I kow tow to an idiot like yourself? You're not debating anything, just spewing bullshit.


----------



## DudleySmith

NotfooledbyW said:


> Not after September 11 2001? You are a liar because you cannot provide a link showing SH attacking any countries we had defense agreements with



Fucking moron denies his Hero didn't violate the cease fire agreements nearly every single day for years, then got stupid enough to directly threaten to kill members of a sitting President's family. Of course morons like NFBW actually admire that sort of idiocy and deeply resent George W. finishing off the piece of shit , because Clinton didn't have the balls to.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

NotfooledbyW said:


> SH said he didn’t have any  - Bush said he had them.   - Do you thinj it’s funny that our President was wrong and Iraq’s dictator was right therefore Bush gets 5000 Americans and half a million Iraqis killed for being wrong and proving SH was right.


*By Selling Oil on the Black Market, Saddam Was Lowering Big Oil's Profits*

If Dumbo Dubya, a puppet of Exxon, really believed that Saddam had WMDs, then he never would have invaded because thousands of our troop would have been quickly killed by them.


----------



## DudleySmith

The Sage of Main Street said:


> *By Selling Oil on the Black Market, Saddam Was Lowering Big Oil's Profits*
> 
> If Dumbo Dubya, a puppet of Exxon, really believed that Saddam had WMDs, then he never would have invaded because thousands of our troop would have been quickly killed by them.



The problem with that theory is he didn't control any pipelines or tankers, and had to ship hot oil in tank trailers,  small lots, which don't hold nearly enough to threaten Exxon's market share.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> one riot



JAN 6 was an attempts to overturn he election by preventing the counting of the certified electors on Jan 6 as is required by the Constitution. 

Trump escalated the violence after the Capitol was originally breached and then did nothing to stop it for two hours. 

“*Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution,”* Trump tweeted at 2.24 p.m.

"The select committee increasingly views that tweet as a catalyst of the day’s worst violence," Politico reported. "Multiple defendants charged with breaching the Capitol pointed to that tweet as a driver of the mob’s fury. Video footage captured by news media and taken by rioters themselves shows the crowd reacting to the tweet, which posted 10 minutes after the first wave of people entered the Capitol through a window shattered by a rioter wielding a stolen police shield


----------



## NotfooledbyW

DudleySmith said:


> Fucking moron denies his Hero didn't violate the cease fire agreements


I have never denied SH violated his ceasefire agree snd was in violation of it when Bush invaded in MARCH 2003. 

You are a liar. 

The fact of the matter is nobody had to die on any side to determine that SH did not have WMD hidden from inspectors. 

The Invasion of Iraq was an absolute dimwit disaster based on a lie, and should not be sugarcoated by  dimwitted Republicans only because a dimwitted Republican did it.


----------



## Roudy

NotfooledbyW said:


> No it was bush that should not have said that he had them since it was a lie..
> 
> In fact after 911 SH said he didn’t have any. SH actually invited the CIA and M I six to come in with the inspectorsTo search for a legend WMD Wherever they want it.
> 
> It was reported on Fox too:
> 
> Sunday, December 22, 2002 FOX NEWS WASHINGTON — Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development.
> 
> 
> 
> Al-Saadi also said during a news conference in Baghdad that Iraq was prepared to answer any questions raised by the United States and Britain.
> 
> "We are ready to deal with each of those questions if you ask us," he said.


The WMD's were the "official" reason for the Iraq war, the main reason was that if a bunch of determined lunatics with box cutters managed to turn airplanes into guided missiles as happened on 9-11, then a far more determined, militarized, financed and capable foe such as Iraq's Sadam that was threatening to outdo 9-11 could not remain standing.  

9-11 changed everything.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Roudy said:


> Sadam that was threatening to outdo 9-11


You are just a liar.

Bush made a public offer ten days prior to the invasion and in writing at the UN where our President was willing to leave SH in powers - The public record and Bush’s willingness to avoid war means you are simply talking out of your ass.


----------



## Roudy

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are just a liar.
> 
> Bush made a public offer ten days prior to the invasion and in writing at the UN where our President was willing to leave SH in powers - The public record and Bush’s willingness to avoid war means you are simply talking out of your ass.


They were enforcing a no fly zone over Iraq for a decade, led by the US.  And Sadam had already made one attempt at trying to assassinate Bush senior, a crazed dictator like Sadam with his resources, was obviously far more than newly formed Bin Laden's Al Queda wasn't more of a threat to the US.  Anyhow I already told you that they shouldn't have touched Iraq because Sadam was keeping the Iranians at bay.


----------



## surada

The Sage of Main Street said:


> *By Selling Oil on the Black Market, Saddam Was Lowering Big Oil's Profits*
> 
> If Dumbo Dubya, a puppet of Exxon, really believed that Saddam had WMDs, then he never would have invaded because thousands of our troop would have been quickly killed by them.


Iraq's oil production was way down. They desperately needed oil services companies for maintenance. Iraq was basically crippled by two decades of war and sanctions.


----------



## DudleySmith

surada said:


> Iraq's oil production was way down. They desperately needed oil services companies for maintenance. Iraq was basically crippled by two decades of war and sanctions.



It was crippled by its addiction to a 7th century death cult. Bush was ignorant like most 'elites' and really thought he could encourage leopards to change their stripes and rebuild a bunch of cultists into a civilized nation. He now knows better, and so do we. You loons just can't admit to that, too committed to 'Stupid'.


----------



## DudleySmith

Roudy said:


> Anyhow I already told you that they shouldn't have touched Iraq because Sadam was keeping the Iranians at bay.


Attacking Kuwait made that plan toast.


----------



## surada

DudleySmith said:


> It was crippled by its addiction to a 7th century death cult. Bush was ignorant like most 'elites' and really thought he could encourage leopards to change their stripes and rebuild a bunch of cultists into a civilized nation. He now knows better, and so do we. You loons just can't admit to that, too committed to 'Stupid'.


I resigned the Republican party before the invasion. Everyone knew it was stupid.


----------



## surada

DudleySmith said:


> Attacking Kuwait made that plan toast.


Kuwait wouldn't forgive Iraq's OPEC quota. Iraq was way behind in oil production.


----------



## DudleySmith

surada said:


> I resigned the Republican party before the invasion. Everyone knew it was stupid.


 lol rubbish.


----------



## DudleySmith

surada said:


> Kuwait wouldn't forgive Iraq's OPEC quota. Iraq was way behind in oil production.


 Nothing to do with it; we had mutual defense agreements with Kuwait, and with Saudi Arabia, and with Israel for that matter; your nutjob hero attacked them all.


----------



## surada

DudleySmith said:


> Nothing to do with it; we had mutual defense agreements with Kuwait, and with Saudi Arabia, and with Israel for that matter; your nutjob hero attacked them all.


Saudi Arabia tried to stop the US invasion, but Bush wouldn't listen. Bandar was recalled to Arabia. Israel wanted the US to invade per Clean Break Strategy.


----------



## surada

DudleySmith said:


> lol rubbish.


Yep. After 35 years. I'd written dozens of letters opposing the invasion.


----------



## Roudy

DudleySmith said:


> Attacking Kuwait made that plan toast.


Kuwait was drilling sideways aka “slant drilling” at its border with Iraq to illegally access Iraqi oil, with the blessing of the US of course.  That’s the reason for Iraq attacking Kuwait. 







Charles Jannuzi
Associate Professor (1994-present)

It was quite likely true. Iraq had some very legitimate claims against Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. That didn’t justify invasion. But what did Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States think Iraq was going to do? Drown in debt? Dismantle its army?
Iraq and Kuwait were ‘sharing’ a known oil field (which on the surface mostly fell in Iraqi territory), and Iraq thought that Kuwait was using directional drilling to take more than its share. Iraq and Kuwait had never negotiated a deal for how to share the field, since Iraq rightly felt that Kuwait wasn’t entitled to any—that the border had been drawn to give them some of the oil.
Kuwait actually didn’t dispute the claim. It instead countered that Iraq had exaggerated the amount (Iraq accused Kuwait of stealing 300,000 - 350,000 barrels a day).
Even if Kuwait wasn’t using slant drilling to take oil out of clearly marked Iraqi territory, it was using it to take more out of a shared field, far exceeding any amount it was entitled to for having a bit of the field fall in Kuwait.
It was also over-producing oil and driving down the price, in large part due to the huge amounts of oil it was sucking out of the Ramaila field. Iraq had a pretty good idea of just how much oil Kuwait could produce, so that is why it figured out that Kuwait was sneaking more oil out of the shared field using directional/horizontal drilling that was not visible from the activities just across the border that could be observed.
The cause of the dispute: Kuwait using the fact that a small part of the huge Rumalia oil field falls inside Kuwait in order to siphon huge amounts of oil out of it.


----------



## surada

Roudy said:


> Kuwait was drilling sideways aka “slant drilling” at its border with Iraq to illegally access Iraqi oil, with the blessing of the US of course.  That’s the reason for Iraq attacking Kuwait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Jannuzi
> Associate Professor (1994-present)
> 
> It was quite likely true. Iraq had some very legitimate claims against Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. That didn’t justify invasion. But what did Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States think Iraq was going to do? Drown in debt? Dismantle its army?
> Iraq and Kuwait were ‘sharing’ a known oil field (which on the surface mostly fell in Iraqi territory), and Iraq thought that Kuwait was using directional drilling to take more than its share. Iraq and Kuwait had never negotiated a deal for how to share the field, since Iraq rightly felt that Kuwait wasn’t entitled to any—that the border had been drawn to give them some of the oil.
> Kuwait actually didn’t dispute the claim. It instead countered that Iraq had exaggerated the amount (Iraq accused Kuwait of stealing 300,000 - 350,000 barrels a day).
> Even if Kuwait wasn’t using slant drilling to take oil out of clearly marked Iraqi territory, it was using it to take more out of a shared field, far exceeding any amount it was entitled to for having a bit of the field fall in Kuwait.
> It was also over-producing oil and driving down the price, in large part due to the huge amounts of oil it was sucking out of the Ramaila field. Iraq had a pretty good idea of just how much oil Kuwait could produce, so that is why it figured out that Kuwait was sneaking more oil out of the shared field using directional/horizontal drilling that was not visible from the activities just across the border that could be observed.
> The cause of the dispute: Kuwait using the fact that a small part of the huge Rumalia oil field falls inside Kuwait in order to siphon huge amounts of oil out of it.
> 
> View attachment 647263


Saudi Arabia forgave Saddam's OPEC quota debt. Kuwait wouldn't. Rumalia is a shared field.


----------



## DudleySmith

Roudy said:


> Kuwait was drilling sideways aka “slant drilling” at its border with Iraq to illegally access Iraqi oil, with the blessing of the US of course.  That’s the reason for Iraq attacking Kuwait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Jannuzi
> Associate Professor (1994-present)
> 
> It was quite likely true. Iraq had some very legitimate claims against Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. That didn’t justify invasion. But what did Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States think Iraq was going to do? Drown in debt? Dismantle its army?
> Iraq and Kuwait were ‘sharing’ a known oil field (which on the surface mostly fell in Iraqi territory), and Iraq thought that Kuwait was using directional drilling to take more than its share. Iraq and Kuwait had never negotiated a deal for how to share the field, since Iraq rightly felt that Kuwait wasn’t entitled to any—that the border had been drawn to give them some of the oil.
> Kuwait actually didn’t dispute the claim. It instead countered that Iraq had exaggerated the amount (Iraq accused Kuwait of stealing 300,000 - 350,000 barrels a day).
> Even if Kuwait wasn’t using slant drilling to take oil out of clearly marked Iraqi territory, it was using it to take more out of a shared field, far exceeding any amount it was entitled to for having a bit of the field fall in Kuwait.
> It was also over-producing oil and driving down the price, in large part due to the huge amounts of oil it was sucking out of the Ramaila field. Iraq had a pretty good idea of just how much oil Kuwait could produce, so that is why it figured out that Kuwait was sneaking more oil out of the shared field using directional/horizontal drilling that was not visible from the activities just across the border that could be observed.
> The cause of the dispute: Kuwait using the fact that a small part of the huge Rumalia oil field falls inside Kuwait in order to siphon huge amounts of oil out of it.
> 
> View attachment 647263



Doesn't neuter mutual defense agreements, and Saddam had other options; the fact is he just saw an excuse to invade. Oil belongs to whoever can pump the most out of them. All oil fields are 'shared' by the fact that they are big pools, and pumping anywhere in one lowers the amounts anybody else in the field can pump, and lowers gas pressure and in many case raises the water tables through out the whole field. His pretext wasn't the oil, it was some 'ancient Iraqi claims to the swamp and land'.


----------



## Roudy

DudleySmith said:


> Doesn't neuter mutual defense agreements, and Saddam had other options; the fact is he just saw an excuse to invade. Oil belongs to whoever can pump the most out of them. All oil fields are 'shared' by the fact that they are big pools, and pumping anywhere in one lowers the amounts anybody else in the field can pump, and lowers gas pressure and in many case raises the water tables through out the whole field. His pretext wasn't the oil, it was some 'ancient Iraqi claims to the swamp and land'.


True, but since Sadam was in full control of the money coming from any oil revenues, the Kuwaitis were essentially putting their hands into Sadam’s pockets. And the US also initially deceived Sadam by letting him think we would be “neutral” In that fight.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

DudleySmith said:


> It was crippled by its addiction to a 7th century death cult. Bush was ignorant like most 'elites' and really thought he could encourage leopards to change their stripes and rebuild a bunch of cultists into a civilized nation. He now knows better, and so do we. You loons just can't admit to that, too committed to 'Stupid'.


*Contempt for All Mountain Monkeys Is Rationalism*

The same upper-class respect for foreign savages explains the Afghan pullout disaster.  Bi-den was just following the Neocons' same illusion that the native soldiers would finish off the Taliban themselves if we left enough weapons for them.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

DudleySmith said:


> Doesn't neuter mutual defense agreements, and Saddam had other options; the fact is he just saw an excuse to invade. Oil belongs to whoever can pump the most out of them. All oil fields are 'shared' by the fact that they are big pools, and pumping anywhere in one lowers the amounts anybody else in the field can pump, and lowers gas pressure and in many case raises the water tables through out the whole field. His pretext wasn't the oil, it was some 'ancient Iraqi claims to the swamp and land'.


*Saddam Needed Kuwait So He Could Defeat Iran*

Iraq is Mesopotamia.  Kuwait has belonged to it for 5,000 years.  It is nothing but a cut-and-paste country clipped off a map by the Allies after World War I.  When Iraq gets a stable leadership again, it will certainly try to get Kuwait back.  That is a permanent goal of all Iraqis.


----------

