Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He shouldn't have harangued the President with his moronic opinions. He should have turned over the mic the second it was requested. He deserves to be barred permanently, and CNN deserves to be barred until it makes amends.CNN's access should be removed as well. They permitted that Acosta to engage in his rude behavior. In fact, they even endorsed it. They should be required to submit a formal apology and implement policies to require respectful behavior towards the president from their reporters.Furthermore , it is in the White Houses discretion to determine whether they find someone rude or not. Right or wrong. Accosta got his pass removed but CNN still has access and they can send another qualified reporter. This has absolutely nothing to do with the suppression of the press
I don't think that's really necessary. I'd just stick with the moderate move for now, you wouldnt want to send the wrong message. Acosta shouldnt have pushed her arm down. That's on him. I wonder if he has made an apology yet to the intern?
Fuax's favorite tactic is to pick out one single insignificant statement in your post and then harp on it relentlessly as if it's the crux of your entire position. He pretends he's disproved your entire argument if he manages to undermine that one irrelevant statement. Of course, his main claim has holes so big in it that you could drive a freight train through it.Quote me saying that would lead to a constitutional crisis. Quote me saying it would lead to a collapse of national security.In reality, what I actually said in response to you claiming it didn’t hurt national security was that it ”could” hurt national security but that we’ll likely never know since such matters are clandestine.
But it couldn't and didn't. Thats how stupid you are, We have seen the memo and there was nothing that compromised national security there.
You supported (((Schiff))) in his claims that it would hurt national security. He lost...the memo was released..and national security is fine. This is the danger of having you subhuman types involved in anything. And you will still follow (((Schiff)))...even though he humiliated you. It wasnt so much your lie. You were just a dupe. Its that you dont mind attacking the good people who exposed (((schiffs))) lie.
So Faun...are we OK? No "constitutional crisis" like you and (((schiff))) promised?" No collapse of national security?
You can’t because I never said those things. You’ve lost this argument so badly that now you’ve reduced your argument to lying and fighting against positions I never took.
I have already covered this. Always the technicality.."well see technically I never said that exact thing". But Im not claiming you did. You never say anything. You operate by rote. And you supported (((schiff))) when he said the Nunes Memo would (1) wreck national security and (2) cause a constitutional crisis. And you swore he was right.
I know you are dense but my point is you have so little humanity that you didnt even rebel after being humiliated by (((schiff))). You dont mind being treated like a serf because you were born to be one. And you spend your life "technically" wiggling out of taking any stand.
Faux has been attempting to claim the D.C. law doesn't allow you to use force to keep someone from taking your property. His entire argument hinges on whether I quote the actual statute that says so.
Well, no, I don’t rebel over rightard ramblings. I’ve come to learn never to take anything from conservatives at face value.Quote me saying that would lead to a constitutional crisis. Quote me saying it would lead to a collapse of national security.In reality, what I actually said in response to you claiming it didn’t hurt national security was that it ”could” hurt national security but that we’ll likely never know since such matters are clandestine.
But it couldn't and didn't. Thats how stupid you are, We have seen the memo and there was nothing that compromised national security there.
You supported (((Schiff))) in his claims that it would hurt national security. He lost...the memo was released..and national security is fine. This is the danger of having you subhuman types involved in anything. And you will still follow (((Schiff)))...even though he humiliated you. It wasnt so much your lie. You were just a dupe. Its that you dont mind attacking the good people who exposed (((schiffs))) lie.
So Faun...are we OK? No "constitutional crisis" like you and (((schiff))) promised?" No collapse of national security?
You can’t because I never said those things. You’ve lost this argument so badly that now you’ve reduced your argument to lying and fighting against positions I never took.
I have already covered this. Always the technicality.."well see technically I never said that exact thing". But Im not claiming you did. You never say anything. You operate by rote. And you supported (((schiff))) when he said the Nunes Memo would (1) wreck national security and (2) cause a constitutional crisis. And you swore he was right.
I know you are dense but my point is you have so little humanity that you didnt even rebel after being humiliated by (((schiff))). You dont mind being treated like a serf because you were born to be one. And you spend your life "technically" wiggling out of taking any stand.
No, you have to post the D.C. law that supports your claim.My example proves that using force to protect your property is not against the law.”Beating them to within an inch of their lives, obviously isn't necessary”You can beat them pretty badly, because the cops don't have much sympathy for thieves. "whatever force is required" means "whatever force is necessary and appropriate." Beating them to within an inch of their lives, obviously isn't necessaryNo law, not even the Wisconsin law you ridiculously posted, allows for “whatever force is required.” There are limitations. You cannot beat someone to within an inch of their life, as you insanely insinuated, to prevent a theft.Lying is your stock in trade, asshole. Notice that you failed to include the words "is required," which changes the meaning of the words you quoted, you fucking douchebag piece of shit.”I didn't say "by any means necessary," you lying douche bag.”
You can’t lie your way out of this one, ya fucking moron...
Note that you accused me of saying "by any means necessary." Then you quoted me saying "whatever physical force is required." It takes a special kind stupid not to notice the two statements are different when you have quoted both of them in your post.
That level of stupid is difficult to fathom.
Shit, you can’t even prove he didn’t give the mic back until actually told to. You can’t prove there’s any such law in D,C.. You can’t prove whose mic it is. You can’t prove it was theft. All you can prove is that you’re a fucking moron. Which is all you ever prove.
When the intern extended her hand, that was a request to return the mic. Only a lying moron would refuse to admit that.
If the Whitehouse didn't supply the mic, then who did, CNN? Only an anal retentive moron without a clue insists that I have to prove every single thing said about the incident. That's a tactic designed to deflect from the fact that you were proven dead wrong. Some people are smart enough to realize that some things are obvious. Only those caught in their own lies demand such proof.
BTW, asshole, I proved that you're a liar. In fact, you proved it by making a claim about what I said and then posting exactly what I said which differed from what you claimed.
Talk about a stupid lying cockroach.
Yet that was the example you ridiculously offered.
Even funnier is you opining you don’t have to prove everything you say. Of course. We should just take everything a fucking moron like you says as gospel.
Right, so I have to prove the sky is blue and water is wet?
You're an idiot.
He did turn over the mic when it was requested. Trump said, “put the mic down,” and Acosta handed the mic to that woman.He shouldn't have harangued the President with his moronic opinions. He should have turned over the mic the second it was requested. He deserves to be barred permanently, and CNN deserves to be barred until it makes amends.CNN's access should be removed as well. They permitted that Acosta to engage in his rude behavior. In fact, they even endorsed it. They should be required to submit a formal apology and implement policies to require respectful behavior towards the president from their reporters.Furthermore , it is in the White Houses discretion to determine whether they find someone rude or not. Right or wrong. Accosta got his pass removed but CNN still has access and they can send another qualified reporter. This has absolutely nothing to do with the suppression of the press
I don't think that's really necessary. I'd just stick with the moderate move for now, you wouldnt want to send the wrong message. Acosta shouldnt have pushed her arm down. That's on him. I wonder if he has made an apology yet to the intern?
LOLOLFuax's favorite tactic is to pick out one single insignificant statement in your post and then harp on it relentlessly as if it's the crux of your entire position. He pretends he's disproved your entire argument if he manages to undermine that one irrelevant statement. Of course, his main claim has holes so big in it that you could drive a freight train through it.Quote me saying that would lead to a constitutional crisis. Quote me saying it would lead to a collapse of national security.In reality, what I actually said in response to you claiming it didn’t hurt national security was that it ”could” hurt national security but that we’ll likely never know since such matters are clandestine.
But it couldn't and didn't. Thats how stupid you are, We have seen the memo and there was nothing that compromised national security there.
You supported (((Schiff))) in his claims that it would hurt national security. He lost...the memo was released..and national security is fine. This is the danger of having you subhuman types involved in anything. And you will still follow (((Schiff)))...even though he humiliated you. It wasnt so much your lie. You were just a dupe. Its that you dont mind attacking the good people who exposed (((schiffs))) lie.
So Faun...are we OK? No "constitutional crisis" like you and (((schiff))) promised?" No collapse of national security?
You can’t because I never said those things. You’ve lost this argument so badly that now you’ve reduced your argument to lying and fighting against positions I never took.
I have already covered this. Always the technicality.."well see technically I never said that exact thing". But Im not claiming you did. You never say anything. You operate by rote. And you supported (((schiff))) when he said the Nunes Memo would (1) wreck national security and (2) cause a constitutional crisis. And you swore he was right.
I know you are dense but my point is you have so little humanity that you didnt even rebel after being humiliated by (((schiff))). You dont mind being treated like a serf because you were born to be one. And you spend your life "technically" wiggling out of taking any stand.
Faux has been attempting to claim the D.C. law doesn't allow you to use force to keep someone from taking your property. His entire argument hinges on whether I quote the actual statute that says so.
Faun is just a liberal. Not real bright or deep. Their arguments range from "you misspelled that" to "technically I only said maybe" to "prove that females dont have penises". No sense using human reasoning on them. The "out" is all important to them. It comes from their puritan heritage...the ability to use legalisms to avoid truth.
But remember..their goal is not really to win anything. You have to understand and internalize this if nothing else. In life, in politics, and especially in their chat life their goal is grind things to a standoff. Nothing more. Think of the Kavanaugh hearings...nothing to be proved only endless stasis and sand in the gears.
You know that Democrats fear the truth which is why Wikileaks and project veritas were so damaging to them.The tangled lies here are used NOT to win an argument. I have to keep emphasizing that. They are to hide any resolution to a question. Its why so many arguments with them devolve into Bill Clintons "depends on what the defintion of is is." He wont argue about lying under oath..he simply lied and then went after the utility of the English Language. He didnt really want to convince you of anything. He smirked because he probably wanted you to know how he treated young women. But his goal was to make it impossible for you to use words to prove anything about him. Its that simple.
For them words are tools to obfuscate rather than communicate.
Try Vox Day's "SJWs Always Lie". Every antic you see here is listed in his book. Hes been banned from Twitter and Reddit but his book is still available on Amazon for now. The book is only like 4.99. Its not just for the dark places liberals slither around like chat rooms but he gives examples of how to avoid their attacks in the workplace.
Also try Ron Jonsons book. Its more expensive and was a best seller. He gives illustrative examples of the times Marxists have gone after peoples jobs and been beaten completely into the dirt. He describes the dangers of grappling with their lies and half truths as well.
You simply cant win when you approach someone as a decent person and treat them as if they are arguing in good faith...when in reality you are dealing with a soulless liberal. Point out thir lies and help decent people recognize them. its all you can do.
Would you ever expect resolution from people with a relative value system and no firm morals except hatred for anyone with morals?
Fuax's favorite tactic is to pick out one single insignificant statement in your post and then harp on it relentlessly as if it's the crux of your entire position. He pretends he's disproved your entire argument if he manages to undermine that one irrelevant statement. Of course, his main claim has holes so big in it that you could drive a freight train through it.Quote me saying that would lead to a constitutional crisis. Quote me saying it would lead to a collapse of national security.In reality, what I actually said in response to you claiming it didn’t hurt national security was that it ”could” hurt national security but that we’ll likely never know since such matters are clandestine.
But it couldn't and didn't. Thats how stupid you are, We have seen the memo and there was nothing that compromised national security there.
You supported (((Schiff))) in his claims that it would hurt national security. He lost...the memo was released..and national security is fine. This is the danger of having you subhuman types involved in anything. And you will still follow (((Schiff)))...even though he humiliated you. It wasnt so much your lie. You were just a dupe. Its that you dont mind attacking the good people who exposed (((schiffs))) lie.
So Faun...are we OK? No "constitutional crisis" like you and (((schiff))) promised?" No collapse of national security?
You can’t because I never said those things. You’ve lost this argument so badly that now you’ve reduced your argument to lying and fighting against positions I never took.
I have already covered this. Always the technicality.."well see technically I never said that exact thing". But Im not claiming you did. You never say anything. You operate by rote. And you supported (((schiff))) when he said the Nunes Memo would (1) wreck national security and (2) cause a constitutional crisis. And you swore he was right.
I know you are dense but my point is you have so little humanity that you didnt even rebel after being humiliated by (((schiff))). You dont mind being treated like a serf because you were born to be one. And you spend your life "technically" wiggling out of taking any stand.
Faux has been attempting to claim the D.C. law doesn't allow you to use force to keep someone from taking your property. His entire argument hinges on whether I quote the actual statute that says so.
Faun is just a liberal. Not real bright or deep. Their arguments range from "you misspelled that" to "technically I only said maybe" to "prove that females dont have penises". No sense using human reasoning on them. The "out" is all important to them. It comes from their puritan heritage...the ability to use legalisms to avoid truth.
But remember..their goal is not really to win anything. You have to understand and internalize this if nothing else. In life, in politics, and especially in their chat life their goal is grind things to a standoff. Nothing more. Think of the Kavanaugh hearings...nothing to be proved only endless stasis and sand in the gears.
You know that Democrats fear the truth which is why Wikileaks and project veritas were so damaging to them.The tangled lies here are used NOT to win an argument. I have to keep emphasizing that. They are to hide any resolution to a question. Its why so many arguments with them devolve into Bill Clintons "depends on what the defintion of is is." He wont argue about lying under oath..he simply lied and then went after the utility of the English Language. He didnt really want to convince you of anything. He smirked because he probably wanted you to know how he treated young women. But his goal was to make it impossible for you to use words to prove anything about him. Its that simple.
For them words are tools to obfuscate rather than communicate.
Try Vox Day's "SJWs Always Lie". Every antic you see here is listed in his book. Hes been banned from Twitter and Reddit but his book is still available on Amazon for now. The book is only like 4.99. Its not just for the dark places liberals slither around like chat rooms but he gives examples of how to avoid their attacks in the workplace.
Also try Ron Jonsons book. Its more expensive and was a best seller. He gives illustrative examples of the times Marxists have gone after peoples jobs and been beaten completely into the dirt. He describes the dangers of grappling with their lies and half truths as well.
You simply cant win when you approach someone as a decent person and treat them as if they are arguing in good faith...when in reality you are dealing with a soulless liberal. Point out thir lies and help decent people recognize them. its all you can do.
Would you ever expect resolution from people with a relative value system and no firm morals except hatred for anyone with morals?
Sorry, turd, it's purely your fetish that I have to wade my way through that labyrinthine mess. Anyone without an extra hole in his head knows you can use force to protect your property. I never heard of a state where that wasn't allowed, and neither have you.No, you have to post the D.C. law that supports your claim.My example proves that using force to protect your property is not against the law.”Beating them to within an inch of their lives, obviously isn't necessary”You can beat them pretty badly, because the cops don't have much sympathy for thieves. "whatever force is required" means "whatever force is necessary and appropriate." Beating them to within an inch of their lives, obviously isn't necessaryNo law, not even the Wisconsin law you ridiculously posted, allows for “whatever force is required.” There are limitations. You cannot beat someone to within an inch of their life, as you insanely insinuated, to prevent a theft.Lying is your stock in trade, asshole. Notice that you failed to include the words "is required," which changes the meaning of the words you quoted, you fucking douchebag piece of shit.
Note that you accused me of saying "by any means necessary." Then you quoted me saying "whatever physical force is required." It takes a special kind stupid not to notice the two statements are different when you have quoted both of them in your post.
That level of stupid is difficult to fathom.
Shit, you can’t even prove he didn’t give the mic back until actually told to. You can’t prove there’s any such law in D,C.. You can’t prove whose mic it is. You can’t prove it was theft. All you can prove is that you’re a fucking moron. Which is all you ever prove.
When the intern extended her hand, that was a request to return the mic. Only a lying moron would refuse to admit that.
If the Whitehouse didn't supply the mic, then who did, CNN? Only an anal retentive moron without a clue insists that I have to prove every single thing said about the incident. That's a tactic designed to deflect from the fact that you were proven dead wrong. Some people are smart enough to realize that some things are obvious. Only those caught in their own lies demand such proof.
BTW, asshole, I proved that you're a liar. In fact, you proved it by making a claim about what I said and then posting exactly what I said which differed from what you claimed.
Talk about a stupid lying cockroach.
Yet that was the example you ridiculously offered.
Even funnier is you opining you don’t have to prove everything you say. Of course. We should just take everything a fucking moron like you says as gospel.
Right, so I have to prove the sky is blue and water is wet?
You're an idiot.
You couldn’t.
You lose because you’re a loser.
But it's OK if you falsely ascribe to me positions I didn't take, eh, douchebag?LOLOLFuax's favorite tactic is to pick out one single insignificant statement in your post and then harp on it relentlessly as if it's the crux of your entire position. He pretends he's disproved your entire argument if he manages to undermine that one irrelevant statement. Of course, his main claim has holes so big in it that you could drive a freight train through it.Quote me saying that would lead to a constitutional crisis. Quote me saying it would lead to a collapse of national security.But it couldn't and didn't. Thats how stupid you are, We have seen the memo and there was nothing that compromised national security there.
You supported (((Schiff))) in his claims that it would hurt national security. He lost...the memo was released..and national security is fine. This is the danger of having you subhuman types involved in anything. And you will still follow (((Schiff)))...even though he humiliated you. It wasnt so much your lie. You were just a dupe. Its that you dont mind attacking the good people who exposed (((schiffs))) lie.
So Faun...are we OK? No "constitutional crisis" like you and (((schiff))) promised?" No collapse of national security?
You can’t because I never said those things. You’ve lost this argument so badly that now you’ve reduced your argument to lying and fighting against positions I never took.
I have already covered this. Always the technicality.."well see technically I never said that exact thing". But Im not claiming you did. You never say anything. You operate by rote. And you supported (((schiff))) when he said the Nunes Memo would (1) wreck national security and (2) cause a constitutional crisis. And you swore he was right.
I know you are dense but my point is you have so little humanity that you didnt even rebel after being humiliated by (((schiff))). You dont mind being treated like a serf because you were born to be one. And you spend your life "technically" wiggling out of taking any stand.
Faux has been attempting to claim the D.C. law doesn't allow you to use force to keep someone from taking your property. His entire argument hinges on whether I quote the actual statute that says so.
Faun is just a liberal. Not real bright or deep. Their arguments range from "you misspelled that" to "technically I only said maybe" to "prove that females dont have penises". No sense using human reasoning on them. The "out" is all important to them. It comes from their puritan heritage...the ability to use legalisms to avoid truth.
But remember..their goal is not really to win anything. You have to understand and internalize this if nothing else. In life, in politics, and especially in their chat life their goal is grind things to a standoff. Nothing more. Think of the Kavanaugh hearings...nothing to be proved only endless stasis and sand in the gears.
You know that Democrats fear the truth which is why Wikileaks and project veritas were so damaging to them.The tangled lies here are used NOT to win an argument. I have to keep emphasizing that. They are to hide any resolution to a question. Its why so many arguments with them devolve into Bill Clintons "depends on what the defintion of is is." He wont argue about lying under oath..he simply lied and then went after the utility of the English Language. He didnt really want to convince you of anything. He smirked because he probably wanted you to know how he treated young women. But his goal was to make it impossible for you to use words to prove anything about him. Its that simple.
For them words are tools to obfuscate rather than communicate.
Try Vox Day's "SJWs Always Lie". Every antic you see here is listed in his book. Hes been banned from Twitter and Reddit but his book is still available on Amazon for now. The book is only like 4.99. Its not just for the dark places liberals slither around like chat rooms but he gives examples of how to avoid their attacks in the workplace.
Also try Ron Jonsons book. Its more expensive and was a best seller. He gives illustrative examples of the times Marxists have gone after peoples jobs and been beaten completely into the dirt. He describes the dangers of grappling with their lies and half truths as well.
You simply cant win when you approach someone as a decent person and treat them as if they are arguing in good faith...when in reality you are dealing with a soulless liberal. Point out thir lies and help decent people recognize them. its all you can do.
Would you ever expect resolution from people with a relative value system and no firm morals except hatred for anyone with morals?
What a diatribe just to say it shouldn’t matter if you falsely ascribe to me positions I didn’t take. All that matters is the bullshit you spew.
Wrong. It was requested when the intern extended her hand for it. Trump said “put the mic down” because the asshole refused to turn it over.He did turn over the mic when it was requested. Trump said, “put the mic down,” and Acosta handed the mic to that woman.He shouldn't have harangued the President with his moronic opinions. He should have turned over the mic the second it was requested. He deserves to be barred permanently, and CNN deserves to be barred until it makes amends.CNN's access should be removed as well. They permitted that Acosta to engage in his rude behavior. In fact, they even endorsed it. They should be required to submit a formal apology and implement policies to require respectful behavior towards the president from their reporters.Furthermore , it is in the White Houses discretion to determine whether they find someone rude or not. Right or wrong. Accosta got his pass removed but CNN still has access and they can send another qualified reporter. This has absolutely nothing to do with the suppression of the press
I don't think that's really necessary. I'd just stick with the moderate move for now, you wouldnt want to send the wrong message. Acosta shouldnt have pushed her arm down. That's on him. I wonder if he has made an apology yet to the intern?
You mean like an insignificant detail like you citing Wisconsin law to justify an action occurring in D.C.?Fuax's favorite tactic is to pick out one single insignificant statement in your post and then harp on it relentlessly as if it's the crux of your entire position. He pretends he's disproved your entire argument if he manages to undermine that one irrelevant statement. Of course, his main claim has holes so big in it that you could drive a freight train through it.Quote me saying that would lead to a constitutional crisis. Quote me saying it would lead to a collapse of national security.In reality, what I actually said in response to you claiming it didn’t hurt national security was that it ”could” hurt national security but that we’ll likely never know since such matters are clandestine.
But it couldn't and didn't. Thats how stupid you are, We have seen the memo and there was nothing that compromised national security there.
You supported (((Schiff))) in his claims that it would hurt national security. He lost...the memo was released..and national security is fine. This is the danger of having you subhuman types involved in anything. And you will still follow (((Schiff)))...even though he humiliated you. It wasnt so much your lie. You were just a dupe. Its that you dont mind attacking the good people who exposed (((schiffs))) lie.
So Faun...are we OK? No "constitutional crisis" like you and (((schiff))) promised?" No collapse of national security?
You can’t because I never said those things. You’ve lost this argument so badly that now you’ve reduced your argument to lying and fighting against positions I never took.
I have already covered this. Always the technicality.."well see technically I never said that exact thing". But Im not claiming you did. You never say anything. You operate by rote. And you supported (((schiff))) when he said the Nunes Memo would (1) wreck national security and (2) cause a constitutional crisis. And you swore he was right.
I know you are dense but my point is you have so little humanity that you didnt even rebel after being humiliated by (((schiff))). You dont mind being treated like a serf because you were born to be one. And you spend your life "technically" wiggling out of taking any stand.
Faux has been attempting to claim the D.C. law doesn't allow you to use force to keep someone from taking your property. His entire argument hinges on whether I quote the actual statute that says so.
Oh puhleeze. You're an imbecile. Do you always insist on proving it?You mean like an insignificant detail like you citing Wisconsin law to justify an action occurring in D.C.?Fuax's favorite tactic is to pick out one single insignificant statement in your post and then harp on it relentlessly as if it's the crux of your entire position. He pretends he's disproved your entire argument if he manages to undermine that one irrelevant statement. Of course, his main claim has holes so big in it that you could drive a freight train through it.Quote me saying that would lead to a constitutional crisis. Quote me saying it would lead to a collapse of national security.In reality, what I actually said in response to you claiming it didn’t hurt national security was that it ”could” hurt national security but that we’ll likely never know since such matters are clandestine.
But it couldn't and didn't. Thats how stupid you are, We have seen the memo and there was nothing that compromised national security there.
You supported (((Schiff))) in his claims that it would hurt national security. He lost...the memo was released..and national security is fine. This is the danger of having you subhuman types involved in anything. And you will still follow (((Schiff)))...even though he humiliated you. It wasnt so much your lie. You were just a dupe. Its that you dont mind attacking the good people who exposed (((schiffs))) lie.
So Faun...are we OK? No "constitutional crisis" like you and (((schiff))) promised?" No collapse of national security?
You can’t because I never said those things. You’ve lost this argument so badly that now you’ve reduced your argument to lying and fighting against positions I never took.
I have already covered this. Always the technicality.."well see technically I never said that exact thing". But Im not claiming you did. You never say anything. You operate by rote. And you supported (((schiff))) when he said the Nunes Memo would (1) wreck national security and (2) cause a constitutional crisis. And you swore he was right.
I know you are dense but my point is you have so little humanity that you didnt even rebel after being humiliated by (((schiff))). You dont mind being treated like a serf because you were born to be one. And you spend your life "technically" wiggling out of taking any stand.
Faux has been attempting to claim the D.C. law doesn't allow you to use force to keep someone from taking your property. His entire argument hinges on whether I quote the actual statute that says so.
You remain an idiot. Schiff is incapable of humiliating you since he doesn’t represent me. Are you humiliated by any shit move made by representatives from other states?Well, no, I don’t rebel over rightard ramblings. I’ve come to learn never to take anything from conservatives at face value.Quote me saying that would lead to a constitutional crisis. Quote me saying it would lead to a collapse of national security.In reality, what I actually said in response to you claiming it didn’t hurt national security was that it ”could” hurt national security but that we’ll likely never know since such matters are clandestine.
But it couldn't and didn't. Thats how stupid you are, We have seen the memo and there was nothing that compromised national security there.
You supported (((Schiff))) in his claims that it would hurt national security. He lost...the memo was released..and national security is fine. This is the danger of having you subhuman types involved in anything. And you will still follow (((Schiff)))...even though he humiliated you. It wasnt so much your lie. You were just a dupe. Its that you dont mind attacking the good people who exposed (((schiffs))) lie.
So Faun...are we OK? No "constitutional crisis" like you and (((schiff))) promised?" No collapse of national security?
You can’t because I never said those things. You’ve lost this argument so badly that now you’ve reduced your argument to lying and fighting against positions I never took.
I have already covered this. Always the technicality.."well see technically I never said that exact thing". But Im not claiming you did. You never say anything. You operate by rote. And you supported (((schiff))) when he said the Nunes Memo would (1) wreck national security and (2) cause a constitutional crisis. And you swore he was right.
I know you are dense but my point is you have so little humanity that you didnt even rebel after being humiliated by (((schiff))). You dont mind being treated like a serf because you were born to be one. And you spend your life "technically" wiggling out of taking any stand.
Well no, you dont rebel over anything. You are a serf. That was my point. You wouldn't know how to feel if your every position wasn't validated by a celebrity, or the news, or a rich media corporation or whatever sit-com you sit slack jawed in front of. You do and think as you are told. And the only fear you have is of being out of sync with the ruling elites.
That you don't and never could rebel was exactly my point! Even when (((schiff))) humiliates you and pisses on you it doesn't make you question him. And he did...and then moved on knowing he still had your mouth on his ass.
Maybe he should only allow FOX News in, the only tough question they will ask him is "how does he like his eggs?".
He didnt pull the pass for CNN, just Acost-ya. He's just one man, so really nothing to see here.
Maybe your dumb ass needs to go back and watch the video. He didn't slam her fucking arm, that is the right wing lie that has been debunked. See the problem is simpleton a lot of folks in the room actually recorded what happened.
Yes they did, and those videos show Acosta's hand/wrist on her arm, pushing it down, and knocking her off balance.
That's a crock, he just put his hand up and stopped her from grabbing the mic out of his hand. She had no business trying to take something out of his hand.
Democrats are insane to believe they can contradict CLEAR video evidence and get away with it. They get courage by listening to each others lunacies, and then go around mindlessly blabbering the same ridiculous fallacy.
This has nothing to do with Democrat or republican, it is a crying shame that folks would try and push a blatant lie just because you don't like the way a man reports when it comes to your God.
Wrong Bru, reporters, though they have passes, are still guests in the White House. She had every right to reach for the microphone and I bet if the research was done there would be other instances where a staffer reached to remove a microphone.
It's her job to give it to the next speaker.
Acosta was just being a little girl about it sorry. He shoved her arm down and you could see the look on her face that it wasnt really cool.. but she then backed down as not to make a scene. But hey, just another angry white male putting a woman in her place right? is that good for you?
Nope. Trump decides when he is done, moron. Acosta doesn't run the press conference.Maybe your dumb ass needs to go back and watch the video. He didn't slam her fucking arm, that is the right wing lie that has been debunked. See the problem is simpleton a lot of folks in the room actually recorded what happened.
Yes they did, and those videos show Acosta's hand/wrist on her arm, pushing it down, and knocking her off balance.
That's a crock, he just put his hand up and stopped her from grabbing the mic out of his hand. She had no business trying to take something out of his hand.
Democrats are insane to believe they can contradict CLEAR video evidence and get away with it. They get courage by listening to each others lunacies, and then go around mindlessly blabbering the same ridiculous fallacy.
This has nothing to do with Democrat or republican, it is a crying shame that folks would try and push a blatant lie just because you don't like the way a man reports when it comes to your God.
Wrong Bru, reporters, though they have passes, are still guests in the White House. She had every right to reach for the microphone and I bet if the research was done there would be other instances where a staffer reached to remove a microphone.
Yep and he had every right to put his hand up and let her know he wasn't finished asking his question.
It's her job to give it to the next speaker.
Once he is done.
Acosta was just being a little girl about it sorry. He shoved her arm down and you could see the look on her face that it wasnt really cool.. but she then backed down as not to make a scene. But hey, just another angry white male putting a woman in her place right? is that good for you?
He didn't shove her arm down, stop spinning the INFO Wars video. I guess you haven't seen the 3 black woman that Trump insulted this week, but I am pretty sure you will spin it that you didn't see anything wrong with his words.
Nope. Trump decides when he is done, moron. Acosta doesn't run the press conference.Maybe your dumb ass needs to go back and watch the video. He didn't slam her fucking arm, that is the right wing lie that has been debunked. See the problem is simpleton a lot of folks in the room actually recorded what happened.
Yes they did, and those videos show Acosta's hand/wrist on her arm, pushing it down, and knocking her off balance.
That's a crock, he just put his hand up and stopped her from grabbing the mic out of his hand. She had no business trying to take something out of his hand.
Democrats are insane to believe they can contradict CLEAR video evidence and get away with it. They get courage by listening to each others lunacies, and then go around mindlessly blabbering the same ridiculous fallacy.
This has nothing to do with Democrat or republican, it is a crying shame that folks would try and push a blatant lie just because you don't like the way a man reports when it comes to your God.
Wrong Bru, reporters, though they have passes, are still guests in the White House. She had every right to reach for the microphone and I bet if the research was done there would be other instances where a staffer reached to remove a microphone.
Yep and he had every right to put his hand up and let her know he wasn't finished asking his question.
It's her job to give it to the next speaker.
Once he is done.
Acosta was just being a little girl about it sorry. He shoved her arm down and you could see the look on her face that it wasnt really cool.. but she then backed down as not to make a scene. But hey, just another angry white male putting a woman in her place right? is that good for you?
He didn't shove her arm down, stop spinning the INFO Wars video. I guess you haven't seen the 3 black woman that Trump insulted this week, but I am pretty sure you will spin it that you didn't see anything wrong with his words.
You haven’t proven a theft occurred, you haven’t proven DC has the same law as Wisconsin, you haven’t proven anything except for the fact that you’re a fake cling moron. That you expect anyone to take you at your word when a) you can’t prove s word you’re saying; and b) you’re a fucking moron, is quite humorous though, I’ll grant you that.Fuax's favorite tactic is to pick out one single insignificant statement in your post and then harp on it relentlessly as if it's the crux of your entire position. He pretends he's disproved your entire argument if he manages to undermine that one irrelevant statement. Of course, his main claim has holes so big in it that you could drive a freight train through it.Quote me saying that would lead to a constitutional crisis. Quote me saying it would lead to a collapse of national security.But it couldn't and didn't. Thats how stupid you are, We have seen the memo and there was nothing that compromised national security there.
You supported (((Schiff))) in his claims that it would hurt national security. He lost...the memo was released..and national security is fine. This is the danger of having you subhuman types involved in anything. And you will still follow (((Schiff)))...even though he humiliated you. It wasnt so much your lie. You were just a dupe. Its that you dont mind attacking the good people who exposed (((schiffs))) lie.
So Faun...are we OK? No "constitutional crisis" like you and (((schiff))) promised?" No collapse of national security?
You can’t because I never said those things. You’ve lost this argument so badly that now you’ve reduced your argument to lying and fighting against positions I never took.
I have already covered this. Always the technicality.."well see technically I never said that exact thing". But Im not claiming you did. You never say anything. You operate by rote. And you supported (((schiff))) when he said the Nunes Memo would (1) wreck national security and (2) cause a constitutional crisis. And you swore he was right.
I know you are dense but my point is you have so little humanity that you didnt even rebel after being humiliated by (((schiff))). You dont mind being treated like a serf because you were born to be one. And you spend your life "technically" wiggling out of taking any stand.
Faux has been attempting to claim the D.C. law doesn't allow you to use force to keep someone from taking your property. His entire argument hinges on whether I quote the actual statute that says so.
Faun is just a liberal. Not real bright or deep. Their arguments range from "you misspelled that" to "technically I only said maybe" to "prove that females dont have penises". No sense using human reasoning on them. The "out" is all important to them. It comes from their puritan heritage...the ability to use legalisms to avoid truth.
But remember..their goal is not really to win anything. You have to understand and internalize this if nothing else. In life, in politics, and especially in their chat life their goal is grind things to a standoff. Nothing more. Think of the Kavanaugh hearings...nothing to be proved only endless stasis and sand in the gears.
You know that Democrats fear the truth which is why Wikileaks and project veritas were so damaging to them.The tangled lies here are used NOT to win an argument. I have to keep emphasizing that. They are to hide any resolution to a question. Its why so many arguments with them devolve into Bill Clintons "depends on what the defintion of is is." He wont argue about lying under oath..he simply lied and then went after the utility of the English Language. He didnt really want to convince you of anything. He smirked because he probably wanted you to know how he treated young women. But his goal was to make it impossible for you to use words to prove anything about him. Its that simple.
For them words are tools to obfuscate rather than communicate.
Try Vox Day's "SJWs Always Lie". Every antic you see here is listed in his book. Hes been banned from Twitter and Reddit but his book is still available on Amazon for now. The book is only like 4.99. Its not just for the dark places liberals slither around like chat rooms but he gives examples of how to avoid their attacks in the workplace.
Also try Ron Jonsons book. Its more expensive and was a best seller. He gives illustrative examples of the times Marxists have gone after peoples jobs and been beaten completely into the dirt. He describes the dangers of grappling with their lies and half truths as well.
You simply cant win when you approach someone as a decent person and treat them as if they are arguing in good faith...when in reality you are dealing with a soulless liberal. Point out thir lies and help decent people recognize them. its all you can do.
Would you ever expect resolution from people with a relative value system and no firm morals except hatred for anyone with morals?Sorry, turd, it's purely your fetish that I have to wade my way through that labyrinthine mess. Anyone without an extra hole in his head knows you can use force to protect your property. I never heard of a state where that wasn't allowed, and neither have you.No, you have to post the D.C. law that supports your claim.My example proves that using force to protect your property is not against the law.”Beating them to within an inch of their lives, obviously isn't necessary”You can beat them pretty badly, because the cops don't have much sympathy for thieves. "whatever force is required" means "whatever force is necessary and appropriate." Beating them to within an inch of their lives, obviously isn't necessaryNo law, not even the Wisconsin law you ridiculously posted, allows for “whatever force is required.” There are limitations. You cannot beat someone to within an inch of their life, as you insanely insinuated, to prevent a theft.
Shit, you can’t even prove he didn’t give the mic back until actually told to. You can’t prove there’s any such law in D,C.. You can’t prove whose mic it is. You can’t prove it was theft. All you can prove is that you’re a fucking moron. Which is all you ever prove.
When the intern extended her hand, that was a request to return the mic. Only a lying moron would refuse to admit that.
If the Whitehouse didn't supply the mic, then who did, CNN? Only an anal retentive moron without a clue insists that I have to prove every single thing said about the incident. That's a tactic designed to deflect from the fact that you were proven dead wrong. Some people are smart enough to realize that some things are obvious. Only those caught in their own lies demand such proof.
BTW, asshole, I proved that you're a liar. In fact, you proved it by making a claim about what I said and then posting exactly what I said which differed from what you claimed.
Talk about a stupid lying cockroach.
Yet that was the example you ridiculously offered.
Even funnier is you opining you don’t have to prove everything you say. Of course. We should just take everything a fucking moron like you says as gospel.
Right, so I have to prove the sky is blue and water is wet?
You're an idiot.
You couldn’t.
You lose because you’re a loser.
oh? What position have I falsely attributed to you?But it's OK if you falsely ascribe to me positions I didn't take, eh, douchebag?LOLOLFuax's favorite tactic is to pick out one single insignificant statement in your post and then harp on it relentlessly as if it's the crux of your entire position. He pretends he's disproved your entire argument if he manages to undermine that one irrelevant statement. Of course, his main claim has holes so big in it that you could drive a freight train through it.Quote me saying that would lead to a constitutional crisis. Quote me saying it would lead to a collapse of national security.
You can’t because I never said those things. You’ve lost this argument so badly that now you’ve reduced your argument to lying and fighting against positions I never took.
I have already covered this. Always the technicality.."well see technically I never said that exact thing". But Im not claiming you did. You never say anything. You operate by rote. And you supported (((schiff))) when he said the Nunes Memo would (1) wreck national security and (2) cause a constitutional crisis. And you swore he was right.
I know you are dense but my point is you have so little humanity that you didnt even rebel after being humiliated by (((schiff))). You dont mind being treated like a serf because you were born to be one. And you spend your life "technically" wiggling out of taking any stand.
Faux has been attempting to claim the D.C. law doesn't allow you to use force to keep someone from taking your property. His entire argument hinges on whether I quote the actual statute that says so.
Faun is just a liberal. Not real bright or deep. Their arguments range from "you misspelled that" to "technically I only said maybe" to "prove that females dont have penises". No sense using human reasoning on them. The "out" is all important to them. It comes from their puritan heritage...the ability to use legalisms to avoid truth.
But remember..their goal is not really to win anything. You have to understand and internalize this if nothing else. In life, in politics, and especially in their chat life their goal is grind things to a standoff. Nothing more. Think of the Kavanaugh hearings...nothing to be proved only endless stasis and sand in the gears.
You know that Democrats fear the truth which is why Wikileaks and project veritas were so damaging to them.The tangled lies here are used NOT to win an argument. I have to keep emphasizing that. They are to hide any resolution to a question. Its why so many arguments with them devolve into Bill Clintons "depends on what the defintion of is is." He wont argue about lying under oath..he simply lied and then went after the utility of the English Language. He didnt really want to convince you of anything. He smirked because he probably wanted you to know how he treated young women. But his goal was to make it impossible for you to use words to prove anything about him. Its that simple.
For them words are tools to obfuscate rather than communicate.
Try Vox Day's "SJWs Always Lie". Every antic you see here is listed in his book. Hes been banned from Twitter and Reddit but his book is still available on Amazon for now. The book is only like 4.99. Its not just for the dark places liberals slither around like chat rooms but he gives examples of how to avoid their attacks in the workplace.
Also try Ron Jonsons book. Its more expensive and was a best seller. He gives illustrative examples of the times Marxists have gone after peoples jobs and been beaten completely into the dirt. He describes the dangers of grappling with their lies and half truths as well.
You simply cant win when you approach someone as a decent person and treat them as if they are arguing in good faith...when in reality you are dealing with a soulless liberal. Point out thir lies and help decent people recognize them. its all you can do.
Would you ever expect resolution from people with a relative value system and no firm morals except hatred for anyone with morals?
What a diatribe just to say it shouldn’t matter if you falsely ascribe to me positions I didn’t take. All that matters is the bullshit you spew.
I also haven't proven that the sky is blue or that water is wet. That's the nature of what you are demanding me to prove. If you want to insist that DC law doesn't allow people to defend their property, then prove it.You haven’t proven a theft occurred, you haven’t proven DC has the same law as Wisconsin, you haven’t proven anything except for the fact that you’re a fake cling moron. That you expect anyone to take you at your word when a) you can’t prove s word you’re saying; and b) you’re a fucking moron, is quite humorous though, I’ll grant you that.Fuax's favorite tactic is to pick out one single insignificant statement in your post and then harp on it relentlessly as if it's the crux of your entire position. He pretends he's disproved your entire argument if he manages to undermine that one irrelevant statement. Of course, his main claim has holes so big in it that you could drive a freight train through it.Quote me saying that would lead to a constitutional crisis. Quote me saying it would lead to a collapse of national security.
You can’t because I never said those things. You’ve lost this argument so badly that now you’ve reduced your argument to lying and fighting against positions I never took.
I have already covered this. Always the technicality.."well see technically I never said that exact thing". But Im not claiming you did. You never say anything. You operate by rote. And you supported (((schiff))) when he said the Nunes Memo would (1) wreck national security and (2) cause a constitutional crisis. And you swore he was right.
I know you are dense but my point is you have so little humanity that you didnt even rebel after being humiliated by (((schiff))). You dont mind being treated like a serf because you were born to be one. And you spend your life "technically" wiggling out of taking any stand.
Faux has been attempting to claim the D.C. law doesn't allow you to use force to keep someone from taking your property. His entire argument hinges on whether I quote the actual statute that says so.
Faun is just a liberal. Not real bright or deep. Their arguments range from "you misspelled that" to "technically I only said maybe" to "prove that females dont have penises". No sense using human reasoning on them. The "out" is all important to them. It comes from their puritan heritage...the ability to use legalisms to avoid truth.
But remember..their goal is not really to win anything. You have to understand and internalize this if nothing else. In life, in politics, and especially in their chat life their goal is grind things to a standoff. Nothing more. Think of the Kavanaugh hearings...nothing to be proved only endless stasis and sand in the gears.
You know that Democrats fear the truth which is why Wikileaks and project veritas were so damaging to them.The tangled lies here are used NOT to win an argument. I have to keep emphasizing that. They are to hide any resolution to a question. Its why so many arguments with them devolve into Bill Clintons "depends on what the defintion of is is." He wont argue about lying under oath..he simply lied and then went after the utility of the English Language. He didnt really want to convince you of anything. He smirked because he probably wanted you to know how he treated young women. But his goal was to make it impossible for you to use words to prove anything about him. Its that simple.
For them words are tools to obfuscate rather than communicate.
Try Vox Day's "SJWs Always Lie". Every antic you see here is listed in his book. Hes been banned from Twitter and Reddit but his book is still available on Amazon for now. The book is only like 4.99. Its not just for the dark places liberals slither around like chat rooms but he gives examples of how to avoid their attacks in the workplace.
Also try Ron Jonsons book. Its more expensive and was a best seller. He gives illustrative examples of the times Marxists have gone after peoples jobs and been beaten completely into the dirt. He describes the dangers of grappling with their lies and half truths as well.
You simply cant win when you approach someone as a decent person and treat them as if they are arguing in good faith...when in reality you are dealing with a soulless liberal. Point out thir lies and help decent people recognize them. its all you can do.
Would you ever expect resolution from people with a relative value system and no firm morals except hatred for anyone with morals?Sorry, turd, it's purely your fetish that I have to wade my way through that labyrinthine mess. Anyone without an extra hole in his head knows you can use force to protect your property. I never heard of a state where that wasn't allowed, and neither have you.No, you have to post the D.C. law that supports your claim.My example proves that using force to protect your property is not against the law.”Beating them to within an inch of their lives, obviously isn't necessary”You can beat them pretty badly, because the cops don't have much sympathy for thieves. "whatever force is required" means "whatever force is necessary and appropriate." Beating them to within an inch of their lives, obviously isn't necessary
When the intern extended her hand, that was a request to return the mic. Only a lying moron would refuse to admit that.
If the Whitehouse didn't supply the mic, then who did, CNN? Only an anal retentive moron without a clue insists that I have to prove every single thing said about the incident. That's a tactic designed to deflect from the fact that you were proven dead wrong. Some people are smart enough to realize that some things are obvious. Only those caught in their own lies demand such proof.
BTW, asshole, I proved that you're a liar. In fact, you proved it by making a claim about what I said and then posting exactly what I said which differed from what you claimed.
Talk about a stupid lying cockroach.
Yet that was the example you ridiculously offered.
Even funnier is you opining you don’t have to prove everything you say. Of course. We should just take everything a fucking moron like you says as gospel.
Right, so I have to prove the sky is blue and water is wet?
You're an idiot.
You couldn’t.
You lose because you’re a loser.
Nope, that’s not a request. Her job is to take the mic when it’s handed to her and then pass it to someone else. The first time Acosta was asked to give up the mic was when trump asked him to put the mic down. At that time, he handed her the mic.Wrong. It was requested when the intern extended her hand for it. Trump said “put the mic down” because the asshole refused to turn it over.He did turn over the mic when it was requested. Trump said, “put the mic down,” and Acosta handed the mic to that woman.He shouldn't have harangued the President with his moronic opinions. He should have turned over the mic the second it was requested. He deserves to be barred permanently, and CNN deserves to be barred until it makes amends.CNN's access should be removed as well. They permitted that Acosta to engage in his rude behavior. In fact, they even endorsed it. They should be required to submit a formal apology and implement policies to require respectful behavior towards the president from their reporters.Furthermore , it is in the White Houses discretion to determine whether they find someone rude or not. Right or wrong. Accosta got his pass removed but CNN still has access and they can send another qualified reporter. This has absolutely nothing to do with the suppression of the press
I don't think that's really necessary. I'd just stick with the moderate move for now, you wouldnt want to send the wrong message. Acosta shouldnt have pushed her arm down. That's on him. I wonder if he has made an apology yet to the intern?
