Do you know your A..B..C..s ?

[Poor Richard Saunders]

The video clearly shows that the police had already opened doors and were there to expect, and to control the entering public.

When can we expect to see this video of the police opening the doors and welcoming people in? You said you always provide support for your arguments. Since you claimed the video clearly shows something then surely you can provide us with this video since you always support your arguments.

Or are we left to conclude that you don't always support your arguments since you have not provided us with this video you claim exists but no one but you seems to have seen.

 

[IBDaMann]

I see you have decided to abandon your claim ...

Nope. I am remaining focused on my point, and you have tipped your king.

Did you have any other topics you wish to discuss?

 

[IBDaMann]

IBdaMoron

This always amuses me. You are the 827th leftist to think he was clever enough to be the first to call me "IBDaMoron"

Yuck, yuck, yuck ...

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Nope. I am remaining focused on my point, and you have tipped your king.

Did you have any other topics you wish to discuss?

Claiming your opponent lost? Which mantra is that?

You seem to be focused on not providing any support for your claims and moving the goalposts when your claims prove false.

Let's examine some of your "focus."
You claimed there were no videos of anyone committing violence that was arrested. - your claim was false
You claimed that someone swinging a table leg at police officers is not violence. - your claim was and is false.
You claimed that destruction of property is not violence under the law - your claim was false
You claimed that Jacob Chansley was welcomed into the Capitol by police who opened the door - your claim was false
You claimed that Jacob Chansley was convicted of violently rioting - your claim was false.

You claimed you always support your arguments.
You have yet to present the video you claim exists that shows police opening the doors and welcoming people in. But there does seem to be a pattern with your claims of prevaricating so I doubt we will ever see such a video which will make your claim that you support your arguments also false.

Your claim that my king has been tipped seems to following a pattern here as lying seems to be the only focus you have.

 

[IBDaMann]

When can we expect to see ...

When can we expect to see all video of all the doors from the capitol. If the police had not opened (some) doors and welcomed people in, you would have already posted all the video of all the doors showing that this never happened and the matter would have been a closed deal back on Jan 7th, 2021. Nonetheless, we have a tyrannical leftist government that is withholding the video of the doors that were opened by the police so as to maintain plausability of their lie to their gullible slaves (e.g. you).

The government is the party who is convicting We the People on accusation alone, and is not releasing the exculpating video that it controls. Fortunately, We the People have our own eyewitnesses who are being persecuted for their observations, and We don't need to somehow trust the tyrannical government that is imprisoning us for DARING to protest the tyranny.

Let us know when you are going to be honest and post all the video of all the doors (and hallways) for the day in question.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

When can we expect to see all video of all the doors from the capitol. If the police had not opened (some) doors and welcomed people in, you would have already posted all the video of all the doors showing that this never happened and the matter would have been a closed deal back on Jan 7th, 2021. Nonetheless, we have a tyrannical leftist government that is withholding the video of the doors that were opened by the police so as to maintain plausability of their lie to their gullible slaves (e.g. you).

The government is the party who is convicting We the People on accusation alone, and is not releasing the exculpating video that it controls. Fortunately, We the People have our own eyewitnesses who are being persecuted for their observations, and We don't need to somehow trust the tyrannical government that is imprisoning us for DARING to protest the tyranny.

Let us know when you are going to be honest and post all the video of all the doors (and hallways) for the day in question.

Wow. Now you want me to disprove your claim.
Which mantra is that one?

Your claim that the government is not releasing exculpatory videos is complete nonsense since every defendant has had access to all the videos that they were visible in. They were all turned over to the defense in discovery as required.

You made the claim that police opened the doors and welcomed people in. It is incumbent upon you to provide the support for your claim.
It seems you are trying to make sure everyone knows that this statement by you is false since you are not supporting your argument with any evidence.

I support every single argument I make. - IBDaMann - post 163

Since you claimed that that the video exists, let me give you a link to all the security video that the GOP has released.

https://rumble.com/c/CHASubcommitteeOnOversightRepublicanMajority/playlists

Can you find the ones that show the police opening the doors and welcoming people in?

 

[Into the Night]

ROFLMAO.
Thanks for the "holy link."

Did any of them raise their arms when they had a question?

The Constitution of the United States is not a "holy link".

 

[Into the Night]

Let's go to the video....
Rioters break the window, crawl through and then open the door with no police around. The judge ruled on this and called Chansley a liar for claiming the police opened the door and waved them in.

Making shit up won't work, Poorboy. Chansley wasn't rioting or breaking windows. He is not a Democrat.

 

[Into the Night]

The video shows the police opened that door?

RQAA

 

[Into the Night]

Care to tell us when those people entered?

RQAA

 

[Into the Night]

ROFLMAO.
I see you have decided to abandon your claim since you can't defend it. So much for your "focus."
Nice try but no dice on your attempt to move the goal posts.

Fallacy fallacy. No goal posts were moved.
Attempted negative proof fallacy.
Argument of Ignorance fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Wow. Now you want me to disprove your claim.

He never did. You are hallucinating again, Poorboy.

Which mantra is that one?

Your claim that the government is not releasing exculpatory videos is complete nonsense since every defendant has had access to all the videos that they were visible in. They were all turned over to the defense in discovery as required.

You made the claim that police opened the doors and welcomed people in. It is incumbent upon you to provide the support for your claim.
It seems you are trying to make sure everyone knows that this statement by you is false since you are not supporting your argument with any evidence.

Those videos have already been released and shown to the public, Poorboy. RQAA.

I support every single argument I make. - IBDaMann - post 163

Since you claimed that that the video exists, let me give you a link to all the security video that the GOP has released.

The GOP didn't release them, Poorboy.

 

[IBDaMann]

Now you want me to disprove your claim.

Nope. I'm fine with you abandoning your attempt to show that the 2020 election was somehow free and fair. It would be the first wise move you have made.

Your claim that the government is not releasing exculpatory videos is complete nonsense since every defendant has had access to all the videos that they were visible in.

Pivot. No defendent was afforded access to any exculpatory evidence. All conservatives were railroaded for DARING to protest the stolen election. Peaceful protestors were handed multi-year sentences. One was murdered. I don't have any need for your dishonesty on the topic.

I support every single argument I make. - IBDaMann - post 163

Yes. My argument is above. I cite the multitudinous affidavits of eyewitnesses as well as my own observations, and if there is any part of that you don't accept, then I wish you all the happiness possible in your misery.

 

[IBDaMann]

Care to tell us when those people entered?

I don't know. I wasn't there. I should have been, but I was too much of a coward.

Care to tell us who they were?

I don't recognize any of the people in the videos. I don't know everyone.

Please provide a time stamped video that shows any of the rioters entering prior to 2:11

Nope. You need to provide all the video for all the doors that day.

Your claim is unsupported by any facts.

Your claim remains unsupported. My observations are entirely corroborated.

The timeline of the attack on the Capitol

The Capitol was not attacked. Some glass was broken and some property was damaged.

You are free to post all the video for all the doors and hallways for that day in question.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

RQAA

RQAA = "I am regurgitating bullshit."

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Nope. I'm fine with you abandoning your attempt to show that the 2020 election was somehow free and fair. It would be the first wise move you have made.


Pivot. No defendent was afforded access to any exculpatory evidence. All conservatives were railroaded for DARING to protest the stolen election. Peaceful protestors were handed multi-year sentences. One was murdered. I don't have any need for your dishonesty on the topic.


Yes. My argument is above. I cite the multitudinous affidavits of eyewitnesses as well as my own observations, and if there is any part of that you don't accept, then I wish you all the happiness possible in your misery.

You didn't cite a single affidavit that has stood up under court examination.
Would you accept my eyewitness claim that there was no fraud? I doubt it. So why should I accept your claim there was? I don't have to show the election was free and fair since that is the assumption that is accepted and it would be incumbent on you to show it wasn't free and fair.

The court accepted the testimony of the people that ran the elections and pointed out that the affidavits you claim exist don't really support the claim of fraud but instead only show that the person that signed the affidavit was unfamiliar with the actual voting and counting process.

Once again, we see you failing to support your claim and trying to move the goalposts by demanding I disprove the claim you can't prove.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I don't know. I wasn't there. I should have been, but I was too much of a coward.


I don't recognize any of the people in the videos. I don't know everyone.


Nope. You need to provide all the video for all the doors that day.


Your claim remains unsupported. My observations are entirely corroborated.


The Capitol was not attacked. Some glass was broken and some property was damaged.

You are free to post all the video for all the doors and hallways for that day in question.

LOL.

I guess you failed to follow the link I sent.
Clearly you can't support your claim. So you lied when you said you always provide support.
For some reason you keep thinking you can tip your king back up.

 

[IBDaMann]

You didn't cite a single affidavit that has stood up under court examination.

You haven't refuted a single affidavit, and they all stand up to the scrutiny of We the People, which is all that matters.

Would you accept my eyewitness claim that there was no fraud?

I would definitely consider it if you were to provide your testimony under oath, under penalty of perjury, and be as detailed and as convincing as the other eye-witnesses, ... especially if your testimony can't be refuted by anyone.

The [rigged] court [unquestioningly] accepted the testimony of the people that [stole] the elections

This is not in doubt.

Once again, we see you failing to support your claim

You are tipping your king again.

 

[IBDaMann]

Clearly you can't support your claim.

I don't know why you think I somehow need to convince myself any further than I am already convinced.

So you lied when you said you always provide support.

I provided more than enough support and I refuted your claims. You took an immediate deep-dive into denial.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You haven't refuted a single affidavit, and they all stand up to the scrutiny of We the People, which is all that matters.

ROFLMAO. You are now speaking for all of "we the people?" I know a lot of people that think your argument does not stand up to scrutiny.

I would definitely consider it if you were to provide your testimony under oath, under penalty of perjury, and be as detailed and as convincing as the other eye-witnesses, ... especially if your testimony can't be refuted by anyone.


This is not in doubt.


You are tipping your king again.

Which testimony do you think is convincing? Since you always support your arguments, certainly you can provide a link to at least one of those affidavits. (Then we can examine how that affidavit was received by a court.) I am curious you provided your testimony under oath and penalty of perjury. Can you tell us when that happened and you weren't just bloviating on the internet without any evidence to support you claims?

My king doesn't tip nearly as much as yours does. The funny thing about my king is you haven't come close to tipping it over since you haven't come close to providing any evidence in support of your claims.