Honestly,.......Q has been a massive success.

evince said:
Because you are denying cold hard facts
Click to expand...

Bill Clinton committed perjury. He lied about his adultery. Since Bill Clinton is a Democrat, you are now officially wrong claiming Democrats don't lie or break the law.

Should I list the lies of Hillary? Obama? Pelosi? Any Democrats you think have never lied that I can check for you?
 
Walt said:
So he is anon, because we only have his online name? It would be fair to call him QAnon.

You are right, this is not complex. Anon means he is anonymous.
Click to expand...

You are quite stupid Walt and not worth my time and effort in responding to you anymore after this post. In fact you werent even smart enuff to know that it was the govt who fired first in both the Weaver/Ruby Ridge case AND in the Waco incident. Regarding Waco there was even video evidence. Watching Congressman Bono break down and cry while watching the evidence and hearing the testimony made a lasting impression on me. I watched part of the hearing televised on CSpan back then. Goodbye ,.....and do better.
 
Last edited:
Dutch Uncle said:
Bill Clinton committed perjury. He lied about his adultery. Since Bill Clinton is a Democrat, you are now officially wrong claiming Democrats don't lie or break the law.

Should I list the lies of Hillary? Obama? Pelosi? Any Democrats you think have never lied that I can check for you?
Click to expand...


You're 100% on par with the Trumpsexuals who explain away his treason, egomaniacal behavior, insurrection, and theft of govt. coffers with all this whataboutism.

Do you even truly understand why whataboutism is a logical fallacy? Taken to its extreme, whataboutism commands that we never criticize anyone, ever, for anything, because there's always someone else out there worth criticizing.

You CONSTANTLY engage in constipated, stupid, lazy rhetoric. You're fucking dumb as FUCK. So now I have no doubt you were a marine.
 
Jerome said:
You're 100% on par with the Trumpsexuals who explain away his treason, egomaniacal behavior, insurrection, and theft of govt. coffers with all this whataboutism.

Do you even truly understand why whataboutism is a logical fallacy? Taken to its extreme, whataboutism commands that we never criticize anyone, ever, for anything, because there's always someone else out there worth criticizing.

You CONSTANTLY engage in constipated, stupid, lazy rhetoric. You're fucking dumb as FUCK. So now I have no doubt you were a marine.
Click to expand...

Excellent nutjob rant. I think even Evince can see you are not helping her POV. :thup: :laugh:
 
Stone said:
Angeli and his friends are not Trump supporters. But you know that already anyway and instead parrot the company line. Good thing some of this CRAP and disinfo will come out during the Impeachment scam trial...
Click to expand...


When you inevitably kill yourself, please shoot yourself in the chest so science can understand what the ever-loving fuck is wrong with your brain.
 
Jerome said:
Ok, so you DON'T know what whataboutism is, and you will continue to use it despite its clear fallacy.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO

See, Jerry, that's why I doubt you're a lawyer much less in your 40s. What kind of lawyer writes like that? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Why do you want to keep making a basic fact of civilization into a racial divide?
Click to expand...

You made it this way with your response, dude. Your response to my question on what the halfway point was for Black lives was to say that their lives should be taken when "necessary".

When asked to clarify what you meant by "necessary", you choked.

Now that your statement, in proper context mind you, makes you look racist, suddenly it wasn't your intent?

Do you expect anyone to believe that?
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Using your logic
Click to expand...

That's not "using my logic", that is you attempting to engage in bad faith sophistry because you just realized your response to the question of Black lives was to say that their Black lives should be taken when "necessary", and that they should somehow or someway be OK with that because of your personal beliefs that their lives don't matter a whole lot, or that they're just as bad as the Nazis.


it's okay to shoot IAW SOP and ethical training as long as their skin tone is lighter than some arbitrary level? What kind of fucking logic is that?
Click to expand...

I don't know, you tell me!

You're the one comfortable telling Black lives that their lives don't matter when you deem it necessary to take them.

I didn't say toot on the subject. This has been all about you. This has been you trying to retcon or walk back the very racist and very careless statement you made earlier about Black lives not mattering when you deem them unnecessary.

FYI - the correct and only answer to that question is "there is no justification for Black lives to be taken".

But you couldn't say that. You had to wink and nod to the racists by qualifying your approval of the taking of Black lives when "necessary".

So at what point is it necessary to take Black lives, then? After all, it's what you believe, so let's hear your explanation.
 
Jerome said:
When you inevitably kill yourself, please shoot yourself in the chest so science can understand what the ever-loving fuck is wrong with your brain.
Click to expand...

Is this another one of your posts that Jesus would support? Yeah,.... you sure do know all about what he stood for and are in a strong position to school the rest of us. :rolleyes:
 
LV426 said:
You made it this way with your response, dude. Your response to my question on what the halfway point was for Black lives was to say that their lives should be taken when "necessary".

When asked to clarify what you meant by "necessary", you choked.

Now that your statement, in proper context mind you, makes you look racist, suddenly it wasn't your intent?

Do you expect anyone to believe that?
Click to expand...

Disagreed. You lept to conclusions and tried to jam your words into my mouth.

The fact remains police shouldn't be shooting anyone unless absolutely necessary and always within the rules of lethal force.

If the Feds want to get involved, then they should work with all State and city law enforcement agencies to equip them with body cams and legislation on their use.

You, ma'm, by your tone and posts are the racist even though you think you are not. You divide Americans by skin-tone, I do not.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Disagreed. You lept to conclusions and tried to jam your words into my mouth.
Click to expand...

I quoted you in full, after you had quoted me in full.

There's no ambiguity about what you meant.

Your direct response was to my direct question.

You can always say you were wrong, and that of course Black lives matter, and of course their lives shouldn't be taken at all, and that there isn't a justification for necessity either. You were just trying to feed all mouths and let everyone know that All Lives Matter. It's OK to admit it because you can make yourself look better by correcting the perspective. I gave you an off-ramp. I'm still giving you the off-ramp.


The fact remains police shouldn't be shooting anyone unless absolutely necessary
Click to expand...

Who determines when it's absolutely necessary? The police? So we're back to square one, and this is circular.


If the Feds want to get involved, then they should work with all State and city law enforcement agencies to equip them with body cams and legislation on their use.
Click to expand...

OR the police could just not kill anyone.


You, ma'm, by your tone and posts are the racist even though you think you are not. You divide Americans by skin-tone, I do not
Click to expand...
.

I'm not the one who said Black lives are unnecessary, you did.

I'm not the one polarizing everyone into two equal sides, upon which you heap hollow scorn while contributing nothing, you are.

You're the one who responded to Black lives by telling them their lives only matter until the point they don't, and then you refused to articulate what that point actually is, and how it can be fairly applied.

The simpler, easier position would be to just say that cops shouldn't kill ANYONE. But you have bloodlust.
 
LV426 said:
...The simpler, easier position would be to just say that cops shouldn't kill ANYONE. But you have bloodlust.
Click to expand...
Sweetie; $100 says you'd think different about killing someone if they attacked you or yours. Some people need killing but we're a nation of laws and we should follow the law.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Sweetie; $100 says you'd think different about killing someone if they attacked you or yours. Some people need killing but we're a nation of laws and we should follow the law.
Click to expand...

I think it's way worse for someone to be locked away in a cell by themselves for the rest of their lives than it is to have the state execute them.

If you really wanted to posture a tough line on criminals, you'd be calling for longer sentencing, banning cops from carrying firearms, and ending the death penalty.

Solitary confinement for 50+ years is a much harsher punishment than ordering the state to execute someone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top