But there is poisonous Russian propaganda that Qtard likes. Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the Capitol rioters were being "persecuted" by the US government. And Vlad Putin claimed the J6 protests went to the Capital with "political demands".
Defending the J6 insurrectionists is official Kremlin approved propaganda and this is a counter-factual narrative Qtard approves of.
\\So, you condemn the J6 insurrectionists' anti-democratic attempt to overthrow the results of a fair election that they lost? Naah.
Why should I???
I am NOT involved in your political affairs.
And NEED NOT to have an opinion about it.
Well... even worse -- IF I'd have some opinion, AND stated it openly (like here in this blog) -- that would start resembling me being "involved in your political affairs". ;-P
\\Qtard is unable to grasp what facts are. I'm not running anywhere, btw. Unlike the imaginary "De-Ru-Pi".
Yap. Yap. Yap.
That your "Run, Qtard, run" was NOT allusion to "Rub, Forest, run". :-)))))))))))
You tryed to smear me with.
And now... that is NOT lame try to run away from precisely targeting homing response.
U R so damn funny, De-Ru-Pi. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
But you DO have an opinion on it. You have been very clear that stand with Putin in support of the J6 insurrectionists who attempted to overthrow democracy in America. Though you will likely deny it and ask for "citations". Apparently you see it as a fun game to deny past comments we both know you made.
Qtard: "Rub, Forest, run". ... You tryed to smear me with.
False. I did not write about you rubbing anything. As for running away (from debate), it was YOU who smeared me by saying I did this (multiple times).
FYI, I have no f*cking idea where "De-Ru-Pi" comes from or wtf it means.
\\You have been very clear that stand with Putin in support of the J6 insurrectionists who attempted to overthrow democracy in America.
Can you give a link where Putin saying that that J6 people have "a right to revolt"???
Because, that is unusual thing to be pounded by totalitarian -- they only pushing OPPOSITE message -- that people DO NOT have such right... cannot decide for themself, do not and must not have own agency.
So... I see it only like just another baseless smearing attack from your side. Nothing else.
And can you say that I... somehow wrong, given with all our previous "discussing"???
\\Apparently you see it as a fun game to deny past comments we both know you made.
Ohh... why then, it is so big problem to you -- to throw into MY face that "past comments you made" which I by your admission I always deny???
Why *I* doing it all of the time.
Like that your comment where you said "I believe in facts" or you demanded "go away!" or you tryed to dismiss dRumps and J6 people's Human Rights???
As well as many-many times... when I showed that you produced some false, incorrect, concockted, strawmaning "comments" -- which do not exist even. ;-P
Putin and Qtard both support the J6 insurrectionists. I never said you both used the exact same phrase, "right of revolution". I do believe in facts, but I have never demanded that you go away. I have also never tried to dismiss donald tRump's and J6 rioter's human rights. That is a bald-faced lie.
I have never produced any false, incorrect, concocted, strawman comments which do not even exist. That is another bigly lie.
\\Putin and Qtard both support the J6 insurrectionists
And you can demonstrate that with factual quotes???
With logical inferences?
With some plausible explanation for at least?
Naah.
You just keep repeating your baseless accusations again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again... trully, that is behavior of an idiot. Or Religious Bonker. ;-P
\\ I do believe in facts, but I have never demanded that you go away
See.
YOU confirmed it YET ONE TIME.
And selrevealingly -- you showed WHAT you mean under "I do believe in facts" -- that is open and obvious fact -- that you stated your demand "go away". But... while you insist that you "believe in facts" STILL you DENY very existance of that fact. ;-P
So much for "believing in facts" -- it is provedly self-revealingly contre-factual -- well, as any other faith. In "great gawd". Or in "jude-mason's conspiracy". Or... watever. Yawn.
\\I have also never tried to dismiss donald tRump's and J6 rioter's human rights.
Contre-factual. Yawn. ;-P
\\That is a bald-faced lie.
"Lie" you freakingly CANNOT prove being lie... with any factual quote and/or logical explanation -- why that is lie.
Only momkey-screams... and feces-throwing :-))))))))))))))))))))))
\\I have never produced any false, incorrect, concocted, strawman comments which do not even exist. That is another bigly lie.
By this time... you credibility ruined THAT MUCH... that ANY of your such claims... well, any of your claims -- cannot be seen as anything truthfull.
Even by accident.
You are liar who indulge yourself in relentless lies.
Liar of high standard of Critian Liars. Like we all know "All Critians are liars"... who lie every time when they open their mouths.
Qtard: \\Putin and Qtard both support the J6 insurrectionists\\ And you can demonstrate that with factual quotes??
YES. I have. You wrote, "...you trying to deny people their right to revolt".
HOW is saying J6 rioters have a RIGHT to revolt NOT support for what they did? Which was to rise up AGAINST democracy. That Qtard and Putin both hate democracy and want to see it overthrown in American has been PROVEN.
Qtard: \\I have also never tried to dismiss donald tRump's and J6 rioter's human rights.\\ Contre-factual.
How so? You provided quotes where I "try to dismiss donald tRump's and J6 rioter's human rights". No. So how is my truthful rebuke of your BULLSHIT comment "counter-factual"? It is 100 percent factual.
Qtard: "Lie" you freakingly CANNOT prove being lie... with any factual quote and/or logical explanation -- why that is lie.
I CAN prove it. You provided ZERO quotes where I say J6 rioters or donald tRump should be denied their human rights. YOU needed to provide a quote, asshole. Not me.
Qtard's credibility is ruined. Any claim Qtard makes should immediately be assumed to be dishonest. Because Qtard is incapable of telling the truth. Except maybe by accident.
Though much of what Qtard claims is complete nonsense. Such as his comment about how "All Critians are liars". WTF is a "Critian"?
Is Qtard a "Critian"? I am going to guess YES. Because Qtard lies EVERY time he opens his mouth.
\\YES. I have. You wrote, "...you trying to deny people their right to revolt".
And WHEN and WHERE Putin said something like that?
But.
Congrats for trying to explain. Really.
\\HOW is saying J6 rioters have a RIGHT to revolt NOT support for what they did?
Clearly. Totalitarian Logic here. "Either you are WITH US, or you are against us". Denial of freedom. When one need to either show support, or stay neutral BUT, it would and will be counted as support... OR, one will be admitted an enemy.
Where is Freedom in that setup??? Why I cannot just admit something being right. Per se. Without being accused "but you, you... YOU supporting that nasty damn thing!!!"
And that not for the first time.
The same was with "you supporting dRump". And etc.
\\Which was to rise up AGAINST democracy.
In YOUR (totalitarian?) retransltion of meaning of word Democracy.
While.
Democracy - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Democracy Democracy is a form of government in which the people have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation ("direct democracy"), or to choose governing ...
Democracy | Definition, History, Meaning, Types, Examples, & Facts www.britannica.com › topic › democracy democracy, literally, rule by the people. The term is derived from the Greek dēmokratia, which was coined from dēmos (“people”) and kratos (“rule”) in the ...
Democracy - the United Nations www.un.org › global-issues › democracy Democracy provides an environment that respects human rights and fundamental freedoms, and in which the freely expressed will of people is exercised. People ...
Defining democracy www.moadoph.gov.au › democracy › defining... Democracy: A democracy is a society in which the citizens are sovereign and control the government.
\\That Qtard and Putin both hate democracy and want to see it overthrown in American has been PROVEN.
Naah. That is just (an attempt of) explanation. NOT proof.
For being proof -- it need to be demonstrated AND facts it based on. AND correct logical inferences. AND relevance of it all to the question discussed.
For now... I can admit only some (half-assed) facts being provided -- my words about right to uprise against injustice, of which I never tryed to back off...
HOW from that (not denyed by me) fact YOU could come to desirable for you conclusion "Qtard and Putin both hate democracy" -- nie, you didn't showed that. As all previous times -- that is baseless and even counter-factual claim. Of a religious bonker. ;-P
ONLY, and ONLY WHEN you'd be able to show ALL walkthrough from basic facts AKA premices, and through (CORRECT) logical inferences, with (again, CORRECT) argumentation why that all relevant -- it can start looking A PROOF.
\\How so? You provided quotes where I "try to dismiss donald tRump's and J6 rioter's human rights". No.
So??? Are you backing off from your earlier claim that dRump guilty in some heinous crimes -- even while he NOT put under trial EVEN???
But... being decided guilty ONLY through trial in court. Lawfull and juridically correct.
Well... even that is not a garanty. As we know enough cases where people become admitted FALSELY persecuted.
But, that is the best practice we have and can use.
Widely admitted being better... than Lynch trials you admire so much -- just scream "Witch! Let's burn that witch!", and all the deal.
\\So how is my truthful rebuke of your BULLSHIT comment "counter-factual"? It is 100 percent factual.
Yap.
It is 100% factual that it is countre-factual. ;-P
You just showed just one more time -- that EVEN meaning of word "fact" totally avoid you. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\I CAN prove it.
Again. Only screams. "I CAN!". "I'LL PROVE!". "I PROVED!". That is all what you can?
Why not show at least one time -- how you CAN, anything. Are you mexiCAN'T??? :-))))))))))))))))))
\\You provided ZERO quotes where I say J6 rioters or donald tRump should be denied their human rights. YOU needed to provide a quote, asshole. Not me.
O.K. I'll give you quotes. YET ONE time. That is not biggy. As my position based on TRUTH and FACTS. It's damn easy for me. (and so damn hard for you -- liar ;-P)
Easy-Peasy (you thought I would not dive into previous threads, isn't it?)
The same as revolutioners who overthrowed rule of king of Great Britain -- part of which you was. JUST BECAUSE... they where angry and didn't liked how that monarch governed.
Because... that was their natural right. Right you trying to deny to modern people.
See. How proudly you declared that YOUR opinion is more important... than anybody's Human Rights. ;-P
You even call it "Bullshit" -- very definition of Presumption of Innocence.
That's YOUR OWN WORDS.
PS But well... as proud Religious Bnker, you'll squint and you'll deny that you said that... or that it mean what it mean... or, whatever of miniscule set of u.u.r.b. treaks -- of lies and denial. ;-P
Qtard: Are you backing off from your earlier claim that dRump guilty in some heinous crimes -- even while he NOT put under trial EVEN???
No. He is guilty. If he were to be locked up for colluding with Russia there would need to be a trial though. And a conviction. I have NEVER said otherwise. Yet you keep lying and saying I am for locking donald tRump up without a trial. Which isn't even possible.
Qtard: than Lynch trials you admire so much -- just scream "Witch! Let's burn that witch!", and all the deal.
False accusation. I do not admire "lynch trials". Fake quote. I've never screamed anything about burning witches. It is donald tRump who characterizes people telling the truth about him as a "witch hunt". I don't want donald tRump burned. I want donald tRump to receive a fair trial.
Qtard: It is 100% factual that it is countre-factual.
Bullshit. I wrote "I have also never tried to dismiss donald tRump's and J6 rioter's human rights". That isn't counter-factual. It is true. PROVEN by the fact that you provided zero quotes where I say donald tRump or J6 rioters should be denied their human rights. Neither are, nor should they, have their human rights denied.
Qtard: \\I CAN prove it.\\ Again. Only screams. "I CAN!". "I'LL PROVE!". "I PROVED!". That is all what you can?
You lie. By giving only a PARTIAL quote. I wrote, "I CAN prove it. You provided ZERO quotes where I say J6 rioters or donald tRump should be denied their human rights". The proof is the second sentence.
Qtard: Again. Only screams. "I CAN!". "I'LL PROVE!". "I PROVED!". That is all what you can?
Yes, as per your false narrative that is "all what you can". According to reality I gave evidence. But you'll continue to pretend otherwise. I'm sure.
Qtard: \\I *DO* deny that the J6 insurrectionists had the right of revolution. <-- HERE, I made it in bold for you. Your DIRECTLY ADMITTED denial.
Damn right. The J6 rioters did NOT have the right of revolution. But that is NOT denying their human rights. Nor is it denying their natural rights.
"In political philosophy, the right of revolution (or right of rebellion) is the right or duty of a people to alter or abolish a government that acts against their common interests or threatens the safety of the people without cause".
The election of Joe Biden did not usher in a "government that acts against their common interests" nor did it "threaten the safety of the people without cause". <--- these are the reasons people would have a legitimate right of revolution. NONE of these apply to the J6 rioters.
According to you (WRONGLY), "right of revolution" applies for any reason at all. Being mad that their candidate lost is NOT a valid reason people can decide to try to overthrow the government.
Right of revolution isn't a human right anyway.
"Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings... [they] include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education...".
Qtard: The same as revolutioners who overthrowed rule of king of Great Britain -- part of which you was. JUST BECAUSE... they where angry and didn't liked how that monarch governed.
Wrong. Their reason was "taxation without representation". That is well known. Not "just because they were angry and didn't liked how that monarch governed".
Qtard: Right you trying to deny to modern people.
I'm not. I'm saying the J6 rioters didn't have that right because the government (just by electing a new president) wasn't suddenly acting against the interest of the people or threatening the safety of the people.
In fact MANY people felt that the election of Joe Biden would result in a government that acted MORE in their interest and that the removal of donald tRump got rid of a threat to their safety (i.e. his mishandling of the pandemic that resulted in many deaths). What about those people (the majority)? Those people didn't want a revolution. Qtard says "f*ck them"? Those people (the majority) don't have the right to see the government they voted for installed?
Qtard: See. How proudly you declared that YOUR opinion is more important... than anybody's Human Rights.
No. Because I DID NOT. I never said donald tRump should be jailed based on my opinion. My opinion is UNimportant. A fair trial is what is important. Which is what I want.
Qtard: You even call it "Bullshit" -- very definition of Presumption of Innocence. That's YOUR OWN WORDS.
Those are NOT my words. I never said the presumption of innocence is bullshit. What I said is bullshit is your claim that I can't have an opinion.
Qtard: you'll squint and you'll deny that you said that... or that it mean what it mean.
I don't need to squint. And, YES, I will deny that MY WORDS mean what YOU say they mean. MY WORDS mean what I say they mean. What you say they mean IS A LIE.
\\Qtard: Are you backing off from your earlier claim that dRump guilty in some heinous crimes -- even while he NOT put under trial EVEN???
\\No. He is guilty.
And what Presumption of Innocence saying?
\\No. He is guilty. If he were to be locked up for colluding with Russia there would need to be a trial though. And a conviction. I have NEVER said otherwise. Yet you keep lying and saying I am for locking donald tRump up without a trial. Which isn't even possible.
You called him "guilty".
In the same paragraph to boot.
"Guilty" that is status a Judge in a court trial give.
Or what? You'd be opposing to that?
\\I don't want donald tRump burned. I want donald tRump to receive a fair trial.
Aha... :-)))))))))))))))))))))
"Fair" trial. When he'd be assumed guilty EVEN BEFORE even premices for such a trial would emerge.
That is definitiuon of "fair" and "justice" --- totalitarian liliPut and lilXi would be pleased. For sure. ;-P
And trail in which person assumed to be guilty BEFOREHAND -- that is not justice.
That is Kengaroo Court. Like in Rusha or China.
\\...just scream "Witch! Let's burn that witch!", and all the deal.
\\False accusation. I do not admire "lynch trials". Fake quote. I've never screamed anything about burning witches.
Lie again.
HOW that was quote???
By which standard?
That was re-enactment.
\\PROVEN by the fact that you provided zero quotes where I say donald tRump or J6 rioters should be denied their human rights.
Ha-ha-ha.... what a totalisarian's sophistry. :-))))))))))))))
You DENIED them their right with your direct emphased even OWN WORDS. And I GAVE such quotes just in that comment above.
But you trying to dismiss it... because it was not with that same words???
You have wrote: "\\I *DO* deny..."
BUT.
You demand it SHOULD be: "...should be denied...".
Am I right??? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
What a stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, DAMN stupid... way to squint.
But... that's exactly why it so much fun to observe your merry idiotic tricks. ;-P
\\You lie. By giving only a PARTIAL quote. I wrote, "I CAN prove it. You provided ZERO quotes where I say J6 rioters or donald tRump should be denied their human rights". The proof is the second sentence.
And how that is proof???
The same as with "fact". It seems you do not understand what word "proof" mean. Isn't it?
HINT: That, when you saying whatever you like, without providing references to a facts and giving logical explanation -- that is NOT thing called PROOF. ;-P
And you'd know it.... if you'd not be that hopeless Religious Bonker. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\According to reality I gave evidence.
Evidances -- that is NOT facts. As per definition from dictionary I gave you before (because, and only because YOU showed yourself as drowned in lies idiot, who trying to dismiss my words on that mere base that they are my words -- I started giving you NOT my words, from OTHER credible sources, one that you cannot oppose directly... but still, trying to ignore with all unreasonable might of sheer manifestation of your unparalleled idiocy).
\\But you'll continue to pretend otherwise. I'm sure.
Of course. Because "evidances" that is manifestation of Reality in the minds of people. And people prone to errors and misconceptions.
That's why I prefer DIRECT references to the FACTS itself.
But... for such a proven u.u.r.b. that is like that anathema... because it block to them possibility to "believe in facts"... or whatever other bullshit they have on their mind. ;-P
\\Damn right. The J6 rioters did NOT have the right of revolution. But that is NOT denying their human rights. Nor is it denying their natural rights.
Ok, Google?
What is natural rights?
"" Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws ""
Ergo.
It's not up to YOU to decide!!!
\\The election of Joe Biden did not usher in a "government that acts against their common interests" nor did it "threaten the safety of the people without cause". <--- these are the reasons people would have a legitimate right of revolution. NONE of these apply to the J6 rioters.
Again.
Look above ^^^^^^^
There is NO. And can NOT be "not legitimate" Natural Rights. That's why they caled "natural". Not just for show.
That is like Right to Breath -- NOBODY can claim that your right to breath is somehow limited. On WHATEVER base!!! DARE to protest against this???!!!!!
And that is. Self-evidant.
As in.
"" Declaration of Independence: A Transcription - National Archives | www.archives.gov › declaration-transcript We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights... ""
\\Right of revolution isn't a human right anyway.
\\"Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings... [they] include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education...".
I like it.
Very much.
When your words is THAT self-contradicting. ;-P
\\Wrong. Their reason was "taxation without representation". That is well known. Not "just because they were angry and didn't liked how that monarch governed".
Well... they had a two century to give a solid rational base for their sheer anger... ;-P
\\I'm saying the J6 rioters didn't have that right because the government (just by electing a new president) wasn't suddenly acting against the interest of the people or threatening the safety of the people.
That is... absolutely BESIDE the point of Natural Rights of people for own thinking and deciding autonomy.
They decided that that is somehow wrong.
Well, it could be, that they decided wrong.
But... it still UP TO THAT people to decided -- what they'll do. And on what base.
The same as it is your own decision and your own volition -- to show how much an idiot you are... ;-P
See. YOU have that inalianable right -- to decide for yourself. WHY you deny to other people THAT SAME rights???
Because you are totalitarian?
\\What about those people (the majority)? Those people didn't want a revolution.
Was their right somehow infridged? Was it denied? By whom? How?
\\Qtard says "f*ck them"? Those people (the majority) don't have the right to see the government they voted for installed?
Majority. Always have MORE power to thwart any dissidents.
That's why DEMOCRACY built around PRESERVING rights of minorities.
But... you seems like don't like it? You prefer Rule of Majotity AKA Totalitarism?
\\I never said donald tRump should be jailed based on my opinion. My opinion is UNimportant. A fair trial is what is important. Which is what I want.
"Fair" trial where dRump would be ASSUMED guilty beforehand?
\\Those are NOT my words. I never said the presumption of innocence is bullshit.
Your OWN WORDS:
\\Qtard: dRump is not judged, that mean he cannot be called duilty.
\\Bullshit.
Presumption of Innocence sound: "If SOMEBODY is not judged, that mean he cannot be called guilty".
There is just a specification of Presumption of Innocence for a case of dRump.
But... if you DENY Presumption of Innocent for just ONE man -- you dening it for everyone.
That is... self-evidant.
\\I don't need to squint. And, YES, I will deny that MY WORDS mean what YOU say they mean. MY WORDS mean what I say they mean. What you say they mean IS A LIE.
Thank you for admitting being such an idioticly inclined in relentless lying.
And I will use it for quoting in our further talks.
You... have NO right to CHANGE the meaning of words. Whenever you like. And a posteriori ESPECIALLY.
So many lies. But that is obviously your strategy. To down out my facts and truth with an overwhelming number of lies.
Qtard: "Guilty" that is status a Judge in a court trial give. Or what? You'd be opposing to that?
My "guilty" is my opinion. Which I am entitled to have. Qtard says "NO, you canNOT have an opinion"! Go f*ck yourself, Qtard. My opinion would have absolutely ZERO impact on a court trial. Nor should it.
Qtard: "Fair" trial. When he'd be assumed guilty EVEN BEFORE even premices for such a trial would emerge.
That isn't how our system works. My opinion re tRump's guilt is an opinion what would have zero impact re any court trial. I never suggested my opinion SHOULD have any impact. It should not. It would not. It could not.
Qtard: That is definitiuon of "fair" and "justice" --- totalitarian liliPut and lilXi would be pleased. For sure.
Putin would hate it for sure. Given that he and tRump are collusion buddies. Putin would be bigly disappointed to see his puppet convicted. In any kind of trial. Fair or unfair. Though this is the US, so he'd get a fair trial.
Qtard: And trail in which person assumed to be guilty BEFOREHAND -- that is not justice.
No court that would potentially try court would give a shit about my opinion that tRump is guilty. Nor should they.
Qtard: That is Kengaroo Court. Like in Rusha or China.
There is no such country as "Rusha". There is no such thing as a "Kengaroo Court". A Kangaroo Court in Russia would find tRump innocent. Because tRump and Putin are collusion buddies.
Qtard: \\False accusation. I do not admire "lynch trials". Fake quote. I've never screamed anything about burning witches.\\ Lie again. HOW that was quote??? By which standard? That was re-enactment.
False "re-enactment".
Qtard: Ha-ha-ha.... what a totalisarian's sophistry. You DENIED them their right with your direct emphased even OWN WORDS. And I GAVE such quotes just in that comment above.
"I GAVE such quotes" is a lie. You gave no quotes where I "DENIED them their right".
But you trying to dismiss it... because it was not with that same words???
Damn right. Because my words were that nobody should be denied their rights. I keep repeating that, but you keep ignoring it. And falsely trying to tell me what I "really mean" is that their rights should be taken away.
Qtard: You have wrote: "\\I *DO* deny..." BUT. You demand it SHOULD be: "...should be denied...".
Partial quote. I wrote, "...you provided zero quotes where I say donald tRump or J6 rioters should be denied their human rights". That was a demand for you to show where I said that. It wasn't me saying it. You f*cking liar.
Qtard: Am I right??? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
You are WRONG. Such a dishonest "treak". You thought you could get away with it? I guess so. You even laughed at your "treak". Proof you are an FM. That you thought you could gaslight me into believing I had actually said that.
Qtard: What a stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, DAMN stupid... way to squint.
AGREED! Your squinting to get that fake quote was stupid X6. Plus a lot more "stupids". Like a hundred, at least.
I didn't decide. Merrick Garland didn't call me up and get an OK from me to arrest the J6 rioters. I had nothing to do with it. You think the rioters SHOULDN'T have been arrested? You think any government on earth would have said, "hey, you tried to overthrow the government but that's OK. It is your right"?
Qtard: Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws.
There you go again. Accurate definition. But you don't understand it. It does not apply to the J6 rioters. The incoming Biden administration did not act against the common interests or threaten the safety of the people without cause. Their human rights were not violated.
Qtard: \\The election of Joe Biden did not usher in a "government that acts against their common interests" nor did it "threaten the safety of the people without cause". <--- these are the reasons people would have a legitimate right of revolution. NONE of these apply to the J6 rioters.
Again. Look above ^^^^^^^ There is NO. And can NOT be "not legitimate" Natural Rights. That's why they caled "natural". Not just for show.
There can.
Qtard: That is like Right to Breath -- NOBODY can claim that your right to breath is somehow limited. On WHATEVER base!!! DARE to protest against this???!!!!! And that is. Self-evidant.
It is not self evident. Infringing on the rights of others is NOT a natural right. The 81 million people who voted for Joe Biden had the right to have the president of their choosing take office. YOU want to deny their rights.
Qtard: Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..
Quoting again without understanding.
Qtard: \\Right of revolution isn't a human right anyway.\\ "Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings... [they] include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education...".
I like it. Very much. When your words is THAT self-contradicting.
Right, because (according to you) ONLY the people who voted for tRump have rights. People who voted for Biden have no rights. And that's if you think everyone who voted for tRump was pro-revolution. Many of them were probably not. And accepted that Joe Biden won.
It isn't up to you to decide who gets rights and who loses their rights!!! Yet you insist it is. And call ME totalitarian because I want to respect the rights of the people who side with Democracy. As opposed to the people who rose up against democracy. That makes YOU the totalitarian.
Qtard: \\I'm saying the J6 rioters didn't have that right because the government ... wasn't suddenly acting against the interest of the people...\\ That is... absolutely BESIDE the point of Natural Rights of people for own thinking and deciding autonomy.
What about the autonomy of the people who voted for Joe Biden and did not want tRump to be president any longer? If the insurrection had been successful their right to select the leader of their choice would have been taken away. Spat on. Is it a person's "natural right" to violate the rights of others? To deny others THEIR rights?
Qtard: They decided that that is somehow wrong. Well, it could be, that they decided wrong. But... it still UP TO THAT people to decided -- what they'll do. And on what base.
They did decide wrong. Sure, people can decide to break the law. That is "up to that people to decided". But the other people decided they should be arrested. And face trial. And be punished. You think attacking police officers and vandalizing public property is a natural right?
Qtard: See. YOU have that inalianable right -- to decide for yourself. WHY you deny to other people THAT SAME rights???
They decided to break the law. They were arrested, charged, convicted and punished. This wasn't up to me. Though I agree with it. They had no right to try to overturn the results of the election by force. In violation of MY RIGHTS -- and the rights of everyone who voted for Joe Biden.
Qtard: Because you are totalitarian?
No, because I oppose totalitarianism.
Qtard: \\What about those people (the majority)? Those people didn't want a revolution.\\ Was their right somehow infridged? Was it denied? By whom? How?
By the rioters. The rioters tried to reverse the results of the election to keep the loser in power. How would that NOT have been a violation of the rights of the people who voted for Biden?
Qtard: That's why DEMOCRACY built around PRESERVING rights of minorities. But... you seems like don't like it? You prefer Rule of Majotity AKA Totalitarism?
Democracy, definition: "control of an organization or group by the MAJORITY of its members". Rule of the majority is NOT "aka totalitarianism".
Qtard: "Fair" trial where dRump would be ASSUMED guilty beforehand?
No.
Qtard: dRump is not judged, that mean he cannot be called duilty.
Why not? I am FORBIDDEN from having an opinion? Says who? By WHAT law can I NOT have an opinion?
Qtard: Presumption of Innocence sound: "If SOMEBODY is not judged, that mean he cannot be called guilty".
I MOST CERTAINLY CAN call tRump guilty. Law can't call him guilty. *I* can. I do. You can't stop me. It is my first amendment right. Qtard wants to deny my rights because he is a totalitarian.
Qtard: But... if you DENY Presumption of Innocent for just ONE man -- you dening it for everyone.
I deny it for no one. Court does not care about my opinion that tRump is guilty. Unless I was called as a juror. Then, when I said I thought tRump was guilty, they'd say "go home, you can't be a juror".
Qtard: \\I don't need to squint. And, YES, I will deny that MY WORDS mean what YOU say they mean. MY WORDS mean what I say they mean. What you say they mean IS A LIE.\\ Thank you for admitting being such an idioticly inclined in relentless lying. And I will use it for quoting in our further talks.
Why? To remind me you are a liar? You remind me of this constantly. I don't need even more reminding.
Qtard: You... have NO right to CHANGE the meaning of words. Whenever you like. And a posteriori ESPECIALLY.
When did this happen? Whenever I like? I NEVER like to change the meaning of words. What word(s) do you THINK I changed the meaning of? Quotes? Citations?
Anyway, YOU changed the meaning of a word in your last comment. Democracy is majority rule. But you say majority rule is totalitarianism. Word meaning change (by you) CONFIRMED.
\\I didn't decide. Merrick Garland didn't call me up and get an OK from me to arrest the J6 rioters. I had nothing to do with it.
It is NOT up to any Garland to decide TOO!!! ;-P
Cause, that is a nature of Natural Human Rights.
Your Captain Obvious
Again.
"" Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws ""
\\You think the rioters SHOULDN'T have been arrested?
And you think that they was arrested BECAUSE "how dare you to uprise against our Holy Democracy"??? And not for that, that they trespassed some rules of common living?
You just showed that you are totalitarian wannabe idiot... who just don't get it -- what was NOT right with J6 rioters... in accordance with democratic law. ;-P
\\So many lies. But that is obviously your strategy. To down out my facts and truth with an overwhelming number of lies.
You are always free to pick ONE "lie". And demonstrate with logic and facts -- how that is a lie. ;-P
But... you will not do that. Cause you miserly idiot -- whose brains not fit for anything like that. And. You are heinous liar -- whose tongue twisted that much, it's impossible to tell the truth anymore. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: "Guilty" that is status a Judge in a court trial give. Or what? You'd be opposing to that?
\\My "guilty" is my opinion. Which I am entitled to have.
Yap.
The same as when mob gathering togather, and talking to each other: "you think he is guilty? And I think he is guilty. So, let's make him PAY!!!". ;-P
ONLY difference -- that there is NO mob of idiots thiunking the same as you. That is ONLY difference. ;-P
Or... you can DISPROVE it.
\\Qtard: "Fair" trial. When he'd be assumed guilty EVEN BEFORE even premices for such a trial would emerge.
\\That isn't how our system works. My opinion re tRump's guilt is an opinion what would have zero impact re any court trial. I never suggested my opinion SHOULD have any impact. It should not. It would not. It could not.
Bullshit.
\\Putin would hate it for sure. Given that he and tRump are collusion buddies. Putin would be bigly disappointed to see his puppet convicted. In any kind of trial. Fair or unfair. Though this is the US, so he'd get a fair trial.
Yep. "Fair" trial. While a mob behind doors... or even INSIDE court room. Would be screaming "he's guilty. he's guilty. hang him up! hang him up!".
WHY Putin would hate that? Such a division and unlawful (the same as in Rusha) conduct??? Do you really think that liliPut have ANY warm feelings toward dRump???
You could... cause you are apparent knownothing and idiot.
\\No court that would potentially try court would give a shit about my opinion that tRump is guilty. Nor should they.
Of course.
Because that is how miserly you totalitarian wannabe are. ;-P
That's why you venerate totalitrian rule that much -- because it gives right of a mobbing, to such a miserly mobsters. :-)))))))))))))))
\\False "re-enactment".
So what??? There was NO with trials??? No people screaming "burn that witch"???
\\"I GAVE such quotes" is a lie. You gave no quotes where I "DENIED them their right".
YOUR OWN WORDS: "\\I *DO* deny that the J6 insurrectionists had the right of revolutio"
I'll place it alongside.
For EVEN MORE CLARITY.
You claimed that I did not gave quote where
\\I "DENIED them their right". | \ \ \ \\I *DO* deny that the J6 insurrectionists had the right of revolutio"
WORD TO WORD corespondence! :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Damn right. Because my words were that nobody should be denied their rights.
Again: "I *DO* deny that the J6 insurrectionists had the right of revolutio" :-))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\ I keep repeating that, but you keep ignoring it.
Because... that is COUNTER-factual claims.
I GAVE you quote... but you trying to claim -- FALSELY, that it didn't happend.
Absolutely denying OBjective Reality -- the YOU DID IT.
You have written it.
And you keep pounding that same false claims.
WHY??? I should NOT ignore that your repeated many times denials? Just tel me -- WHY???
What rational idea can back that demand of yours???
You repeating lies -- I pointing to em. That is -- only natural thing to do.
Or what??? I need to give up??? Just say "OK, you bored me with your repetitivness... so now I am ready to admit that your LIES are actually TRUTHES"??????????????????????? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Are you THAT MUCH IDIOT to wait for it to be like that???? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\And falsely trying to tell me what I "really mean" is that their rights should be taken away.
You said: "I *DO* deny...", isn't it?
Well... obviously... criminal in a court trial would behave THE SAME.
And totalitarians of all of the World... like it, to have it the same, in their shitho... ehm, countries.
"Right" to "take back" their words. To back off from their previous claims. To thwart those "nasty dissidents" who point em to their shit. ;-P
That makes it clear -- that you are THE SAME -- totalitarian wannabe.
\\Partial quote. I wrote, "...you provided zero quotes where I say donald tRump or J6 rioters should be denied their human rights". That was a demand for you to show where I said that. It wasn't me saying it. You f*cking liar.
Yes. You are.
You said "I *DO* deny that the J6 insurrectionists had the right of revolutio" and now trying to back off from that your claim, by the most idiotic way possible -- direct denial that you have had said that. ;-P
\\That you thought you could gaslight me into believing I had actually said that.
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Go return by that link to that previous threads... and behold. ;-P
But... you'd not.
You as that proven idits, will just continue screaming "I DID NOT DID IT. YOU LYING!!!". :-))))))))))))))))))
Which is good with me -- you only proving much more -- what an idiot and a liar you are. ;-P
\\You think any government on earth would have said, "hey, you tried to overthrow the government but that's OK. It is your right"?
I have said you FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.
That there is NOTHING like "right of revolution" in any codex of law. And there CANNOT be.
But... Natural Rights do not need to be confirmed in law. Because they ARE natural.
Your Captain Obvious. ;-P
\\There you go again. Accurate definition. But you don't understand it. It does not apply to the J6 rioters.
At least... you admitted that MY quotes are correct. ;-P
\\The incoming Biden administration did not act against the common interests or threaten the safety of the people without cause. Their human rights were not violated.
That is separate thing.
King of Great Britain ALSO could say that he did NOTHING "against the common interests or threaten the safety of the people". "Without cause" especially.
But... that was NOT up to him to decide. People. That same "WE, the People" -- gathered together and decided otherwise. ;-P
\\There can.
Proofs? Example? Logical explanations?
NONE. ;-P
\\Qtard: That is like Right to Breath -- NOBODY can claim that your right to breath is somehow limited.
\\It is not self evident.
Not? :-)))
Then. STOP BREATHING RIGHT NOW! ;-P
\\Infringing on the rights of others is NOT a natural right.
Well... that is the moment TOTALITARIANS like to pound AT... when they declare need to INFRINGE THE RIGHTS of others.
Like when Hitler did it -- declared that Jews must be limited in their right -- because... just because. Some mumbo-jumbo explanation was provided. Like that that jews, somehow "infringed rights of others" -- to live without jews in closest withinity... then in more distent withinity... then, Finial Solution of Jewish Quesion.
It ALL was on the same base... of "Infringing on the rights of others is NOT a natural right."
That's why -- infringment, or even mere denying... the most basic and inalienable rights -- is so damn DAMNING!!!
It is biggest NO, NO... under Democracy.
Like today, when there is so much brawls about LGBTQ+++ people.
On which base LGBTQ+++ people claim having some? Any rights for themself???
On the base of Natural Rights ONLY.
Because... there was no and there is no laws... about anything like that, they claim wanting...
That is, just for example.
Before that... there was brawls FOR rights of Black people.
Again.
ON WHAT BASE they declared having some, any rights for themself???
On that SOLE base -- that that is THEIR Natural Inalienable RIGHTS!!!
\\The 81 million people who voted for Joe Biden had the right to have the president of their choosing take office. YOU want to deny their rights.
They have Power of Majority(in addition to THEIR Natural Rights). Is it not enough?
Do they feel themself treatened??? Why?
\\Qtard: Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..
\\Quoting again without understanding.
And you can EXPLAIN, what I do not understand? From your POV?
Naah... you never do that.
You only babbling and babbling, and babbling, and babbling, and babbling, and babbling, and babbling, and babbling... some more shit.
With new words and pharses you lear... err, copy-pasted, borrowed from me. without understanding.
\\And call ME totalitarian because I want to respect the rights of the people who side with Democracy. As opposed to the people who rose up against democracy. That makes YOU the totalitarian.
What democracy do you see in one people just thwarting another... because they have more power to excert.
That is -- NOT democracy. That is -- bona fide barbarism.
That is how it was decided in all previous milenias -- when one mob just gathered against another mob -- and all was decided by the sheer strength in number -- of which one was bigger, more scillful in killing, more cunning...
IF... THAT is what you call "democracy" in your slang.
I'd better be "totalitarian"... in your slang. :-))))))))))))))
\\What about the autonomy of the people who voted for Joe Biden and did not want tRump to be president any longer?
And what's the problem with their autonomy? They somehow, by someone was stopped from booing at dRump???
Don't look like that.
\\Is it a person's "natural right" to violate the rights of others? To deny others THEIR rights?
By majority or by minority?
Cause... majority doing it almost all of the time. ;-P
Ipso factum.
\\They did decide wrong. Sure, people can decide to break the law. That is "up to that people to decided". But the other people decided they should be arrested. And face trial. And be punished. You think attacking police officers and vandalizing public property is a natural right?
Was that George Floyd's Right to Breath??? Or that was "attacking police officer"???
\\Qtard: Because you are totalitarian?
\\No, because I oppose totalitarianism.
Don't look like that...
\\They had no right to try to overturn the results of the election by force
There same as G.Washington and Co had no right to uprise against "divine" power of the king. Period.
\\How would that NOT have been a violation of the rights of the people who voted for Biden?
And? Does it happened?
"Attempt of crime" and crime itself -- is the same, and MUST BE punished the same?
AKA punishment for thought crimes???
Well... that is YOU saying that they tryed to "violate your voting rights" -- while they claimed that they tryed to PROTECT their... and your rights, to vote. ;-P
\\Democracy, definition: "control of an organization or group by the MAJORITY of its members". Rule of the majority is NOT "aka totalitarianism".
And WHO defines... who are majority??? If some members succumb to themself that power... like by thwarting rights of this and that minorities... of which that "majority" consist. So they can *simulate* needed for them "MAJORITY of its members".
What would happen?
It STILL would be Democracy? In your eyes...
Then... you ARE totalitarian. ;-P
\\Qtard: dRump is not judged, that mean he cannot be called duilty.
\\Why not? I am FORBIDDEN from having an opinion? Says who? By WHAT law can I NOT have an opinion?
Why not?
Are you living in a totalitarian country?
No, you just a totalitarian wannabe... who living in a democratic country.
Where EVEN totalitarian veiws -- NOT forbiden.
\\I MOST CERTAINLY CAN call tRump guilty. Law can't call him guilty. *I* can. I do. You can't stop me. It is my first amendment right. Qtard wants to deny my rights because he is a totalitarian.
And HOW I trying to deny you anything???
Can point at some evidances??
\\Why? To remind me you are a liar? You remind me of this constantly. I don't need even more reminding.
Whatever delusions you'd like to indulge yourself.
See. I DO NOT deny you... anything. ;-P
More then that -- I HELP you to indulge yourself in it.
Am I not a good person? ;-P
\\When did this happen? Whenever I like? I NEVER like to change the meaning of words. What word(s) do you THINK I changed the meaning of? Quotes? Citations?
MY WORDS mean what I say they mean.
But. As you showed it many times. You keep claiming that EVEN PERFECTLY CORRECT quotes of your words -- suddenly start meaning something ELSE. Without ANY apparent reason, apart from this your claim, again
MY WORDS mean what I say they mean.
\\Anyway, YOU changed the meaning of a word in your last comment. Democracy is majority rule. But you say majority rule is totalitarianism. Word meaning change (by you) CONFIRMED.
Naah.
That is just prejudged quote you found on the Internet.
Why I precisely stated that Democracy -- that is a way to preserve People's Freedoms and Human Rights.
Rule of Majority... that is just a procedure it works by. But most of the time. In a Democracy. "Rule of majority" is nothing bigger then 50% + one vote.
While in totalitarian... it 99.9999999% or we'll kill you, if you'd not submit!
Qtard: It is NOT up to any Garland to decide TOO!!!
You should call him ASAP and inform him of the grave error he has made. Obviously when you tell him that that it isn't up to him to decide he will IMMEDIATELY dismiss all charges against the J6 rioters. Qtard will probably receive the presidential medal of freedom for his great service to the cause of Human Rights!
An extremely humorous retort. So you'll probably call it "gibberish".
Qtard: Your Captain Obvious. Again.
Well, it is obvious that Merrick Garland did decide. Despite your insistence that it isn't up to him. So it is clear that you fail to grasp the obvious.
Qtard: ...you think that they was arrested BECAUSE "how dare you to uprise against our Holy Democracy"??? And not for that, that they trespassed some rules of common living? You just showed that you are totalitarian wannabe idiot... who just don't get it -- what was NOT right with J6 rioters in accordance with democratic law.
Why do you constantly (and inaccurately) use the word "holy"? I didn't use it. Obviously, to you, "holy" is bad. Why you use it to describe American democracy. To express your hatred for it, yes?
Qtard: You are always free to pick ONE "lie". And demonstrate with logic and facts -- how that is a lie.
LIE: "It is NOT up to any Garland to decide TOO!!". Self evident lie. Due to the FACT that Merrick Garland DID decide. And the J6 rioters were arrested. And some put on trial and convicted.
Qtard: Cause you ... brains not fit for anything like that. And. You are heinous liar -- whose tongue twisted that much, it's impossible to tell the truth anymore.
"Cause you miserly idiot whose brains not fit for anything like that. And. You are heinous liar whose tongue twisted that much, it's impossible to tell the truth anymore" describes Qtard.
Qtard: "Guilty" that is status a Judge in a court trial give. Or what? You'd be opposing to that?
I'd be very much welcoming that. It is EXACTLY what I want.
Qtard: \\Me: My "guilty" is my opinion. Which I am entitled to have.\\Yap. The same as when mob gathering togather... "you think he is guilty? And I think he is guilty. So, let's make him PAY!!!". ONLY difference -- that there is NO mob of idiots thiunking the same as you.
The mob of idiots are insisting tRump is the victim of a "witch hunt". His supporters. US voters who support him. Also idiots like you who claim to be foreigners (and therefore can't vote in US elections). The idiots who think tRump is innocent are a minority. Most people think donald tRump is guilty. The smarter ones. For colluding with Russia -- "A majority (56%) says the President and his campaign have not been exonerated of collusion" and for inciting the insurrection -- Nearly 60% of Americans say Trump should be charged for Jan. 6.
BTW, if you're talking about a lynch mob, that is clearly illegal. Making someone "pay" by hanging them. Obviously having an opinion about someone's possible guilt (and wanting them to have a fair trial) is WAY different than an illegal lynching. You suggest otherwise because you are a dishonest FM.
Qtard: Or... you can DISPROVE it.
Disprove what? That I want donald tRump lynched without trial? No, I can't disprove that to your satisfaction. If I say I want a fair trial (which I do) -- you will just insist I'm lying.
Qtard: \\Qtard: "Fair" trial. When he'd be assumed guilty EVEN BEFORE even premices for such a trial would emerge. \\Me: My opinion re tRump's guilt is an opinion what would have zero impact re any court trial. I never suggested my opinion SHOULD have any impact. It should not. It would not. It could not.\\ Bullshit.
Huh? HOW could my opinion that tRump is guilty have ANY impact on a potential trial? Your "bullshit" is BULLSHIT. Self-evidently so.
Qtard: Yep. "Fair" trial. While a mob behind doors... or even INSIDE court room. Would be screaming "he's guilty. he's guilty. hang him up! hang him up!".
You keep screaming about a trial. Turns out you don't want one. You're vehemently opposed to donald tRump getting a fair trial. No matter WHAT the evidence is. tRump should never be charged. Because donald tRump is ABOVE the law. That's what Qtard believes. Obviously. Proof of his strong totalitarian proclivities. Also oligarchic proclivities. As Qtard previously admitted, he believes tRump should not be charged because he is rich.
Qtard: WHY Putin would hate that? Such a division and unlawful (the same as in Rusha) conduct??? Do you really think that liliPut have ANY warm feelings toward dRump???
Warm feelings? Absolutely not. To Putin, tRump is a useful idiot. A puppet to achieve his goals. As tRump stated during his CNN town hall, he does not want Ukraine to win (repel the Russian invasion).
Qtard: Because that is how miserly you totalitarian wannabe are. That's why you venerate totalitrian rule that much -- because it gives right of a mobbing...
As a supporter of democracy (unlike Qtard) I strongly oppose totalitarian rule. As well as vigilantism. It is illegal. Also not tolerated by any form of government. "It gives right of a mobbing"? WTF? Says who?
Qtard: \\Me: False "re-enactment".\\ So what??? There was NO with trials??? No people screaming "burn that witch"???
No, "witches" were not burned at the stake in the US. "At Salem no one was burned. Instead, they hanged them" said Elizabeth Reis, a professor at Macaulay Honors College at the City University of New York and author of the book "Damned Women: Sinners and Witches in Puritan New England" (Cornell University Press, 1999).
FYI, donald tRump (as a former president) is protected by the Secret Service. The lynch mob you imagine (in your delusions) couldn't touch him. Also, if someone is accused of a crime -- but that might anger some people who could seek vigilante justice -- that person should NOT be prosecuted? Just let them go, no matter what crime they are accused of? "Serial killer might be lynched. Have to let him go". That is qtardedly stupid.
Qtard: \\"I GAVE such quotes" is a lie. You gave no quotes where I "DENIED them their right".\\ YOUR OWN WORDS: "\\I *DO* deny that the J6 insurrectionists had the right of revolution"\\.
I NEVER denied anyone any right. I deny they HAVE that right. I can't deny anyone a right they DO NOT HAVE. Which the J6 rioters did not. PROVEN by the fact that they were arrested, charged and (many of them) convicted. Now you're backing off your earlier claims that court trials are the best way to prove guilt? You have been bullshitting ALL ALONG with your claims of tRump's innocence being proven by the fact that no evidence of collusion has been presented in court? Now you're like, "court trials prove nothing, except that innocent people can be railroaded"?
Qtard: Again: "I *DO* deny that the J6 insurrectionists had the right of revolution".
If they actually had that right I would not deny it. I don't deny anyone rights they actually have.
Qtard: I keep repeating that, but you keep ignoring it.
I ignored nothing. I refuted your false claim that J6 rioters had any right to overturn the results of a free and fair democratic election. Just because they are sore losers.
Qtard: I GAVE you quote... but you trying to claim -- FALSELY, that it didn't happend.
It *did not* happen. I NEVER denied them any right they actually had.
Qtard: Absolutely denying OBjective Reality -- the YOU DID IT. You have written it.
No. And no.
Qtard: You repeating lies -- I pointing to em. That is -- only natural thing to do.
YOU keep repeating lies. And I keep pointing them out. In any case -- and despite your moronic claims to the contrary -- I have no say re the prosecution of the J6 rioters. It was up to Merrick Garland. He said "Arrest them. Prosecute them". Qtard says he did not have the right, but he did it. Because he DOES have the right to decide who is prosecuted.
Fact is, All past rebellions in the US that were attempted were put down. The authorities NEVER said, "we have to allow this because it is their right".
\\An extremely humorous retort. So you'll probably call it "gibberish".
No.
This time it's just stupid. :-))))))))))))))))))))))
Cause that Garland himself -- unlike you, know perfectly well that he CANNOT infringe Natural Rights of people.
\\Why do you constantly (and inaccurately) use the word "holy"? I didn't use it. Obviously, to you, "holy" is bad. Why you use it to describe American democracy. To express your hatred for it, yes?
Democracy which do not protect rights of minorities, clearly are Holy Democracy of Religious Bonkers AKA totalitarians wannabe.
I already have had gave you citation of liliPut, who call itself "biggest democrat" -- that mean that NOT ANYONE who just call itself democrat ARE democratically aligned.
That's it.
\\Qtard: You are always free to pick ONE "lie". And demonstrate with logic and facts -- how that is a lie.
\\LIE: "It is NOT up to any Garland to decide TOO!!". Self evident lie. Due to the FACT that Merrick Garland DID decide. And the J6 rioters were arrested. And some put on trial and convicted.
We was talking about Natural Rights there.
Obviously -- that is NOT up to any Galand to decide -- to strip EVEN that J6 rioters off their Natural Rights.
Like Right to Breath, for example.
So.
You are perfectly right when you titled it \\LIE:
That is YOU lie... that Garland could, and infriged J6 rioters Human Rights. ;-P
Your own words prove it -- they was "put on trial and convicted".
\\"Cause you miserly idiot whose brains not fit for anything like that. And. You are heinous liar whose tongue twisted that much, it's impossible to tell the truth anymore" describes Qtard.
From such a discredited Religious Bonker that is SO damning. NOT. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\The mob of idiots are insisting tRump is the victim of a "witch hunt".
Well... at least they can gather a mob... and you not. ;-P
\\Also idiots like you who claim to be foreigners (and therefore can't vote in US elections).
Claiming someone being an idiot on a base being foreigner... that is somewhat disingenious, isn't it? ;-P
Or, well, it IS natural, for Religious Bonker. To be that judgy. :-)))))))))))))
\\BTW, if you're talking about a lynch mob, that is clearly illegal. Making someone "pay" by hanging them. Obviously having an opinion about someone's possible guilt (and wanting them to have a fair trial) is WAY different than an illegal lynching. You suggest otherwise because you are a dishonest FM.
And what's the difference? Dare to explain? ;-P
\\If I say I want a fair trial (which I do) -- you will just insist I'm lying.
While claiming that you ALREADY know that he is guilty? And will be disappointed if he'd not be convicted. "Fair trail", my ass. :-))))))))))))))))))
\\Huh? HOW could my opinion that tRump is guilty have ANY impact on a potential trial? Your "bullshit" is BULLSHIT. Self-evidently so.
Why it should? I dunno.
Like I claimed anything like that.
I was claiming ONLY that YOUR OWN attitude is that of that totalitarian wannabe.
There is NO logical connections with your ability to make it happen....
\\You keep screaming about a trial. Turns out you don't want one.
WAT???
\\As a supporter of democracy (unlike Qtard) I strongly oppose totalitarian rule. As well as vigilantism.
Section 75 of the Criminal Procedure Law (Enforcement Powers – Arrest) of 1996 allows anyone to detain a person who is witnessed carrying out certain suspected crimes. The crimes include the following: a felony, theft, a crime of violence and a crime which has caused serious damage to property.
Citizen's arrest - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Citizen's_arrest
\\\\ YOUR OWN WORDS: "\\I *DO* deny that the J6 insurrectionists had the right of revolution"\\.
\\I NEVER denied anyone any right. I deny they HAVE that right.
Like any difference. :-)))))))))))))))
\\ I can't deny anyone a right they DO NOT HAVE.
Yap. Human DO NOT have their Human's Right. O.K., I got it. :-))))))))))))))
But wait... that is what totalitarian would proclaim, isn't it? Or not???
\\PROVEN by the fact that they were arrested, charged and (many of them) convicted.
Do their arrest infidged their Human Rights??? Was it NOT in accordance with laws??? Democratical laws. Designed to protect their rights.
\\Now you're like, "court trials prove nothing, except that innocent people can be railroaded"?
Clearly, a BS produced by your bent in pretcel totalitarian mind....
\\Qtard: Again: "I *DO* deny that the J6 insurrectionists had the right of revolution".
\\If they actually had that right I would not deny it. I don't deny anyone rights they actually have.
They CANNOT NOT have em. They are humans. And humans have Human's Rights. Naturally.
ONLY totalitaians deny humans having their Human's Riughts.
You -- denying.
That means -- you are totalitarian.
LOGIC!
\\I refuted your false claim that J6 rioters had any right to overturn the results of a free and fair democratic election.
There was NO such claim from my side.
Quotes -- you did not, and could not provide, to support that your BS claim.
But... you KEEP ignoring and insisting that your APPARENT claim, of which you NEVER backed off, never called it err, merely a mistake, but on the contrary -- keep insisting.
Clearly a drowned in lies totalitarian.
But, don't sweat it -- I will not report you. Maybe. ;-P
\\Qtard: I GAVE you quote... but you trying to claim -- FALSELY, that it didn't happend.
\\It *did not* happen. I NEVER denied them any right they actually had.
You said: "I *DO* deny..." but you "NEVER denied"???? :-)))))))))))))
YOU -- drowning in your own lies. Per se. ;-P
\\Qtard: Absolutely denying OBjective Reality -- the YOU DID IT. You have written it.
\\No. And no.
Yes. And Yes. ;-P
You just tryed to deny writing "I *DO* deny" -- which is apparent STATMENT of DENIAL. ;-P
\\YOU keep repeating lies.
Like that "lie" that YOU HAVE HAD SAID that --->>> "I *DO* deny..."?????
Self-evidant. You lost it. Liar. ;-P
\\It was up to Merrick Garland. He said "Arrest them. Prosecute them". Qtard says he did not have the right, but he did it. Because he DOES have the right to decide who is prosecuted.
Prosecution -- that is LAWFUL procedure of how people can be and MUST BE dealt with... IN ACCORDANCE with democratic laws and their Human Rights preseved. ;-P
\\Fact is, All past rebellions in the US that were attempted were put down. The authorities NEVER said, "we have to allow this because it is their right".
So what???
That somehow limits ANY possible in the future rebelions??? Even if they'd be successful?
Qtard: Cause that Garland himself -- unlike you, know perfectly well that he CANNOT infringe Natural Rights of people.
OK. Not sure how you know this (Merrick Garland told you?), but I agree it is an almost certainty that (exactly like me) Merrick Garland "know perfectly well that he CANNOT infringe Natural Rights of people".
But it is not a natural right to overthrow a democracy to install a dictator. "The right of revolution is an appeal to the law of nature against the injustice of the existing government". The Biden government didn't even exist yet. Given that Joe Biden had not been inaugurated yet. It was just sore losers (who falsely believed the election had been stolen due to donald tRump's lies) that tried to change the election results by force. It was the J6 rioters and their leader dotard donald who were perpetrating the injustice.
Qtard: Democracy which do not protect rights of minorities, clearly are Holy Democracy of Religious Bonkers AKA totalitarians wannabe.
That is the Rightwing vision for America. To suppress and oppress minorities. In order to maintain White male Supremacy. Democrats fight for the rights of minorities. Qtard is obviously Rightwing. He hates Democrats (slanders Obama and Biden while defending tRump). QED Qtard is "holy" and "religious bonkers". As per his qtarded definitions.
Qtard: I already have had gave you citation of liliPut, who call itself "biggest democrat" -- that mean that NOT ANYONE who just call itself democrat ARE democratically aligned.
Of course "NOT ANYONE who just call itself democrat ARE democratically aligned". I have never said otherwise. As for Putin calling himself "biggest democrat"... did he? Google says "It looks like there aren't many great matches for your search". All I found was that Sergey Kortunov (in 2004) "referred to Vladimir Putin as the »biggest democrat in Russia«".
btw, Putin is an "it"? You aren't sure if Putin is male or not? Is he non-binary? I'm not sure what makes someone an "it". Maybe you can explain?
Qtard: We was talking about Natural Rights there. Obviously -- that is NOT up to any Galand to decide -- to strip EVEN that J6 rioters off their Natural Rights.
Huh? What would it look like if he could/did "strip EVEN that J6 rioters off their Natural Rights"? Not put them in prison? But they (some of them) are there. Apparently you are only paying lip service to natural rights. Because there is no benefit to not being "stripped" of them. Like NOT going to prison. Which apparently you are OK with? Because you are a huge hypocrite?
Qtard: Like Right to Breath, for example.
A death sentence imposed after a person is convicted of murder deprives said person of their right to breath. When the death sentence is carried out. They will breath no longer.
Qtard: That is YOU lie... that Garland could, and infriged J6 rioters Human Rights. Your own words prove it -- they was "put on trial and convicted".
What? How does "they was put on trial and convicted" not take their rights away? And what good is this "right" then? If there are zero benefits to it? If people exercising this "right" can be sent to prison for doing so?
Why does it make you so angry if I say they did not have this "right"? Since it makes absolutely no difference at all. Have the right, not have the right. Either way they got punished. In some cases severely.
Qtard: From such a discredited Religious Bonker that is SO damning. NOT.
No "discredited Religious Bonkers" comment here. Except Mystere. But you aren't talking about him. Do you mean yourself? I am not that thing.
Qtard: \\Me: The mob of idiots are insisting tRump is the victim of a "witch hunt".\\ Well... at least they can gather a mob... and you not.
I never tried.
Qtard: \\Me: Also idiots like you who claim to be foreigners (and therefore can't vote in US elections).\\ Claiming someone being an idiot on a base being foreigner... that is somewhat disingenious, isn't it?
I didn't do that. That you are a foreigner (or claim to be one but are not) is separate issue from you being an idiot.
Qtard: Or, well, it IS natural, for Religious Bonker. To be that judgy.
You aren't super judgy of me? Seems to be very natural for you. You are confessing to being a "religious bonker"? You are definitely bonkers. And religiously so.
Qtard: \\Me: BTW, if you're talking about a lynch mob, that is clearly illegal. Making someone "pay" by hanging them. Obviously having an opinion about someone's possible guilt (and wanting them to have a fair trial) is WAY different than an illegal lynching.\\ And what's the difference? Dare to explain?
You don't know? Lynch mob is illegal. Like I just said. And ends up with the accused person's death. While a fair trial results in a just conviction or exoneration of the accused. Either way the person lives. Unless their crime is murder or treason. Then they might get the death penalty. But donald tRump won't get the death penalty. Even if convicted. He isn't going to be charged with treason. Maybe sedition or espionage. The death penalty does not apply to either.
Qtard: \\Me: If I say I want a fair trial (which I do) -- you will just insist I'm lying.\\ While claiming that you ALREADY know that he is guilty? And will be disappointed if he'd not be convicted.
You think the judge is going to consult me? Ask me if donald tRump should be found guilty or not? And, if I say "he's guilty", the judge will say "if you say so. I don't want you to be disappointed, so I will find him guilty".
Qtard: "Fair trail", my ass.
That's your problem. If you have no confidence in any potential trial of donald tRump. Despite you previously claiming that a trial was the best way to determine guilt or innocence. Now you're backpedaling. You must be worried that tRump IS going to be put on trial and convicted.
To be saying now that you no longer believe what you previously claimed you believed. Or never did. Which is more likely. Given your dismissal of the results of the case in which donald tRump sued Hillary Clinton for "framing" him. And the case was thrown out by the judge.
Qtard: \\Me: Huh? HOW could my opinion that tRump is guilty have ANY impact on a potential trial? Your "bullshit" is BULLSHIT. Self-evidently so.\\ Why it should? I dunno.
Me neither. I don't know what the "it" is you are referring to. My opinion having ANY impact on a potential trial? It shouldn't. Like I've been saying. And YOU have idiotically denied. By insisting that MY OPINION means dotard donald can't get a fair trial.
Qtard; Like I claimed anything like that. I was claiming ONLY that YOUR OWN attitude is that of that totalitarian wannabe.
You DID. Quote, "fair trial, my ass". Absurd claim that donald tRump can't get a fair trial because of my opinion that he is guilty.
Qtard: There is NO logical connections with your ability to make it happen....
There isn't. Yet you claimed it.
Qtard: \\me: You keep screaming about a trial. Turns out you don't want one.\\ WAT???
You said, Quote, "fair trial, my ass". So you WANT an unfair trial?
Qtard: \\Me: As a supporter of democracy (unlike Qtard) I strongly oppose totalitarian rule. As well as vigilantism.\\ Inner contradiction.
Qtard: \\Me: As a supporter of democracy (unlike Qtard) I strongly oppose totalitarian rule. As well as vigilantism.\\ Inner contradiction.
Huh? What "inner contradiction"?
Qtard: Kinda like "I dispise racism... and nigers".
You moronically claimed that vigilantism in the form of a lynch mob was enabled by totalitarianism. So how is it an "inner contradiction" to oppose both. You don't? Now you're in favor of a vigilante lynch mob hanging donald tRump?
Qtard: Isn't there is a law about Section 75 of the Criminal Procedure Law (Enforcement Powers – Arrest) of 1996 allows anyone to detain a person who is witnessed carrying out certain suspected crimes. The crimes include the following: a felony, theft, a crime of violence and a crime which has caused serious damage to property. Citizen's arrest - Wikipedia.
So now you're saying that a Citizen's arrest is vigilantism? Because it isn't.
"A citizen arrest is when an individual, who is not a sworn law enforcement officer, detains someone who they have witnessed committing a crime. The individual must then turn the accused over to law enforcement for formal arrest and charge. Vigilantism, on the other hand, is when an individual takes the law into their own hands and punishes someone they believe has committed a crime, without the involvement of law enforcement".
Qtard: YOUR OWN WORDS: "\\I *DO* deny that the J6 insurrectionists had the right of revolution"\\ I NEVER denied anyone any right. I deny they HAVE that right.\\ Like any difference.
BIG difference. If someone does not have a right, it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to be denied. Like if Qtard said, "I have the right to rape as many men as I want"... I would deny that right. Qtard might then say "how dare you deny me my right to rape as many men as I want"... except Qtard never had this right.
Qtard: \\Me: I can't deny anyone a right they DO NOT HAVE.\\ Yap. Human DO NOT have their Human's Right. O.K., I got it.
Fallacious argument. "A circular reasoning fallacy occurs when the evidence offered to support a claim is just a repetition of the claim itself". Also, overthrowing democracy is NOT a human right! As per the The Declaration of Independence, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...". Joe Biden HAD the consent of the governed. Because Joe Biden was elected in a free and fair election.
QED the "Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it"... did not apply. J6 rioters had NO RIGHT whatsoever to abolish the government (prevent Joe Biden from assuming the office he was legitimately elected to).
Qtard: But wait... that is what totalitarian would proclaim, isn't it? Or not???
It isn't. A totalitarian would proclaim that the overthrow of democracy is a "human right".
Qtard: \\Me: PROVEN by the fact that they were arrested, charged and (many of them) convicted.\\ Do their arrest infidged their Human Rights??? Was it NOT in accordance with laws??? Democratical laws. Designed to protect their rights.
Getting arrested for exercising your "human rights" (as you claim) is actually protecting of rights? I doubt the J6 rioters appreciated this "protection" of their rights... by arresting and prosecuting them.
Qtard: \\Me: Now you're like, "court trials prove nothing, except that innocent people can be railroaded"?\\ Clearly, a BS produced by your bent in pretcel totalitarian mind.
"Produced" by you. You wrote "fair trial, my ass".
Qtard: \\"I *DO* deny that the J6 insurrectionists had the right of revolution".\\ If they actually had that right I would not deny it. I don't deny anyone rights they actually have.\\ They CANNOT NOT have em. They are humans. And humans have Human's Rights. Naturally.
"A circular reasoning fallacy occurs when the evidence offered to support a claim is just a repetition of the claim itself".
Qtard: ONLY totalitaians deny humans having their Human's Riughts. You -- denying.
I am NOT denying anyone their human rights. It is not a "human right" to overthrow democracy.
Qtard: That means -- you are totalitarian. LOGIC!
Illogic.
Qtard: \\Me: I refuted your false claim that J6 rioters had any right to overturn the results of a free and fair democratic election.\\ There was NO such claim from my side.
There was. Your continued and repeated many times claim that it was their "human right".
Qtard: Quotes -- you did not, and could not provide, to support that your BS claim.
I absolutely CAN provide such quotes. Quote (from just earlier), "They CANNOT NOT have em. They are humans. And humans have Human's Rights. Naturally". Right to do what? Overturn the results of a free and fair democratic election.
you KEEP ignoring and insisting that your APPARENT claim, of which you NEVER backed off, never called it err, merely a mistake, but on the contrary -- keep insisting.
I will keep insisting that overthrowing democracy is not a "human right". Yes.
Qtard: Clearly a drowned in lies totalitarian.
Support for democracy does not make me "a drowned in lies totalitarian". That is qtarded BS. Kind of BS to be expected from a drowned in lies totalitarian like Qtard, though.
Qtard: But, don't sweat it -- I will not report you. Maybe.
Report me to who? And for what? I'm not worried.
Qtard: I GAVE you quote... but you trying to claim -- FALSELY, that it didn't happend. It *did not* happen. I NEVER denied them any right they actually had. You said: "I *DO* deny..." but you "NEVER denied"???? YOU -- drowning in your own lies. Per se.
I NEVER denied them any right they actually had. You misquote me (right after accurately quoting me) to make it appear as though I said something self-contradictory. It is NOT self contradictory to deny a right to someone who DOES NOT HAVE the right in question.
Qtard: Absolutely denying OBjective Reality -- the YOU DID IT. You have written it.
No. And no.
Qtard: Like that "lie" that YOU HAVE HAD SAID that --->>> "I *DO* deny..."????? Self-evidant. You lost it. Liar.
No. You're just refusing to accept the fact that the J6 rioters do not have the "right" to overthrow a democratically elected president. I do not deny people rights they actually have.
There is also the fact that it makes absolutely no difference. Given that you're OK with them being sent to prison. It is a "right" with absolutely no benefit. With it or without it they would still be in EXACTLY the same situation. And you also say Merrick Garland can "strip" them of this right. So I can't either.
Qtard: \\Me: It was up to Merrick Garland. He said "Arrest them. Prosecute them". Qtard says he did not have the right, but he did it. Because he DOES have the right to decide who is prosecuted.\\ Prosecution -- that is LAWFUL procedure of how people can be and MUST BE dealt with... IN ACCORDANCE with democratic laws and their Human Rights preseved.
They must be so happy. Going to prison but with "human rights" that confer zero benefits "preserved". But were they? Now they all have criminal records and so are second class citizens. Because, as convicted criminals, they LOSE rights.
Right to vote lost in many states. It is also much harder to get a job as a convicted criminal. But "the right to work" is on the list of human rights. So that right is definitely infringed upon. And NOT preserved.
"Getting a good job can be hard for anyone, but it can be twice as hard for those with a criminal record. Even if you are extremely well qualified for a job, studies show that a criminal record decreases your chances of a job offer or receiving a call back by nearly 50 percent".
Qtard: \\me: Fact is, All past rebellions in the US that were attempted were put down. The authorities NEVER said, "we have to allow this because it is their right".\\ So what???
So what? In the past some of these rebels were killed. Depriving of life isn't a violation of human rights? *IF* they had a right to rebel, they certainly should NOT have had their right to life taken away.
Qtard: That somehow limits ANY possible in the future rebelions??? Even if they'd be successful?
It doesn't. A successful revolution in the US in which a non-democratic faction overthrows a democratic government is what Qtard desires for the US, clearly. Qtard (like Minus FJ) hates democracy and wishes to see it abolished in the United States. And for donald tRump to become "president for life" aka America's first dictator.
\\OK. Not sure how you know this (Merrick Garland told you?)
Easy-Peasy.
He'd be not fit for that office. And would deserve being put in jail. Or what? You think such unlawful person could be on that place????
Then, provide your reasons to think that way -- who knows, maybe I'm wrong? And there in USA obvious criminals can be a lawyers? People who don't care about laws and Human Rights??? Who knows? I'm just a foreigner...
\\But it is not a natural right to overthrow a democracy to install a dictator.
Why not?
Do people have freedom to show their agency, their ability to decide for themself??? Do people have right to breath?
\\That is the Rightwing vision for America. To suppress and oppress minorities. In order to maintain White male Supremacy.
Is it?
Dunno.
Cause I am foreigner.
And do not know that much about your inner political brawls and social life... like who are minorities you have there? "White male Supremacy" -- that looks like minority, to me. ;-P First, there's only half of male, by default. Then, minusing from that 50% those male who are not white. Those not supreme, and etc.
So... do they thwart themself??? That "White male Supreme" Minority? ;-P
\\Democrats fight for the rights of minorities. Qtard is obviously Rightwing. He hates Democrats
Well... I have no reason to love em. After all that amount of shit I have read from you and other Lefty USAians... here and on the Net.
Does it make me "rightwing"???
\\QED Qtard is "holy" and "religious bonkers".
Nope.
You demonstrated only your dumbass hypocrysy -- futile tryes to sound "smart", by using "smart" words you have no understanding of. ;-P
HINT: To say QED... you must say WHAT you mean to demonstrate, with logic and facts. Firtst.
But you didn't. Because you despise and fear logic -- by your own admission. ;-P
\\I have never said otherwise. As for Putin calling himself "biggest democrat"... did he?
I'm the world's only true democrat, says Putin - Reuters www.reuters.com › article › us-russia-putin-de... Russia's President Vladimir Putin has described himself as the world's only "pure" democrat and attacked the United States and Europe, ...
\\Google says "It looks like there aren't many great matches for your search".
Who knows... maybe Google provided digital totalitarian environment for you. Or... your own searcheing preferences created that information bubble for you.
Here, above, I just copy-pasted that phrase... and it gave me that as first link.
Or. Here.
Understanding Vladimir Putin, the man who fooled the world www.theguardian.com › world › apr › understa... In March 2000, he won his first presidential election and proudly asserted: “We have proved that Russia is becoming a modern democratic state.” ...
\\All I found was that Sergey Kortunov (in 2004) "referred to Vladimir Putin as the »biggest democrat in Russia«".
Yap.
Russia’s Domestic Security Wars: Putin’s Use of Divide and Rule ... books.google.com.ua › books Putin's Use of Divide and Rule Against His Hardline Allies Peter Reddaway ... who accurately calls himself a nationalist democrat, has also formed his own ...
Putin's Propaganda.
Many of Westerners was bought with it... as well as been corrupted, with bloody money.
\\btw, Putin is an "it"? You aren't sure if Putin is male or not? Is he non-binary? I'm not sure what makes someone an "it". Maybe you can explain?
Well... even Russians themself unsure.
Calling him a "crab", for example. ;-P
Go explore that quiestion yourself -- I don't care about anything but RIPing, in regard to liliPut.
\\Apparently you are only paying lip service to natural rights. Because there is no benefit to not being "stripped" of them. Like NOT going to prison. Which apparently you are OK with? Because you are a huge hypocrite?
Yap-yap.
Bullshit talks of the totalitarian.
I could direct you to how Uigurs in China feel it... "chinese democracy". But I would not do that, as I seeing that you are just mocking democratic lawful procedures and principles here. Well, you CONTINUE doing that, as earlier you showed your dispise to a Presumption of Innocence.
\\A death sentence imposed after a person is convicted of murder deprives said person of their right to breath. When the death sentence is carried out. They will breath no longer.
Yap.
And why did you write that? What's the point?
\\What? How does "they was put on trial and convicted" not take their rights away?
Right to be put on Fair Trial and convicted ONLY in result of it?
\\And what good is this "right" then? If there are zero benefits to it? If people exercising this "right" can be sent to prison for doing so?
Ya-ya... and you try to say that you are NOT totalitarian... wannabe. ;-P
\\Why does it make you so angry if I say they did not have this "right"? Since it makes absolutely no difference at all. Have the right, not have the right. Either way they got punished. In some cases severely.
Yap.
Totalitarian narrative. And liliPut's propaganda chimes. ;-P
\\I am not that thing.
Very credible, from a liar. NOT. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: \\Me: Also idiots like you who claim to be foreigners (and therefore can't vote in US elections).\\ Claiming someone being an idiot on a base being foreigner... that is somewhat disingenious, isn't it?
\\I didn't do that. That you are a foreigner (or claim to be one but are not) is separate issue from you being an idiot.
YOUR OWN DEMN WORDS!!!!!
Liar! ;-P
\\Qtard: Or, well, it IS natural, for Religious Bonker. To be that judgy. \\ \\You aren't super judgy of me?
Well???
It is you calling me FM. Or trekkie. Or... something else, I don't remember now. Judgy as it is.
While I call you religious -- but I don't see anything bad in being religious. And bonker... but there is nothing bad in being bonker. That is natural. Many people are.
Sorry... maybe it's my fault. That during my observation I called you all that things... without explaining that that was not name-calling. ;-P
\\You don't know? Lynch mob is illegal.
Yap.
Under Democracy.
But not under totaliarianism. ;-P That's why you drooling for it, that much? To havew that sweet feeling of "unity in numbers"? For your "opinion" to matter, up to cause someones death? While living you off any retaliation possible.
\\You think the judge is going to consult me? Ask me if donald tRump should be found guilty or not? And, if I say "he's guilty", the judge will say "if you say so. I don't want you to be disappointed, so I will find him guilty".
Why he should? That is YOUR OWN conviction. Not like in a totalitarian country/system, where all people must fall and show conviction demanded of em.
\\To be saying now that you no longer believe what you previously claimed you believed. Or never did. Which
Ohhh....
That's the problem.
As Religious Bonker who "believe in facts"... it's impossible for you to understand -- how, just HOW, people can talk about FACTS...
YOU always thought that we are talking about our beliefs here????????
What a big mistake.
Well, natural one. For a Religious Bonker. ;-P
\\Qtard; Like I claimed anything like that. I was claiming ONLY that YOUR OWN attitude is that of that totalitarian wannabe.
\\You DID. Quote, "fair trial, my ass". Absurd claim that donald tRump can't get a fair trial because of my opinion that he is guilty.
What of directly written words "I was claiming ONLY that YOUR OWN attitude" you don't get???
\\Qtard: There is NO logical connections with your ability to make it happen....
\\There isn't. Yet you claimed it.
Then... demonstrate that -- with quotes and logical inference -- that I "claimed" it.
Try to support your words with FACTS... for once. ;-P
\\What "inner contradiction"?
Well. You dispise Logic, by your own admission. So, how'd it be possible to know what "inner contradiction" is? I get it.
\\And humans have Human's Rights. Naturally.
\\"A circular reasoning fallacy occurs when the evidence offered to support a claim is just a repetition of the claim itself".
Dumb ass. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))
That is NOT cyrcular reasoning. That is tautological definition.
Human are humans. Therefore they have Human's Rights.
Same as sugar is sugar-sweet, because it's sugar.
Cyrular reasoning -- that is your "I am democrat... because democarats support democracy... and I support democracy... therefore I democrat".
While we found with you -- that NO ALL people who call themself democrats ARE democrats. And your claim that you "support democracy" is very questionable -- as you showed, and DECLARED yourself, that you DENY people their Human Rights. ;-P
\\Qtard: That means -- you are totalitarian. LOGIC!
\\Illogic.
Yawn.
And you can show what rule of Logic gone wrong?
Naah.
Cause you don't know, and despise Logic (by your own admission).
That mean -- any your such screams -- not credible. ;-P
\\Your continued and repeated many times claim that it was their "human right".
No. That was their human's right to go freely by the streets, to come into freely accessible and open for public use explicitly building, while stating their political demands...
That is YOU R ONE who after your Demn Propaganda narrative trying to call that "overturn the results of a free and fair democratic election".
\\I absolutely CAN provide such quotes. Quote (from just earlier), "They CANNOT NOT have em. They are humans. And humans have Human's Rights. Naturally". Right to do what? Overturn the results of a free and fair democratic election.
See?
Where is something about "overturn the results of a free and fair democratic election" in quote of MY words?
Nothing.
You just adding it yourself.
And you call that "I absolutely CAN provide such quotes."???????!!!
While you can only TRY TO SMEAR with YOUR OWN WORDS... something you CANNOT show w\that was said BY ME.
\\I will keep insisting that overthrowing democracy is not a "human right". Yes.
That much for your "I am democrat" claim. ;-P
Overthrowed... can be ONLY despoty, totalitarian rule.
Cause it tryes to hold itself ABOVE people.
But... Democracy it's WE, the People -- people CANNOT be and be above themself. That is LOGICALLY NON-SENSE statment.
That means -- Democracy can be ONLY usurped -- it's when some group of people (like you) trying to accure power to prescribe to other people what they MUST do or not do. (like your miserly tryes to prescribe to me to "go away" ;-P)
That simple.
\\Qtard: But, don't sweat it -- I will not report you. Maybe.
\\Report me to who? And for what? I'm not worried.
Well... you yourself pounding that those who "want to overthrow democracy" must be arrested and put on trial, isn't it?
But you... showing yourself totalitarian -- isn't being totalitarian that is a threat to democracy? ;-P
That is... what they call "inner contradiction". ;-P
\\You're just refusing to accept the fact that the J6 rioters do not have the "right" to overthrow a democratically elected president.
And you can give DIRECT CORRECT and PRECISE quote where I said something like that???
Naah.
That is your own words all along.
While.
I CAN.
And do quote YOUR OWN DAMN WORDS: "I *DO* deny..."
But you... you keep squinting. Demonstrating what a double-crossed liar YOU ARE. Dumb one -- who trying to LIE about own damn words!!! :-)))))))))))))
\\Given that you're OK with them being sent to prison. It is a "right" with absolutely no benefit.
In comparation with being absolutely unlawfully killed? As it was in past eras, when whoever with a sword could kill anybody without. Or... how it is in totalitarian countries TODAY.
I think... DEMOCRACY creates, and gives to people VERY BIG and VER MANY benefits.
But you... do not see it? Cause you are totalitarian?
\\And you also say Merrick Garland can "strip" them of this right. So I can't either.
Do that Garland declare em "guilty"? Without/before trial?
\\They must be so happy. Going to prison but with "human rights" that confer zero benefits "preserved". But were they? Now they all have criminal records and so are second class citizens. Because, as convicted criminals, they LOSE rights
Totalitarian, Putin-like narrative. "Go to our Dark Side. WE have cookies!" :-)))))))))))))))))))
\\So what? In the past some of these rebels were killed. Depriving of life isn't a violation of human rights?
And who said that democracy is perfect? Not me.
That is YOU ARE one who trying to pound here -- that current state of affairs AKA Holy Democracy... MUST be preserved for eternity... without any changes, am I correct with understanding of all that your hawling about "overthrowing democracy"????
51 comments:
Jimmy Dore is a terrible person.
xlation... "he deserves to be on a Ukrainian Kill List".
No. And he isn't.
Congrats Derpy! For figting against Poisonous Russian Propaganda.
No kidding. ;-)
But there is poisonous Russian propaganda that Qtard likes. Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the Capitol rioters were being "persecuted" by the US government. And Vlad Putin claimed the J6 protests went to the Capital with "political demands".
Defending the J6 insurrectionists is official Kremlin approved propaganda and this is a counter-factual narrative Qtard approves of.
Everything the Russians say is propaganda? It's never true? Oh, it's ESPECIALLY propaganda when it IS TRUE. LOL!
It's MIS-information when it's false. It's DIS-information when it's true.
Does that mean that what the US government says it's Russian DIS-information, it's really just US propaganda?
\\Everything the Russians say is propaganda? It's never true? Oh, it's ESPECIALLY propaganda when it IS TRUE. LOL!
Low literacy in propaganda matters, you have.
Propaganda it's 60% truth/ 40% lies... and repeating, repeating, repeating.
Like commercial adverising, for short. ;-)
PS I found no reason to comment Derpy's delirious claims. ;-P
Run, Derpy, run! Continue like that... and you'll be the winner. In that contest for utter idiots. :-))))))))))))))
Putin and Qtard are both bigly supporters of the J6 insurrectionists. This is a FACT.
\\This is a FACT.
And you able to demonstrate that with correct quote? ;-P
Naah.
And... you adding just more data confirming that you are u.u.r.b. who are not able to grasp what FACTS is. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))
Countinue-continue. Run, De-Ru-Pi, run.
Qtard: And you able to demonstrate that with correct quote? Naah.
So, you condemn the J6 insurrectionists' anti-democratic attempt to overthrow the results of a fair election that they lost? Naah.
Qtard is unable to grasp what facts are. I'm not running anywhere, btw. Unlike the imaginary "De-Ru-Pi".
\\So, you condemn the J6 insurrectionists' anti-democratic attempt to overthrow the results of a fair election that they lost? Naah.
Why should I???
I am NOT involved in your political affairs.
And NEED NOT to have an opinion about it.
Well... even worse -- IF I'd have some opinion, AND stated it openly (like here in this blog) -- that would start resembling me being "involved in your political affairs". ;-P
\\Qtard is unable to grasp what facts are. I'm not running anywhere, btw. Unlike the imaginary "De-Ru-Pi".
Yap. Yap. Yap.
That your "Run, Qtard, run" was NOT allusion to "Rub, Forest, run". :-)))))))))))
You tryed to smear me with.
And now... that is NOT lame try to run away from precisely targeting homing response.
U R so damn funny, De-Ru-Pi. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Qtard: And NEED NOT to have an opinion about it.
But you DO have an opinion on it. You have been very clear that stand with Putin in support of the J6 insurrectionists who attempted to overthrow democracy in America. Though you will likely deny it and ask for "citations". Apparently you see it as a fun game to deny past comments we both know you made.
Qtard: "Rub, Forest, run". ... You tryed to smear me with.
False. I did not write about you rubbing anything. As for running away (from debate), it was YOU who smeared me by saying I did this (multiple times).
FYI, I have no f*cking idea where "De-Ru-Pi" comes from or wtf it means.
\\You have been very clear that stand with Putin in support of the J6 insurrectionists who attempted to overthrow democracy in America.
Can you give a link where Putin saying that that J6 people have "a right to revolt"???
Because, that is unusual thing to be pounded by totalitarian -- they only pushing OPPOSITE message -- that people DO NOT have such right... cannot decide for themself, do not and must not have own agency.
So... I see it only like just another baseless smearing attack from your side.
Nothing else.
And can you say that I... somehow wrong, given with all our previous "discussing"???
\\Apparently you see it as a fun game to deny past comments we both know you made.
Ohh... why then, it is so big problem to you -- to throw into MY face that "past comments you made" which I by your admission I always deny???
Why *I* doing it all of the time.
Like that your comment where you said "I believe in facts" or you demanded "go away!" or you tryed to dismiss dRumps and J6 people's Human Rights???
As well as many-many times... when I showed that you produced some false, incorrect, concockted, strawmaning "comments" -- which do not exist even. ;-P
Putin and Qtard both support the J6 insurrectionists. I never said you both used the exact same phrase, "right of revolution". I do believe in facts, but I have never demanded that you go away. I have also never tried to dismiss donald tRump's and J6 rioter's human rights. That is a bald-faced lie.
I have never produced any false, incorrect, concocted, strawman comments which do not even exist. That is another bigly lie.
\\Putin and Qtard both support the J6 insurrectionists
And you can demonstrate that with factual quotes???
With logical inferences?
With some plausible explanation for at least?
Naah.
You just keep repeating your baseless accusations again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again... trully, that is behavior of an idiot. Or Religious Bonker. ;-P
\\ I do believe in facts, but I have never demanded that you go away
See.
YOU confirmed it YET ONE TIME.
And selrevealingly -- you showed WHAT you mean under "I do believe in facts" -- that is open and obvious fact -- that you stated your demand "go away".
But... while you insist that you "believe in facts" STILL you DENY very existance of that fact. ;-P
So much for "believing in facts" -- it is provedly self-revealingly contre-factual -- well, as any other faith. In "great gawd". Or in "jude-mason's conspiracy". Or... watever. Yawn.
\\I have also never tried to dismiss donald tRump's and J6 rioter's human rights.
Contre-factual. Yawn. ;-P
\\That is a bald-faced lie.
"Lie" you freakingly CANNOT prove being lie... with any factual quote and/or logical explanation -- why that is lie.
Only momkey-screams... and feces-throwing :-))))))))))))))))))))))
\\I have never produced any false, incorrect, concocted, strawman comments which do not even exist. That is another bigly lie.
By this time... you credibility ruined THAT MUCH... that ANY of your such claims... well, any of your claims -- cannot be seen as anything truthfull.
Even by accident.
You are liar who indulge yourself in relentless lies.
Liar of high standard of Critian Liars. Like we all know "All Critians are liars"... who lie every time when they open their mouths.
Qtard: \\Putin and Qtard both support the J6 insurrectionists\\ And you can demonstrate that with factual quotes??
YES. I have. You wrote, "...you trying to deny people their right to revolt".
HOW is saying J6 rioters have a RIGHT to revolt NOT support for what they did? Which was to rise up AGAINST democracy. That Qtard and Putin both hate democracy and want to see it overthrown in American has been PROVEN.
Qtard: \\I have also never tried to dismiss donald tRump's and J6 rioter's human rights.\\ Contre-factual.
How so? You provided quotes where I "try to dismiss donald tRump's and J6 rioter's human rights". No. So how is my truthful rebuke of your BULLSHIT comment "counter-factual"? It is 100 percent factual.
Qtard: "Lie" you freakingly CANNOT prove being lie... with any factual quote and/or logical explanation -- why that is lie.
I CAN prove it. You provided ZERO quotes where I say J6 rioters or donald tRump should be denied their human rights. YOU needed to provide a quote, asshole. Not me.
Qtard's credibility is ruined. Any claim Qtard makes should immediately be assumed to be dishonest. Because Qtard is incapable of telling the truth. Except maybe by accident.
Though much of what Qtard claims is complete nonsense. Such as his comment about how "All Critians are liars". WTF is a "Critian"?
Is Qtard a "Critian"? I am going to guess YES. Because Qtard lies EVERY time he opens his mouth.
\\YES. I have. You wrote, "...you trying to deny people their right to revolt".
And WHEN and WHERE Putin said something like that?
But.
Congrats for trying to explain. Really.
\\HOW is saying J6 rioters have a RIGHT to revolt NOT support for what they did?
Clearly. Totalitarian Logic here. "Either you are WITH US, or you are against us". Denial of freedom. When one need to either show support, or stay neutral BUT, it would and will be counted as support... OR, one will be admitted an enemy.
Where is Freedom in that setup??? Why I cannot just admit something being right. Per se. Without being accused "but you, you... YOU supporting that nasty damn thing!!!"
And that not for the first time.
The same was with "you supporting dRump". And etc.
\\Which was to rise up AGAINST democracy.
In YOUR (totalitarian?) retransltion of meaning of word Democracy.
While.
Democracy - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Democracy
Democracy is a form of government in which the people have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation ("direct democracy"), or to choose governing ...
Democracy | Definition, History, Meaning, Types, Examples, & Facts
www.britannica.com › topic › democracy
democracy, literally, rule by the people. The term is derived from the Greek dēmokratia, which was coined from dēmos (“people”) and kratos (“rule”) in the ...
Democracy - the United Nations
www.un.org › global-issues › democracy
Democracy provides an environment that respects human rights and fundamental freedoms, and in which the freely expressed will of people is exercised. People ...
Defining democracy
www.moadoph.gov.au › democracy › defining...
Democracy: A democracy is a society in which the citizens are sovereign and control the government.
\\That Qtard and Putin both hate democracy and want to see it overthrown in American has been PROVEN.
Naah. That is just (an attempt of) explanation. NOT proof.
For being proof -- it need to be demonstrated AND facts it based on. AND correct logical inferences. AND relevance of it all to the question discussed.
For now... I can admit only some (half-assed) facts being provided -- my words about right to uprise against injustice, of which I never tryed to back off...
HOW from that (not denyed by me) fact YOU could come to desirable for you conclusion "Qtard and Putin both hate democracy" -- nie, you didn't showed that. As all previous times -- that is baseless and even counter-factual claim. Of a religious bonker. ;-P
ONLY, and ONLY WHEN you'd be able to show ALL walkthrough from basic facts AKA premices, and through (CORRECT) logical inferences, with (again, CORRECT) argumentation why that all relevant -- it can start looking A PROOF.
\\How so? You provided quotes where I "try to dismiss donald tRump's and J6 rioter's human rights". No.
So??? Are you backing off from your earlier claim that dRump guilty in some heinous crimes -- even while he NOT put under trial EVEN???
But... being decided guilty ONLY through trial in court. Lawfull and juridically correct.
Well... even that is not a garanty. As we know enough cases where people become admitted FALSELY persecuted.
But, that is the best practice we have and can use.
Widely admitted being better... than Lynch trials you admire so much -- just scream "Witch! Let's burn that witch!", and all the deal.
\\So how is my truthful rebuke of your BULLSHIT comment "counter-factual"? It is 100 percent factual.
Yap.
It is 100% factual that it is countre-factual. ;-P
You just showed just one more time -- that EVEN meaning of word "fact" totally avoid you. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\I CAN prove it.
Again. Only screams. "I CAN!". "I'LL PROVE!". "I PROVED!". That is all what you can?
Why not show at least one time -- how you CAN, anything. Are you mexiCAN'T??? :-))))))))))))))))))
/
\\You provided ZERO quotes where I say J6 rioters or donald tRump should be denied their human rights. YOU needed to provide a quote, asshole. Not me.
O.K.
I'll give you quotes.
YET ONE time.
That is not biggy. As my position based on TRUTH and FACTS. It's damn easy for me. (and so damn hard for you -- liar ;-P)
Easy-Peasy (you thought I would not dive into previous threads, isn't it?)
""
\\I *DO* deny that the J6 insurrectionists had the right of revolution. <-- HERE, I made it in bold for you. Your DIRECTLY ADMITTED denial. ;-P
\\That right does not exist in a democracy.
\\Because that is the ONLY way citizens would have any basis to claim the right of revolution. But Qtard says J6 insurrectionists have the right of revolution JUST BECAUSE they were angry that their candidate lost.
Right of Revolution | Encyclopedia.com
www.encyclopedia.com › politics › right-revol...
RIGHT OF REVOLUTIONThe right of revolution is not a right that is defined and protected by the Constitution but a natural right.
""
The same as revolutioners who overthrowed rule of king of Great Britain -- part of which you was. JUST BECAUSE... they where angry and didn't liked how that monarch governed.
Because... that was their natural right. Right you trying to deny to modern people.
And here about dRump
""
I can have any opinion I want regarding guilt or innocence when someone is accused of a crime. I don't care AT ALL about your primal scream of anger re my conclusion that tRump is guilty.
Qtard: dRump is not judged, that mean he cannot be called duilty.
Bullshit. I can (and have, and will continue to) call him guilty. That isn't "hypocrisy", that is me stating my opinion (based on the known facts).
""
See. How proudly you declared that YOUR opinion is more important... than anybody's Human Rights. ;-P
You even call it "Bullshit" -- very definition of Presumption of Innocence.
That's YOUR OWN WORDS.
PS But well... as proud Religious Bnker, you'll squint and you'll deny that you said that... or that it mean what it mean... or, whatever of miniscule set of u.u.r.b. treaks -- of lies and denial. ;-P
Qtard: Are you backing off from your earlier claim that dRump guilty in some heinous crimes -- even while he NOT put under trial EVEN???
No. He is guilty. If he were to be locked up for colluding with Russia there would need to be a trial though. And a conviction. I have NEVER said otherwise. Yet you keep lying and saying I am for locking donald tRump up without a trial. Which isn't even possible.
Qtard: than Lynch trials you admire so much -- just scream "Witch! Let's burn that witch!", and all the deal.
False accusation. I do not admire "lynch trials". Fake quote. I've never screamed anything about burning witches. It is donald tRump who characterizes people telling the truth about him as a "witch hunt". I don't want donald tRump burned. I want donald tRump to receive a fair trial.
Qtard: It is 100% factual that it is countre-factual.
Bullshit. I wrote "I have also never tried to dismiss donald tRump's and J6 rioter's human rights". That isn't counter-factual. It is true. PROVEN by the fact that you provided zero quotes where I say donald tRump or J6 rioters should be denied their human rights. Neither are, nor should they, have their human rights denied.
Qtard: \\I CAN prove it.\\ Again. Only screams. "I CAN!". "I'LL PROVE!". "I PROVED!". That is all what you can?
You lie. By giving only a PARTIAL quote. I wrote, "I CAN prove it. You provided ZERO quotes where I say J6 rioters or donald tRump should be denied their human rights". The proof is the second sentence.
Qtard: Again. Only screams. "I CAN!". "I'LL PROVE!". "I PROVED!". That is all what you can?
Yes, as per your false narrative that is "all what you can". According to reality I gave evidence. But you'll continue to pretend otherwise. I'm sure.
Qtard: \\I *DO* deny that the J6 insurrectionists had the right of revolution. <-- HERE, I made it in bold for you. Your DIRECTLY ADMITTED denial.
Damn right. The J6 rioters did NOT have the right of revolution. But that is NOT denying their human rights. Nor is it denying their natural rights.
"In political philosophy, the right of revolution (or right of rebellion) is the right or duty of a people to alter or abolish a government that acts against their common interests or threatens the safety of the people without cause".
The election of Joe Biden did not usher in a "government that acts against their common interests" nor did it "threaten the safety of the people without cause". <--- these are the reasons people would have a legitimate right of revolution. NONE of these apply to the J6 rioters.
According to you (WRONGLY), "right of revolution" applies for any reason at all. Being mad that their candidate lost is NOT a valid reason people can decide to try to overthrow the government.
Right of revolution isn't a human right anyway.
"Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings... [they] include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education...".
Qtard: The same as revolutioners who overthrowed rule of king of Great Britain -- part of which you was. JUST BECAUSE... they where angry and didn't liked how that monarch governed.
Wrong. Their reason was "taxation without representation". That is well known. Not "just because they were angry and didn't liked how that monarch governed".
Qtard: Right you trying to deny to modern people.
I'm not. I'm saying the J6 rioters didn't have that right because the government (just by electing a new president) wasn't suddenly acting against the interest of the people or threatening the safety of the people.
In fact MANY people felt that the election of Joe Biden would result in a government that acted MORE in their interest and that the removal of donald tRump got rid of a threat to their safety (i.e. his mishandling of the pandemic that resulted in many deaths). What about those people (the majority)? Those people didn't want a revolution. Qtard says "f*ck them"? Those people (the majority) don't have the right to see the government they voted for installed?
Qtard: See. How proudly you declared that YOUR opinion is more important... than anybody's Human Rights.
No. Because I DID NOT. I never said donald tRump should be jailed based on my opinion. My opinion is UNimportant. A fair trial is what is important. Which is what I want.
Qtard: You even call it "Bullshit" -- very definition of Presumption of Innocence. That's YOUR OWN WORDS.
Those are NOT my words. I never said the presumption of innocence is bullshit. What I said is bullshit is your claim that I can't have an opinion.
Qtard: you'll squint and you'll deny that you said that... or that it mean what it mean.
I don't need to squint. And, YES, I will deny that MY WORDS mean what YOU say they mean. MY WORDS mean what I say they mean. What you say they mean IS A LIE.
\\Qtard: Are you backing off from your earlier claim that dRump guilty in some heinous crimes -- even while he NOT put under trial EVEN???
\\No. He is guilty.
And what Presumption of Innocence saying?
\\No. He is guilty. If he were to be locked up for colluding with Russia there would need to be a trial though. And a conviction. I have NEVER said otherwise. Yet you keep lying and saying I am for locking donald tRump up without a trial. Which isn't even possible.
You called him "guilty".
In the same paragraph to boot.
"Guilty" that is status a Judge in a court trial give.
Or what? You'd be opposing to that?
\\I don't want donald tRump burned. I want donald tRump to receive a fair trial.
Aha... :-)))))))))))))))))))))
"Fair" trial. When he'd be assumed guilty EVEN BEFORE even premices for such a trial would emerge.
That is definitiuon of "fair" and "justice" --- totalitarian liliPut and lilXi would be pleased. For sure. ;-P
And trail in which person assumed to be guilty BEFOREHAND -- that is not justice.
That is Kengaroo Court. Like in Rusha or China.
\\...just scream "Witch! Let's burn that witch!", and all the deal.
\\False accusation. I do not admire "lynch trials". Fake quote. I've never screamed anything about burning witches.
Lie again.
HOW that was quote???
By which standard?
That was re-enactment.
\\PROVEN by the fact that you provided zero quotes where I say donald tRump or J6 rioters should be denied their human rights.
Ha-ha-ha.... what a totalisarian's sophistry. :-))))))))))))))
You DENIED them their right with your direct emphased even OWN WORDS. And I GAVE such quotes just in that comment above.
But you trying to dismiss it... because it was not with that same words???
You have wrote: "\\I *DO* deny..."
BUT.
You demand it SHOULD be: "...should be denied...".
Am I right??? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
What a stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, DAMN stupid... way to squint.
But... that's exactly why it so much fun to observe your merry idiotic tricks. ;-P
\\You lie. By giving only a PARTIAL quote. I wrote, "I CAN prove it. You provided ZERO quotes where I say J6 rioters or donald tRump should be denied their human rights". The proof is the second sentence.
And how that is proof???
The same as with "fact". It seems you do not understand what word "proof" mean. Isn't it?
HINT: That, when you saying whatever you like, without providing references to a facts and giving logical explanation -- that is NOT thing called PROOF. ;-P
And you'd know it.... if you'd not be that hopeless Religious Bonker. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\According to reality I gave evidence.
Evidances -- that is NOT facts. As per definition from dictionary I gave you before (because, and only because YOU showed yourself as drowned in lies idiot, who trying to dismiss my words on that mere base that they are my words -- I started giving you NOT my words, from OTHER credible sources, one that you cannot oppose directly... but still, trying to ignore with all unreasonable might of sheer manifestation of your unparalleled idiocy).
\\But you'll continue to pretend otherwise. I'm sure.
Of course. Because "evidances" that is manifestation of Reality in the minds of people. And people prone to errors and misconceptions.
That's why I prefer DIRECT references to the FACTS itself.
But... for such a proven u.u.r.b. that is like that anathema... because it block to them possibility to "believe in facts"... or whatever other bullshit they have on their mind. ;-P
\\Damn right. The J6 rioters did NOT have the right of revolution. But that is NOT denying their human rights. Nor is it denying their natural rights.
Ok, Google?
What is natural rights?
""
Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws
""
Ergo.
It's not up to YOU to decide!!!
\\The election of Joe Biden did not usher in a "government that acts against their common interests" nor did it "threaten the safety of the people without cause". <--- these are the reasons people would have a legitimate right of revolution. NONE of these apply to the J6 rioters.
Again.
Look above ^^^^^^^
There is NO. And can NOT be "not legitimate" Natural Rights. That's why they caled "natural". Not just for show.
That is like Right to Breath -- NOBODY can claim that your right to breath is somehow limited. On WHATEVER base!!! DARE to protest against this???!!!!!
And that is. Self-evidant.
As in.
""
Declaration of Independence: A Transcription - National Archives |
www.archives.gov › declaration-transcript
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...
""
\\Right of revolution isn't a human right anyway.
\\"Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings... [they] include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education...".
I like it.
Very much.
When your words is THAT self-contradicting. ;-P
\\Wrong. Their reason was "taxation without representation". That is well known. Not "just because they were angry and didn't liked how that monarch governed".
Well... they had a two century to give a solid rational base for their sheer anger... ;-P
\\I'm saying the J6 rioters didn't have that right because the government (just by electing a new president) wasn't suddenly acting against the interest of the people or threatening the safety of the people.
That is... absolutely BESIDE the point of Natural Rights of people for own thinking and deciding autonomy.
They decided that that is somehow wrong.
Well, it could be, that they decided wrong.
But... it still UP TO THAT people to decided -- what they'll do. And on what base.
The same as it is your own decision and your own volition -- to show how much an idiot you are... ;-P
See. YOU have that inalianable right -- to decide for yourself. WHY you deny to other people THAT SAME rights???
Because you are totalitarian?
\\What about those people (the majority)? Those people didn't want a revolution.
Was their right somehow infridged? Was it denied? By whom? How?
\\Qtard says "f*ck them"? Those people (the majority) don't have the right to see the government they voted for installed?
Majority. Always have MORE power to thwart any dissidents.
That's why DEMOCRACY built around PRESERVING rights of minorities.
But... you seems like don't like it? You prefer Rule of Majotity AKA Totalitarism?
\\I never said donald tRump should be jailed based on my opinion. My opinion is UNimportant. A fair trial is what is important. Which is what I want.
"Fair" trial where dRump would be ASSUMED guilty beforehand?
\\Those are NOT my words. I never said the presumption of innocence is bullshit.
Your OWN WORDS:
\\Qtard: dRump is not judged, that mean he cannot be called duilty.
\\Bullshit.
Presumption of Innocence sound: "If SOMEBODY is not judged, that mean he cannot be called guilty".
There is just a specification of Presumption of Innocence for a case of dRump.
But... if you DENY Presumption of Innocent for just ONE man -- you dening it for everyone.
That is... self-evidant.
\\I don't need to squint. And, YES, I will deny that MY WORDS mean what YOU say they mean. MY WORDS mean what I say they mean. What you say they mean IS A LIE.
Thank you for admitting being such an idioticly inclined in relentless lying.
And I will use it for quoting in our further talks.
You... have NO right to CHANGE the meaning of words. Whenever you like. And a posteriori ESPECIALLY.
So many lies. But that is obviously your strategy. To down out my facts and truth with an overwhelming number of lies.
Qtard: "Guilty" that is status a Judge in a court trial give. Or what? You'd be opposing to that?
My "guilty" is my opinion. Which I am entitled to have. Qtard says "NO, you canNOT have an opinion"! Go f*ck yourself, Qtard. My opinion would have absolutely ZERO impact on a court trial. Nor should it.
Qtard: "Fair" trial. When he'd be assumed guilty EVEN BEFORE even premices for such a trial would emerge.
That isn't how our system works. My opinion re tRump's guilt is an opinion what would have zero impact re any court trial. I never suggested my opinion SHOULD have any impact. It should not. It would not. It could not.
Qtard: That is definitiuon of "fair" and "justice" --- totalitarian liliPut and lilXi would be pleased. For sure.
Putin would hate it for sure. Given that he and tRump are collusion buddies. Putin would be bigly disappointed to see his puppet convicted. In any kind of trial. Fair or unfair. Though this is the US, so he'd get a fair trial.
Qtard: And trail in which person assumed to be guilty BEFOREHAND -- that is not justice.
No court that would potentially try court would give a shit about my opinion that tRump is guilty. Nor should they.
Qtard: That is Kengaroo Court. Like in Rusha or China.
There is no such country as "Rusha". There is no such thing as a "Kengaroo Court". A Kangaroo Court in Russia would find tRump innocent. Because tRump and Putin are collusion buddies.
Qtard: \\False accusation. I do not admire "lynch trials". Fake quote. I've never screamed anything about burning witches.\\ Lie again. HOW that was quote??? By which standard? That was re-enactment.
False "re-enactment".
Qtard: Ha-ha-ha.... what a totalisarian's sophistry. You DENIED them their right with your direct emphased even OWN WORDS. And I GAVE such quotes just in that comment above.
"I GAVE such quotes" is a lie. You gave no quotes where I "DENIED them their right".
But you trying to dismiss it... because it was not with that same words???
Damn right. Because my words were that nobody should be denied their rights. I keep repeating that, but you keep ignoring it. And falsely trying to tell me what I "really mean" is that their rights should be taken away.
Qtard: You have wrote: "\\I *DO* deny..." BUT. You demand it SHOULD be: "...should be denied...".
Partial quote. I wrote, "...you provided zero quotes where I say donald tRump or J6 rioters should be denied their human rights". That was a demand for you to show where I said that. It wasn't me saying it. You f*cking liar.
Qtard: Am I right??? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
You are WRONG. Such a dishonest "treak". You thought you could get away with it? I guess so. You even laughed at your "treak". Proof you are an FM. That you thought you could gaslight me into believing I had actually said that.
Qtard: What a stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, DAMN stupid... way to squint.
AGREED! Your squinting to get that fake quote was stupid X6. Plus a lot more "stupids". Like a hundred, at least.
Qtard: Ergo. It's not up to YOU to decide!!!
I didn't decide. Merrick Garland didn't call me up and get an OK from me to arrest the J6 rioters. I had nothing to do with it. You think the rioters SHOULDN'T have been arrested? You think any government on earth would have said, "hey, you tried to overthrow the government but that's OK. It is your right"?
Qtard: Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws.
There you go again. Accurate definition. But you don't understand it. It does not apply to the J6 rioters. The incoming Biden administration did not act against the common interests or threaten the safety of the people without cause. Their human rights were not violated.
Qtard: \\The election of Joe Biden did not usher in a "government that acts against their common interests" nor did it "threaten the safety of the people without cause". <--- these are the reasons people would have a legitimate right of revolution. NONE of these apply to the J6 rioters.
Again. Look above ^^^^^^^ There is NO. And can NOT be "not legitimate" Natural Rights. That's why they caled "natural". Not just for show.
There can.
Qtard: That is like Right to Breath -- NOBODY can claim that your right to breath is somehow limited. On WHATEVER base!!! DARE to protest against this???!!!!! And that is. Self-evidant.
It is not self evident. Infringing on the rights of others is NOT a natural right. The 81 million people who voted for Joe Biden had the right to have the president of their choosing take office. YOU want to deny their rights.
Qtard: Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..
Quoting again without understanding.
Qtard: \\Right of revolution isn't a human right anyway.\\ "Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings... [they] include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education...".
I like it. Very much. When your words is THAT self-contradicting.
Right, because (according to you) ONLY the people who voted for tRump have rights. People who voted for Biden have no rights. And that's if you think everyone who voted for tRump was pro-revolution. Many of them were probably not. And accepted that Joe Biden won.
It isn't up to you to decide who gets rights and who loses their rights!!! Yet you insist it is. And call ME totalitarian because I want to respect the rights of the people who side with Democracy. As opposed to the people who rose up against democracy. That makes YOU the totalitarian.
Qtard: \\I'm saying the J6 rioters didn't have that right because the government ... wasn't suddenly acting against the interest of the people...\\ That is... absolutely BESIDE the point of Natural Rights of people for own thinking and deciding autonomy.
What about the autonomy of the people who voted for Joe Biden and did not want tRump to be president any longer? If the insurrection had been successful their right to select the leader of their choice would have been taken away. Spat on. Is it a person's "natural right" to violate the rights of others? To deny others THEIR rights?
Qtard: They decided that that is somehow wrong. Well, it could be, that they decided wrong. But... it still UP TO THAT people to decided -- what they'll do. And on what base.
They did decide wrong. Sure, people can decide to break the law. That is "up to that people to decided". But the other people decided they should be arrested. And face trial. And be punished. You think attacking police officers and vandalizing public property is a natural right?
Qtard: See. YOU have that inalianable right -- to decide for yourself. WHY you deny to other people THAT SAME rights???
They decided to break the law. They were arrested, charged, convicted and punished. This wasn't up to me. Though I agree with it. They had no right to try to overturn the results of the election by force. In violation of MY RIGHTS -- and the rights of everyone who voted for Joe Biden.
Qtard: Because you are totalitarian?
No, because I oppose totalitarianism.
Qtard: \\What about those people (the majority)? Those people didn't want a revolution.\\ Was their right somehow infridged? Was it denied? By whom? How?
By the rioters. The rioters tried to reverse the results of the election to keep the loser in power. How would that NOT have been a violation of the rights of the people who voted for Biden?
Qtard: That's why DEMOCRACY built around PRESERVING rights of minorities. But... you seems like don't like it? You prefer Rule of Majotity AKA Totalitarism?
Democracy, definition: "control of an organization or group by the MAJORITY of its members". Rule of the majority is NOT "aka totalitarianism".
Qtard: "Fair" trial where dRump would be ASSUMED guilty beforehand?
No.
Qtard: dRump is not judged, that mean he cannot be called duilty.
Why not? I am FORBIDDEN from having an opinion? Says who? By WHAT law can I NOT have an opinion?
Qtard: Presumption of Innocence sound: "If SOMEBODY is not judged, that mean he cannot be called guilty".
I MOST CERTAINLY CAN call tRump guilty. Law can't call him guilty. *I* can. I do. You can't stop me. It is my first amendment right. Qtard wants to deny my rights because he is a totalitarian.
Qtard: But... if you DENY Presumption of Innocent for just ONE man -- you dening it for everyone.
I deny it for no one. Court does not care about my opinion that tRump is guilty. Unless I was called as a juror. Then, when I said I thought tRump was guilty, they'd say "go home, you can't be a juror".
Qtard: \\I don't need to squint. And, YES, I will deny that MY WORDS mean what YOU say they mean. MY WORDS mean what I say they mean. What you say they mean IS A LIE.\\ Thank you for admitting being such an idioticly inclined in relentless lying. And I will use it for quoting in our further talks.
Why? To remind me you are a liar? You remind me of this constantly. I don't need even more reminding.
Qtard: You... have NO right to CHANGE the meaning of words. Whenever you like. And a posteriori ESPECIALLY.
When did this happen? Whenever I like? I NEVER like to change the meaning of words. What word(s) do you THINK I changed the meaning of? Quotes? Citations?
Anyway, YOU changed the meaning of a word in your last comment. Democracy is majority rule. But you say majority rule is totalitarianism. Word meaning change (by you) CONFIRMED.
\\Qtard: Ergo. It's not up to YOU to decide!!!
\\I didn't decide. Merrick Garland didn't call me up and get an OK from me to arrest the J6 rioters. I had nothing to do with it.
It is NOT up to any Garland to decide TOO!!! ;-P
Cause, that is a nature of Natural Human Rights.
Your Captain Obvious
Again.
""
Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws
""
\\You think the rioters SHOULDN'T have been arrested?
And you think that they was arrested BECAUSE "how dare you to uprise against our Holy Democracy"???
And not for that, that they trespassed some rules of common living?
You just showed that you are totalitarian wannabe idiot... who just don't get it -- what was NOT right with J6 rioters... in accordance with democratic law. ;-P
\\So many lies. But that is obviously your strategy. To down out my facts and truth with an overwhelming number of lies.
You are always free to pick ONE "lie". And demonstrate with logic and facts -- how that is a lie. ;-P
But... you will not do that. Cause you miserly idiot -- whose brains not fit for anything like that. And. You are heinous liar -- whose tongue twisted that much, it's impossible to tell the truth anymore. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: "Guilty" that is status a Judge in a court trial give. Or what? You'd be opposing to that?
\\My "guilty" is my opinion. Which I am entitled to have.
Yap.
The same as when mob gathering togather, and talking to each other: "you think he is guilty? And I think he is guilty. So, let's make him PAY!!!". ;-P
ONLY difference -- that there is NO mob of idiots thiunking the same as you. That is ONLY difference. ;-P
Or... you can DISPROVE it.
\\Qtard: "Fair" trial. When he'd be assumed guilty EVEN BEFORE even premices for such a trial would emerge.
\\That isn't how our system works. My opinion re tRump's guilt is an opinion what would have zero impact re any court trial. I never suggested my opinion SHOULD have any impact. It should not. It would not. It could not.
Bullshit.
\\Putin would hate it for sure. Given that he and tRump are collusion buddies. Putin would be bigly disappointed to see his puppet convicted. In any kind of trial. Fair or unfair. Though this is the US, so he'd get a fair trial.
Yep. "Fair" trial. While a mob behind doors... or even INSIDE court room. Would be screaming "he's guilty. he's guilty. hang him up! hang him up!".
WHY Putin would hate that? Such a division and unlawful (the same as in Rusha) conduct???
Do you really think that liliPut have ANY warm feelings toward dRump???
You could... cause you are apparent knownothing and idiot.
\\No court that would potentially try court would give a shit about my opinion that tRump is guilty. Nor should they.
Of course.
Because that is how miserly you totalitarian wannabe are. ;-P
That's why you venerate totalitrian rule that much -- because it gives right of a mobbing, to such a miserly mobsters. :-)))))))))))))))
\\False "re-enactment".
So what??? There was NO with trials??? No people screaming "burn that witch"???
\\"I GAVE such quotes" is a lie. You gave no quotes where I "DENIED them their right".
YOUR OWN WORDS: "\\I *DO* deny that the J6 insurrectionists had the right of revolutio"
I'll place it alongside.
For EVEN MORE CLARITY.
You claimed that I did not gave quote where
\\I "DENIED them their right".
| \ \ \
\\I *DO* deny that the J6 insurrectionists had the right of revolutio"
WORD TO WORD corespondence! :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Damn right. Because my words were that nobody should be denied their rights.
Again: "I *DO* deny that the J6 insurrectionists had the right of revolutio" :-))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\ I keep repeating that, but you keep ignoring it.
Because... that is COUNTER-factual claims.
I GAVE you quote... but you trying to claim -- FALSELY, that it didn't happend.
Absolutely denying OBjective Reality -- the YOU DID IT.
You have written it.
And you keep pounding that same false claims.
WHY??? I should NOT ignore that your repeated many times denials? Just tel me -- WHY???
What rational idea can back that demand of yours???
You repeating lies -- I pointing to em. That is -- only natural thing to do.
Or what??? I need to give up??? Just say "OK, you bored me with your repetitivness... so now I am ready to admit that your LIES are actually TRUTHES"??????????????????????? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Are you THAT MUCH IDIOT to wait for it to be like that???? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\And falsely trying to tell me what I "really mean" is that their rights should be taken away.
You said: "I *DO* deny...", isn't it?
Well... obviously... criminal in a court trial would behave THE SAME.
And totalitarians of all of the World... like it, to have it the same, in their shitho... ehm, countries.
"Right" to "take back" their words. To back off from their previous claims. To thwart those "nasty dissidents" who point em to their shit. ;-P
That makes it clear -- that you are THE SAME -- totalitarian wannabe.
\\Partial quote. I wrote, "...you provided zero quotes where I say donald tRump or J6 rioters should be denied their human rights". That was a demand for you to show where I said that. It wasn't me saying it. You f*cking liar.
Yes. You are.
You said "I *DO* deny that the J6 insurrectionists had the right of revolutio" and now trying to back off from that your claim, by the most idiotic way possible -- direct denial that you have had said that. ;-P
\\That you thought you could gaslight me into believing I had actually said that.
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Go return by that link to that previous threads... and behold. ;-P
But... you'd not.
You as that proven idits, will just continue screaming "I DID NOT DID IT. YOU LYING!!!". :-))))))))))))))))))
Which is good with me -- you only proving much more -- what an idiot and a liar you are. ;-P
\\You think any government on earth would have said, "hey, you tried to overthrow the government but that's OK. It is your right"?
I have said you FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.
That there is NOTHING like "right of revolution" in any codex of law. And there CANNOT be.
But... Natural Rights do not need to be confirmed in law. Because they ARE natural.
Your Captain Obvious. ;-P
\\There you go again. Accurate definition. But you don't understand it. It does not apply to the J6 rioters.
At least... you admitted that MY quotes are correct. ;-P
\\The incoming Biden administration did not act against the common interests or threaten the safety of the people without cause. Their human rights were not violated.
That is separate thing.
King of Great Britain ALSO could say that he did NOTHING "against the common interests or threaten the safety of the people". "Without cause" especially.
But... that was NOT up to him to decide. People. That same "WE, the People" -- gathered together and decided otherwise. ;-P
\\There can.
Proofs? Example? Logical explanations?
NONE. ;-P
\\Qtard: That is like Right to Breath -- NOBODY can claim that your right to breath is somehow limited.
\\It is not self evident.
Not? :-)))
Then. STOP BREATHING RIGHT NOW! ;-P
\\Infringing on the rights of others is NOT a natural right.
Well... that is the moment TOTALITARIANS like to pound AT...
when they declare need to INFRINGE THE RIGHTS of others.
Like when Hitler did it -- declared that Jews must be limited in their right -- because... just because. Some mumbo-jumbo explanation was provided. Like that that jews, somehow "infringed rights of others" -- to live without jews in closest withinity... then in more distent withinity... then, Finial Solution of Jewish Quesion.
It ALL was on the same base... of "Infringing on the rights of others is NOT a natural right."
That's why -- infringment, or even mere denying... the most basic and inalienable rights -- is so damn DAMNING!!!
It is biggest NO, NO... under Democracy.
Like today, when there is so much brawls about LGBTQ+++ people.
On which base LGBTQ+++ people claim having some? Any rights for themself???
On the base of Natural Rights ONLY.
Because... there was no and there is no laws... about anything like that, they claim wanting...
That is, just for example.
Before that... there was brawls FOR rights of Black people.
Again.
ON WHAT BASE they declared having some, any rights for themself???
On that SOLE base -- that that is THEIR Natural Inalienable RIGHTS!!!
DARE to OPPOSE????
\\The 81 million people who voted for Joe Biden had the right to have the president of their choosing take office. YOU want to deny their rights.
They have Power of Majority(in addition to THEIR Natural Rights). Is it not enough?
Do they feel themself treatened??? Why?
\\Qtard: Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..
\\Quoting again without understanding.
And you can EXPLAIN, what I do not understand? From your POV?
Naah... you never do that.
You only babbling and babbling, and babbling, and babbling, and babbling, and babbling, and babbling, and babbling... some more shit.
With new words and pharses you lear... err, copy-pasted, borrowed from me. without understanding.
\\And call ME totalitarian because I want to respect the rights of the people who side with Democracy. As opposed to the people who rose up against democracy. That makes YOU the totalitarian.
What democracy do you see in one people just thwarting another... because they have more power to excert.
That is -- NOT democracy. That is -- bona fide barbarism.
That is how it was decided in all previous milenias -- when one mob just gathered against another mob -- and all was decided by the sheer strength in number -- of which one was bigger, more scillful in killing, more cunning...
IF... THAT is what you call "democracy" in your slang.
I'd better be "totalitarian"... in your slang. :-))))))))))))))
\\What about the autonomy of the people who voted for Joe Biden and did not want tRump to be president any longer?
And what's the problem with their autonomy? They somehow, by someone was stopped from booing at dRump???
Don't look like that.
\\Is it a person's "natural right" to violate the rights of others? To deny others THEIR rights?
By majority or by minority?
Cause... majority doing it almost all of the time. ;-P
Ipso factum.
\\They did decide wrong. Sure, people can decide to break the law. That is "up to that people to decided". But the other people decided they should be arrested. And face trial. And be punished. You think attacking police officers and vandalizing public property is a natural right?
Was that George Floyd's Right to Breath??? Or that was "attacking police officer"???
\\Qtard: Because you are totalitarian?
\\No, because I oppose totalitarianism.
Don't look like that...
\\They had no right to try to overturn the results of the election by force
There same as G.Washington and Co had no right to uprise against "divine" power of the king. Period.
\\How would that NOT have been a violation of the rights of the people who voted for Biden?
And? Does it happened?
"Attempt of crime" and crime itself -- is the same, and MUST BE punished the same?
AKA punishment for thought crimes???
Well... that is YOU saying that they tryed to "violate your voting rights" -- while they claimed that they tryed to PROTECT their... and your rights, to vote. ;-P
\\Democracy, definition: "control of an organization or group by the MAJORITY of its members". Rule of the majority is NOT "aka totalitarianism".
And WHO defines... who are majority???
If some members succumb to themself that power... like by thwarting rights of this and that minorities... of which that "majority" consist.
So they can *simulate* needed for them "MAJORITY of its members".
What would happen?
It STILL would be Democracy? In your eyes...
Then... you ARE totalitarian. ;-P
\\Qtard: dRump is not judged, that mean he cannot be called duilty.
\\Why not? I am FORBIDDEN from having an opinion? Says who? By WHAT law can I NOT have an opinion?
Why not?
Are you living in a totalitarian country?
No, you just a totalitarian wannabe... who living in a democratic country.
Where EVEN totalitarian veiws -- NOT forbiden.
\\I MOST CERTAINLY CAN call tRump guilty. Law can't call him guilty. *I* can. I do. You can't stop me. It is my first amendment right. Qtard wants to deny my rights because he is a totalitarian.
And HOW I trying to deny you anything???
Can point at some evidances??
\\Why? To remind me you are a liar? You remind me of this constantly. I don't need even more reminding.
Whatever delusions you'd like to indulge yourself.
See. I DO NOT deny you... anything. ;-P
More then that -- I HELP you to indulge yourself in it.
Am I not a good person? ;-P
\\When did this happen? Whenever I like? I NEVER like to change the meaning of words. What word(s) do you THINK I changed the meaning of? Quotes? Citations?
MY WORDS mean what I say they mean.
But. As you showed it many times. You keep claiming that EVEN PERFECTLY CORRECT quotes of your words -- suddenly start meaning something ELSE.
Without ANY apparent reason, apart from this your claim, again
MY WORDS mean what I say they mean.
\\Anyway, YOU changed the meaning of a word in your last comment. Democracy is majority rule. But you say majority rule is totalitarianism. Word meaning change (by you) CONFIRMED.
Naah.
That is just prejudged quote you found on the Internet.
Why I precisely stated that Democracy -- that is a way to preserve People's Freedoms and Human Rights.
Rule of Majority... that is just a procedure it works by. But most of the time. In a Democracy. "Rule of majority" is nothing bigger then 50% + one vote.
While in totalitarian... it 99.9999999% or we'll kill you, if you'd not submit!
Easy to see, what you inclined to.
Qtard: It is NOT up to any Garland to decide TOO!!!
You should call him ASAP and inform him of the grave error he has made. Obviously when you tell him that that it isn't up to him to decide he will IMMEDIATELY dismiss all charges against the J6 rioters. Qtard will probably receive the presidential medal of freedom for his great service to the cause of Human Rights!
An extremely humorous retort. So you'll probably call it "gibberish".
Qtard: Your Captain Obvious. Again.
Well, it is obvious that Merrick Garland did decide. Despite your insistence that it isn't up to him. So it is clear that you fail to grasp the obvious.
Qtard: ...you think that they was arrested BECAUSE "how dare you to uprise against our Holy Democracy"??? And not for that, that they trespassed some rules of common living? You just showed that you are totalitarian wannabe idiot... who just don't get it -- what was NOT right with J6 rioters in accordance with democratic law.
Why do you constantly (and inaccurately) use the word "holy"? I didn't use it. Obviously, to you, "holy" is bad. Why you use it to describe American democracy. To express your hatred for it, yes?
Qtard: You are always free to pick ONE "lie". And demonstrate with logic and facts -- how that is a lie.
LIE: "It is NOT up to any Garland to decide TOO!!". Self evident lie. Due to the FACT that Merrick Garland DID decide. And the J6 rioters were arrested. And some put on trial and convicted.
Qtard: Cause you ... brains not fit for anything like that. And. You are heinous liar -- whose tongue twisted that much, it's impossible to tell the truth anymore.
"Cause you miserly idiot whose brains not fit for anything like that. And. You are heinous liar whose tongue twisted that much, it's impossible to tell the truth anymore" describes Qtard.
Qtard: "Guilty" that is status a Judge in a court trial give. Or what? You'd be opposing to that?
I'd be very much welcoming that. It is EXACTLY what I want.
Qtard: \\Me: My "guilty" is my opinion. Which I am entitled to have.\\Yap. The same as when mob gathering togather... "you think he is guilty? And I think he is guilty. So, let's make him PAY!!!". ONLY difference -- that there is NO mob of idiots thiunking the same as you.
The mob of idiots are insisting tRump is the victim of a "witch hunt". His supporters. US voters who support him. Also idiots like you who claim to be foreigners (and therefore can't vote in US elections). The idiots who think tRump is innocent are a minority. Most people think donald tRump is guilty. The smarter ones. For colluding with Russia -- "A majority (56%) says the President and his campaign have not been exonerated of collusion" and for inciting the insurrection -- Nearly 60% of Americans say Trump should be charged for Jan. 6.
BTW, if you're talking about a lynch mob, that is clearly illegal. Making someone "pay" by hanging them. Obviously having an opinion about someone's possible guilt (and wanting them to have a fair trial) is WAY different than an illegal lynching. You suggest otherwise because you are a dishonest FM.
Qtard: Or... you can DISPROVE it.
Disprove what? That I want donald tRump lynched without trial? No, I can't disprove that to your satisfaction. If I say I want a fair trial (which I do) -- you will just insist I'm lying.
Qtard: \\Qtard: "Fair" trial. When he'd be assumed guilty EVEN BEFORE even premices for such a trial would emerge. \\Me: My opinion re tRump's guilt is an opinion what would have zero impact re any court trial. I never suggested my opinion SHOULD have any impact. It should not. It would not. It could not.\\ Bullshit.
Huh? HOW could my opinion that tRump is guilty have ANY impact on a potential trial? Your "bullshit" is BULLSHIT. Self-evidently so.
Qtard: Yep. "Fair" trial. While a mob behind doors... or even INSIDE court room. Would be screaming "he's guilty. he's guilty. hang him up! hang him up!".
You keep screaming about a trial. Turns out you don't want one. You're vehemently opposed to donald tRump getting a fair trial. No matter WHAT the evidence is. tRump should never be charged. Because donald tRump is ABOVE the law. That's what Qtard believes. Obviously. Proof of his strong totalitarian proclivities. Also oligarchic proclivities. As Qtard previously admitted, he believes tRump should not be charged because he is rich.
Qtard: WHY Putin would hate that? Such a division and unlawful (the same as in Rusha) conduct??? Do you really think that liliPut have ANY warm feelings toward dRump???
Warm feelings? Absolutely not. To Putin, tRump is a useful idiot. A puppet to achieve his goals. As tRump stated during his CNN town hall, he does not want Ukraine to win (repel the Russian invasion).
Qtard: Because that is how miserly you totalitarian wannabe are. That's why you venerate totalitrian rule that much -- because it gives right of a mobbing...
As a supporter of democracy (unlike Qtard) I strongly oppose totalitarian rule. As well as vigilantism. It is illegal. Also not tolerated by any form of government. "It gives right of a mobbing"? WTF? Says who?
Qtard: \\Me: False "re-enactment".\\ So what??? There was NO with trials??? No people screaming "burn that witch"???
No, "witches" were not burned at the stake in the US. "At Salem no one was burned. Instead, they hanged them" said Elizabeth Reis, a professor at Macaulay Honors College at the City University of New York and author of the book "Damned Women: Sinners and Witches in Puritan New England" (Cornell University Press, 1999).
FYI, donald tRump (as a former president) is protected by the Secret Service. The lynch mob you imagine (in your delusions) couldn't touch him. Also, if someone is accused of a crime -- but that might anger some people who could seek vigilante justice -- that person should NOT be prosecuted? Just let them go, no matter what crime they are accused of? "Serial killer might be lynched. Have to let him go". That is qtardedly stupid.
Qtard: \\"I GAVE such quotes" is a lie. You gave no quotes where I "DENIED them their right".\\ YOUR OWN WORDS: "\\I *DO* deny that the J6 insurrectionists had the right of revolution"\\.
I NEVER denied anyone any right. I deny they HAVE that right. I can't deny anyone a right they DO NOT HAVE. Which the J6 rioters did not. PROVEN by the fact that they were arrested, charged and (many of them) convicted. Now you're backing off your earlier claims that court trials are the best way to prove guilt? You have been bullshitting ALL ALONG with your claims of tRump's innocence being proven by the fact that no evidence of collusion has been presented in court? Now you're like, "court trials prove nothing, except that innocent people can be railroaded"?
Qtard: Again: "I *DO* deny that the J6 insurrectionists had the right of revolution".
If they actually had that right I would not deny it. I don't deny anyone rights they actually have.
Qtard: I keep repeating that, but you keep ignoring it.
I ignored nothing. I refuted your false claim that J6 rioters had any right to overturn the results of a free and fair democratic election. Just because they are sore losers.
Qtard: I GAVE you quote... but you trying to claim -- FALSELY, that it didn't happend.
It *did not* happen. I NEVER denied them any right they actually had.
Qtard: Absolutely denying OBjective Reality -- the YOU DID IT. You have written it.
No. And no.
Qtard: You repeating lies -- I pointing to em. That is -- only natural thing to do.
YOU keep repeating lies. And I keep pointing them out. In any case -- and despite your moronic claims to the contrary -- I have no say re the prosecution of the J6 rioters. It was up to Merrick Garland. He said "Arrest them. Prosecute them". Qtard says he did not have the right, but he did it. Because he DOES have the right to decide who is prosecuted.
Fact is, All past rebellions in the US that were attempted were put down. The authorities NEVER said, "we have to allow this because it is their right".
\\An extremely humorous retort. So you'll probably call it "gibberish".
No.
This time it's just stupid. :-))))))))))))))))))))))
Cause that Garland himself -- unlike you, know perfectly well that he CANNOT infringe Natural Rights of people.
\\Why do you constantly (and inaccurately) use the word "holy"? I didn't use it. Obviously, to you, "holy" is bad. Why you use it to describe American democracy. To express your hatred for it, yes?
Democracy which do not protect rights of minorities, clearly are Holy Democracy of Religious Bonkers AKA totalitarians wannabe.
I already have had gave you citation of liliPut, who call itself "biggest democrat" -- that mean that NOT ANYONE who just call itself democrat ARE democratically aligned.
That's it.
\\Qtard: You are always free to pick ONE "lie". And demonstrate with logic and facts -- how that is a lie.
\\LIE: "It is NOT up to any Garland to decide TOO!!". Self evident lie. Due to the FACT that Merrick Garland DID decide. And the J6 rioters were arrested. And some put on trial and convicted.
We was talking about Natural Rights there.
Obviously -- that is NOT up to any Galand to decide -- to strip EVEN that J6 rioters off their Natural Rights.
Like Right to Breath, for example.
So.
You are perfectly right when you titled it \\LIE:
That is YOU lie... that Garland could, and infriged J6 rioters Human Rights. ;-P
Your own words prove it -- they was "put on trial and convicted".
\\"Cause you miserly idiot whose brains not fit for anything like that. And. You are heinous liar whose tongue twisted that much, it's impossible to tell the truth anymore" describes Qtard.
From such a discredited Religious Bonker that is SO damning. NOT. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\The mob of idiots are insisting tRump is the victim of a "witch hunt".
Well... at least they can gather a mob... and you not. ;-P
\\Also idiots like you who claim to be foreigners (and therefore can't vote in US elections).
Claiming someone being an idiot on a base being foreigner... that is somewhat disingenious, isn't it? ;-P
Or, well, it IS natural, for Religious Bonker. To be that judgy. :-)))))))))))))
\\BTW, if you're talking about a lynch mob, that is clearly illegal. Making someone "pay" by hanging them. Obviously having an opinion about someone's possible guilt (and wanting them to have a fair trial) is WAY different than an illegal lynching. You suggest otherwise because you are a dishonest FM.
And what's the difference? Dare to explain? ;-P
\\If I say I want a fair trial (which I do) -- you will just insist I'm lying.
While claiming that you ALREADY know that he is guilty?
And will be disappointed if he'd not be convicted.
"Fair trail", my ass. :-))))))))))))))))))
\\Huh? HOW could my opinion that tRump is guilty have ANY impact on a potential trial? Your "bullshit" is BULLSHIT. Self-evidently so.
Why it should? I dunno.
Like I claimed anything like that.
I was claiming ONLY that YOUR OWN attitude is that of that totalitarian wannabe.
There is NO logical connections with your ability to make it happen....
\\You keep screaming about a trial. Turns out you don't want one.
WAT???
\\As a supporter of democracy (unlike Qtard) I strongly oppose totalitarian rule. As well as vigilantism.
Inner contradiction.
Kinda like "I dispise racism... and nigers".
\\ It is illegal.
Isn't there is a law about
Section 75 of the Criminal Procedure Law (Enforcement Powers – Arrest) of 1996 allows anyone to detain a person who is witnessed carrying out certain suspected crimes. The crimes include the following: a felony, theft, a crime of violence and a crime which has caused serious damage to property.
Citizen's arrest - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Citizen's_arrest
\\\\ YOUR OWN WORDS: "\\I *DO* deny that the J6 insurrectionists had the right of revolution"\\.
\\I NEVER denied anyone any right. I deny they HAVE that right.
Like any difference. :-)))))))))))))))
\\ I can't deny anyone a right they DO NOT HAVE.
Yap. Human DO NOT have their Human's Right. O.K., I got it. :-))))))))))))))
But wait... that is what totalitarian would proclaim, isn't it? Or not???
\\PROVEN by the fact that they were arrested, charged and (many of them) convicted.
Do their arrest infidged their Human Rights??? Was it NOT in accordance with laws??? Democratical laws. Designed to protect their rights.
\\Now you're like, "court trials prove nothing, except that innocent people can be railroaded"?
Clearly, a BS produced by your bent in pretcel totalitarian mind....
\\Qtard: Again: "I *DO* deny that the J6 insurrectionists had the right of revolution".
\\If they actually had that right I would not deny it. I don't deny anyone rights they actually have.
They CANNOT NOT have em. They are humans. And humans have Human's Rights. Naturally.
ONLY totalitaians deny humans having their Human's Riughts.
You -- denying.
That means -- you are totalitarian.
LOGIC!
\\I refuted your false claim that J6 rioters had any right to overturn the results of a free and fair democratic election.
There was NO such claim from my side.
Quotes -- you did not, and could not provide, to support that your BS claim.
But... you KEEP ignoring and insisting that your APPARENT claim, of which you NEVER backed off, never called it err, merely a mistake, but on the contrary -- keep insisting.
Clearly a drowned in lies totalitarian.
But, don't sweat it -- I will not report you. Maybe. ;-P
\\Qtard: I GAVE you quote... but you trying to claim -- FALSELY, that it didn't happend.
\\It *did not* happen. I NEVER denied them any right they actually had.
You said: "I *DO* deny..." but you "NEVER denied"???? :-)))))))))))))
YOU -- drowning in your own lies. Per se. ;-P
\\Qtard: Absolutely denying OBjective Reality -- the YOU DID IT. You have written it.
\\No. And no.
Yes. And Yes. ;-P
You just tryed to deny writing "I *DO* deny" -- which is apparent STATMENT of DENIAL. ;-P
\\YOU keep repeating lies.
Like that "lie" that YOU HAVE HAD SAID that --->>> "I *DO* deny..."?????
Self-evidant. You lost it. Liar. ;-P
\\It was up to Merrick Garland. He said "Arrest them. Prosecute them". Qtard says he did not have the right, but he did it. Because he DOES have the right to decide who is prosecuted.
Prosecution -- that is LAWFUL procedure of how people can be and MUST BE dealt with... IN ACCORDANCE with democratic laws and their Human Rights preseved. ;-P
\\Fact is, All past rebellions in the US that were attempted were put down. The authorities NEVER said, "we have to allow this because it is their right".
So what???
That somehow limits ANY possible in the future rebelions??? Even if they'd be successful?
Qtard: Cause that Garland himself -- unlike you, know perfectly well that he CANNOT infringe Natural Rights of people.
OK. Not sure how you know this (Merrick Garland told you?), but I agree it is an almost certainty that (exactly like me) Merrick Garland "know perfectly well that he CANNOT infringe Natural Rights of people".
But it is not a natural right to overthrow a democracy to install a dictator. "The right of revolution is an appeal to the law of nature against the injustice of the existing government". The Biden government didn't even exist yet. Given that Joe Biden had not been inaugurated yet. It was just sore losers (who falsely believed the election had been stolen due to donald tRump's lies) that tried to change the election results by force. It was the J6 rioters and their leader dotard donald who were perpetrating the injustice.
Qtard: Democracy which do not protect rights of minorities, clearly are Holy Democracy of Religious Bonkers AKA totalitarians wannabe.
That is the Rightwing vision for America. To suppress and oppress minorities. In order to maintain White male Supremacy. Democrats fight for the rights of minorities. Qtard is obviously Rightwing. He hates Democrats (slanders Obama and Biden while defending tRump). QED Qtard is "holy" and "religious bonkers". As per his qtarded definitions.
Qtard: I already have had gave you citation of liliPut, who call itself "biggest democrat" -- that mean that NOT ANYONE who just call itself democrat ARE democratically aligned.
Of course "NOT ANYONE who just call itself democrat ARE democratically aligned". I have never said otherwise. As for Putin calling himself "biggest democrat"... did he? Google says "It looks like there aren't many great matches for your search". All I found was that Sergey Kortunov (in 2004) "referred to Vladimir Putin as the »biggest democrat in Russia«".
btw, Putin is an "it"? You aren't sure if Putin is male or not? Is he non-binary? I'm not sure what makes someone an "it". Maybe you can explain?
Qtard: We was talking about Natural Rights there. Obviously -- that is NOT up to any Galand to decide -- to strip EVEN that J6 rioters off their Natural Rights.
Huh? What would it look like if he could/did "strip EVEN that J6 rioters off their Natural Rights"? Not put them in prison? But they (some of them) are there. Apparently you are only paying lip service to natural rights. Because there is no benefit to not being "stripped" of them. Like NOT going to prison. Which apparently you are OK with? Because you are a huge hypocrite?
Qtard: Like Right to Breath, for example.
A death sentence imposed after a person is convicted of murder deprives said person of their right to breath. When the death sentence is carried out. They will breath no longer.
Qtard: That is YOU lie... that Garland could, and infriged J6 rioters Human Rights. Your own words prove it -- they was "put on trial and convicted".
What? How does "they was put on trial and convicted" not take their rights away? And what good is this "right" then? If there are zero benefits to it? If people exercising this "right" can be sent to prison for doing so?
Why does it make you so angry if I say they did not have this "right"? Since it makes absolutely no difference at all. Have the right, not have the right. Either way they got punished. In some cases severely.
Qtard: From such a discredited Religious Bonker that is SO damning. NOT.
No "discredited Religious Bonkers" comment here. Except Mystere. But you aren't talking about him. Do you mean yourself? I am not that thing.
Qtard: \\Me: The mob of idiots are insisting tRump is the victim of a "witch hunt".\\ Well... at least they can gather a mob... and you not.
I never tried.
Qtard: \\Me: Also idiots like you who claim to be foreigners (and therefore can't vote in US elections).\\ Claiming someone being an idiot on a base being foreigner... that is somewhat disingenious, isn't it?
I didn't do that. That you are a foreigner (or claim to be one but are not) is separate issue from you being an idiot.
Qtard: Or, well, it IS natural, for Religious Bonker. To be that judgy.
You aren't super judgy of me? Seems to be very natural for you. You are confessing to being a "religious bonker"? You are definitely bonkers. And religiously so.
Qtard: \\Me: BTW, if you're talking about a lynch mob, that is clearly illegal. Making someone "pay" by hanging them. Obviously having an opinion about someone's possible guilt (and wanting them to have a fair trial) is WAY different than an illegal lynching.\\ And what's the difference? Dare to explain?
You don't know? Lynch mob is illegal. Like I just said. And ends up with the accused person's death. While a fair trial results in a just conviction or exoneration of the accused. Either way the person lives. Unless their crime is murder or treason. Then they might get the death penalty. But donald tRump won't get the death penalty. Even if convicted. He isn't going to be charged with treason. Maybe sedition or espionage. The death penalty does not apply to either.
Qtard: \\Me: If I say I want a fair trial (which I do) -- you will just insist I'm lying.\\ While claiming that you ALREADY know that he is guilty? And will be disappointed if he'd not be convicted.
You think the judge is going to consult me? Ask me if donald tRump should be found guilty or not? And, if I say "he's guilty", the judge will say "if you say so. I don't want you to be disappointed, so I will find him guilty".
Qtard: "Fair trail", my ass.
That's your problem. If you have no confidence in any potential trial of donald tRump. Despite you previously claiming that a trial was the best way to determine guilt or innocence. Now you're backpedaling. You must be worried that tRump IS going to be put on trial and convicted.
To be saying now that you no longer believe what you previously claimed you believed. Or never did. Which is more likely. Given your dismissal of the results of the case in which donald tRump sued Hillary Clinton for "framing" him. And the case was thrown out by the judge.
Qtard: \\Me: Huh? HOW could my opinion that tRump is guilty have ANY impact on a potential trial? Your "bullshit" is BULLSHIT. Self-evidently so.\\ Why it should? I dunno.
Me neither. I don't know what the "it" is you are referring to. My opinion having ANY impact on a potential trial? It shouldn't. Like I've been saying. And YOU have idiotically denied. By insisting that MY OPINION means dotard donald can't get a fair trial.
Qtard; Like I claimed anything like that. I was claiming ONLY that YOUR OWN attitude is that of that totalitarian wannabe.
You DID. Quote, "fair trial, my ass". Absurd claim that donald tRump can't get a fair trial because of my opinion that he is guilty.
Qtard: There is NO logical connections with your ability to make it happen....
There isn't. Yet you claimed it.
Qtard: \\me: You keep screaming about a trial. Turns out you don't want one.\\ WAT???
You said, Quote, "fair trial, my ass". So you WANT an unfair trial?
Qtard: \\Me: As a supporter of democracy (unlike Qtard) I strongly oppose totalitarian rule. As well as vigilantism.\\ Inner contradiction.
Huh? What "inner contradiction"?
Qtard: \\Me: As a supporter of democracy (unlike Qtard) I strongly oppose totalitarian rule. As well as vigilantism.\\ Inner contradiction.
Huh? What "inner contradiction"?
Qtard: Kinda like "I dispise racism... and nigers".
You moronically claimed that vigilantism in the form of a lynch mob was enabled by totalitarianism. So how is it an "inner contradiction" to oppose both. You don't? Now you're in favor of a vigilante lynch mob hanging donald tRump?
Qtard: Isn't there is a law about Section 75 of the Criminal Procedure Law (Enforcement Powers – Arrest) of 1996 allows anyone to detain a person who is witnessed carrying out certain suspected crimes. The crimes include the following: a felony, theft, a crime of violence and a crime which has caused serious damage to property. Citizen's arrest - Wikipedia.
So now you're saying that a Citizen's arrest is vigilantism? Because it isn't.
"A citizen arrest is when an individual, who is not a sworn law enforcement officer, detains someone who they have witnessed committing a crime. The individual must then turn the accused over to law enforcement for formal arrest and charge. Vigilantism, on the other hand, is when an individual takes the law into their own hands and punishes someone they believe has committed a crime, without the involvement of law enforcement".
Qtard: YOUR OWN WORDS: "\\I *DO* deny that the J6 insurrectionists had the right of revolution"\\ I NEVER denied anyone any right. I deny they HAVE that right.\\ Like any difference.
BIG difference. If someone does not have a right, it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to be denied. Like if Qtard said, "I have the right to rape as many men as I want"... I would deny that right. Qtard might then say "how dare you deny me my right to rape as many men as I want"... except Qtard never had this right.
Qtard: \\Me: I can't deny anyone a right they DO NOT HAVE.\\ Yap. Human DO NOT have their Human's Right. O.K., I got it.
Fallacious argument. "A circular reasoning fallacy occurs when the evidence offered to support a claim is just a repetition of the claim itself". Also, overthrowing democracy is NOT a human right! As per the The Declaration of Independence, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...". Joe Biden HAD the consent of the governed. Because Joe Biden was elected in a free and fair election.
QED the "Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it"... did not apply. J6 rioters had NO RIGHT whatsoever to abolish the government (prevent Joe Biden from assuming the office he was legitimately elected to).
Qtard: But wait... that is what totalitarian would proclaim, isn't it? Or not???
It isn't. A totalitarian would proclaim that the overthrow of democracy is a "human right".
Qtard: \\Me: PROVEN by the fact that they were arrested, charged and (many of them) convicted.\\ Do their arrest infidged their Human Rights??? Was it NOT in accordance with laws??? Democratical laws. Designed to protect their rights.
Getting arrested for exercising your "human rights" (as you claim) is actually protecting of rights? I doubt the J6 rioters appreciated this "protection" of their rights... by arresting and prosecuting them.
Qtard: \\Me: Now you're like, "court trials prove nothing, except that innocent people can be railroaded"?\\ Clearly, a BS produced by your bent in pretcel totalitarian mind.
"Produced" by you. You wrote "fair trial, my ass".
Qtard: \\"I *DO* deny that the J6 insurrectionists had the right of revolution".\\ If they actually had that right I would not deny it. I don't deny anyone rights they actually have.\\ They CANNOT NOT have em. They are humans. And humans have Human's Rights. Naturally.
"A circular reasoning fallacy occurs when the evidence offered to support a claim is just a repetition of the claim itself".
Qtard: ONLY totalitaians deny humans having their Human's Riughts. You -- denying.
I am NOT denying anyone their human rights. It is not a "human right" to overthrow democracy.
Qtard: That means -- you are totalitarian. LOGIC!
Illogic.
Qtard: \\Me: I refuted your false claim that J6 rioters had any right to overturn the results of a free and fair democratic election.\\ There was NO such claim from my side.
There was. Your continued and repeated many times claim that it was their "human right".
Qtard: Quotes -- you did not, and could not provide, to support that your BS claim.
I absolutely CAN provide such quotes. Quote (from just earlier), "They CANNOT NOT have em. They are humans. And humans have Human's Rights. Naturally". Right to do what? Overturn the results of a free and fair democratic election.
you KEEP ignoring and insisting that your APPARENT claim, of which you NEVER backed off, never called it err, merely a mistake, but on the contrary -- keep insisting.
I will keep insisting that overthrowing democracy is not a "human right". Yes.
Qtard: Clearly a drowned in lies totalitarian.
Support for democracy does not make me "a drowned in lies totalitarian". That is qtarded BS. Kind of BS to be expected from a drowned in lies totalitarian like Qtard, though.
Qtard: But, don't sweat it -- I will not report you. Maybe.
Report me to who? And for what? I'm not worried.
Qtard: I GAVE you quote... but you trying to claim -- FALSELY, that it didn't happend. It *did not* happen. I NEVER denied them any right they actually had. You said: "I *DO* deny..." but you "NEVER denied"???? YOU -- drowning in your own lies. Per se.
I NEVER denied them any right they actually had. You misquote me (right after accurately quoting me) to make it appear as though I said something self-contradictory. It is NOT self contradictory to deny a right to someone who DOES NOT HAVE the right in question.
Qtard: Absolutely denying OBjective Reality -- the YOU DID IT. You have written it.
No. And no.
Qtard: Like that "lie" that YOU HAVE HAD SAID that --->>> "I *DO* deny..."????? Self-evidant. You lost it. Liar.
No. You're just refusing to accept the fact that the J6 rioters do not have the "right" to overthrow a democratically elected president. I do not deny people rights they actually have.
There is also the fact that it makes absolutely no difference. Given that you're OK with them being sent to prison. It is a "right" with absolutely no benefit. With it or without it they would still be in EXACTLY the same situation. And you also say Merrick Garland can "strip" them of this right. So I can't either.
Qtard: \\Me: It was up to Merrick Garland. He said "Arrest them. Prosecute them". Qtard says he did not have the right, but he did it. Because he DOES have the right to decide who is prosecuted.\\ Prosecution -- that is LAWFUL procedure of how people can be and MUST BE dealt with... IN ACCORDANCE with democratic laws and their Human Rights preseved.
They must be so happy. Going to prison but with "human rights" that confer zero benefits "preserved". But were they? Now they all have criminal records and so are second class citizens. Because, as convicted criminals, they LOSE rights.
Right to vote lost in many states. It is also much harder to get a job as a convicted criminal. But "the right to work" is on the list of human rights. So that right is definitely infringed upon. And NOT preserved.
"Getting a good job can be hard for anyone, but it can be twice as hard for those with a criminal record. Even if you are extremely well qualified for a job, studies show that a criminal record decreases your chances of a job offer or receiving a call back by nearly 50 percent".
Qtard: \\me: Fact is, All past rebellions in the US that were attempted were put down. The authorities NEVER said, "we have to allow this because it is their right".\\ So what???
So what? In the past some of these rebels were killed. Depriving of life isn't a violation of human rights? *IF* they had a right to rebel, they certainly should NOT have had their right to life taken away.
Qtard: That somehow limits ANY possible in the future rebelions??? Even if they'd be successful?
It doesn't. A successful revolution in the US in which a non-democratic faction overthrows a democratic government is what Qtard desires for the US, clearly. Qtard (like Minus FJ) hates democracy and wishes to see it abolished in the United States. And for donald tRump to become "president for life" aka America's first dictator.
\\OK. Not sure how you know this (Merrick Garland told you?)
Easy-Peasy.
He'd be not fit for that office. And would deserve being put in jail.
Or what? You think such unlawful person could be on that place????
Then, provide your reasons to think that way -- who knows, maybe I'm wrong?
And there in USA obvious criminals can be a lawyers?
People who don't care about laws and Human Rights???
Who knows? I'm just a foreigner...
\\But it is not a natural right to overthrow a democracy to install a dictator.
Why not?
Do people have freedom to show their agency, their ability to decide for themself??? Do people have right to breath?
\\That is the Rightwing vision for America. To suppress and oppress minorities. In order to maintain White male Supremacy.
Is it?
Dunno.
Cause I am foreigner.
And do not know that much about your inner political brawls and social life... like who are minorities you have there?
"White male Supremacy" -- that looks like minority, to me. ;-P
First, there's only half of male, by default.
Then, minusing from that 50% those male who are not white. Those not supreme, and etc.
So... do they thwart themself??? That "White male Supreme" Minority? ;-P
\\Democrats fight for the rights of minorities. Qtard is obviously Rightwing. He hates Democrats
Well... I have no reason to love em.
After all that amount of shit I have read from you and other Lefty USAians... here and on the Net.
Does it make me "rightwing"???
\\QED Qtard is "holy" and "religious bonkers".
Nope.
You demonstrated only your dumbass hypocrysy -- futile tryes to sound "smart", by using "smart" words you have no understanding of. ;-P
HINT: To say QED... you must say WHAT you mean to demonstrate, with logic and facts. Firtst.
But you didn't. Because you despise and fear logic -- by your own admission. ;-P
\\I have never said otherwise. As for Putin calling himself "biggest democrat"... did he?
I'm the world's only true democrat, says Putin - Reuters
www.reuters.com › article › us-russia-putin-de...
Russia's President Vladimir Putin has described himself as the world's only "pure" democrat and attacked the United States and Europe, ...
\\Google says "It looks like there aren't many great matches for your search".
Who knows... maybe Google provided digital totalitarian environment for you.
Or... your own searcheing preferences created that information bubble for you.
Here, above, I just copy-pasted that phrase... and it gave me that as first link.
Or. Here.
Understanding Vladimir Putin, the man who fooled the world
www.theguardian.com › world › apr › understa...
In March 2000, he won his first presidential election and proudly asserted: “We have proved that Russia is becoming a modern democratic state.” ...
\\All I found was that Sergey Kortunov (in 2004) "referred to Vladimir Putin as the »biggest democrat in Russia«".
Yap.
Russia’s Domestic Security Wars: Putin’s Use of Divide and Rule ...
books.google.com.ua › books
Putin's Use of Divide and Rule Against His Hardline Allies Peter Reddaway ... who accurately calls himself a nationalist democrat, has also formed his own ...
Putin's Propaganda.
Many of Westerners was bought with it... as well as been corrupted, with bloody money.
\\btw, Putin is an "it"? You aren't sure if Putin is male or not? Is he non-binary? I'm not sure what makes someone an "it". Maybe you can explain?
Well... even Russians themself unsure.
Calling him a "crab", for example. ;-P
Go explore that quiestion yourself -- I don't care about anything but RIPing, in regard to liliPut.
\\Apparently you are only paying lip service to natural rights. Because there is no benefit to not being "stripped" of them. Like NOT going to prison. Which apparently you are OK with? Because you are a huge hypocrite?
Yap-yap.
Bullshit talks of the totalitarian.
I could direct you to how Uigurs in China feel it... "chinese democracy".
But I would not do that, as I seeing that you are just mocking democratic lawful procedures and principles here. Well, you CONTINUE doing that, as earlier you showed your dispise to a Presumption of Innocence.
\\A death sentence imposed after a person is convicted of murder deprives said person of their right to breath. When the death sentence is carried out. They will breath no longer.
Yap.
And why did you write that? What's the point?
\\What? How does "they was put on trial and convicted" not take their rights away?
Right to be put on Fair Trial and convicted ONLY in result of it?
\\And what good is this "right" then? If there are zero benefits to it? If people exercising this "right" can be sent to prison for doing so?
Ya-ya... and you try to say that you are NOT totalitarian... wannabe. ;-P
\\Why does it make you so angry if I say they did not have this "right"? Since it makes absolutely no difference at all. Have the right, not have the right. Either way they got punished. In some cases severely.
Yap.
Totalitarian narrative. And liliPut's propaganda chimes. ;-P
\\I am not that thing.
Very credible, from a liar. NOT. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: \\Me: Also idiots like you who claim to be foreigners (and therefore can't vote in US elections).\\ Claiming someone being an idiot on a base being foreigner... that is somewhat disingenious, isn't it?
\\I didn't do that. That you are a foreigner (or claim to be one but are not) is separate issue from you being an idiot.
YOUR OWN DEMN WORDS!!!!!
Liar! ;-P
\\Qtard: Or, well, it IS natural, for Religious Bonker. To be that judgy.
\\
\\You aren't super judgy of me?
Well???
It is you calling me FM. Or trekkie. Or... something else, I don't remember now. Judgy as it is.
While I call you religious -- but I don't see anything bad in being religious.
And bonker... but there is nothing bad in being bonker.
That is natural. Many people are.
Sorry... maybe it's my fault. That during my observation I called you all that things... without explaining that that was not name-calling. ;-P
\\You don't know? Lynch mob is illegal.
Yap.
Under Democracy.
But not under totaliarianism. ;-P
That's why you drooling for it, that much? To havew that sweet feeling of "unity in numbers"? For your "opinion" to matter, up to cause someones death? While living you off any retaliation possible.
\\You think the judge is going to consult me? Ask me if donald tRump should be found guilty or not? And, if I say "he's guilty", the judge will say "if you say so. I don't want you to be disappointed, so I will find him guilty".
Why he should?
That is YOUR OWN conviction.
Not like in a totalitarian country/system, where all people must fall and show conviction demanded of em.
\\To be saying now that you no longer believe what you previously claimed you believed. Or never did. Which
Ohhh....
That's the problem.
As Religious Bonker who "believe in facts"... it's impossible for you to understand -- how, just HOW, people can talk about FACTS...
YOU always thought that we are talking about our beliefs here????????
What a big mistake.
Well, natural one. For a Religious Bonker. ;-P
\\Qtard; Like I claimed anything like that. I was claiming ONLY that YOUR OWN attitude is that of that totalitarian wannabe.
\\You DID. Quote, "fair trial, my ass". Absurd claim that donald tRump can't get a fair trial because of my opinion that he is guilty.
What of directly written words "I was claiming ONLY that YOUR OWN attitude" you don't get???
\\Qtard: There is NO logical connections with your ability to make it happen....
\\There isn't. Yet you claimed it.
Then... demonstrate that -- with quotes and logical inference -- that I "claimed" it.
Try to support your words with FACTS... for once. ;-P
\\What "inner contradiction"?
Well. You dispise Logic, by your own admission. So, how'd it be possible to know what "inner contradiction" is? I get it.
\\And humans have Human's Rights. Naturally.
\\"A circular reasoning fallacy occurs when the evidence offered to support a claim is just a repetition of the claim itself".
Dumb ass. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))
That is NOT cyrcular reasoning. That is tautological definition.
Human are humans. Therefore they have Human's Rights.
Same as sugar is sugar-sweet, because it's sugar.
Cyrular reasoning -- that is your "I am democrat... because democarats support democracy... and I support democracy... therefore I democrat".
While we found with you -- that NO ALL people who call themself democrats ARE democrats. And your claim that you "support democracy" is very questionable -- as you showed, and DECLARED yourself, that you DENY people their Human Rights. ;-P
\\Qtard: That means -- you are totalitarian. LOGIC!
\\Illogic.
Yawn.
And you can show what rule of Logic gone wrong?
Naah.
Cause you don't know, and despise Logic (by your own admission).
That mean -- any your such screams -- not credible. ;-P
\\Your continued and repeated many times claim that it was their "human right".
No. That was their human's right to go freely by the streets, to come into freely accessible and open for public use explicitly building, while stating their political demands...
That is YOU R ONE who after your Demn Propaganda narrative trying to call that "overturn the results of a free and fair democratic election".
\\I absolutely CAN provide such quotes. Quote (from just earlier), "They CANNOT NOT have em. They are humans. And humans have Human's Rights. Naturally". Right to do what? Overturn the results of a free and fair democratic election.
See?
Where is something about "overturn the results of a free and fair democratic election" in quote of MY words?
Nothing.
You just adding it yourself.
And you call that "I absolutely CAN provide such quotes."???????!!!
While you can only TRY TO SMEAR with YOUR OWN WORDS... something you CANNOT show w\that was said BY ME.
\\I will keep insisting that overthrowing democracy is not a "human right". Yes.
That much for your "I am democrat" claim. ;-P
Overthrowed... can be ONLY despoty, totalitarian rule.
Cause it tryes to hold itself ABOVE people.
But... Democracy it's WE, the People -- people CANNOT be and be above themself. That is LOGICALLY NON-SENSE statment.
That means -- Democracy can be ONLY usurped -- it's when some group of people (like you) trying to accure power to prescribe to other people what they MUST do or not do. (like your miserly tryes to prescribe to me to "go away" ;-P)
That simple.
\\Qtard: But, don't sweat it -- I will not report you. Maybe.
\\Report me to who? And for what? I'm not worried.
Well... you yourself pounding that those who "want to overthrow democracy" must be arrested and put on trial, isn't it?
But you... showing yourself totalitarian -- isn't being totalitarian that is a threat to democracy? ;-P
\\You misquote me (right after accurately quoting me)
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
That is... what they call "inner contradiction". ;-P
\\You're just refusing to accept the fact that the J6 rioters do not have the "right" to overthrow a democratically elected president.
And you can give DIRECT CORRECT and PRECISE quote where I said something like that???
Naah.
That is your own words all along.
While.
I CAN.
And do quote YOUR OWN DAMN WORDS: "I *DO* deny..."
But you... you keep squinting. Demonstrating what a double-crossed liar YOU ARE. Dumb one -- who trying to LIE about own damn words!!! :-)))))))))))))
\\Given that you're OK with them being sent to prison. It is a "right" with absolutely no benefit.
In comparation with being absolutely unlawfully killed?
As it was in past eras, when whoever with a sword could kill anybody without.
Or... how it is in totalitarian countries TODAY.
I think... DEMOCRACY creates, and gives to people VERY BIG and VER MANY benefits.
But you... do not see it? Cause you are totalitarian?
\\And you also say Merrick Garland can "strip" them of this right. So I can't either.
Do that Garland declare em "guilty"? Without/before trial?
\\They must be so happy. Going to prison but with "human rights" that confer zero benefits "preserved". But were they? Now they all have criminal records and so are second class citizens. Because, as convicted criminals, they LOSE rights
Totalitarian, Putin-like narrative.
"Go to our Dark Side. WE have cookies!" :-)))))))))))))))))))
\\So what? In the past some of these rebels were killed. Depriving of life isn't a violation of human rights?
And who said that democracy is perfect? Not me.
That is YOU ARE one who trying to pound here -- that current state of affairs AKA Holy Democracy... MUST be preserved for eternity... without any changes, am I correct with understanding of all that your hawling about "overthrowing democracy"????
Dodgy Derpy runned away ahain. :-)))))))))))))))
Qtard: Overthrowed... can be ONLY despoty, totalitarian rule.
If the J6 insurrectionists had been successful democracy would have been overthrown.
Qtard: I think... DEMOCRACY creates, and gives to people VERY BIG and VER MANY benefits. But you... do not see it? Cause you are totalitarian?
Qtard doesn't see it because Qtard is a totalitarian.
\\If the J6 insurrectionists had been successful democracy would have been overthrown.
Successful in WHAT???
Asking congress bonzas to be accountable and open to their consituence???
THAT. Would be Triumph of Democracy!
\\Qtard: I think... DEMOCRACY creates, and gives to people VERY BIG and VER MANY benefits. But you... do not see it? Cause you are totalitarian?
\\Qtard doesn't see it because Qtard is a totalitarian.
What a silly rebuff. :-)))))))))))))))))))
Post a Comment