Hillary Clinton's claim that "zero emails" were marked classified. As shown in an FBI photo of some of the documents seized from Trump, many have clear markings indicating they contained highly sensitive classified information. Clinton, in her tweet, suggests none of her emails were marked classified. That's technically correct. Whether those emails contained classified information was a major focus of the investigation, but a review of the recent investigations, including new information obtained by the Fact Checker, shows Clinton has good reason for making a distinction with Trump. [Washington Post 9/8/2022].
You want to prosecute Joe Biden? You'll have to wait until he leaves the White House. He CAN'T be charged. Same as with tRump when he was president.
Jim Jordan: "Three people involved in the same thing but only one gets prosecuted?"
NOT the same thing. If tRump had given back the documents he would not be being prosecuted. He lied and said he gave them all back when he did not. He still says he has a "right" to keep them. When he DOES NOT. Mike Pence also is not being prosecuted. Jim Jordan is a liar.
People who have done nothing wrong aren't charged. There never were any charges to go "poof" (re classified documents). Re "big guy" alleged bribery, there is so far only alleged evidence. People aren't charged with crimes in regards to alleged evidence. Only actual evidence. And (as previously noted) Joe Biden (as a sitting president) CAN'T be charged.
And on what base it forced??? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))
Dare to provide ANY rationale?
Naah. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) As always.
\\Or the laughter of a delusional trumpnutter who BELIEVES the charges against tRump will go "poof"?
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
And what if they'll do? ;-P
\\ As shown in an FBI photo of some of the documents seized from Trump, many have clear markings indicating they contained highly sensitive classified information. Clinton, in her tweet, suggests none of her emails were marked classified. That's technically correct.
Because... WHERE'd you stamp that "top secret"??? on which byte????? :-))))))))))))))))))))) Of e-mail -- Electronic Mail. Diogital Messages. ;-P
\\shows Clinton has good reason for making a distinction with Trump.
Yap.
Cause she is Demn, while he is Rep-tile? ;-P
\\People aren't charged with crimes in regards to alleged evidence. Only actual evidence.
Yap.
And what's the difference?
As between charges you (was tought to) believe AND those you like and inclined to believe? ;-P
Qtard: \\me: Forced laughter?\\ And on what base it forced? ... Dare to provide ANY rationale? Naah. ... As always.
I already dared. In my first comment I speculated that you are crying because tRump is likely going to prison. In response you laughed. But (as per my first comment) you were just crying. Thus the laughter could be forced. It was a question. See the question mark?
Qtard: \\Or the laughter of a delusional trumpnutter who BELIEVES the charges against tRump will go "poof"?\\ And what if they'll do?
What if they don't? Qtard will make more Nazi analogies? Claim the evidence against dotard donald has been fabricated? Cry when dotard donald is convicted and sentenced to prison?
Qtard: Because... WHERE'd you stamp that "top secret"??? on which byte????? Of e-mail -- Electronic Mail. Diogital Messages.
Classification of info is always included. If printed on physical paper or if in an email. Qtard doesn't know what he's talking about. Because he is a FM.
Qtard: \\shows Clinton has good reason for making a distinction with Trump.\\ Yap. Cause she is Demn, while he is Rep-tile?
Nope. Because of the point-to-reality facts. dotard donald said he was going to have Hillary Clinton locked up due to her emails. She wasn't locked up. Whereas dotard donald is very likely going to be locked up. Both situations involved allegations of mishandling of classified information/documents. Hillary not locked up because she broke no laws. dotard donald has ADMITTED that he did.
btw, Hillary Clinton is not a "Demn". There is no such thing as a "Demn". Hillary Clinton is a Democrat. Which can be abbreviated as "Dem", not "Demn". There is no "N" in Democrat. You are abbreviating "demon", yes? Because, as a religious bonker, Qtard believes demons are real??
Qtard: And what's the difference? As between charges you (was tought to) believe AND those you like and inclined to believe?
The difference is that Hillary Clinton was not charged. Even though donald tRump (when he was president) wanted her charged. They couldn't because she broke no laws. Whereas donald tRump HAS been charged. That is a point-to-reality fact. Yet the religious bonker Qtard disbelieves reality.
\\I speculated that you are crying because tRump is likely going to prison.
While I explicitly pointed to that trivial fact.
That for me as mere foreigner it is utterly unimportant. Trump's fate. Can give only some mild entertinment... ehm, edutainment. ;-P
\\In response you laughed. But (as per my first comment) you were just crying.
I ACTUALLY laughed, because of above and earlier open and obvious reasons...
but...
somehow I "cryed"... why? what? whatever.
Just because YOU YOURSELF *imagined* that it would be "clever" idea to use that idiotic mind-trick against me, isn't it?
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
That's why I LIKE you. Where else I would have a chance to observe such e merry idiocy??? ;-P
\\Thus the laughter could be forced. It was a question. See the question mark?
So what?
I need to answer ANY such your idiotic question??? :-)))))))))))))))))
You trully are an idiot.
\\What if they don't?
Do *I* perform a one-man manifestations with "dRump must be put in jail" banner? Which shows how much I care?
\\Qtard will make more Nazi analogies? Claim the evidence against dotard donald has been fabricated? Cry when dotard donald is convicted and sentenced to prison?
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
I will be laughing. From more of such idiocy demonstrated by you here. ;-P
\\Classification of info is always included. If printed on physical paper or if in an email. Qtard doesn't know what he's talking about. Because he is a FM.
Dumbass.
That was PRIVATE mail server. I, you, anybody can instal one on his home computer even. Or even on his toaster, today. ;-P Who and how would insert that "Classification of info is always included."???
Qtard: That was PRIVATE mail server. I, you, anybody can instal one on his home computer even. Or even on his toaster, today. Who and how would insert that "Classification of info is always included."??? And that was whole point of that case.
You're alleging that classification markings were removed from documents by Hillary Clinton? What's your proof "That was the whole point"? I have never heard this allegation. Ever. I say you lie. Or don't know wtf you're talking about. As you ADMITTED re the Durham report. You truly are an idiot.
Exactly my point. The charge went away the moment the impropriety was discovered. Charges became "unthinkable". Had anyone tried, they would have been "cancelled".
James Comey's entire claim to notoriety lay in making sure that informal charges were NEVER legally formalized, that no indictment that could result in formal charges would ever be brought before a Grand Jury.
Now "informal charges"... there were ALWAYS plenty of those needing squashing.
But for you to claim no "charges" ever existed, that's a highly legalistic claim that ignores the general universal meaning of a "charge". Are you a lawyer now, Dervy? Do you parse what the meaning of the word "is" is?
James Comey: "I should've worked harder to find a way to convey that it's more than just the ordinary mistake, but it's not criminal behavior, and find different words to describe that".
FYI, Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz concluded that James Comey acted improperly when disclosing the investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server. Additionally, Horowitz "concluded that there was likely no prosecutable case [and] that the evidence did not support criminal charges".
Given this, why would there be an indictment that could result in formal charges being brought before a Grand Jury?? Anyway the "charges" did not go away "the moment the impropriety was discovered". Only DAYS before the election Comey announced the investigation was "reopened". An action that definitely contributed to HRC's loss.
Meanwhile the traitor donald tRump was colluding with Russia to steal the election. What happened to charges in regards that? As Qtard loves to point out, there haven't been any.
\\You're alleging that classification markings were removed from documents by Hillary Clinton?
What "documents", dumbass??? E-mails?
Do you not get what e-mails is???? Just a bunch of bytes. 1s and 0s.
Or... that is just your clumsy idiotic try to derail discussion here? ;-P
Well... I'll assume that you are just an idiot, who do not get a thing. And will try to explain. E-mail -- it's basicly the same as your comment here -- just a bunch of bytes, in ASCII code -- WHERE you'd add your "classification markings" to it??? And who will be doing and controlling it? :-))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Or don't know wtf you're talking about. As you ADMITTED re the Durham report. You truly are an idiot.
You do know nothing. Do not understand a thing. But that is *I* who are idiot?
Well... that is the same claim idiots of all around the World do claim against those who are smarter... ;-P
\\But for you to claim no "charges" ever existed, that's a highly legalistic claim that ignores the general universal meaning of a "charge". Are you a lawyer now, Dervy? Do you parse what the meaning of the word "is" is?
Naah. It's not. ;-P
Cause they "forgot" to add that in that hypocritical liars and totalitarian wannabe rulebooks. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Oh... judical/juridical dry matters... let's add more water into it.
I like how you trying to accuse me being trekkie. So, I'll mention here about new ST series. Something about "strange new worlds". ;-P I just saw advertising, but I'll be glad to laugh at you -- from that how'd you try to spin it that way that that is "definitely" a proof of me being trekkie. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
As per the State Department report exonerating Hillary Clinton, "None of the emails at issue in this review were marked as classified". Yet Qtard qtardedly claims none of the documents COULD be marked as classified. Because "E-mail [is] basicly ... just a bunch of bytes".
SO WHAT? That does NOT prevent classification markings from being attached. HOW could it prevent them from being added? WHY would the State Department look for markings that Qtard claims COULD NOT be attached?
Qtard: What "documents", dumbass??? E-mails?
Documents can be sent via email, dumbass.
Qtard: Or... that is just your clumsy idiotic try to derail discussion here?
I'm not "derailing" with my point-to-reality facts. Qtard is trying to derail the discussion with his qtardedness.
Qtard: And will try to explain. E-mail -- it's basicly the same as your comment here -- just a bunch of bytes, in ASCII code -- WHERE you'd add your "classification markings" to it???
Qtard "explains" that he has no idea what he's talking about. No f*cking clue.
Qtard: \\me: Or don't know wtf you're talking about. As you ADMITTED re the Durham report.\\ You do know nothing. Do not understand a thing. But that is *I* who are idiot?
You ADMITTED you knew nothing about it. You said you didn't CARE to know. Yet you brought it up. HAD to share your ADMITTED uninformed opinion. Because that is what an idiot would do.
Qtard: ...I'll mention here about new ST series. Something about "strange new worlds".
OK. Thank you for sharing how much you are looking forward to watching this new TV show. Though I really don't care. I have not seen it. Likely never will.
\\As per the State Department report exonerating Hillary Clinton, "None of the emails at issue in this review were marked as classified".
Of course they not.
They was going through PRIVATE server. Where there was NO such feature. ;-P
That (marking as classified) could be done ONLY on special government servers.
Or... you can point me to any opensource or commercially available software -- which I could install on my private server at home. ;-P
\\That does NOT prevent classification markings from being attached.
HOW???? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\WHY would the State Department look for markings that Qtard claims COULD NOT be attached?
Isn't you answered to it yourself, already?
\\As per the State Department report exonerating Hillary Clinton
;-P
\\Documents can be sent via email, dumbass.
Documents... sent by e-mail. Would be bunch of bytes too. ;-P
\\I'm not "derailing" with my point-to-reality facts. Qtard is trying to derail the discussion with his qtardedness.
With this you prouidly confirmed -- that you are idiot. Who do not understand what byte is. ;-P
\\\\Qtard: And will try to explain. E-mail -- it's basicly the same as your comment here -- just a bunch of bytes, in ASCII code -- WHERE you'd add your "classification markings" to it???
\\Qtard "explains" that he has no idea what he's talking about. No f*cking clue.
Looks like that, yeah???
YOU are one who are totally dumb and dunce about binary logic of computer.
But never the less, hypocritically trying to spin it otherwise. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Showing with that only that you are trully are nothing but idiot. ;-P
\\You ADMITTED you knew nothing about it. You said you didn't CARE to know. Yet you brought it up. HAD to share your ADMITTED uninformed opinion. Because that is what an idiot would do.
You really are that idiot. Trying to spin it. :-)))))))
\\OK. Thank you for sharing how much you are looking forward to watching this new TV show. Though I really don't care. I have not seen it. Likely never will.
Qtard realized how DUMB his "bytes" explanation was, so now he came up with a new explanation why (he says) no classification markings could be on any document on HRC's email server? It's because these markings can only be displayed by "special" government servers?
Says WHO? I say Qtard made-up this bullplop. It's not real. It is qtarded stupidity. Apparently "binary logic of computer" prevents classification markings displaying on a private server, but "binary logic of computer" doesn't prevent classification marking displaying on "special" government servers?
With this Qtard proudly confirms that it is an idiot. Profoundly stupid. A certified FM.
Same as with Qtard's claim that my pointing out that his opinion about the Durham report was completely uninformed (by his OWN admission) is "spin". Not spin. A point-to-reality FACT. You ADMITTED it, dipshit.
Qtard: "whole idea of dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE".
Qtard: \\You knew about Durham's report.\\ Naah. I know nothing and care not about knowing. I just saw it in a news feed. And found it hilarious to point to.
\\Qtard realized how DUMB his "bytes" explanation...
Your wish :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
But you just showed with that that U R completele hopeless around this modern tech topic.
Yopu freakingly do not understand what binary data is about. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))
So, you devised that dumb-dumb-stooopid plan -- to try to cover it with this hypocritical retort. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\so now he came up with a new explanation why (he says) no classification markings could be on any document on HRC's email server? It's because these markings can only be displayed by "special" government servers?
That was ONE and THE SAME explanation. ;-P
ONLY way that idiotic "classification markings" of yours could exist in binary world -- it's through some special software, which SUPPORT that "classification markings".
And there... NO such openly avaliable software. Cause that is all government idea.
AND THAT.
Whole point of that case -- DO government workers ALLOWED to use non-government-approved SW????
\\Says WHO? I say Qtard made-up this bullplop. It's not real. It is qtarded stupidity. Apparently "binary logic of computer" prevents classification markings displaying on a private server, but "binary logic of computer" doesn't prevent classification marking displaying on "special" government servers?
You use computer. Computer use binary logic. But you... do not know what logic is. And what Binary Logic -- that is even more distant, far-far-far-far-far-away... for such a dumb ass. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Go ask Google. What "binary logic" is.
But oups... Google -- that is also Computers. And computers do use Binary Logic. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\With this Qtard proudly confirms that it is an idiot. Profoundly stupid. A certified FM.
Yap.
Idiot. :-)))))
Who know how computers work. ;-P
And you are WISE MAN -- who do not know. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Same as with Qtard's claim that my pointing out that his opinion about the Durham report was completely uninformed (by his OWN admission) is "spin". Not spin. A point-to-reality FACT. You ADMITTED it, dipshit.
That... that I was not diving deep in that thing... doesn't mean what you tryed to spin it into. :-))))))))))))))))))))))
That means only that I know bare fact -- that HRC was inquered for using PRIVATE (means, non-government) server for here (related to working on government) communication.
And care NOT to know more. ;-P
\\Qtard: "whole idea of dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE".
Hah.
As I thought so.
FAKE quote. AGAIN. ;-P
Correct one is:"You USA general prosecutor stated that whole idea of "dRumps collusion with Russian" was FAKE."
\\A "lifetime learner" saying "I know nothing and care not about knowing" = self contradictory.
HOW??? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
While ability to learn mean exactly that -- acquring ability to discern True from False, information important to know from mere bullshit. ;-P
‘In a clear case of fetishistic disavowal, everyone knows that Mao made errors and caused immense suffering, yet his image remains magically untainted’
There is NO magic... only SEVERE punishment for anybody who would DARE to show doubts. ;-P
Realities of totalitarian countries. Where there NO freedom of speach. As well as many other... well, all and any of Human Rights thoroughly NOT preserved.
Only "right" of Government -- Rule of the Fist, preserved.
Qtard: ONLY way that idiotic "classification markings" of yours could exist in binary world -- it's through some special software, which SUPPORT that "classification markings".
You have absolutely NO IDEA what you're talking about.
Proven by your own admission.
"That means only that I know bare fact -- that HRC was inquered for using PRIVATE (means, non-government) server for here (related to working on government) communication".
That "special software" is needed to display classification markings is qtarded bullshit. Bullshit you have not (and will not) produce any evidence to support.
Qtard: Who know how computers work. And you are WISE MAN -- who do not know.
Clearly I know more than Qtard.
Qtard: FAKE quote. AGAIN.
TRUE quote. Qtard fakes quotes. Like "I *DO* deny em their rights".
Qtard: While ability to learn mean exactly that -- acquring ability to discern True from False, information important to know from mere bullshit.
Qtard lacks the ability to learn? I know he definitely lacks the ability to discern True from False. He mixes them up all the time. Says true things are false and false things are true. And constantly spouts bullshit. Like "special software" being needed to display classification markings.
Minus: Your vision is extremely selective, especially vis "the DNC".
\\Qtard: ONLY way that idiotic "classification markings" of yours could exist in binary world -- it's through some special software, which SUPPORT that "classification markings".
\\You have absolutely NO IDEA what you're talking about.
\\That "special software" is needed to display classification markings is qtarded bullshit. Bullshit you have not (and will not) produce any evidence to support.
And what evidance do you need??? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
Do you have some e-mail?
You should have, as you are registered here and that mean you using Google Account... which gives access to Google's e-mail service -- GMail.
Can you SHOW, where you saw "classification markings" or place where that "classification markings" could/should/ought to appear??? In GMail, for example.
Or... you will start playing dumb and will (try to) thrug off need to be responsible for your own words. So pompously proclaimed here. ;-P
\\Clearly I know more than Qtard.
Do you know HOW computers work?
Like -- what mean 1s and 0s... to a computer? ;-P
Yeah... you will not answer. You WILL NOT show ANY of that "I know more".
Cause that all is bragadoccio-pinnochio bullcrap. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
You are know nothing ignoramus and liar.
Who... THE SAME as dRump, trying to cover his stupidity with such bragadoccio claims. ;-P
\\Qtard: FAKE quote. AGAIN.
\\TRUE quote.
And that AFTER I came by that link. Ctrl-Fed that excerpt. And provided COMPLETE AND CORRECT quote???
You trying to call your cutted out of context bullcrap, with nasty motive to twist and strawman my words "TRUE quote"???? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
What a bonker.
With that you ONLY confirmed what a militantly relentless liar you are. That's all.
And that mean, that any your FURTHER claims I will be only MORE suspicious about em and will call you liar more...
but who knows, maybe you are masochistic liar too -- likeing when your apparent lies being revealed? That much. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))) What a pervert. What a freak. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
But. That what makes it so much fun. To observe you. :-))))))))))))))))))))
Contiunue-continue...
\\Like "I *DO* deny em their rights".
FAKE quote. AGAIN.
That was "I *DO* deny...", with further part ommited, as you already know it anyway. ;-P
And why you SO DAMN stoopid??? You think I would not see through such an apparently stupid tricks??? :-)))))))))))))))))))
What a loser. ROFL
\\Qtard lacks the ability to learn? I know he definitely lacks the ability to discern True from False. He mixes them up all the time. Says true things are false and false things are true. And constantly spouts bullshit.
You just showed yourself Complete Dumbass. Clinical Idiot. Moron. ;-P
But.
Continue-continue. It only adds more fun, to observe your such a merry stoopid tricks. ;-P
\\Like "special software" being needed to display classification markings.
Even more then that... special software needed FOR ANYTHING.
Like to visit web-sites -- you'd need special software -- browser. Like Internet Explorer, or Google Chrome.
To edit texts -- you'd need special software -- text editor. Notepad?
Just for ANYTHING, for ANY task... some special software would be needed.
Because... Computer by itself -- can perform NOTHING. ;-P
And that is... VERY DAMN BASIC trivial knowledge about computers.
EVEN most primitive brainless user of a computer should know/understand... :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))
The classification markings are attached to the documents. Why would "special software" be needed? To do what?? There is no "task" re markings that are already there. Cannot be changed. You are an idiot!!!
As for the TRUE quote I gave of ours -- you clipped off my quote mid sentence. And added LIE "em their rights". I gave FULL sentence when quoting you. Added no lies...
Which makes Qtard the militantly relentless liar, pervert and freak. Also someone who THINKS they know about computers -- when it actually is completely clueless.
\\The classification markings are attached to the documents.
HOW????!!!
When it printed on paper. In some government office -- clearly there can be ANY markings printed-in on that piece of paper there... on Government-owned printer. From government-owned computer. With government-developed software.
Sure thing!
But.
What if *I* would print a document... while adding to it the same looking "classification markings"???
Would it make it top secret document? ;-P
The same with e-mail. Created and/or delivered through public (or PRIVATE) mail server. ;-P
\\Why would "special software" be needed? To do what?? There is no "task" re markings that are already there. Cannot be changed. You are an idiot!!!
Go scream "you are idiot" some more times. That would increase your credibility. Not. ;-P
Special software NEEDED... to create that "classification markings".
Because, what does that "classification markings" means??? Ahh???
THAT... mean that Document, will be REGISTERED in some special REGISTRY of "classified documents".
With all needed ADDITIONAL, not mentioned (because it is surely impossible) in that document information, like: who created that document, who assigned that "classy marking", who allowed to read/modify/to know about existance even... and etc, and etc.
See.
I know pretty much... about "classy markings". ;-P
\\As for the TRUE quote I gave of ours -- you clipped off my quote mid sentence. And added LIE "em their rights".
Bullshit. ;-P
You said that you "I *DO* deny..." to people their "right of revolution".
But... as I pointed NOT ONCE here -- so-caled "right of revolution" that is Natural Right.
That makes it -- that you "I *DO* deny..." to that people ("insurectionists") their Naturl Rights... like their right to breath. ;-P
And.
That, how you trying to thrug that guilt... for trying to deny people's Natural Rights... only prove it more and more.
That you YOURSELF understand fully well -- how nusty it is -- to deny Human's Rights. ;-P
But... still, you cannot help it, your desire to deny people's Human's Rights is just TOO DEMN STRONG... cause you are totalitarian wannabe. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\I gave FULL sentence when quoting you. Added no lies...
Yeah.
Like that "FULL sentence" I copy-pasted higher.
When you edited "FULL sentence" to make it mean TOTALLY different thing.
Instead of
"You USA general prosecutor stated that whole idea of "dRumps collusion with Russian" was FAKE." <<---- TRUE QUOTE
YOU CONCOCKTED
Qtard: "whole idea of dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE".
APPARENT *LIE*
But... you'll continue confirm with your demn behavior, what idioticly relentles in showing moronic hypocrisy LIAR you are.
I'm sure of it, by now. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))
And that makes observing your stupid tricks so sheer fun. ;-P
Continue-conmtinue. :-)))))))))))))))))))0
My Little Heinous Liar.
\\Which makes Qtard the militantly relentless liar, pervert and freak. Also someone who THINKS they know about computers -- when it actually is completely clueless.
Qtard: \\The classification markings are attached to the documents.\\ HOW????!!!
The SAME way the rest of the document was created. Most likely with a keyboard. How? Impossible for a moron to understand. Apparently.
Qtard: What if *I* would print a document... while adding to it the same looking "classification markings"??? Would it make it top secret document?
What do you think? I say it is a question a FM would ask.
Qtard: ...who created that document, who assigned that "classy marking", who allowed to read/modify/to know about existance even... and etc, and etc.
What does that have to do with classification markings showing (or NOT showing) depending on what server it is sent to? My brother (who was in the military and worked with classified documents) says that classified documents need to originate on a classified server. But they CAN be sent to a private server and the markings will be retained. He agreed with me that you don't know what you're talking about.
Qtard: That makes it -- that you "I *DO* deny..." to that people ("insurectionists") their Naturl Rights... like their right to breath.
Not that I want to (I do not) but HOW could I even deny anyone their right to breath? And you're equating the right to breath with the "right" to overthrow a democratically elected president?
The J6 insurrection is NOT an example of the government failing to protect people's rights and thus justifying revolution. I deny NOBODY their rights (dictionary definition of "nobody" and NOT your NewSpeak redefinition). But I do deny people rights they DO NOT HAVE. Especially seditionists who violently tried to stop the potus candidate I voted for from assuming office.
The "right of revolution" is CONDITIONAL. Conditioned on the government that exists failing to protect the rights of its citizens. Conditioned on there being "long, sustained abuse". This was not the case re the 2016 election. Thus the "right of revolution" did not apply. You don't get to revolt due to sore loserness. That infringes on the RIGHTS of others. People who voted for Joe Biden had the RIGHT to see the potus they voted for assume office.
Qtard: you cannot help it, your desire to deny people's Human's Rights is just TOO DEMN STRONG... cause you are totalitarian wannabe.
That is YOUR desire. You'd have been happy to see the rights of Joe Biden voters denied. Because of your intense hatred for democracy and strong desire to see it overthrown in the United States. Due to the fact that YOU are are a totalitarian wannabe.
Qtard: YOU CONCOCKTED. Qtard: "whole idea of dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE". APPARENT *LIE*.
I didn't concoct a damn thing. I just left off the first part. Your own quote of your words CONFIRMS nothing was concocted. You DISAGREE with what "You USA general prosecutor stated"? No, you AGREE with it. As you have stated many times. How donald tRump's proven collusion with Russia is "garbage".
Qtard: When you edited "FULL sentence" to make it mean TOTALLY different thing.
Bullshit. Explain what the original quote meant and how it became "TOTALLY different thing" by leaving off the first part.
Qtard: And that makes observing your stupid tricks so sheer fun.
Unlike Qtard, I debate honestly. Unlike Qtard, I don't use tricks. Like fabricating quotes such as "I *DO* deny em their rights".
\\Qtard: \\The classification markings are attached to the documents.\\ HOW????!!!
\\The SAME way the rest of the document was created. Most likely with a keyboard. How? Impossible for a moron to understand. Apparently.
I posted higher a comment with TOP SECRET "classy marking", then. ;-P
\\What does that have to do with classification markings showing (or NOT showing) depending on what server it is sent to? My brother (who was in the military and worked with classified documents) says that classified documents need to originate on a classified server. But they CAN be sent to a private server and the markings will be retained. He agreed with me that you don't know what you're talking about.
Yap.
That is what that guy Tard... Turd... something did -- took classified document from goverment server... and put it on public one.
Surely, he did nothing bad, isn't it? And why they say it's a crime??? when that documents fell into hand of rival's spyes. Because... there was NO WAY to keep their security protection -- when it gone spread elsewhere...
And your brother (the same idiot as you?) ready to do the same? May I have his name? To report to Secret Services of USA -- to protect laws and security of USA -- to which I dearly and lawfully entitled. And you (and your brother?) as totalitarians wannabe -- clearly not. You are ready and maybe even want -- to undermine democraticly elected government of USA.
Or... he IS that mr. T...air...something???? :-)))))))))))))))))))))
\\Not that I want to (I do not) but HOW could I even deny anyone their right to breath?
Was George Floyd denied his right of breath?
Something like that way. ;-)
\\And you're equating the right to breath with the "right" to overthrow a democratically elected president?
There is NO such thing as ""right" to overthrow a democratically elected president"
There is Natural Human Right -- to decide for themself. Right of Intellectual and Bodily Autonomy, in general.
And if that people would decide to "overthrow a democratically elected president"... if they'll do it, and will be successful... they'll call it Our Revolution. And you, such a totalitarians like you are, will not be able to do anything about it. That would be a Revolution. And Revolutions do happen in history. That's why you are so sad and grumpy... and so inclined to deny em their rights, isn't it, De-Ru-Pi? ;-P
So what??? All-Wise Derpy think that ALL revolutiobners of the world of all times -- are just naughty criminals??? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Well, that's your miserly opinion. Of totalitarian wannabe. You cannot make anybody to submit too. ;-P
\\The J6 insurrection is NOT an example of the government failing to protect people's rights and thus justifying revolution.
Whatever.
There is no such thing as "justifying revolution".
Just sheer people's voluntarism. ;-P
Manifestation of their powers and freedoms.
\\I deny NOBODY their rights (dictionary definition of "nobody" and NOT your NewSpeak redefinition). But I do deny people rights they DO NOT HAVE.
You cannot deny people rights they INTRINSICALLY have.
They are Humans. Therefore they have Rights of a Human.
And you declaration "But I do deny people rights they DO NOT HAVE" THAT IS denial of their Narural Rights. Like right of solt to be solty. Or right of water to be wet. ;-P
\\Especially seditionists who violently tried to stop the potus candidate I voted for from assuming office.
And king of Great Britain was set on trone with all accordance with all rules and traditions... and there was tons of royalists who feeled their rights being infridged.
By that nasty revolutioners, your USA Father Founders. ;-P
\\...Locke does permit the people...
That is... not up to some Locke(d brains?) to decide. ;-P
\\The "right of revolution" is CONDITIONAL.
That is... just a propaganda. ;-P
Do you think that there was NO rules against "revolt against crown"????
Was. And it was thoroughly condemned and propaganda was that doing that is no-no.
But... still, it happened.
That is DIFFERENCE between NATURAL LAWS... and miserly Human Invented ones. ;-P
Like... you can vote for Denying Law of Gravity, for example. With all bells and wistles of Demn-Ok-rat-sy you like: "free votes", "public discussion", "signed in high holls docs" and etc.
But... HE well show himself, that High and Mighty Law of Gravity... just at that monet HE will make you fall on your face. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\That is YOUR desire.
Ough, yeah? And you can back this words... with what?
As I was thinking -- NOTHING. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\I didn't concoct a damn thing. I just left off the first part. Your own quote of your words CONFIRMS nothing was concocted.
Honestly??? :-)))
THAT IS... how you SEE it???
Clearly an idiot.
Here.
Word to word.
"You USA general prosecutor stated that whole idea of "dRumps collusion with Russian" was FAKE." <<---- TRUE QUOTE
Qtard: "whole idea of dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE".
NOT ONLY you ommited that that was YOUR DAMN "USA general prosecutor" words.
You ALSO ommited quote marks.
JUST TO MAKE IT LOOK like that is MY OWN words and claims.
Which was NOT!
\\ You DISAGREE with what "You USA general prosecutor stated"? No, you AGREE with it.
Why I should disagree with facts???
That is you are one who declared "I believe in facts" -- means, that you have power to admit or not admit facts... on the base of you liking it or not.
I... never declared anything like that, even. Only was contrarian to such a moronic claims.
\\How donald tRump's proven collusion with Russia is "garbage".
Qtard: I posted higher a comment with TOP SECRET "classy marking", then.
Where? I didn't see any "classy markings". Maybe I missed them, given that I don't know wtf "classy markings" are. Classification markings are attached to documents that contain classified information. Qtard doesn't have access to any intel the US government has deemed classified.
Qtard: That is what that guy Tard... Turd... something did -- took classified document from goverment server... and put it on public one. Surely, he did nothing bad, isn't it? And why they say it's a crime??? when that documents fell into hand of rival's spyes. Because... there was NO WAY to keep their security protection -- when it gone spread elsewhere...
Are you calling Hillary Clinton a guy? A guy named "tard" or "turd"? I don't know wtf you're talking about. donald tRump? He took hard copies. He doesn't use email. The classified documents (hard copies) were definitely at risk of falling into the wrong hands at Mar-A-Lago, though. Who knows who looked at them. China, Russia, Iran... they may all have copies of these documents.
Qtard: And your brother ... May I have his name? To report to Secret Services of USA -- to protect laws and security of USA -- to which I dearly and lawfully entitled.
Go f*ck yourself. I'm not giving you a name so you can make false accusations against my brother.
Qtard: You are ready and maybe even want -- to undermine democraticly elected government of USA.
You base this PURE STUPIDITY on what? That is what YOU want. Though you don't want to do it yourself. You just cheer on donald tRump's loyal idiots. Like the J6 insurrectionists.
Qtard: Or... he IS that mr. T...air...something???? :-)))))))))))))))))))))
Gibberish.
Qtard: \\Not that I want to (I do not) but HOW could I even deny anyone their right to breath? Was George Floyd denied his right of breath? Something like that way.
I meant with MY WORDS. That is what we were talking about... WORDS. Like "I *DO* deny...". Those are WORDS, not actions. HOW could I deny anyone the right to breath WITH MY WORDS?
Qtard: \\And you're equating the right to breath with the "right" to overthrow a democratically elected president?\\ There is NO such thing as "right" to overthrow a democratically elected president".
Indeed. There is NOT. What I've been saying. And YOU have been disagreeing with me.
Qtard: There is Natural Human Right -- to decide for themself.
There isn't. AGAIN you don't know what you're talking about.
Qtard: And if that people would decide to "overthrow a democratically elected president"... if they'll do it, and will be successful... they'll call it Our Revolution. And you, such a totalitarians like you are, will not be able to do anything about it.
Counter-revolution. Though it would be to OPPOSE the totalitarian revolution you desire.
Qtard: That would be a Revolution. And Revolutions do happen in history. That's why you are so sad and grumpy... and so inclined to deny em their rights, isn't it...
Absolutely not. The J6 insurrectionists failed. I'd be "sad and grumpy" if they had been successful. YOU are sad and grumpy that they failed. With their attempt to overthrow the democratically elected government. Which was NOT their right. Not a human right. Not any kind of right. It was illegal. Why they were arrested.
Qtard: So what??? All-Wise Derpy think that ALL revolutiobners of the world of all times -- are just naughty criminals??
What is a "revolutiobner"? You mean revolutionaries? All revolutionaries are not the same. It depends on what their goals are. If they want to overthrow a democratically elected government, then I say arrest them, prosecute them, and imprison them.
But if they're overthrowing a tyrannical government that isn't representing The People? Then I'd say it was a just revolution.
Qtard: Well, that's your miserly opinion. Of totalitarian wannabe.
Opposite of "totalitarian". Strong supporter of democracy. YOUR opinion is that of a totalitarian democracy-hater.
Qtard: You cannot make anybody to submit too.
Right, *I* cannot. The police can -- and did. The Justice Department can -- and did arrest the J6 law-breakers :)
Qtard: \\The J6 insurrection is NOT an example of the government failing to protect people's rights and thus justifying revolution.\\ Whatever. There is no such thing as "justifying revolution".
There is.
"In politics, Locke is best known as a proponent of limited government. He uses a theory of natural rights to argue that governments have obligations to their citizens, have only limited powers over their citizens, and can ultimately be overthrown by citizens under certain circumstancesLink.
Qtard: And you declaration "But I do deny people rights they DO NOT HAVE" THAT IS denial of their Narural Rights.
It isn't. As per Locke, a government can be "overthrown by citizens under certain circumstances".
Qtard: Like right of solt to be solty. Or right of water to be wet.
Those aren't "rights", those are characteristics. At least as far as water being wet. "Solt" being "solty" is nonsense.
Qtard: \\Especially seditionists who violently tried to stop the potus candidate I voted for from assuming office.\\ And king of Great Britain was set on trone with all accordance with all rules and traditions... and there was tons of royalists who feeled their rights being infridged.
The king of England wasn't democratically elected. Joe Biden WAS.
Qtard: By that nasty revolutioners, your USA Father Founders.
There never were any revolutionaries known as "USA Father Founders". "Nasty" or otherwise.
Qtard: \\...Locke does permit the people...\\ That is... not up to some Locke(d brains?) to decide.
You don't know who John Locke is. Proof that you are clueless when it comes to the topic of human rights. You keep going on about them, so I assumed you'd recognize the name. My mistake. To assume a proven idiot wouldn't be completely clueless.
"Often credited as a founder of modern liberal thought, Locke pioneered the ideas of natural law, social contract, religious toleration, and the right to revolution that proved essential to both the American Revolution and the U.S. Constitution that followed".
"Locke also advocated governmental separation of powers and believed that revolution is not only a right but an obligation in some circumstances".
Qtard: \\The "right of revolution" is CONDITIONAL.\\ That is... just a propaganda.
It isn't. As per Locke. Someone you obviously have never heard of. Despite the fact that "Locke pioneered the ideas of natural law, social contract, religious toleration, and the right to revolution..."
Qtard: Do you think that there was NO rules against "revolt against crown"????
I don't. But the US Founding Fathers were justified in their revolution because the right of revolution says "the people could instigate a revolution against the government when it acted against the interests of citizens, to replace the government with one that served the interests of citizens" (Locke). Whereas the J6 insurrectionists were not justified in trying to overthrow the government. Because the government they were trying to overthrow was NOT acting against their interests.
Qtard: And it was thoroughly condemned and propaganda was that doing that is no-no. But... still, it happened.
So what? The US revolution was justified (as per Locke) because the English government wasn't serving their interests. Why the Founding Fathers cited Locke.
Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and John Madison revered Locke. John Quincy Adams penned, "The Declaration of Independence [was]... founded upon one and the same theory of government ... expounded in the writings of Locke" [Link].
Qtard: That is DIFFERENCE between NATURAL LAWS... and miserly Human Invented ones.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Qtard: HE well show himself, that High and Mighty Law of Gravity... just at that monet HE will make you fall on your face. :-))))))))))))))))
An idiot's laughter.
Qtard: \\That is YOUR desire.\\ Ough, yeah? And you can back this words... with what? As I was thinking -- NOTHING.
Your INCORRECT/WRONG insistence that J6 rioters were exercising their "human rights". And the fact that you don't give a crap that the J6 insurrectionists violated the RIGHTS of the US citizens who voted for Joe Biden. By trying to invalidate their votes.
Qtard: \\I didn't concoct a damn thing. I just left off the first part. Your own quote of your words CONFIRMS nothing was concocted.\\ Honestly? THAT IS... how you SEE it???
Yes.
Qtard: NOT ONLY you ommited that that was YOUR DAMN "USA general prosecutor" words. You ALSO ommited quote marks. JUST TO MAKE IT LOOK like that is MY OWN words and claims. Which was NOT!
WAS! There is no "USA General prosecutor". The "USA General prosecutor" could NOT have said this because there is no such person. There is no such position. The position John Durham was appointed to was that of "Special Counsel". Also, John Durham did NOT say "dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE". John Durham NEVER called donald tRump "dRump". Those are YOUR damn words.
Qtard: \\ You DISAGREE with what "You USA general prosecutor stated"? No, you AGREE with it.\\ Why I should disagree with facts???
What facts??? Your FAKE John Durham quote isn't a fact. It only became a TRUE quote when I correctly attributed it to you. Because you said it. John Durham didn't.
Qtard: That is you are one who declared "I believe in facts" -- means, that you have power to admit or not admit facts... on the base of you liking it or not.
Baloney. YOU believe you have the power to admit or not admit facts. On the basis of liking them or not. YOU do this, not me.
Qtard: I... never declared anything like that, even. Only was contrarian to such a moronic claims.
That is definitely a moronic claim. No doubt. But, contrary to your lies, I NEVER claimed that. YOU did. Though you falsely attributed this claim to me. But it's what YOU do. For example, you just said "Why I should disagree with facts?" That was in regards to NON facts.
Qtard: \\How donald tRump's proven collusion with Russia is "garbage".\\ By Whom proven? When? And How?
We have been over this before. By the US IC. By the bipartisan Intelligence Committee. They issued a report confirming donald tRump colluded with Russia.
\\Classification markings are attached to documents that contain classified information. Qtard doesn't have access to any intel the US government has deemed classified.
And how'd you know? ;-P
You even do not believe that I am foreigner. So, if I am USAian -- why I cannot have "access to any intel the US government has deemed classified."???
Well. I can. Actually.
There is WikiLeaks. There is that Teisheira guy docs. And many-many other. That NOW are freely available -- because SUCH AN IDIOTS like you (or your idiot brother(twins?)), have had access to em, and allowed it to leak to the public, through PRIVATE servers or etc. ;-P
\\Are you calling Hillary Clinton a guy?
Stop trying looking EVEN MORE stooopid then you are. ;-P
Or well, no, continue-continue. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: And your brother ... May I have his name? To report to Secret Services of USA -- to protect laws and security of USA -- to which I dearly and lawfully entitled.
\\Go f*ck yourself. I'm not giving you a name so you can make false accusations against my brother.
\\Qtard: \\Not that I want to (I do not) but HOW could I even deny anyone their right to breath? Was George Floyd denied his right of breath? Something like that way.
\\I meant with MY WORDS. That is what we were talking about... WORDS. Like "I *DO* deny...". Those are WORDS, not actions. HOW could I deny anyone the right to breath WITH MY WORDS?
Oh, yes.
HOW that Germans was guilty in Holocaust???
They just was chanting "Hail, Hitler". THAT is MERE WORDS!!! NOT ACTIONS!!
Yes, Derpy? ;-P
That is the way you'd be advocating Nazis?
You, my little dumbass totalitarian wannabe. ;-P
WORDS -- are MOST DEADLY weapon.
Especially when used by idiots. Or to incite idiots. :-(((((((((((((((((((((((((
\\Qtard: There is Natural Human Right -- to decide for themself.
\\There isn't.
Natural rights and legal rights - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Natural_rights_and_l... 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 ...
8 Natural Rights Examples (2023) - Helpful Professor helpfulprofessor.com › natural-rights-examples Freedom of thought, belief, and religion is often considered to be a natural right of all human beings. Public authorities cannot interfere with ...
Natural Rights | History of Western Civilization II - Lumen Learning courses.lumenlearning.com › chapter › natural-... Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and are therefore universal and ...
And that is only first three from Google Search's output. ;-P
\\Counter-revolution. Though it would be to OPPOSE the totalitarian revolution you desire.
Yap.
That is what totalitarians and nazis doing -- to thwart true and open desire of people of all World -- desire of Freedom and Self-governance.
\\Which was NOT their right. Not a human right. Not any kind of right. It was illegal. Why they were arrested.
Like they are first one... or last one, of revolutioners who was arrested... Yawn.
\\All revolutionaries are not the same. It depends on what their goals are.
Yap-yap-yap. :-))))))))))))))
\\But if they're overthrowing a tyrannical government that isn't representing The People? Then I'd say it was a just revolution.
Aha! So... Communists was "just revolitioners"? ;-P
\\"In politics, Locke is best known as a proponent of limited government. He uses a theory of natural rights to argue that governments have obligations to their citizens, have only limited powers over their citizens, and can ultimately be overthrown by citizens under certain circumstances Link.
That is just that Loke-dude thought.
Thoughts -- they are not facts. Not Laws of Nature either.
\\Qtard: Like right of solt to be solty. Or right of water to be wet.
\\Those aren't "rights", those are characteristics. At least as far as water being wet. "Solt" being "solty" is nonsense.
Yap.
That is a characteristic of Human -- to be Free.
\\The king of England wasn't democratically elected. Joe Biden WAS.
So what???
King was "elected" in all accordance with laws. And even blessed by Church.
\\You don't know who John Locke is. Proof that you are clueless when it comes to the topic of human rights.
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: \\The "right of revolution" is CONDITIONAL.\\ That is... just a propaganda.
\\It isn't. As per Locke. Someone you obviously have never heard of. Despite the fact that "Locke pioneered the ideas of natural law, social contract, religious toleration, and the right to revolution..."
So what??? :-))))))))))))))
Do Newton became KING of the Gravity when he devised Law of Gravity???
Of course not. He just witnessed what ALREADY exist.
So... what's the point to revere that Locke? He pointed to the FACT of Reality -- good for him. That means that he is NOT that relentless idiot as you are. But, so what??? Does it change Reality itself, somehow??? :-))))))))))))))))))
\\Whereas the J6 insurrectionists were not justified in trying to overthrow the government. Because the government they were trying to overthrow was NOT acting against their interests.
With this... you AGAIN showing -- that you DENY (well, trying to) them their right to decide for themself. ;-P
WHO can decide if it in or "against their interests"? ONLY PEOPLE THEMSELF!!!
\\Qtard: That is DIFFERENCE between NATURAL LAWS... and miserly Human Invented ones.
\\You don't know what you're talking about.
Pft! :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Your INCORRECT/WRONG insistence that J6 rioters were exercising their "human rights". And the fact that you don't give a crap that the J6 insurrectionists violated the RIGHTS of the US citizens who voted for Joe Biden. By trying to invalidate their votes.
Nobody is perfect...
\\Qtard: \\I didn't concoct a damn thing. I just left off the first part. Your own quote of your words CONFIRMS nothing was concocted.\\ Honestly? THAT IS... how you SEE it???
\\Yes.
Thank you for confirming that you are brainless chicken. :-))))))
\\Those are YOUR damn words.
Hah... so you DO understand that when you refereing to "somebody-somebody said something-something" -- that is YOUR DAMN words ONLY??? :-))))))))))))))))))))
And NOT facts ITSELF.
Or... that is just an accident. Your idiotic babbling purely by a chance became resembling anything sane. ;-P
\\Qtard: \\ You DISAGREE with what "You USA general prosecutor stated"? No, you AGREE with it.\\ Why I should disagree with facts???
\\What facts??? Your FAKE John Durham quote isn't a fact. It only became a TRUE quote when I correctly attributed it to you. Because you said it. John Durham didn't.
SO????
Refering to "somebody-somebody WHO said something-something" -- that is NOT facts? ;-P
\\Baloney. YOU believe you have the power to admit or not admit facts. On the basis of liking them or not. YOU do this, not me.
And you can prove it with facts? ;-P
Naaah.
\\ For example, you just said "Why I should disagree with facts?" That was in regards to NON facts.
So????
"Somebody-somebody WHO said something-something" -- that is NOT facts, still? ;-P
Naaah.
\\We have been over this before. By the US IC. By the bipartisan Intelligence Committee. They issued a report confirming donald tRump colluded with Russia.
YOU not. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))
That is just "somebody-somebody saying something-something" YOU DO NOT like -- that is "NON facts".
But IF that "somebody-somebody said something-something" that you DO like. Or was teached to like by Propaganda -- you like it, and call "facts".
Demonstrated... and proved, with facts of YOUR OWN behavior. With PRECISELY CORRECT quotes of YOUR OWN demn words... you will deny saying, in a jiffy of time.
Because, that is just how your "I believe in facts" works. ;-P
"" John Durham concludes FBI never should have launched full Trump ... www.cnn.com › politics › john-durham-report-fbi-trump-released Special counsel John Durham concluded that the FBI should never have launched a full investigation into connections between Donald Trump's ...
Durham report: FBI criticised by special counsel for Trump-Russia ... www.bbc.com › world-us-canada-65602909 He concluded the FBI had not possessed evidence of collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia before launching an inquiry. The FBI ... ""
Qtard: //Qtard doesn't have access to any intel the US government has deemed classified.// And how'd you know?
So you do? In that case, may I have your real name and address? To report to Secret Services of USA -- to protect laws and security of USA -- to which I am dearly and lawfully entitled.
Qtard: You even do not believe that I am foreigner. So, if I am USAian -- why I cannot have "access to any intel the US government has deemed classified.
If you did you'd know that what you've been claiming about "classy markings" is BS.
Qtard: Well. I can. Actually. There is WikiLeaks. There is that Teisheira guy docs. And many-many others.
According to a White House Office of Management and Budget memo, "Any classification markings on the downloaded material should be retained. If such material is printed, however, it must be handled as a classified document and stored in a classified container".
Confirmation that classification markings are displayed on private servers. WikiLeaks didn't place any stolen documents on special government servers.
Qtard: ...because SUCH AN IDIOTS like you (or your idiot brother(twins?)), have had access to em, and allowed it to leak to the public, through PRIVATE servers or etc.
This is a completely fact-free allegation. My brother handled classified documents. He didn't leak anything.
Qtard: \\Are you calling Hillary Clinton a guy?\\ Stop trying looking EVEN MORE stooopid then you are.
You refer to your own stupidity. YOU wrote "that guy Tard... Turd... something did -- took classified document from government server... and put it on public one". We were discussing Hillary Clinton. donald tRump only took hard copies. He didn't do anything involving servers.
Qtard: Or well, no, continue-continue.
I can't "continue" something I've never done. Unlike YOU. :-)))))))))))))))))))
Qtard: Covering lawbreakers and insurectionists? ;-P
YOU cover for insurrectionists. Keep insisting that J6 rioters were exercising their "human right" to overthrow democracy. I can't cover up for lawbreaking that occurred in Qtard's delusions. That lawbreaking never happened.
Qtard: HOW that Germans was ... just was chanting "Hail, Hitler". THAT is MERE WORDS!!! NOT ACTIONS!!
It wasn't either. It never happened. No Germans (while Hitler was in power) chanted "Hail, Hitler". It's "heil" not "hail". Idiot.
Qtard: Yes, Derpy? That is the way you'd be advocating Nazis? You, my little dumbass totalitarian wannabe.
My words... "donald tRump MUST receive a fair trial" aren't deadly. Will not cause donald tRump's death. If convicted he will go to prison, not receive the death penalty.
Qtard: Especially when used by idiots. Or to incite idiots.
Qtard would like it very much if idiots were incited into violence. Like on January 6th. No doubt Qtard wants to see more violence committed by the supporters of donald tRump.
Qtard: There is Natural Human Right -- to decide for themself.
False. It isn't their "right" to decide to overthrow the government because they're sore losers.
Qtard: Natural rights and legal rights...
Quoting without understanding. Proven by your bashing of John Locke as "Locke(d brain)".
\\Counter-revolution. Though it would be to OPPOSE the totalitarian revolution you desire.\\ That is what totalitarians and nazis doing -- to thwart true and open desire of people of all World -- desire of Freedom and Self-governance.
Qtard: Like they are first one... or last one, of revolutioners who was arrested... Yawn.
Qtard yawns to express disappointment? Disappointment that democracy in America wasn't overthown, yes?
Qtard: //All revolutionaries are not the same. It depends on what their goals are.// Yap-yap-yap. ... Aha! So... Communists was "just revolitioners"?
According to Qtard. Is it not the revolutioners human right to decide if they want Communism?
Qtard: \\"[Locke] uses a theory of natural rights to argue that ... citizens ... can [overthrow the government] under certain circumstances.\\ That is just that Loke-dude thought.
No. That is what Locke thought. I never brought up anyone named "Loke". IDK who that is.
Qtard: Thoughts -- they are not facts. Not Laws of Nature either.
Qtard's insistence that "right of revolution" is for any reason at all -- that is just what Qtard thinks. NOT a fact. Or a theory, which is what the idea of "human rights" and "right of revolution" actually are. Theories.
Natural law is an ethical theory that claims that humans are born with a certain moral compass that guides behaviors. These inherited rules essentially distinguish the "rights" and "wrongs" in life. Under natural law, everyone is afforded the same rights, such as the right to live and the right to happiness.
Qtard: \\Qtard: ...Or right of water to be wet.\\Those aren't "rights", those are characteristics.\\Yap. That is a characteristic of Human -- to be Free.
Slavery doesn't exist? Slavery has never existed?
Qtard: \\The king of England wasn't democratically elected. Joe Biden WAS.\\ So what??? King was "elected" in all accordance with laws. And even blessed by Church.
No. Why you place quotes around "elected". The king of England is NOT elected.
Qtard: \\You don't know who John Locke is. Proof that you are clueless when it comes to the topic of human rights.\\:-)))))))))))))
Laughter of an uninformed idiot.
Qtard: \\The "right of revolution" is CONDITIONAL.\\ That is... just a propaganda.\\ It isn't. As per Locke. Someone you obviously have never heard of. Despite the fact that "Locke pioneered the ideas of natural law, social contract, religious toleration, and the right to revolution..."\\ So what??? :-))))))))))))))
"So what" isn't a rebuttal. "So what" isn't a logical argument. As per your own rules. You didn't use the word "because".
Qtard: So... what's the point to revere that Locke? He pointed to the FACT of Reality -- good for him. That means that he is NOT that relentless idiot as you are. But, so what??? Does it change Reality itself, somehow???
According to Locke, if a government persecutes its people with "a long train of abuses" over an extended period, the people have the right to resist that government, alter or abolish it, and create a new political system. There was no "long train of abuses" suffered by the J6 rioters. They were simply unhappy that their candidate lost. So, as per Locke, they had no "right of revolution".
I agree with Locke. So I am a "relentless idiot" while Locke is not?
Qtard: \\...the government they were trying to overthrow was NOT acting against their interests.\\ With this... you AGAIN showing -- that you DENY (well, trying to) them their right to decide for themself.
So what? If you can use "so what" to rebut me, why can't I use it to rebut you? In any case, I didn't deny them the deciding. They decided. And were arrested, tried and sentenced.
Qtard: WHO can decide if it in or "against their interests"? ONLY PEOPLE THEMSELF!!!
So, according to you, revolution is allowable (as a human right) for any reason whatsoever. If "people themself" decide it isn't "in their interests" to accept the results of a democratic election, they can revolt. There doesn't have to be (as per Locke) any persecution by the government. At all. There doesn't need to be (as per Locke) "a long train of abuses over an extended period".
I'm sticking with Locke and rejecting the Qtard theory of "right of revolution". Even though you capped "ONLY PEOPLE THEMSELF". That failed to convince me that sore losers can revolt just because they decided (for themselves) that they didn't like the results of an election.
Qtard: \\Qtard: That is DIFFERENCE between NATURAL LAWS... and miserly Human Invented ones.\\ You don't know what you're talking about.\\ Pft! :-))))))))))))))))))
"Pft" is my reaction to Qtard saying John Locke has a "Locke(d brain)". "Qtard has it right. John Locke was wrong"... is a conclusion I'm never going to reach.
Qtard: \\...you don't give a crap that the J6 insurrectionists violated the RIGHTS of the US citizens who voted for Joe Biden. By trying to invalidate their votes.\\ Nobody is perfect...
I don't give a crap about the J6 rioters sore loserness. They broke the law and were justifiably punished. They had no "right of revolution". As per Locke.
\\So you do? In that case, may I have your real name and address? To report to Secret Services of USA -- to protect laws and security of USA -- to which I am dearly and lawfully entitled.
Joseph Robinette Biden, Washington DC, White House. ;-P
\\If you did you'd know that what you've been claiming about "classy markings" is BS.
And it is BS, because? ;-P
Go, elaborate it.
Because there is NO logical connection between being USAian... and knowing what classified documents security system is about.
That's why your quote above -- is NOT logically sound explanation... of any sound statment at all.
It's just gibberish non-sense. ;-P
\\According to a White House Office of Management and Budget memo, "Any classification markings on the downloaded material should be retained. If such material is printed, however, it must be handled as a classified document and stored in a classified container".
YAP!
But... if we'd return to the BEGINNING of this topic.
WHO would add that classy markings to that materials??? which compilated by mere mortals in some regular text/word processing SW and delivered through PRIVATE server... NOT included into system of classified documents???
How that PRIVATE server... with REGULAR commercial or even opensource software WOULD KNOW anything about "classy markings"??? :-)))))))))))))))))))
That's it. There is NO way. And that was WHOLE point why HRC used it. ;-P
To thrug off all that security mumbo-jumbo of government security.
But quesion is -- was she ALLOWED to do so?
\\Confirmation that classification markings are displayed on private servers.
The same as on pen drive of a security tresspasser... or a spy. ;-P
So... when some dude in a cathacombs of KGB/FSB would skim through that documents -- it would not be a problem??? Cause classy markings is there? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\WikiLeaks didn't place any stolen documents on special government servers.
WTF??? :-))))))))))))
\\This is a completely fact-free allegation. My brother handled classified documents. He didn't leak anything.
Trully an idiot. ;-P
That was about PREVIOUSLY leaked out classified docs.
People like you (and your bro?) would allow to leak... because of own idiocy. Because, as you spelled it yourself, YOU DO NOT give a damn about what security requirments in regard to classified documents is about.
Like that guy Teisheira... that thought that taking some docs for himself, and showing em to some other guys on the net to brag about own importance is NO PROB... because "classy markings" still on that papers? And that might mean that all is Ok??? Or what?
I'm very interested in your explanation -- to reveal how idiot's brain works. ;-P
\\My brother handled classified documents. He didn't leak anything.
...YET! ;-P
\\Keep insisting that J6 rioters were exercising their "human right" to overthrow democracy.
Again. Democracy CANNOT be "overthrown"... as it is Rule of WE, the People.
HOW you can overthrow WE, the People???
It can only be succumbed by some populists and subverted by totalitarians wannabe. ;-P
\\My words... "donald tRump MUST receive a fair trial" aren't deadly. Will not cause donald tRump's death. If convicted he will go to prison, not receive the death penalty.
Aha... the same as that Epstain, yes??? :-)))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: There is Natural Human Right -- to decide for themself.
\\False. It isn't their "right" to decide to overthrow the government because they're sore losers.
See... you keep dening people their Natural Human Rights. ;-P
\\\\desire of Freedom and Self-governance.
\\Which I strongly support and Qtard opposes.
HOW???
YOU denying people right to decide for themself. I -- trying to beat some smarts into you -- that that is utterly ANTI-democratic and NON-humane thing to demand of humans. ;-P
\\Qtard's insistence that "right of revolution" is for any reason at all -- that is just what Qtard thinks. NOT a fact. Or a theory, which is what the idea of "human rights" and "right of revolution" actually are. Theories.
Yawn.
Historical FACTS.
Like your USA Revolution and War for Independence.
Great French Revolution.
And many-many other.
And well... that is how totalitarians of the World try to spin it -- that that was NOT facts, that there is NO natural human rights and etc.
Like liliPut and liliXi doing today.
And you are in one box with them... my little idiotic totalitarian wannabe. ;-P
\\Slavery doesn't exist? Slavery has never existed?
Yap.
"Clever argument" totalitarian would make.
Yawn.
\\"So what" isn't a rebuttal. "So what" isn't a logical argument. As per your own rules. You didn't use the word "because".
Rebuttal to what??? Was you making some logical claim?
Yawn.
\\I agree with Locke. So I am a "relentless idiot" while Locke is not?
That is YOUR judgment. Not his. He, cannot judge anything anymore.
Your Captain Obvious. ;-P
\\In any case, I didn't deny them the deciding.
You said "I *DO* deny..." and THAT IS statment of denial. ;-P
Your Captain Obvious.
But... you can change your mind, of course.
Just say -- "it was mistake. I made a fool of myself when said that BS". ;-)
\\So, according to you, revolution is allowable (as a human right) for any reason whatsoever.
People's reasons. They are different. As different are people themself. And I cannot walk in their shoes. Each and everyone of em. To know their reasons as they know em.
Your Captain Obvious, AGAIN.
\\If "people themself" decide it isn't "in their interests" to accept the results of a democratic election, they can revolt.
Yap.
Or that is what Captain Obvious would say. ;-P
\\There doesn't have to be (as per Locke) any persecution by the government. At all. There doesn't need to be (as per Locke) "a long train of abuses over an extended period".
What is "long train of abuses" anyway???
Who can decide? You? Or me? Total strangers.
Isn't it obvious -- that only people themself can decide -- what is abuse and what is not, to them?
Like people of color, like women, like gays and all other LGBTQ+++++ folk?
Are you colourful? Are you female? Or have some non-usual genitals or sex-drives? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\That failed to convince me that sore losers can revolt just because they decided (for themselves) that they didn't like the results of an election.
Yeah.
Because you are totalitarian wannabe.
Who wholeheartedly support totalitarian idea of "human rights" -- "people allowed only that rights, somebody else (explicitly?) granted to them". ;-P
"Derp" might be silently agreeing with you. I have no way of knowing. I am silently disagreeing.
btw, African Americans, women, gays and all other LGBTQ+ folk haven't tried to overthrow the government. Even though, yes, they have suffered a long train of abuses. The J6 rioters did not. They didn't decide that they had. They didn't like the election results. Even you AGREED that Joe Biden legitimately won the election.
I live in the United States. Does Qtard consider the United States to be a "totalitarian country"? Because donald tRump's plans to illegally retain the presidency failed?
51 comments:
trumpturds like Minus FJ and Qtad are crying because their hero is very likely going to prison for betraying America.
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
LOL! Forced laughter? Or the laughter of a delusional trumpnutter who BELIEVES the charges against tRump will go "poof"?
Like they always do against Democrats, you mean?
What Democrats? What charges?
Exactly. Hillary? The Big Guy? *poof* The charges "vanish".
:)
Hillary was charged? When? In regards to WHAT?
Hillary Clinton's claim that "zero emails" were marked classified. As shown in an FBI photo of some of the documents seized from Trump, many have clear markings indicating they contained highly sensitive classified information. Clinton, in her tweet, suggests none of her emails were marked classified. That's technically correct. Whether those emails contained classified information was a major focus of the investigation, but a review of the recent investigations, including new information obtained by the Fact Checker, shows Clinton has good reason for making a distinction with Trump. [Washington Post 9/8/2022].
You want to prosecute Joe Biden? You'll have to wait until he leaves the White House. He CAN'T be charged. Same as with tRump when he was president.
Jim Jordan: "Three people involved in the same thing but only one gets prosecuted?"
NOT the same thing. If tRump had given back the documents he would not be being prosecuted. He lied and said he gave them all back when he did not. He still says he has a "right" to keep them. When he DOES NOT. Mike Pence also is not being prosecuted. Jim Jordan is a liar.
People who have done nothing wrong aren't charged. There never were any charges to go "poof" (re classified documents). Re "big guy" alleged bribery, there is so far only alleged evidence. People aren't charged with crimes in regards to alleged evidence. Only actual evidence. And (as previously noted) Joe Biden (as a sitting president) CAN'T be charged.
\\LOL! Forced laughter?
And on what base it forced??? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))
Dare to provide ANY rationale?
Naah. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
As always.
\\Or the laughter of a delusional trumpnutter who BELIEVES the charges against tRump will go "poof"?
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
And what if they'll do? ;-P
\\ As shown in an FBI photo of some of the documents seized from Trump, many have clear markings indicating they contained highly sensitive classified information. Clinton, in her tweet, suggests none of her emails were marked classified. That's technically correct.
Because... WHERE'd you stamp that "top secret"??? on which byte????? :-))))))))))))))))))))) Of e-mail -- Electronic Mail. Diogital Messages. ;-P
\\shows Clinton has good reason for making a distinction with Trump.
Yap.
Cause she is Demn, while he is Rep-tile? ;-P
\\People aren't charged with crimes in regards to alleged evidence. Only actual evidence.
Yap.
And what's the difference?
As between charges you (was tought to) believe AND those you like and inclined to believe? ;-P
Qtard: \\me: Forced laughter?\\ And on what base it forced? ... Dare to provide ANY rationale? Naah. ... As always.
I already dared. In my first comment I speculated that you are crying because tRump is likely going to prison. In response you laughed. But (as per my first comment) you were just crying. Thus the laughter could be forced. It was a question. See the question mark?
Qtard: \\Or the laughter of a delusional trumpnutter who BELIEVES the charges against tRump will go "poof"?\\ And what if they'll do?
What if they don't? Qtard will make more Nazi analogies? Claim the evidence against dotard donald has been fabricated? Cry when dotard donald is convicted and sentenced to prison?
Qtard: Because... WHERE'd you stamp that "top secret"??? on which byte????? Of e-mail -- Electronic Mail. Diogital Messages.
Classification of info is always included. If printed on physical paper or if in an email. Qtard doesn't know what he's talking about. Because he is a FM.
Qtard: \\shows Clinton has good reason for making a distinction with Trump.\\ Yap. Cause she is Demn, while he is Rep-tile?
Nope. Because of the point-to-reality facts. dotard donald said he was going to have Hillary Clinton locked up due to her emails. She wasn't locked up. Whereas dotard donald is very likely going to be locked up. Both situations involved allegations of mishandling of classified information/documents. Hillary not locked up because she broke no laws. dotard donald has ADMITTED that he did.
btw, Hillary Clinton is not a "Demn". There is no such thing as a "Demn". Hillary Clinton is a Democrat. Which can be abbreviated as "Dem", not "Demn". There is no "N" in Democrat. You are abbreviating "demon", yes? Because, as a religious bonker, Qtard believes demons are real??
Qtard: And what's the difference? As between charges you (was tought to) believe AND those you like and inclined to believe?
The difference is that Hillary Clinton was not charged. Even though donald tRump (when he was president) wanted her charged. They couldn't because she broke no laws. Whereas donald tRump HAS been charged. That is a point-to-reality fact. Yet the religious bonker Qtard disbelieves reality.
\\I speculated that you are crying because tRump is likely going to prison.
While I explicitly pointed to that trivial fact.
That for me as mere foreigner it is utterly unimportant. Trump's fate. Can give only some mild entertinment... ehm, edutainment. ;-P
\\In response you laughed. But (as per my first comment) you were just crying.
I ACTUALLY laughed, because of above and earlier open and obvious reasons...
but...
somehow I "cryed"... why? what? whatever.
Just because YOU YOURSELF *imagined* that it would be "clever" idea to use that idiotic mind-trick against me, isn't it?
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
That's why I LIKE you. Where else I would have a chance to observe such e merry idiocy??? ;-P
\\Thus the laughter could be forced. It was a question. See the question mark?
So what?
I need to answer ANY such your idiotic question??? :-)))))))))))))))))
You trully are an idiot.
\\What if they don't?
Do *I* perform a one-man manifestations with "dRump must be put in jail" banner?
Which shows how much I care?
\\Qtard will make more Nazi analogies? Claim the evidence against dotard donald has been fabricated? Cry when dotard donald is convicted and sentenced to prison?
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
I will be laughing. From more of such idiocy demonstrated by you here. ;-P
\\Classification of info is always included. If printed on physical paper or if in an email. Qtard doesn't know what he's talking about. Because he is a FM.
Dumbass.
That was PRIVATE mail server. I, you, anybody can instal one on his home computer even. Or even on his toaster, today. ;-P
Who and how would insert that "Classification of info is always included."???
And that was whole point of that case.
Qtard: That was PRIVATE mail server. I, you, anybody can instal one on his home computer even. Or even on his toaster, today. Who and how would insert that "Classification of info is always included."??? And that was whole point of that case.
You're alleging that classification markings were removed from documents by Hillary Clinton? What's your proof "That was the whole point"? I have never heard this allegation. Ever. I say you lie. Or don't know wtf you're talking about. As you ADMITTED re the Durham report. You truly are an idiot.
Hillary was charged? When? In regards to WHAT?
Exactly my point. The charge went away the moment the impropriety was discovered. Charges became "unthinkable". Had anyone tried, they would have been "cancelled".
James Comey's entire claim to notoriety lay in making sure that informal charges were NEVER legally formalized, that no indictment that could result in formal charges would ever be brought before a Grand Jury.
Now "informal charges"... there were ALWAYS plenty of those needing squashing.
But for you to claim no "charges" ever existed, that's a highly legalistic claim that ignores the general universal meaning of a "charge". Are you a lawyer now, Dervy? Do you parse what the meaning of the word "is" is?
James Comey: "I should've worked harder to find a way to convey that it's more than just the ordinary mistake, but it's not criminal behavior, and find different words to describe that".
FYI, Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz concluded that James Comey acted improperly when disclosing the investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server. Additionally, Horowitz "concluded that there was likely no prosecutable case [and] that the evidence did not support criminal charges".
Given this, why would there be an indictment that could result in formal charges being brought before a Grand Jury?? Anyway the "charges" did not go away "the moment the impropriety was discovered". Only DAYS before the election Comey announced the investigation was "reopened". An action that definitely contributed to HRC's loss.
Meanwhile the traitor donald tRump was colluding with Russia to steal the election. What happened to charges in regards that? As Qtard loves to point out, there haven't been any.
\\You're alleging that classification markings were removed from documents by Hillary Clinton?
What "documents", dumbass??? E-mails?
Do you not get what e-mails is???? Just a bunch of bytes. 1s and 0s.
Or... that is just your clumsy idiotic try to derail discussion here? ;-P
Well... I'll assume that you are just an idiot, who do not get a thing.
And will try to explain.
E-mail -- it's basicly the same as your comment here -- just a bunch of bytes, in ASCII code -- WHERE you'd add your "classification markings" to it??? And who will be doing and controlling it? :-))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Or don't know wtf you're talking about. As you ADMITTED re the Durham report. You truly are an idiot.
You do know nothing. Do not understand a thing.
But that is *I* who are idiot?
Well... that is the same claim idiots of all around the World do claim against those who are smarter... ;-P
\\But for you to claim no "charges" ever existed, that's a highly legalistic claim that ignores the general universal meaning of a "charge". Are you a lawyer now, Dervy? Do you parse what the meaning of the word "is" is?
Naah. It's not. ;-P
Cause they "forgot" to add that in that hypocritical liars and totalitarian wannabe rulebooks. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Oh... judical/juridical dry matters... let's add more water into it.
I like how you trying to accuse me being trekkie. So, I'll mention here about new ST series. Something about "strange new worlds". ;-P
I just saw advertising, but I'll be glad to laugh at you -- from that how'd you try to spin it that way that that is "definitely" a proof of me being trekkie. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
As per the State Department report exonerating Hillary Clinton, "None of the emails at issue in this review were marked as classified". Yet Qtard qtardedly claims none of the documents COULD be marked as classified. Because "E-mail [is] basicly ... just a bunch of bytes".
SO WHAT? That does NOT prevent classification markings from being attached. HOW could it prevent them from being added? WHY would the State Department look for markings that Qtard claims COULD NOT be attached?
Qtard: What "documents", dumbass??? E-mails?
Documents can be sent via email, dumbass.
Qtard: Or... that is just your clumsy idiotic try to derail discussion here?
I'm not "derailing" with my point-to-reality facts. Qtard is trying to derail the discussion with his qtardedness.
Qtard: And will try to explain. E-mail -- it's basicly the same as your comment here -- just a bunch of bytes, in ASCII code -- WHERE you'd add your "classification markings" to it???
Qtard "explains" that he has no idea what he's talking about. No f*cking clue.
Qtard: \\me: Or don't know wtf you're talking about. As you ADMITTED re the Durham report.\\ You do know nothing. Do not understand a thing. But that is *I* who are idiot?
You ADMITTED you knew nothing about it. You said you didn't CARE to know. Yet you brought it up. HAD to share your ADMITTED uninformed opinion. Because that is what an idiot would do.
Qtard: ...I'll mention here about new ST series. Something about "strange new worlds".
OK. Thank you for sharing how much you are looking forward to watching this new TV show. Though I really don't care. I have not seen it. Likely never will.
\\As per the State Department report exonerating Hillary Clinton, "None of the emails at issue in this review were marked as classified".
Of course they not.
They was going through PRIVATE server. Where there was NO such feature. ;-P
That (marking as classified) could be done ONLY on special government servers.
Or... you can point me to any opensource or commercially available software -- which I could install on my private server at home. ;-P
\\That does NOT prevent classification markings from being attached.
HOW???? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\WHY would the State Department look for markings that Qtard claims COULD NOT be attached?
Isn't you answered to it yourself, already?
\\As per the State Department report exonerating Hillary Clinton
;-P
\\Documents can be sent via email, dumbass.
Documents... sent by e-mail. Would be bunch of bytes too. ;-P
\\I'm not "derailing" with my point-to-reality facts. Qtard is trying to derail the discussion with his qtardedness.
With this you prouidly confirmed -- that you are idiot.
Who do not understand what byte is. ;-P
\\\\Qtard: And will try to explain. E-mail -- it's basicly the same as your comment here -- just a bunch of bytes, in ASCII code -- WHERE you'd add your "classification markings" to it???
\\Qtard "explains" that he has no idea what he's talking about. No f*cking clue.
Looks like that, yeah???
YOU are one who are totally dumb and dunce about binary logic of computer.
But never the less, hypocritically trying to spin it otherwise. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Showing with that only that you are trully are nothing but idiot. ;-P
\\You ADMITTED you knew nothing about it. You said you didn't CARE to know. Yet you brought it up. HAD to share your ADMITTED uninformed opinion. Because that is what an idiot would do.
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
You really are that idiot. Trying to spin it. :-)))))))
\\OK. Thank you for sharing how much you are looking forward to watching this new TV show. Though I really don't care. I have not seen it. Likely never will.
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Qtard realized how DUMB his "bytes" explanation was, so now he came up with a new explanation why (he says) no classification markings could be on any document on HRC's email server? It's because these markings can only be displayed by "special" government servers?
Says WHO? I say Qtard made-up this bullplop. It's not real. It is qtarded stupidity. Apparently "binary logic of computer" prevents classification markings displaying on a private server, but "binary logic of computer" doesn't prevent classification marking displaying on "special" government servers?
With this Qtard proudly confirms that it is an idiot. Profoundly stupid. A certified FM.
Same as with Qtard's claim that my pointing out that his opinion about the Durham report was completely uninformed (by his OWN admission) is "spin". Not spin. A point-to-reality FACT. You ADMITTED it, dipshit.
Qtard: "whole idea of dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE".
Qtard: \\You knew about Durham's report.\\ Naah. I know nothing and care not about knowing. I just saw it in a news feed. And found it hilarious to point to.
Qtard: I'm lifetime learner.
A "lifetime learner" saying "I know nothing and care not about knowing" = self contradictory.
You only see what you want to see, Dervy. Your vision is extremely selective, especially vis "the DNC". A classic case of Fetishistic disavowal...
\\Qtard realized how DUMB his "bytes" explanation...
Your wish :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
But you just showed with that that U R completele hopeless around this modern tech topic.
Yopu freakingly do not understand what binary data is about. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))
So, you devised that dumb-dumb-stooopid plan -- to try to cover it with this hypocritical retort. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\so now he came up with a new explanation why (he says) no classification markings could be on any document on HRC's email server? It's because these markings can only be displayed by "special" government servers?
That was ONE and THE SAME explanation. ;-P
ONLY way that idiotic "classification markings" of yours could exist in binary world -- it's through some special software, which SUPPORT that "classification markings".
And there... NO such openly avaliable software. Cause that is all government idea.
AND THAT.
Whole point of that case -- DO government workers ALLOWED to use non-government-approved SW????
\\Says WHO? I say Qtard made-up this bullplop. It's not real. It is qtarded stupidity. Apparently "binary logic of computer" prevents classification markings displaying on a private server, but "binary logic of computer" doesn't prevent classification marking displaying on "special" government servers?
Apparent gibberish non-sense -- revealing Derpy's bonkering stupidity. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
You use computer. Computer use binary logic. But you... do not know what logic is. And what Binary Logic -- that is even more distant, far-far-far-far-far-away... for such a dumb ass. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Go ask Google. What "binary logic" is.
But oups... Google -- that is also Computers. And computers do use Binary Logic. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\With this Qtard proudly confirms that it is an idiot. Profoundly stupid. A certified FM.
Yap.
Idiot. :-)))))
Who know how computers work. ;-P
And you are WISE MAN -- who do not know. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Same as with Qtard's claim that my pointing out that his opinion about the Durham report was completely uninformed (by his OWN admission) is "spin". Not spin. A point-to-reality FACT. You ADMITTED it, dipshit.
That... that I was not diving deep in that thing... doesn't mean what you tryed to spin it into. :-))))))))))))))))))))))
That means only that I know bare fact -- that HRC was inquered for using PRIVATE (means, non-government) server for here (related to working on government) communication.
And care NOT to know more. ;-P
\\Qtard: "whole idea of dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE".
Hah.
As I thought so.
FAKE quote. AGAIN. ;-P
Correct one is:"You USA general prosecutor stated that whole idea of "dRumps collusion with Russian" was FAKE."
\\A "lifetime learner" saying "I know nothing and care not about knowing" = self contradictory.
HOW??? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
While ability to learn mean exactly that -- acquring ability to discern True from False, information important to know from mere bullshit. ;-P
De-Ru-Pi-i-i-i :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
You exceded your previous levels to spout bull crap.
And that make it EVEN MOAR exciting.
Please.. pretty PLEASE... continue-continue like that.
PS Do not remember... where I was ROFLing that much, previously. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
And YAP... that much of that right parens it's to show how sad I AM. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\You only see what you want to see, Dervy. Your vision is extremely selective, especially vis "the DNC". A classic case of Fetishistic disavowal...
Naah, Joe.
You just giving too much thought, too much benefit of the doubt... to that miserly stoooopid brat. ;-P
‘In a clear case of fetishistic disavowal, everyone knows that Mao made errors and caused immense suffering, yet his image remains magically untainted’
There is NO magic... only SEVERE punishment for anybody who would DARE to show doubts. ;-P
Realities of totalitarian countries. Where there NO freedom of speach. As well as many other... well, all and any of Human Rights thoroughly NOT preserved.
Only "right" of Government -- Rule of the Fist, preserved.
Qtard: ONLY way that idiotic "classification markings" of yours could exist in binary world -- it's through some special software, which SUPPORT that "classification markings".
You have absolutely NO IDEA what you're talking about.
Proven by your own admission.
"That means only that I know bare fact -- that HRC was inquered for using PRIVATE (means, non-government) server for here (related to working on government) communication".
That "special software" is needed to display classification markings is qtarded bullshit. Bullshit you have not (and will not) produce any evidence to support.
Qtard: Who know how computers work. And you are WISE MAN -- who do not know.
Clearly I know more than Qtard.
Qtard: FAKE quote. AGAIN.
TRUE quote. Qtard fakes quotes. Like "I *DO* deny em their rights".
Qtard: While ability to learn mean exactly that -- acquring ability to discern True from False, information important to know from mere bullshit.
Qtard lacks the ability to learn? I know he definitely lacks the ability to discern True from False. He mixes them up all the time. Says true things are false and false things are true. And constantly spouts bullshit. Like "special software" being needed to display classification markings.
Minus: Your vision is extremely selective, especially vis "the DNC".
What (re the DNC) am I disavowing?
\\Qtard: ONLY way that idiotic "classification markings" of yours could exist in binary world -- it's through some special software, which SUPPORT that "classification markings".
\\You have absolutely NO IDEA what you're talking about.
Yeah??? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\That "special software" is needed to display classification markings is qtarded bullshit. Bullshit you have not (and will not) produce any evidence to support.
And what evidance do you need??? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
Do you have some e-mail?
You should have, as you are registered here and that mean you using Google Account... which gives access to Google's e-mail service -- GMail.
Can you SHOW, where you saw "classification markings" or place where that "classification markings" could/should/ought to appear??? In GMail, for example.
Or... you will start playing dumb and will (try to) thrug off need to be responsible for your own words. So pompously proclaimed here. ;-P
\\Clearly I know more than Qtard.
Do you know HOW computers work?
Like -- what mean 1s and 0s... to a computer? ;-P
Yeah... you will not answer. You WILL NOT show ANY of that "I know more".
Cause that all is bragadoccio-pinnochio bullcrap. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
You are know nothing ignoramus and liar.
Who... THE SAME as dRump, trying to cover his stupidity with such bragadoccio claims. ;-P
\\Qtard: FAKE quote. AGAIN.
\\TRUE quote.
And that AFTER I came by that link. Ctrl-Fed that excerpt. And provided COMPLETE AND CORRECT quote???
You trying to call your cutted out of context bullcrap, with nasty motive to twist and strawman my words "TRUE quote"???? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
What a bonker.
With that you ONLY confirmed what a militantly relentless liar you are. That's all.
And that mean, that any your FURTHER claims I will be only MORE suspicious about em and will call you liar more...
but who knows, maybe you are masochistic liar too -- likeing when your apparent lies being revealed? That much. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))
What a pervert. What a freak. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
But. That what makes it so much fun. To observe you. :-))))))))))))))))))))
Contiunue-continue...
\\Like "I *DO* deny em their rights".
FAKE quote. AGAIN.
That was "I *DO* deny...", with further part ommited, as you already know it anyway. ;-P
And why you SO DAMN stoopid??? You think I would not see through such an apparently stupid tricks??? :-)))))))))))))))))))
What a loser. ROFL
\\Qtard lacks the ability to learn? I know he definitely lacks the ability to discern True from False. He mixes them up all the time. Says true things are false and false things are true. And constantly spouts bullshit.
You just showed yourself Complete Dumbass. Clinical Idiot. Moron. ;-P
But.
Continue-continue. It only adds more fun, to observe your such a merry stoopid tricks. ;-P
\\Like "special software" being needed to display classification markings.
Even more then that... special software needed FOR ANYTHING.
Like to visit web-sites -- you'd need special software -- browser. Like Internet Explorer, or Google Chrome.
To edit texts -- you'd need special software -- text editor. Notepad?
Just for ANYTHING, for ANY task... some special software would be needed.
Because... Computer by itself -- can perform NOTHING. ;-P
And that is... VERY DAMN BASIC trivial knowledge about computers.
EVEN most primitive brainless user of a computer should know/understand... :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))
De-Ru-Pi-i-i-i :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
You exceded your previous levels to spout bull crap.
And that make it EVEN MOAR exciting.
Please.. pretty PLEASE... continue-continue like that.
TOP SECRET <--- see classy markings ;-p
Derpy the Funny Brain Bonker... ts-s-s-s, it's secret!
The classification markings are attached to the documents. Why would "special software" be needed? To do what?? There is no "task" re markings that are already there. Cannot be changed. You are an idiot!!!
As for the TRUE quote I gave of ours -- you clipped off my quote mid sentence. And added LIE "em their rights". I gave FULL sentence when quoting you. Added no lies...
Which makes Qtard the militantly relentless liar, pervert and freak. Also someone who THINKS they know about computers -- when it actually is completely clueless.
\\The classification markings are attached to the documents.
HOW????!!!
When it printed on paper. In some government office -- clearly there can be ANY markings printed-in on that piece of paper there... on Government-owned printer. From government-owned computer. With government-developed software.
Sure thing!
But.
What if *I* would print a document... while adding to it the same looking "classification markings"???
Would it make it top secret document? ;-P
The same with e-mail. Created and/or delivered through public (or PRIVATE) mail server. ;-P
\\Why would "special software" be needed? To do what?? There is no "task" re markings that are already there. Cannot be changed. You are an idiot!!!
Go scream "you are idiot" some more times. That would increase your credibility. Not. ;-P
Special software NEEDED... to create that "classification markings".
Because, what does that "classification markings" means??? Ahh???
THAT... mean that Document, will be REGISTERED in some special REGISTRY of "classified documents".
With all needed ADDITIONAL, not mentioned (because it is surely impossible) in that document information, like: who created that document, who assigned that "classy marking", who allowed to read/modify/to know about existance even... and etc, and etc.
See.
I know pretty much... about "classy markings". ;-P
\\As for the TRUE quote I gave of ours -- you clipped off my quote mid sentence. And added LIE "em their rights".
Bullshit. ;-P
You said that you "I *DO* deny..." to people their "right of revolution".
But... as I pointed NOT ONCE here -- so-caled "right of revolution" that is Natural Right.
That makes it -- that you "I *DO* deny..." to that people ("insurectionists") their Naturl Rights... like their right to breath. ;-P
And.
That, how you trying to thrug that guilt... for trying to deny people's Natural Rights... only prove it more and more.
That you YOURSELF understand fully well -- how nusty it is -- to deny Human's Rights. ;-P
But... still, you cannot help it, your desire to deny people's Human's Rights is just TOO DEMN STRONG... cause you are totalitarian wannabe. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\I gave FULL sentence when quoting you. Added no lies...
Yeah.
Like that "FULL sentence" I copy-pasted higher.
When you edited "FULL sentence" to make it mean TOTALLY different thing.
Instead of
"You USA general prosecutor stated that whole idea of "dRumps collusion with Russian" was FAKE." <<---- TRUE QUOTE
YOU CONCOCKTED
Qtard: "whole idea of dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE".
APPARENT *LIE*
But... you'll continue confirm with your demn behavior, what idioticly relentles in showing moronic hypocrisy LIAR you are.
I'm sure of it, by now. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))
And that makes observing your stupid tricks so sheer fun. ;-P
Continue-conmtinue. :-)))))))))))))))))))0
My Little Heinous Liar.
\\Which makes Qtard the militantly relentless liar, pervert and freak. Also someone who THINKS they know about computers -- when it actually is completely clueless.
PRICELESS!
Continue-contiue.
Demonstrating your moronity. ;-P
Qtard: \\The classification markings are attached to the documents.\\ HOW????!!!
The SAME way the rest of the document was created. Most likely with a keyboard. How? Impossible for a moron to understand. Apparently.
Qtard: What if *I* would print a document... while adding to it the same looking "classification markings"??? Would it make it top secret document?
What do you think? I say it is a question a FM would ask.
Qtard: ...who created that document, who assigned that "classy marking", who allowed to read/modify/to know about existance even... and etc, and etc.
What does that have to do with classification markings showing (or NOT showing) depending on what server it is sent to? My brother (who was in the military and worked with classified documents) says that classified documents need to originate on a classified server. But they CAN be sent to a private server and the markings will be retained. He agreed with me that you don't know what you're talking about.
Qtard: That makes it -- that you "I *DO* deny..." to that people ("insurectionists") their Naturl Rights... like their right to breath.
Not that I want to (I do not) but HOW could I even deny anyone their right to breath? And you're equating the right to breath with the "right" to overthrow a democratically elected president?
The J6 insurrection is NOT an example of the government failing to protect people's rights and thus justifying revolution. I deny NOBODY their rights (dictionary definition of "nobody" and NOT your NewSpeak redefinition). But I do deny people rights they DO NOT HAVE. Especially seditionists who violently tried to stop the potus candidate I voted for from assuming office.
Two of the most important political theorists regarding this idea are Thomas
Hobbes and John Locke. ...Locke does permit the people to revolt in circumstances of long, sustained abuse ... when the abuses become excessive, revolution ensues. (Source: The Right of Revolution: An Analysis of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes' Social Contract Theories by John Winfred O'Toole).
The "right of revolution" is CONDITIONAL. Conditioned on the government that exists failing to protect the rights of its citizens. Conditioned on there being "long, sustained abuse". This was not the case re the 2016 election. Thus the "right of revolution" did not apply. You don't get to revolt due to sore loserness. That infringes on the RIGHTS of others. People who voted for Joe Biden had the RIGHT to see the potus they voted for assume office.
Qtard: you cannot help it, your desire to deny people's Human's Rights is just TOO DEMN STRONG... cause you are totalitarian wannabe.
That is YOUR desire. You'd have been happy to see the rights of Joe Biden voters denied. Because of your intense hatred for democracy and strong desire to see it overthrown in the United States. Due to the fact that YOU are are a totalitarian wannabe.
Qtard: YOU CONCOCKTED. Qtard: "whole idea of dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE". APPARENT *LIE*.
I didn't concoct a damn thing. I just left off the first part. Your own quote of your words CONFIRMS nothing was concocted. You DISAGREE with what "You USA general prosecutor stated"? No, you AGREE with it. As you have stated many times. How donald tRump's proven collusion with Russia is "garbage".
Qtard: When you edited "FULL sentence" to make it mean TOTALLY different thing.
Bullshit. Explain what the original quote meant and how it became "TOTALLY different thing" by leaving off the first part.
Qtard: And that makes observing your stupid tricks so sheer fun.
Unlike Qtard, I debate honestly. Unlike Qtard, I don't use tricks. Like fabricating quotes such as "I *DO* deny em their rights".
\\Qtard: \\The classification markings are attached to the documents.\\ HOW????!!!
\\The SAME way the rest of the document was created. Most likely with a keyboard. How? Impossible for a moron to understand. Apparently.
I posted higher a comment with TOP SECRET "classy marking", then. ;-P
\\What does that have to do with classification markings showing (or NOT showing) depending on what server it is sent to? My brother (who was in the military and worked with classified documents) says that classified documents need to originate on a classified server. But they CAN be sent to a private server and the markings will be retained. He agreed with me that you don't know what you're talking about.
Yap.
That is what that guy Tard... Turd... something did -- took classified document from goverment server... and put it on public one.
Surely, he did nothing bad, isn't it? And why they say it's a crime??? when that documents fell into hand of rival's spyes. Because... there was NO WAY to keep their security protection -- when it gone spread elsewhere...
And your brother (the same idiot as you?) ready to do the same? May I have his name? To report to Secret Services of USA -- to protect laws and security of USA -- to which I dearly and lawfully entitled. And you (and your brother?) as totalitarians wannabe -- clearly not. You are ready and maybe even want -- to undermine democraticly elected government of USA.
Or... he IS that mr. T...air...something???? :-)))))))))))))))))))))
\\Not that I want to (I do not) but HOW could I even deny anyone their right to breath?
Was George Floyd denied his right of breath?
Something like that way. ;-)
\\And you're equating the right to breath with the "right" to overthrow a democratically elected president?
There is NO such thing as ""right" to overthrow a democratically elected president"
There is Natural Human Right -- to decide for themself. Right of Intellectual and Bodily Autonomy, in general.
And if that people would decide to "overthrow a democratically elected president"... if they'll do it, and will be successful... they'll call it Our Revolution. And you, such a totalitarians like you are, will not be able to do anything about it.
That would be a Revolution. And Revolutions do happen in history.
That's why you are so sad and grumpy... and so inclined to deny em their rights, isn't it, De-Ru-Pi? ;-P
So what??? All-Wise Derpy think that ALL revolutiobners of the world of all times -- are just naughty criminals??? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Well, that's your miserly opinion. Of totalitarian wannabe. You cannot make anybody to submit too. ;-P
\\The J6 insurrection is NOT an example of the government failing to protect people's rights and thus justifying revolution.
Whatever.
There is no such thing as "justifying revolution".
Just sheer people's voluntarism. ;-P
Manifestation of their powers and freedoms.
\\I deny NOBODY their rights (dictionary definition of "nobody" and NOT your NewSpeak redefinition). But I do deny people rights they DO NOT HAVE.
You cannot deny people rights they INTRINSICALLY have.
They are Humans. Therefore they have Rights of a Human.
And you declaration "But I do deny people rights they DO NOT HAVE" THAT IS denial of their Narural Rights. Like right of solt to be solty. Or right of water to be wet. ;-P
\\Especially seditionists who violently tried to stop the potus candidate I voted for from assuming office.
And king of Great Britain was set on trone with all accordance with all rules and traditions... and there was tons of royalists who feeled their rights being infridged.
By that nasty revolutioners, your USA Father Founders. ;-P
\\...Locke does permit the people...
That is... not up to some Locke(d brains?) to decide. ;-P
\\The "right of revolution" is CONDITIONAL.
That is... just a propaganda. ;-P
Do you think that there was NO rules against "revolt against crown"????
Was. And it was thoroughly condemned and propaganda was that doing that is no-no.
But... still, it happened.
That is DIFFERENCE between NATURAL LAWS... and miserly Human Invented ones. ;-P
Like... you can vote for Denying Law of Gravity, for example. With all bells and wistles of Demn-Ok-rat-sy you like: "free votes", "public discussion", "signed in high holls docs" and etc.
But... HE well show himself, that High and Mighty Law of Gravity... just at that monet HE will make you fall on your face. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\That is YOUR desire.
Ough, yeah? And you can back this words... with what?
As I was thinking -- NOTHING. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\I didn't concoct a damn thing. I just left off the first part. Your own quote of your words CONFIRMS nothing was concocted.
Honestly??? :-)))
THAT IS... how you SEE it???
Clearly an idiot.
Here.
Word to word.
"You USA general prosecutor stated that whole idea of "dRumps collusion with Russian" was FAKE." <<---- TRUE QUOTE
Qtard: "whole idea of dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE".
NOT ONLY you ommited that that was YOUR DAMN "USA general prosecutor" words.
You ALSO ommited quote marks.
JUST TO MAKE IT LOOK like that is MY OWN words and claims.
Which was NOT!
\\ You DISAGREE with what "You USA general prosecutor stated"? No, you AGREE with it.
Why I should disagree with facts???
That is you are one who declared "I believe in facts" -- means, that you have power to admit or not admit facts... on the base of you liking it or not.
I... never declared anything like that, even. Only was contrarian to such a moronic claims.
\\How donald tRump's proven collusion with Russia is "garbage".
By Whom proven? When? And How?
By nobody. Nowhere. Non-how. ;-P
Qtard: I posted higher a comment with TOP SECRET "classy marking", then.
Where? I didn't see any "classy markings". Maybe I missed them, given that I don't know wtf "classy markings" are. Classification markings are attached to documents that contain classified information. Qtard doesn't have access to any intel the US government has deemed classified.
Qtard: That is what that guy Tard... Turd... something did -- took classified document from goverment server... and put it on public one. Surely, he did nothing bad, isn't it? And why they say it's a crime??? when that documents fell into hand of rival's spyes. Because... there was NO WAY to keep their security protection -- when it gone spread elsewhere...
Are you calling Hillary Clinton a guy? A guy named "tard" or "turd"? I don't know wtf you're talking about. donald tRump? He took hard copies. He doesn't use email. The classified documents (hard copies) were definitely at risk of falling into the wrong hands at Mar-A-Lago, though. Who knows who looked at them. China, Russia, Iran... they may all have copies of these documents.
Qtard: And your brother ... May I have his name? To report to Secret Services of USA -- to protect laws and security of USA -- to which I dearly and lawfully entitled.
Go f*ck yourself. I'm not giving you a name so you can make false accusations against my brother.
Qtard: You are ready and maybe even want -- to undermine democraticly elected government of USA.
You base this PURE STUPIDITY on what? That is what YOU want. Though you don't want to do it yourself. You just cheer on donald tRump's loyal idiots. Like the J6 insurrectionists.
Qtard: Or... he IS that mr. T...air...something???? :-)))))))))))))))))))))
Gibberish.
Qtard: \\Not that I want to (I do not) but HOW could I even deny anyone their right to breath? Was George Floyd denied his right of breath? Something like that way.
I meant with MY WORDS. That is what we were talking about... WORDS. Like "I *DO* deny...". Those are WORDS, not actions. HOW could I deny anyone the right to breath WITH MY WORDS?
Qtard: \\And you're equating the right to breath with the "right" to overthrow a democratically elected president?\\ There is NO such thing as "right" to overthrow a democratically elected president".
Indeed. There is NOT. What I've been saying. And YOU have been disagreeing with me.
Qtard: There is Natural Human Right -- to decide for themself.
There isn't. AGAIN you don't know what you're talking about.
Qtard: And if that people would decide to "overthrow a democratically elected president"... if they'll do it, and will be successful... they'll call it Our Revolution. And you, such a totalitarians like you are, will not be able to do anything about it.
Counter-revolution. Though it would be to OPPOSE the totalitarian revolution you desire.
Qtard: That would be a Revolution. And Revolutions do happen in history. That's why you are so sad and grumpy... and so inclined to deny em their rights, isn't it...
Absolutely not. The J6 insurrectionists failed. I'd be "sad and grumpy" if they had been successful. YOU are sad and grumpy that they failed. With their attempt to overthrow the democratically elected government. Which was NOT their right. Not a human right. Not any kind of right. It was illegal. Why they were arrested.
Qtard: So what??? All-Wise Derpy think that ALL revolutiobners of the world of all times -- are just naughty criminals??
What is a "revolutiobner"? You mean revolutionaries? All revolutionaries are not the same. It depends on what their goals are. If they want to overthrow a democratically elected government, then I say arrest them, prosecute them, and imprison them.
[continued]
But if they're overthrowing a tyrannical government that isn't representing The People? Then I'd say it was a just revolution.
Qtard: Well, that's your miserly opinion. Of totalitarian wannabe.
Opposite of "totalitarian". Strong supporter of democracy. YOUR opinion is that of a totalitarian democracy-hater.
Qtard: You cannot make anybody to submit too.
Right, *I* cannot. The police can -- and did. The Justice Department can -- and did arrest the J6 law-breakers :)
Qtard: \\The J6 insurrection is NOT an example of the government failing to protect people's rights and thus justifying revolution.\\ Whatever. There is no such thing as "justifying revolution".
There is.
"In politics, Locke is best known as a proponent of limited government. He uses a theory of natural rights to argue that governments have obligations to their citizens, have only limited powers over their citizens, and can ultimately be overthrown by citizens under certain circumstances Link.
Qtard: And you declaration "But I do deny people rights they DO NOT HAVE" THAT IS denial of their Narural Rights.
It isn't. As per Locke, a government can be "overthrown by citizens under certain circumstances".
Qtard: Like right of solt to be solty. Or right of water to be wet.
Those aren't "rights", those are characteristics. At least as far as water being wet. "Solt" being "solty" is nonsense.
Qtard: \\Especially seditionists who violently tried to stop the potus candidate I voted for from assuming office.\\ And king of Great Britain was set on trone with all accordance with all rules and traditions... and there was tons of royalists who feeled their rights being infridged.
The king of England wasn't democratically elected. Joe Biden WAS.
Qtard: By that nasty revolutioners, your USA Father Founders.
There never were any revolutionaries known as "USA Father Founders". "Nasty" or otherwise.
Qtard: \\...Locke does permit the people...\\ That is... not up to some Locke(d brains?) to decide.
You don't know who John Locke is. Proof that you are clueless when it comes to the topic of human rights. You keep going on about them, so I assumed you'd recognize the name. My mistake. To assume a proven idiot wouldn't be completely clueless.
[continued]
"Often credited as a founder of modern liberal thought, Locke pioneered the ideas of natural law, social contract, religious toleration, and the right to revolution that proved essential to both the American Revolution and the U.S. Constitution that followed".
"Locke also advocated governmental separation of powers and believed that revolution is not only a right but an obligation in some circumstances".
Qtard: \\The "right of revolution" is CONDITIONAL.\\ That is... just a propaganda.
It isn't. As per Locke. Someone you obviously have never heard of. Despite the fact that "Locke pioneered the ideas of natural law, social contract, religious toleration, and the right to revolution..."
Qtard: Do you think that there was NO rules against "revolt against crown"????
I don't. But the US Founding Fathers were justified in their revolution because the right of revolution says "the people could instigate a revolution against the government when it acted against the interests of citizens, to replace the government with one that served the interests of citizens" (Locke). Whereas the J6 insurrectionists were not justified in trying to overthrow the government. Because the government they were trying to overthrow was NOT acting against their interests.
Qtard: And it was thoroughly condemned and propaganda was that doing that is no-no. But... still, it happened.
So what? The US revolution was justified (as per Locke) because the English government wasn't serving their interests. Why the Founding Fathers cited Locke.
Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and John Madison revered Locke. John Quincy Adams penned, "The Declaration of Independence [was]... founded upon one and the same theory of government ... expounded in the writings of Locke" [Link].
Qtard: That is DIFFERENCE between NATURAL LAWS... and miserly Human Invented ones.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Qtard: HE well show himself, that High and Mighty Law of Gravity... just at that monet HE will make you fall on your face. :-))))))))))))))))
An idiot's laughter.
Qtard: \\That is YOUR desire.\\ Ough, yeah? And you can back this words... with what? As I was thinking -- NOTHING.
Your INCORRECT/WRONG insistence that J6 rioters were exercising their "human rights". And the fact that you don't give a crap that the J6 insurrectionists violated the RIGHTS of the US citizens who voted for Joe Biden. By trying to invalidate their votes.
Qtard: \\I didn't concoct a damn thing. I just left off the first part. Your own quote of your words CONFIRMS nothing was concocted.\\ Honestly? THAT IS... how you SEE it???
Yes.
Qtard: NOT ONLY you ommited that that was YOUR DAMN "USA general prosecutor" words. You ALSO ommited quote marks. JUST TO MAKE IT LOOK like that is MY OWN words and claims. Which was NOT!
WAS! There is no "USA General prosecutor". The "USA General prosecutor" could NOT have said this because there is no such person. There is no such position. The position John Durham was appointed to was that of "Special Counsel". Also, John Durham did NOT say "dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE". John Durham NEVER called donald tRump "dRump". Those are YOUR damn words.
Qtard: \\ You DISAGREE with what "You USA general prosecutor stated"? No, you AGREE with it.\\ Why I should disagree with facts???
What facts??? Your FAKE John Durham quote isn't a fact. It only became a TRUE quote when I correctly attributed it to you. Because you said it. John Durham didn't.
Qtard: That is you are one who declared "I believe in facts" -- means, that you have power to admit or not admit facts... on the base of you liking it or not.
Baloney. YOU believe you have the power to admit or not admit facts. On the basis of liking them or not. YOU do this, not me.
Qtard: I... never declared anything like that, even. Only was contrarian to such a moronic claims.
That is definitely a moronic claim. No doubt. But, contrary to your lies, I NEVER claimed that. YOU did. Though you falsely attributed this claim to me. But it's what YOU do. For example, you just said "Why I should disagree with facts?" That was in regards to NON facts.
Qtard: \\How donald tRump's proven collusion with Russia is "garbage".\\ By Whom proven? When? And How?
We have been over this before. By the US IC. By the bipartisan Intelligence Committee. They issued a report confirming donald tRump colluded with Russia.
Qtard: By nobody. Nowhere. Non-how.
By donald tRump himself. He admitted it on TV. He told George Stephanopoulos he'd do it again. FYI, George Stephanopoulos is a reporter. I say this knowing you'd slip a "whos zat" into your reply otherwise.
\\Classification markings are attached to documents that contain classified information. Qtard doesn't have access to any intel the US government has deemed classified.
And how'd you know? ;-P
You even do not believe that I am foreigner. So, if I am USAian -- why I cannot have "access to any intel the US government has deemed classified."???
Well. I can. Actually.
There is WikiLeaks. There is that Teisheira guy docs. And many-many other.
That NOW are freely available -- because SUCH AN IDIOTS like you (or your idiot brother(twins?)), have had access to em, and allowed it to leak to the public, through PRIVATE servers or etc. ;-P
\\Are you calling Hillary Clinton a guy?
Stop trying looking EVEN MORE stooopid then you are. ;-P
Or well, no, continue-continue. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: And your brother ... May I have his name? To report to Secret Services of USA -- to protect laws and security of USA -- to which I dearly and lawfully entitled.
\\Go f*ck yourself. I'm not giving you a name so you can make false accusations against my brother.
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Covering lawbreakers and insurectionists? ;-P
\\Qtard: \\Not that I want to (I do not) but HOW could I even deny anyone their right to breath? Was George Floyd denied his right of breath? Something like that way.
\\I meant with MY WORDS. That is what we were talking about... WORDS. Like "I *DO* deny...". Those are WORDS, not actions. HOW could I deny anyone the right to breath WITH MY WORDS?
Oh, yes.
HOW that Germans was guilty in Holocaust???
They just was chanting "Hail, Hitler". THAT is MERE WORDS!!! NOT ACTIONS!!
Yes, Derpy? ;-P
That is the way you'd be advocating Nazis?
You, my little dumbass totalitarian wannabe. ;-P
WORDS -- are MOST DEADLY weapon.
Especially when used by idiots. Or to incite idiots. :-(((((((((((((((((((((((((
\\Qtard: There is Natural Human Right -- to decide for themself.
\\There isn't.
Natural rights and legal rights - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Natural_rights_and_l...
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 ...
8 Natural Rights Examples (2023) - Helpful Professor
helpfulprofessor.com › natural-rights-examples
Freedom of thought, belief, and religion is often considered to be a natural right of all human beings. Public authorities cannot interfere with ...
Natural Rights | History of Western Civilization II - Lumen Learning
courses.lumenlearning.com › chapter › natural-...
Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and are therefore universal and ...
And that is only first three from Google Search's output. ;-P
\\Counter-revolution. Though it would be to OPPOSE the totalitarian revolution you desire.
Yap.
That is what totalitarians and nazis doing -- to thwart true and open desire of people of all World -- desire of Freedom and Self-governance.
\\Which was NOT their right. Not a human right. Not any kind of right. It was illegal. Why they were arrested.
Like they are first one... or last one, of revolutioners who was arrested... Yawn.
\\All revolutionaries are not the same. It depends on what their goals are.
Yap-yap-yap. :-))))))))))))))
\\But if they're overthrowing a tyrannical government that isn't representing The People? Then I'd say it was a just revolution.
Aha! So... Communists was "just revolitioners"? ;-P
\\"In politics, Locke is best known as a proponent of limited government. He uses a theory of natural rights to argue that governments have obligations to their citizens, have only limited powers over their citizens, and can ultimately be overthrown by citizens under certain circumstances Link.
That is just that Loke-dude thought.
Thoughts -- they are not facts. Not Laws of Nature either.
\\Qtard: Like right of solt to be solty. Or right of water to be wet.
\\Those aren't "rights", those are characteristics. At least as far as water being wet. "Solt" being "solty" is nonsense.
Yap.
That is a characteristic of Human -- to be Free.
\\The king of England wasn't democratically elected. Joe Biden WAS.
So what???
King was "elected" in all accordance with laws. And even blessed by Church.
\\You don't know who John Locke is. Proof that you are clueless when it comes to the topic of human rights.
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: \\The "right of revolution" is CONDITIONAL.\\ That is... just a propaganda.
\\It isn't. As per Locke. Someone you obviously have never heard of. Despite the fact that "Locke pioneered the ideas of natural law, social contract, religious toleration, and the right to revolution..."
So what??? :-))))))))))))))
Do Newton became KING of the Gravity when he devised Law of Gravity???
Of course not. He just witnessed what ALREADY exist.
So... what's the point to revere that Locke? He pointed to the FACT of Reality -- good for him. That means that he is NOT that relentless idiot as you are.
But, so what???
Does it change Reality itself, somehow??? :-))))))))))))))))))
\\Whereas the J6 insurrectionists were not justified in trying to overthrow the government. Because the government they were trying to overthrow was NOT acting against their interests.
With this... you AGAIN showing -- that you DENY (well, trying to) them their right to decide for themself. ;-P
WHO can decide if it in or "against their interests"? ONLY PEOPLE THEMSELF!!!
\\Qtard: That is DIFFERENCE between NATURAL LAWS... and miserly Human Invented ones.
\\You don't know what you're talking about.
Pft! :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Your INCORRECT/WRONG insistence that J6 rioters were exercising their "human rights". And the fact that you don't give a crap that the J6 insurrectionists violated the RIGHTS of the US citizens who voted for Joe Biden. By trying to invalidate their votes.
Nobody is perfect...
\\Qtard: \\I didn't concoct a damn thing. I just left off the first part. Your own quote of your words CONFIRMS nothing was concocted.\\ Honestly? THAT IS... how you SEE it???
\\Yes.
Thank you for confirming that you are brainless chicken. :-))))))
\\Those are YOUR damn words.
Hah... so you DO understand that when you refereing to "somebody-somebody said something-something" -- that is YOUR DAMN words ONLY??? :-))))))))))))))))))))
And NOT facts ITSELF.
Or... that is just an accident. Your idiotic babbling purely by a chance became resembling anything sane. ;-P
\\Qtard: \\ You DISAGREE with what "You USA general prosecutor stated"? No, you AGREE with it.\\ Why I should disagree with facts???
\\What facts??? Your FAKE John Durham quote isn't a fact. It only became a TRUE quote when I correctly attributed it to you. Because you said it. John Durham didn't.
SO????
Refering to "somebody-somebody WHO said something-something" -- that is NOT facts? ;-P
\\Baloney. YOU believe you have the power to admit or not admit facts. On the basis of liking them or not. YOU do this, not me.
And you can prove it with facts? ;-P
Naaah.
\\ For example, you just said "Why I should disagree with facts?" That was in regards to NON facts.
So????
"Somebody-somebody WHO said something-something" -- that is NOT facts, still? ;-P
Naaah.
\\We have been over this before. By the US IC. By the bipartisan Intelligence Committee. They issued a report confirming donald tRump colluded with Russia.
YOU not. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))
That is just "somebody-somebody saying something-something" YOU DO NOT like -- that is "NON facts".
But IF that "somebody-somebody said something-something" that you DO like. Or was teached to like by Propaganda -- you like it, and call "facts".
Demonstrated... and proved, with facts of YOUR OWN behavior. With PRECISELY CORRECT quotes of YOUR OWN demn words... you will deny saying, in a jiffy of time.
Because, that is just how your "I believe in facts" works. ;-P
""
John Durham concludes FBI never should have launched full Trump ...
www.cnn.com › politics › john-durham-report-fbi-trump-released
Special counsel John Durham concluded that the FBI should never have launched a full investigation into connections between Donald Trump's ...
Durham report: FBI criticised by special counsel for Trump-Russia ...
www.bbc.com › world-us-canada-65602909
He concluded the FBI had not possessed evidence of collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia before launching an inquiry. The FBI ...
""
Qtard: //Qtard doesn't have access to any intel the US government has deemed classified.// And how'd you know?
So you do? In that case, may I have your real name and address? To report to Secret Services of USA -- to protect laws and security of USA -- to which I am dearly and lawfully entitled.
Qtard: You even do not believe that I am foreigner. So, if I am USAian -- why I cannot have "access to any intel the US government has deemed classified.
If you did you'd know that what you've been claiming about "classy markings" is BS.
Qtard: Well. I can. Actually. There is WikiLeaks. There is that Teisheira guy docs. And many-many others.
According to a White House Office of Management and Budget memo, "Any classification markings on the downloaded material should be retained. If such material is printed, however, it must be handled as a classified document and stored in a classified container".
Confirmation that classification markings are displayed on private servers. WikiLeaks didn't place any stolen documents on special government servers.
Qtard: ...because SUCH AN IDIOTS like you (or your idiot brother(twins?)), have had access to em, and allowed it to leak to the public, through PRIVATE servers or etc.
This is a completely fact-free allegation. My brother handled classified documents. He didn't leak anything.
Qtard: \\Are you calling Hillary Clinton a guy?\\ Stop trying looking EVEN MORE stooopid then you are.
You refer to your own stupidity. YOU wrote "that guy Tard... Turd... something did -- took classified document from government server... and put it on public one". We were discussing Hillary Clinton. donald tRump only took hard copies. He didn't do anything involving servers.
Qtard: Or well, no, continue-continue.
I can't "continue" something I've never done. Unlike YOU. :-)))))))))))))))))))
Qtard: Covering lawbreakers and insurectionists? ;-P
YOU cover for insurrectionists. Keep insisting that J6 rioters were exercising their "human right" to overthrow democracy. I can't cover up for lawbreaking that occurred in Qtard's delusions. That lawbreaking never happened.
Qtard: HOW that Germans was ... just was chanting "Hail, Hitler". THAT is MERE WORDS!!! NOT ACTIONS!!
It wasn't either. It never happened. No Germans (while Hitler was in power) chanted "Hail, Hitler". It's "heil" not "hail". Idiot.
Qtard: Yes, Derpy? That is the way you'd be advocating Nazis? You, my little dumbass totalitarian wannabe.
No. I have never advocated Nazism. I'm not a tRump supporter.
Qtard: WORDS -- are MOST DEADLY weapon.
My words... "donald tRump MUST receive a fair trial" aren't deadly. Will not cause donald tRump's death. If convicted he will go to prison, not receive the death penalty.
Qtard: Especially when used by idiots. Or to incite idiots.
Qtard would like it very much if idiots were incited into violence. Like on January 6th. No doubt Qtard wants to see more violence committed by the supporters of donald tRump.
Qtard: There is Natural Human Right -- to decide for themself.
False. It isn't their "right" to decide to overthrow the government because they're sore losers.
Qtard: Natural rights and legal rights...
Quoting without understanding. Proven by your bashing of John Locke as "Locke(d brain)".
\\Counter-revolution. Though it would be to OPPOSE the totalitarian revolution you desire.\\ That is what totalitarians and nazis doing -- to thwart true and open desire of people of all World -- desire of Freedom and Self-governance.
Which I strongly support and Qtard opposes.
Qtard: Like they are first one... or last one, of revolutioners who was arrested... Yawn.
Qtard yawns to express disappointment? Disappointment that democracy in America wasn't overthown, yes?
Qtard: //All revolutionaries are not the same. It depends on what their goals are.// Yap-yap-yap. ... Aha! So... Communists was "just revolitioners"?
According to Qtard. Is it not the revolutioners human right to decide if they want Communism?
Qtard: \\"[Locke] uses a theory of natural rights to argue that ... citizens ... can [overthrow the government] under certain circumstances.\\ That is just that Loke-dude thought.
No. That is what Locke thought. I never brought up anyone named "Loke". IDK who that is.
Qtard: Thoughts -- they are not facts. Not Laws of Nature either.
Qtard's insistence that "right of revolution" is for any reason at all -- that is just what Qtard thinks. NOT a fact. Or a theory, which is what the idea of "human rights" and "right of revolution" actually are. Theories.
Natural law is an ethical theory that claims that humans are born with a certain moral compass that guides behaviors. These inherited rules essentially distinguish the "rights" and "wrongs" in life. Under natural law, everyone is afforded the same rights, such as the right to live and the right to happiness.
Qtard: \\Qtard: ...Or right of water to be wet.\\Those aren't "rights", those are characteristics.\\Yap. That is a characteristic of Human -- to be Free.
Slavery doesn't exist? Slavery has never existed?
Qtard: \\The king of England wasn't democratically elected. Joe Biden WAS.\\ So what??? King was "elected" in all accordance with laws. And even blessed by Church.
No. Why you place quotes around "elected". The king of England is NOT elected.
Qtard: \\You don't know who John Locke is. Proof that you are clueless when it comes to the topic of human rights.\\:-)))))))))))))
Laughter of an uninformed idiot.
Qtard: \\The "right of revolution" is CONDITIONAL.\\ That is... just a propaganda.\\ It isn't. As per Locke. Someone you obviously have never heard of. Despite the fact that "Locke pioneered the ideas of natural law, social contract, religious toleration, and the right to revolution..."\\ So what??? :-))))))))))))))
"So what" isn't a rebuttal. "So what" isn't a logical argument. As per your own rules. You didn't use the word "because".
Qtard: So... what's the point to revere that Locke? He pointed to the FACT of Reality -- good for him. That means that he is NOT that relentless idiot as you are. But, so what??? Does it change Reality itself, somehow???
According to Locke, if a government persecutes its people with "a long train of abuses" over an extended period, the people have the right to resist that government, alter or abolish it, and create a new political system. There was no "long train of abuses" suffered by the J6 rioters. They were simply unhappy that their candidate lost. So, as per Locke, they had no "right of revolution".
I agree with Locke. So I am a "relentless idiot" while Locke is not?
Qtard: \\...the government they were trying to overthrow was NOT acting against their interests.\\ With this... you AGAIN showing -- that you DENY (well, trying to) them their right to decide for themself.
So what? If you can use "so what" to rebut me, why can't I use it to rebut you? In any case, I didn't deny them the deciding. They decided. And were arrested, tried and sentenced.
Qtard: WHO can decide if it in or "against their interests"? ONLY PEOPLE THEMSELF!!!
So, according to you, revolution is allowable (as a human right) for any reason whatsoever. If "people themself" decide it isn't "in their interests" to accept the results of a democratic election, they can revolt. There doesn't have to be (as per Locke) any persecution by the government. At all. There doesn't need to be (as per Locke) "a long train of abuses over an extended period".
I'm sticking with Locke and rejecting the Qtard theory of "right of revolution". Even though you capped "ONLY PEOPLE THEMSELF". That failed to convince me that sore losers can revolt just because they decided (for themselves) that they didn't like the results of an election.
Qtard: \\Qtard: That is DIFFERENCE between NATURAL LAWS... and miserly Human Invented ones.\\ You don't know what you're talking about.\\ Pft! :-))))))))))))))))))
"Pft" is my reaction to Qtard saying John Locke has a "Locke(d brain)". "Qtard has it right. John Locke was wrong"... is a conclusion I'm never going to reach.
Qtard: \\...you don't give a crap that the J6 insurrectionists violated the RIGHTS of the US citizens who voted for Joe Biden. By trying to invalidate their votes.\\ Nobody is perfect...
I don't give a crap about the J6 rioters sore loserness. They broke the law and were justifiably punished. They had no "right of revolution". As per Locke.
\\So you do? In that case, may I have your real name and address? To report to Secret Services of USA -- to protect laws and security of USA -- to which I am dearly and lawfully entitled.
Joseph Robinette Biden, Washington DC, White House. ;-P
\\If you did you'd know that what you've been claiming about "classy markings" is BS.
And it is BS, because? ;-P
Go, elaborate it.
Because there is NO logical connection between being USAian... and knowing what classified documents security system is about.
That's why your quote above -- is NOT logically sound explanation... of any sound statment at all.
It's just gibberish non-sense. ;-P
\\According to a White House Office of Management and Budget memo, "Any classification markings on the downloaded material should be retained. If such material is printed, however, it must be handled as a classified document and stored in a classified container".
YAP!
But... if we'd return to the BEGINNING of this topic.
WHO would add that classy markings to that materials??? which compilated by mere mortals in some regular text/word processing SW and delivered through PRIVATE server... NOT included into system of classified documents???
How that PRIVATE server... with REGULAR commercial or even opensource software WOULD KNOW anything about "classy markings"??? :-)))))))))))))))))))
That's it. There is NO way. And that was WHOLE point why HRC used it. ;-P
To thrug off all that security mumbo-jumbo of government security.
But quesion is -- was she ALLOWED to do so?
\\Confirmation that classification markings are displayed on private servers.
The same as on pen drive of a security tresspasser... or a spy. ;-P
So... when some dude in a cathacombs of KGB/FSB would skim through that documents -- it would not be a problem??? Cause classy markings is there? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\WikiLeaks didn't place any stolen documents on special government servers.
WTF??? :-))))))))))))
\\This is a completely fact-free allegation. My brother handled classified documents. He didn't leak anything.
Trully an idiot. ;-P
That was about PREVIOUSLY leaked out classified docs.
People like you (and your bro?) would allow to leak... because of own idiocy. Because, as you spelled it yourself, YOU DO NOT give a damn about what security requirments in regard to classified documents is about.
Like that guy Teisheira... that thought that taking some docs for himself, and showing em to some other guys on the net to brag about own importance is NO PROB... because "classy markings" still on that papers? And that might mean that all is Ok??? Or what?
I'm very interested in your explanation -- to reveal how idiot's brain works. ;-P
\\My brother handled classified documents. He didn't leak anything.
...YET! ;-P
\\Keep insisting that J6 rioters were exercising their "human right" to overthrow democracy.
Again. Democracy CANNOT be "overthrown"... as it is Rule of WE, the People.
HOW you can overthrow WE, the People???
It can only be succumbed by some populists and subverted by totalitarians wannabe. ;-P
\\My words... "donald tRump MUST receive a fair trial" aren't deadly. Will not cause donald tRump's death. If convicted he will go to prison, not receive the death penalty.
Aha... the same as that Epstain, yes??? :-)))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: There is Natural Human Right -- to decide for themself.
\\False. It isn't their "right" to decide to overthrow the government because they're sore losers.
See... you keep dening people their Natural Human Rights. ;-P
\\\\desire of Freedom and Self-governance.
\\Which I strongly support and Qtard opposes.
HOW???
YOU denying people right to decide for themself. I -- trying to beat some smarts into you -- that that is utterly ANTI-democratic and NON-humane thing to demand of humans. ;-P
\\Qtard yawns to express disappointment? Disappointment that democracy in America wasn't overthown, yes?
yawn
/jɔːn/
verb
involuntarily open one's mouth wide and inhale deeply, typically on account of tiredness or boredom.
\\Communists was "just revolitioners"?
\\According to Qtard. Is it not the revolutioners human right to decide if they want Communism?
Pin-pon! Pin-pon! Question classy markings there. ;-P
\\Qtard's insistence that "right of revolution" is for any reason at all -- that is just what Qtard thinks. NOT a fact. Or a theory, which is what the idea of "human rights" and "right of revolution" actually are. Theories.
Yawn.
Historical FACTS.
Like your USA Revolution and War for Independence.
Great French Revolution.
And many-many other.
And well... that is how totalitarians of the World try to spin it -- that that was NOT facts, that there is NO natural human rights and etc.
Like liliPut and liliXi doing today.
And you are in one box with them... my little idiotic totalitarian wannabe. ;-P
\\Slavery doesn't exist? Slavery has never existed?
Yap.
"Clever argument" totalitarian would make.
Yawn.
\\"So what" isn't a rebuttal. "So what" isn't a logical argument. As per your own rules. You didn't use the word "because".
Rebuttal to what??? Was you making some logical claim?
Yawn.
\\I agree with Locke. So I am a "relentless idiot" while Locke is not?
That is YOUR judgment. Not his. He, cannot judge anything anymore.
Your Captain Obvious. ;-P
\\In any case, I didn't deny them the deciding.
You said "I *DO* deny..." and THAT IS statment of denial. ;-P
Your Captain Obvious.
But... you can change your mind, of course.
Just say -- "it was mistake. I made a fool of myself when said that BS". ;-)
\\So, according to you, revolution is allowable (as a human right) for any reason whatsoever.
People's reasons. They are different. As different are people themself.
And I cannot walk in their shoes. Each and everyone of em. To know their reasons as they know em.
Your Captain Obvious, AGAIN.
\\If "people themself" decide it isn't "in their interests" to accept the results of a democratic election, they can revolt.
Yap.
Or that is what Captain Obvious would say. ;-P
\\There doesn't have to be (as per Locke) any persecution by the government. At all. There doesn't need to be (as per Locke) "a long train of abuses over an extended period".
What is "long train of abuses" anyway???
Who can decide? You? Or me? Total strangers.
Isn't it obvious -- that only people themself can decide -- what is abuse and what is not, to them?
Like people of color, like women, like gays and all other LGBTQ+++++ folk?
Are you colourful? Are you female? Or have some non-usual genitals or sex-drives? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\That failed to convince me that sore losers can revolt just because they decided (for themselves) that they didn't like the results of an election.
Yeah.
Because you are totalitarian wannabe.
Who wholeheartedly support totalitarian idea of "human rights" -- "people allowed only that rights, somebody else (explicitly?) granted to them". ;-P
I see a silent agreement of Derp with all what I said here. ;-P
"Derp" might be silently agreeing with you. I have no way of knowing. I am silently disagreeing.
btw, African Americans, women, gays and all other LGBTQ+ folk haven't tried to overthrow the government. Even though, yes, they have suffered a long train of abuses. The J6 rioters did not. They didn't decide that they had. They didn't like the election results. Even you AGREED that Joe Biden legitimately won the election.
\\I am silently disagreeing.
There is no such option. ;-P
Well... EXCEPT... if you are inhabitant of totalitarian country. Or... carrier of totalitarian ideals... itself. ;-P
Dodgy Derpy runned away ahain. :-)))))))))))))))
I am continuing to silently disagree. As is my RIGHT. I have never runned away ahain. I don't know what or where "ahain" is.
Google says AHAIN is the Affordable Housing Association of Indiana. I have never heard of AHAIN before. So, no, I did not run there.
So... you saying that you ARE dissident. From some totalitarian country.
Who have no other choise as to "silently disagree"?
I live in the United States. Does Qtard consider the United States to be a "totalitarian country"? Because donald tRump's plans to illegally retain the presidency failed?
Post a Comment