Saturday, May 27, 2023

Nobody is Buying the Democrat's Race Hustling Excuses for Failure Anymore...

"White Supremacy" is the official Democratic Party code for scapegoating "others/ non-minorities" because they can't govern for sh*t.


Heather Mac Donald, "Daniel Penny is a scapegoat for a failed system"
He violated the code that regular workers and taxpayers are an afterthought in public policy

Jordan Neely was given a hero’s funeral in Harlem last Friday, eulogized by New York’s most prominent race activists before an audience of the city’s Democratic elite. Neely died on May 1 on a New York City subway car, after being restrained by a Marine veteran who was trying to protect his fellow passengers from Neely’s psychotic outbursts.

Neely has been turned into a symbol of a racist system of law enforcement and of civilian values that exaggerate the threat of mentally ill vagrants to keep minorities down. Three weeks after Neely’s death, on May 21, another homeless man in New York City slammed a woman’s head into a subway car, likely paralyzing her for life, if she even survives. Neely’s champions have been silent about this latest subway assault.

All the pathologies afflicting American cities were present in that fatal encounter and its aftermath: the grotesque parody of compassion that is conventional homeless policy; government’s elevation of the supposed interests of the anti-social and dysfunctional over those of the law-abiding and hard-working; anti-white race-baiting and racial bathos.

But the May 1 confrontation between the ex-Marine Daniel Penny and the mentally ill Neely stands for more than failed policy. Reaction to Penny’s intervention illuminates as well the war on manly virtues and their attempted replacement with a dependence on bureaucrats and social workers.

Jordan Neely was a standard product of New York’s homelessness empire. A thirty-year-old schizophrenic drug addict, Neely had cut a swathe of destruction and fear through New York’s streets and subways for fifteen years. Despite his predilection for assaulting the elderly, he had been repeatedly allowed to skip out of treatment and jail. In 2019, Neely punched Filemon Castillo Baltazar in the head as the sixty-five-year-old waited for a subway in Greenwich Village. In June 2021, he walloped Anne Mitcheltree in the head inside a deli in the East Village; she was in her late sixties. In November 2021, Neely broke the nose and fractured the eye socket of a sixty-seven-year-old woman as she exited a subway on the Lower East Side.

These physical assaults were accompanied by a steady stream of disturbing behavior. In June 2019, for example, Neely banged on the door of a subway ticket agent’s booth and threatened to kill her.

None of these attacks landed Neely in long-term mental health confinement, even though, as a mentally ill chemical abuser (MICA), Neely was certain to attack again. Drug use sharply increases violence in the mentally ill, but Neely’s heavy use of the synthetic marijuana K-2 should have been particularly worrying to his social worker contacts. Due to its strength and powerful psychological effects, K-2 was even more likely to trigger violent outbreaks. No matter. His forty-two arrests produced at best brief jail stints and his hundreds of encounters with outreach workers always left him free to return to the streets.

It was not as if he had no alternatives. For decades, New York taxpayers have been obligated to pay for shelter on demand for anyone who claims homelessness. This annual multi-billion-dollar mandate comes courtesy of an activist judge who in 1981 declared such shelter a constitutional right. Single mothers get private apartments; adults without children in tow are guaranteed a shelter bed. If a sheltered vagrant accepts services, he too will become eligible for permanent subsidized housing.

But here is the brilliance of the system from a homeless advocate’s point of view: while vagrants have a right to shelter, they have no obligation to use it. They are free to continue colonizing public and private spaces if they prefer. Taxpayers, meanwhile, have no choice in whether they pay for the scorned shelter; it must always be available to the finicky homeless, whether it is accepted or not. Conferring such choice on street colonizers guarantees that the street population will remain “unhoused,” since the vast majority of that population prefers the street lifestyle of uninhibited drug use and bounteous handouts to even the most nonjudgmental, anything-goes shelter. And, most critically, that unhoused population provides lifetime employment for government bureaucrats and private social service providers.

An army of feckless “outreach workers” pads around after the vagrants, politely inquiring as to whether this time, they might deign to accept services and shelter. They almost always don’t. Neely was an inaugural member of the Top Fifty list, consisting of New York’s most intractable vagrants. The list, created in 2019, is monitored by a body known as the Coordinated Behavioral Health Task Force, with representatives from the city Departments of Health, of Homeless Services, and of Hospitals, as well as representatives from the archipelago of city-subsidized nonprofits. An encounter between task force members and Neely on April 8, 2023, shows just how ineffective this intergovernmental body is. Several outreach workers had come across Neely in a subway car at Coney Island, flashing his genitals and urinating on the floor. (April 8, in other words, was just another typical day in the city’s subway system.)

Neely had been AWOL since March from a treatment program to which he had been assigned after the November 2021 skull-bashing. There was a warrant out for his arrest, a particularly futile gesture since outreach workers don’t check for warrants as a philosophical matter and the police don’t either, since that would be “criminalizing homelessness.” Therefore, though the outreach workers had summoned the police to respond to Neely’s disorderly conduct, the officers simply let him go, having failed to discover the open warrant and ignoring his other infractions against public order.

One of the case worker’s follow-up notes embodies the system’s willed passivity: “Due to client’s [i.e., Neely’s] aggressive behavior, he could be a harm to others or himself if left untreated and not assessed by a mental health professional.” And yet leave Neely untreated is exactly what the case workers did. (The ubiquitous label “client” for vagrants is one of many fanciful aspects of the homelessness charade, treating a drug-addled lunatic as having the capacity to enter into a professional agency relationship.)

So it was that this walking time bomb got on the F line at the Lafayette and Broadway station in Manhattan’s SoHo, threw his jacket on the floor, and screamed that he was hungry, thirsty, and willing to die. One police source has reported that Neely was throwing things at passengers. The “freelance journalist,” as the press identifies him, who filmed the next steps in the incident has given several versions of Neely’s rant. “I don’t mind going to jail and getting life in prison. I’m ready to die,” goes one version. “I’m tired already. I don’t care if I go to jail and get locked up. I’m ready to die,” goes another. The Daily Mail reports a third version from another eyewitness: “I would kill a motherf***er. I don’t care. I’ll take a bullet. I’ll go to jail.”

Whatever the exact phraseology, the current claim that this tirade is anything but a clear warning signal of potential violence is absurd. Untreated MICA vagrants have been pushing people under and into subway trains for years, besides beating up on pedestrians and subway passengers. Neely’s echo of the “death by cop” gambit, whereby the mentally ill try to goad police officers into shooting them, was particularly ominous.

Most of the passengers on Neely’s car tried to get away from him, rightly believing that he posed a patent threat. Daniel Penny, however, put his arms around Neely from behind and took him down. At this point, the video begins. As Penny lay on the ground with a thrashing Neely on top of him, another man tried to grab hold of Neely’s wrists (demonstrating the difficulty of cuffing a resisting suspect, a reality always overlooked by the anti-police press).

Penny and his fellow Good Samaritan held Neely down for several minutes and then rolled him over on his side in a recovery position. The video does not suggest that Neely was in a chokehold during that entire time. (A chokehold applies pressure to the carotid arteries in the neck to induce temporary unconsciousness.) Rather, Penny appears to be restraining Neely with a bear hug until the police can arrive.

New York’s medical examiner ruled that Neely died from compression of the neck. But because Neely’s autopsy report has not been released, it is impossible to know whether drug intoxication, exacerbating stress on the heart, or other complicating factors may have contributed to Neely’s death.

The most striking aspect of the video is how impassive Penny is. Nothing suggests that he was motivated by animus or that he wanted to inflict damage, much less lethal damage, on Neely. Nevertheless, as soon as the video became public, a glad cry must have gone out at the headquarters of Race-Baiting, Inc.: Penny was white, and Neely was black! Therefore, white supremacy killed Neely, just as it has allegedly killed so many other black homicide victims. (Never mind that Penny’s assistant throughout the ordeal was black.)

A New York state senator called Neely’s death a “lynching.” Yusef Salaam, a New York City Council candidate, announced at Neely’s funeral that the public had “witnessed the lynching, a lynching, a lynching in the public square, a lynching of a Black man who was never given a chance by the system that was designed to keep him oppressed.” (Salaam was one of five teenagers accused of brutally assaulting and raping a jogger during a nocturnal reign of terror in New York’s Central Park in 1989; Salaam and his fellow marauders’ rape convictions were overturned in 2002.) The fact that Penny was not immediately arrested and indicted showed the “systemic racism that robs us of our basic humanity in life and death,” according to the speaker of the New York City Council. New York Mayor Eric Adams echoed Barack Obama’s statement that if Obama had had a son, that son would have looked like Trayvon Martin (the Florida teenager fatally shot by George Zimmerman in 2012). Adams noted that his son was also named Jordan and that Neely was “black like me,” facts of dubious relevance to the case. “No family should have to suffer a loss like this,” Adams added. “And too many black and brown families bear the brunt of a system long overdue for reform.”

A second social pathology killed Neely, according to race activists and Democratic politicians: individual and collective lack of compassion towards the homeless. That lack of compassion was also motivated by racism.

Karim Walker, an “outreach specialist” with the left-wing advocacy group, the Urban Justice Center, complained that “there was no empathy on that train car.” (Walker means empathy for Neely, as opposed to empathy for the terrified passengers facing real physical risk.) “Lack of empathy” became a favorite phrase of the anarchists and activists who shut down and defaced the F subway line. Roxane Gay, an endowed professor of media, culture, and feminist studies at Rutgers University, sniffed in a New York Times op-ed that the passengers on that car “prioritized their own discomfort and anxiety over Mr. Neely’s distress.” Gay provided no examples of how she had intervened in the past to help similar MICA patients in distress.

Penny’s critics were certain that Neely posed no threat. “It became very clear that he was not going to cause harm to these other people,” New York Governor Kathy Hochul said. How Hochul had gained such psychological expertise from the safety of her chauffeured SUV was unclear.

Neely was just another subway “passenger.” “Passengers are not supposed to die on the floor of our subways,” Neely’s family said, speaking through their lawyers. (Neely was 100 percent likely a fare beater and not a paying passenger.) Saying that subway passengers are not supposed to die is like saying that pedestrians are not supposed to die crossing the street, after one of them has run into oncoming traffic in the dark. Context is all.

Penny’s detractors romanticized an earlier phase of Neely’s subway intrusions. Neely used to beg for money on the subways by imitating Michael Jackson. The New York Times called him a “gifted Michael Jackson impersonator who captivated commuters with his fluent moonwalking.” Perhaps Times reporters are captivated by illegal subway “performers,” but many riders experience their barely veiled extortion as a lesser degree of assault.

The race avengers offered intervention scenarios that have probably never once been implemented over the course of billions of passenger rides. “Passengers should have asked Neely, ‘What’s wrong? How can I help you?,’” Neely’s family suggested. “No one said, ‘Here, sir: Let me meet your need.’” Like Roxane Gay, Neely’s family provided no examples of how they have implemented that strategy. An assistant professor of social work lamented that “had someone simply offered the homeless man a bottle of water or a snack, he might have been able to calm down, re-engage his rational brain and would still be alive today.” And if this offering of treats does not work? This social work professor does not say. She also, like Roxane Gay, gives no examples of how she has used her treat strategy.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg eventually charged Penny with the felony of second-degree manslaughter, which is defined in the New York State penal code as “recklessly causing the death of another person” — i.e., acting in a manner that created a high risk of death though not intentionally killing someone. (To date, Bragg has not charged Penny’s black assistant with a crime.) Penny will argue that his use of force was justified, since he “reasonably believed” that Neely was about to use unlawful force.

The most astonishing aspect of the left’s narrative is not the tired racism conceit. The most astonishing claim is that it was Penny who lacked compassion and not the engineers of a status quo that left Neely free to decompose on the streets. We are supposed to believe that a system that has hundreds of contacts with a mentally ill vagrant and that allows him to continue his destructive lifestyle is caring.

This status quo is the result of two upheavals in social policy, one regarding mental illness, the other regarding the proper focus of government. Civil libertarian Thomas Szasz argued in the 1960s that mental illness was an arbitrary concept designed to snuff out nonconformity to bourgeois norms of behavior. While Szasz’s deconstruction of the distinction between sanity and insanity was not widely embraced to its full radical extent, he did succeed in making the standard for long-term involuntary commitment nearly impossible to meet. Mental institutions were shut down and their inhabitants released to “the community,” a movement aided by those facilities’ high cost and sometimes inhumane conditions. But the cost savings from deinstitutionalization were illusory, easily dwarfed by the costs of crime from untreated MICAs, the destruction of usable public space, the loss of urban vitality, the economic burden on businesses whose customers and employees were unwilling to navigate the vagrant gauntlet, and the growth of the homelessness bureaucracy. All this for the privilege of walking around with feces in one’s pants, while raving at demons.

The deinstitutionalization movement could not have continued in the face of its patent failures, however, without a more profound recalibration in public policy: the rights revolution. Starting in the 1960s, government’s focus shifted from serving the law-abiding to vindicating the newly conceived rights of the dysfunctional and the anti-social. Thousands of self-appointed advocates purport to represent these new constituencies, who are not even aware that they are being represented or by whom. The advocates’ ideological counterparts in government agencies are only too happy to recognize these carpetbaggers as the legitimate agents of vagrants, the mentally ill, criminals, illegal immigrants, or any number of new victim groups, because the advocates can be counted on to press for expanded government services and spending, thus increasing the bureaucrats’ empire.

Meanwhile, hardworking taxpayers are treated simply as ATMs for funding the rights revolution. No once advocates for their interests. They are expected to silently tolerate whatever discomfort or danger that the rights revolution spawns.

The desire for urban cleanliness, order and safety — all are now understood as petty hang-ups of the overprivileged. Indeed, progressive residents of vagrant-heavy neighborhoods tout their compassion in stepping around comatose drug addicts without raising a political outcry.

The idea that there is a right to colonize city streets would have been unthinkable for most of the twentieth century. Public space existed to enable commerce and the activities of civil society; government existed to protect those functions. Police officers moved derelicts along, rather than allowing them to use sidewalks and business premises as toilets and shooting galleries. This no-colonization rule served as a deterrent to adopting a street lifestyle. When people did slide into social disaffiliation and dysfunction, Skid rows offered cheap single room occupancy housing, now priced out of existence due to the advocates’ unmeetable demands for improvements like private baths and kitchens.

That world of unapologetically enforced public order is gone. Nevertheless, the first time that an unconfined lunatic pushed a commuter under or into a subway car, the official enablement of untreated mental illness should have ended. Yet nothing changed, so strong is the idea that it is the alleged rights of the “homeless” that should guide public policy, not the rights and interests of normal working people.

When government abdicates its responsibility to maintain public safety, a few citizens, for now at least, will step into the breach. Penny was one of them. He restrained Neely not out of racism or malice but to protect his fellow passengers. He was showing classically male virtues: chivalry, courage and initiative. Male heroism threatens the entitlement state by providing an example of self-reliance apart from the professional helper class. And for that reason, he must be taken down.

A homicide charge is the most efficient way to discourage such initiative in the future. Stigma is another. The mainstream media has characterized the millions of dollars in donations that have poured into Daniel Penny’s legal defense fund as the mark of ignorant bigots who support militaristic white vigilantes.

But just to be on the safe side, the New York Times provided a how-to guide on “How to Respond to a Stranger in Mental Distress” that negates everything that Penny did and stands for.

The first rule of response: run from the threat. “If you are concerned for your safety, the best course of action is usually to leave the situation as soon as possible,” the Times advised its readers. “If you’re on the subway, for example, change cars, or get off and wait for the next train.” Many passengers already follow this rule, nervously biding their time between subway stops when a deranged vagrant gets on their car and then dashing down the platform at the next station to hop on the adjacent car.

The director of the Psychiatry, Law, and Society Program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital told the New York Times that after “walking away” from a threat, “calling for help is the most important thing you can do in those moments.” But there is no one to call inside a subway car and not enough police officers on subway platforms to provide aid at the next stop, given the volume of MICAs in the transit system. No police officers showed up for the duration of the Neely-Penny video, despite regular announcements in the station calling for their presence.

None of the Times experts so much as hinted at trying to protect one’s fellow passengers. If the male instinct to help others is once and for all criminalized and snuffed out, the degree of predation as the government continues to side with the antisocial against the social will reach epic dimensions.

The idea that Neely’s race-baiting exploiters care about black lives is as ludicrous as the idea that the homelessness status quo that Penny disrupted was compassionate. On May 10, a sixteen-year-old girl was shot in the head at a playground in the New York City borough of Queens. Claudia Quaatey had just gotten into a fight with other girls; as she sat in an SUV, three gunmen approached and fired off multiple rounds. They fled and are still at large.

At Neely’s funeral, no one said a word about Quaatey, who was on life support in a Queens hospital. No one urged witnesses to come forward to help the police solve the shooting.

Quaatey died three days later, on May 22. Still not a word about black lives mattering. The reason for that silence is that her killers are very likely black. She is thus of no value in furthering the anti-white narrative. No dignitaries will show up at her funeral. Al Sharpton will not deliver her eulogy.

Contrary to the anti-white narrative, white on black homicides are almost nonexistent. Blacks commit 87 percent of all non-lethal interracial violence between blacks and whites and whites and blacks; blacks are roughly thirty-five times more likely to commit violent offenses against whites than whites are to commit violent offenses against blacks.

Existing while black is more dangerous than existing while white, but not because of white supremacy. In the first eighteen months of the pandemic, black juveniles were shot at 100 times the rate of white juveniles. (That shooting spike began only after the George Floyd race riots.) Had any of those black juvenile gun victims been shot or killed by whites, we would have heard about it. Instead, the rule for deciphering crime reporting is as follows: if the race of a crime suspect is not provided, the suspect is black. That rule applies when the victim is black and even more so when the victim is white.

If a crime suspect is white, however, that fact will usually be reported and it will always be the lead in any story in the rare instance when the victim is black.

Sharpton’s funeral oration summed up the hypocrisy of the racial bathos surrounding Neely’s death. “When they choked Jordan, they put their arms around all of us,” Sharpton announced. “All of us have the right to live.” A Good Samaritan helps those in trouble, Sharpton said. “They don’t choke them.” Penny, in other words, stands for the entirety of a white supremacist system — a “they” that chokes a victim “we.”

To the extent that Sharpton and the attendees who gave him a standing ovation frequent New York’s business districts and its transit system, they walk by untreated MICAs on a daily basis. There is no record of Sharpton “helping those in trouble.” The passengers on Penny’s subway car were potentially in as much trouble as Neely was.

The brutal subway pushing on May 21 is just the latest proof of that danger: the suspect grabbed the head of 35-year-old Emine Ozsoy in both hands and slammed her into a moving subway car at the Lexington and 63rd Street station in Manhattan. Ozsoy was instantly paralyzed. She also had “the right to live,” in Sharpton’s words. (The suspect’s attorney has demanded that he be freed on bail, like Penny who committed “even . . . the most heinous of crimes.”)

Penny violated the code that regular workers and taxpayers are an afterthought in public policy. For that he must be made a scapegoat for a homelessness system that treats both its purported beneficiaries and the scorned bourgeoisie with callous indifference.

53 comments:

  1. Scapegoat? He killed someone.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Liberal policies and NYC bureaucrats killed Jordan Neely through dereliction of duty. They aided and abetted his untimely death through their ignorant policies, misguided compassion and rejection of reality.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Read George Orwell's "The Spike". Or better, read Marvin Olasky's "Tragedy of American Compassion".

    ReplyDelete
  4. “Due to client’s [i.e., Neely’s] aggressive behavior, he could be a harm to others or himself if left untreated and not assessed by a mental health professional.”

    So. Where were your "professionals"?

    ReplyDelete
  5. The summary says it all... "Penny violated the code that regular workers and taxpayers are an afterthought in public policy. For that he must be made a scapegoat for a homelessness system that treats both its purported beneficiaries and the scorned bourgeoisie with callous indifference."

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Liberal policies" did not force Penny to commit murder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whatever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?" Oh wait, that only applies to left wing extremists who bow down to the Chinese Communist Party of Amerika, the party of Dervish Sanders.

      Delete
  7. Oh... how glad I am, to not be involved in your inner political affairs. ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  8. Democrat cities have become the wild wild West for crime.

    ReplyDelete
  9. ...only the police disarm the inncocent so that the criminals can more easily rob and mug them.

    ReplyDelete
  10. NY is not an open carry state. If the police disarm you in NY it is because you are in violation of the law. aka not innocent. And murder is not "defending yourself".

    "...not be involved in your inner political affairs"... But you are involved in discussions about them. Despite earlier moronic denials.

    ReplyDelete
  11. \\"...not be involved in your inner political affairs"... But you are involved in discussions about them. Despite earlier moronic denials.

    Dare to explain? Why that matter? ;-P

    Becsause, as I stated -- and yoiu never disproved -- that COULD matter ONLY in totalitarian state/system.

    So, are you totalitarian wannabe, so you repeat mentioning that BS??? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    It seems like truer and truer... with each time you sai that "but you are involved in discussions". ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  12. Qtard: Because, as I stated -- and yoiu never disproved -- that COULD matter ONLY in totalitarian state/system.

    WTF? I never attempted to disprove this. I never said you could not comment if that was your desire. YOU invented "primal scream" from me telling you to "go away". I did suggest that you go away, but it was so you could avoid "involvement".

    Originally you claimed you were not involved in US "inner political affairs" in any way. Nor did you want to be. So I pointed out the FACT that you are involved in discussions about US politics. And, if your desire was no involvement, you should stop commenting. Later (realizing the stupidity of your original "no involvement claim?) you sneakily changed it to "political involvement" (voting or making political contributions).

    I never claimed "political involvement", but you lied and said that is what I meant. Which would be stupid. IF you are a foreigner (as you claim). Obviously you cannot vote in US elections. You also lied and said my suggestion that you go away was a demand. And that I was "screaming" this demand. Because (I guess?) this stupidity supports your false "totalitarian wannabe" accusation.

    Qtard: So, are you totalitarian wannabe ... It seems like truer and truer.

    It was false when you first asserted this bullshit. It remains false. I strongly support democracy. Unlike you. YOU stand with Putin in your support for the J6 riotor's insurrection. Which means YOU are a "totalitarian wannabe" (a logical assessment of someone who supports overturning the results of a non-corrupt democratic election).

    ReplyDelete
  13. 2020 was a totally corrupt election. The most corrupt in American history.

    ReplyDelete
  14. ...because of donald tRump's attempts to cheat and steal it. Though he (fortunately failed.

    btw, if "nobody is buying the Democrat's race hustling excuses for failure anymore" why didn't NY voters elect Republicans to run their city when they had the chance? Are they going to do that in the next NY election? NY is going to flip from Democrat to Republican?

    Google: Is New York City a Democratic City? [answer] Due almost entirely to the Democrats' near-total dominance at the local level, the Democrats have held a majority of the state's congressional seats since the late 1950s.

    ReplyDelete
  15. \\2020 was a totally corrupt election. The most corrupt in American history.

    ;-P
    Believe me... there's lots of space where to grow. ;-)




    \\Google: Is New York City a Democratic City?

    Innigrants.

    Your Captain Obvious.

    No need to thank.




    \\I did suggest that you go away, but it was so you could avoid "involvement".

    Involvment YOU declared *I* need to have.
    Political one. Though you with stubborness of u.u.r.b. keep trying to gaslight me. With your DIRECT denial. To my "I am NOT involved politically" YOU answered "NO, you ARE!!!". And more then that -- you KEEP repeating, EVEN after a lot of discussions and explanations provided. From MY side. From YOUR side -- only empty babblings and baseless claims.




    \\Originally you claimed you were not involved in US "inner political affairs" in any way. Nor did you want to be.

    Pin-pon! Pin-pon!

    Incorrect citation. I never have declared that I don't want... only that there is NO REASON for me to be involved.

    There's no reasons. Therefore there's no need. Therefore there's no desire. Threrefore there's no way of how *I*... CAN be involved.

    Or... you have all freedom and time of the World to formulate -- HOW it not true??? ;-P

    Nota bene: Merely talking on the internet -- cannot be counted as "involvment". Because USA is a country of freedom, democracy and Human Rights. Freedom of Speach, remember? ;-P




    \\I never claimed "political involvement", but you lied and said that is what I meant.

    I claimed.

    To which you blurted your "but you are involved".

    And since then trying to push that envelope in dull tryes to rewrite history and infuse some non-factual, not correct meanings...

    Well... usual for Demns. ;-P




    \\And, if your desire was no involvement, you should stop commenting.

    That is -- false dichotomy.

    And claim fitting of ones with totalitarian mind. To what *I* have pointed right away.

    "If you not (propmptly and explicitly) allowed -- you CANNOT do it. Anything" -- that is unwritten rule of any despotic, authoritarian, totalitarian country/system. ;-P

    Dare to disprove it? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    Naah.

    Unsurprisingly -- you never attack such my explanations. Only trying to repeat your baseless claims. Idiotic tactics. But well... you are. Isn't it?

    Is it possible that you are not that idiot -- and doing that because you understand futility of opposing to such an obviously true things???

    But well... why you repeating your pointlessly false missives then???

    All is strange and stranger only.


    ReplyDelete
  16. ...


    All is strange and stranger only.



    \\Because (I guess?) this stupidity supports your false "totalitarian wannabe" accusation.

    See!

    Like here.

    WHY you do not disprove my "false "totalitarian wannabe" accusation."???

    Go say (with facts and logical explanation) that totalitarians DO NOT behave as I have said. That they do not oppress and do not thwart people's rights and freedoms???

    First under disguise of shaming compaigns ("only bad people saying such things"), then instilling it in law ("we need to make a law, to forbid people to say such a bad things"), then... death camps smokes start fuming, because("bad people... need to be... exterminated!"). ;-P




    \\I strongly support democracy.

    You showed *how* you "support democracy" many times already.

    Like with.

    Denying right for a honest trial.

    Denying Freedom of Speach.

    Denying Human Rights.

    And etc, etc, etc.




    \\Unlike you. YOU stand with Putin in your support for the J6 riotor's insurrection.

    Quotes???! Quotes???! Quotes???! ;-P

    WHERE is ANY facts you based this your claim ON????

    None. ;-P

    Cause you are u.u.r.b.

    Who think that facts that is something you can like or dislike, and on that base produce any BS and call it fact. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))




    \\ (a logical assessment of someone who supports overturning the results of a non-corrupt democratic election).

    O-o-o-ohhh!

    Something resembling an EXPLANATION. :-)))))))))))))))))

    But naah... it is not one.

    Adding "smart words" like "logical assesment" -- do not make it logical inference.

    You MUST SHOW -- HOW, by which logical proposition it can be made true.

    Well... yawn... your Demns was ALL PRO supporters of "overturning the results" of 2016 elections. ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  17. Qtard: \\2020 was a totally corrupt election. The most corrupt in American history.\\ Believe me... there's lots of space where to grow.

    Indeed. republiturds will continue to try to steal elections.

    Qtard: Google: Is New York City a Democratic City? Innigrants. Your Captain Obvious.

    I was responding to what Minus said. If "nobody is buying" Democratic rule in NY, it sounds to me like he thinks NY is going to flip to republican. Sounds to me like you agree. Though you frame your agreement as an insult for some reason...

    Qtard: Involvment YOU declared *I* need to have. Political one. Though you with stubborness of u.u.r.b. keep trying to gaslight me.

    Huh? Why would you "need to have"? Why would I "declare" this? WHEN did I declare this? You are trying to gaslight me. None of this ever happened.

    Qtard: With your DIRECT denial. To my "I am NOT involved politically" YOU answered "NO, you ARE!!!".

    Citation? There isn't one. Because I never wrote any such answer.

    Qtard: There's no reasons. Therefore there's no need. Therefore there's no desire. Threrefore there's no way of how *I*... CAN be involved.

    Your "no desire" is a lie. You wouldn't be commenting here is that was the case. Instead you involve yourself with your authorship of MANY comments.

    Qtard: Merely talking on the internet -- cannot be counted as "involvment".

    You voicing your opinion is definitely involvement. How could it not be?

    Qtard: \\if your desire was no involvement, you should stop commenting.\\ That is -- false dichotomy. And claim fitting of ones with totalitarian mind. To what *I* have pointed right away.

    I offered a suggestion in line with ultimate freedom. People should not have to comment on issues they have no interest in. Yet you continue to comment anyway. The logical conclusion is that you lie when you claim not to be interested. If you were not interested you would go away.

    Qtard: "If you not (propmptly and explicitly) allowed -- you CANNOT do it. Anything" -- that is unwritten rule of any despotic, authoritarian, totalitarian country/system. Dare to disprove it?

    Why the f*ck are you daring me to disprove this? I decline your dare. I never said you cannot comment on any blog you want to. Yet you continue with your BULLSHIT about me "demanding" that you not comment. In order to spin your 100% false "totalitarian wannabe" narrative. When YOU are the totalitarian wannabe. Proven by your support for the J6 insurrections' attempt to overthrow democracy.

    Qtard: ...because you understand futility of opposing to such an obviously true things??

    Your false accusations are not "true things".

    Qtard: Denying right for a honest trial. Denying Freedom of Speach. Denying Human Rights.

    I strongly and unequivocally support all these things. You are a f*cking liar to suggest otherwise.

    Qtard: Who think that facts that is something you can like or dislike, and on that base produce any BS and call it fact.

    No.

    Qtard: \\YOU stand with Putin in your support for the J6 riotor's insurrection.\\ Quotes???! Quotes???! Quotes???!

    BULLSHIT request. YOU KNOW what you've written. MANY comments about J6 rioters "right of revolution". You DENY making such comments?

    Qtard: Well... yawn... your Demns was ALL PRO supporters of "overturning the results" of 2016 elections.

    They never supported violence to accomplish this. And zero Democrats were tried and convicted for rioting at the Capitol following the results in January of 2017. And Hillary Clinton never asserted that the election results were invalid due to massive voter fraud. Fact is, it was donald tRump who alleged cheating in 2016, claiming that he actually won the popular vote.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Qtard: WHY you do not disprove my "false "totalitarian wannabe" accusation."???.

    WHY have you never disproved my accusation that Qtard is wanted by the police for raping many men?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why are you projecting your queer fantasies of Q raping men, Dervish? Your queer fixations have sunk to a new low from the pit of Hell. Keep adding that to your tab, Dervish. When nap time comes, if you haven't repented of your sins, it will be something you will regret for eternity.

      Delete
  19. \\Though you frame your agreement as an insult for some reason...

    What can I say here?

    In result of your inner political brawls your perception became scewed.
    So you unable to recognise neutral factual remark as anything else but "insult(s)... for some reason".

    That's all the problem here. Yawn.



    \\None of this ever happened.

    I provided all needed quotes and explanmations many times already...



    \\You voicing your opinion is definitely involvement. How could it not be?

    And that just after I declared and elaborated why I inclined to NOT voice my opinions... about USA politics... here. :-)))))))))))))))))))))

    You still trying to keep pushing that envelope (or, I using this idiom incorrectly??? hard to grasp???)



    \\I offered a suggestion in line with ultimate freedom. People should not have to comment on issues they have no interest in.

    It's NOT up to you to decide. What other people may/can/could/might/must/should and/or ought to do.

    Cause. Other people are just part of Objective Reality. One, to which nobody of us have right to govern, or prescribe how it should be.

    I, for example... do not suggest you to stop showing how much you are behaving as an idiot -- I recognize YOUR Undispensable Human Right -- to be idiot. ;-P



    \\The logical conclusion is that you lie when you claim not to be interested. If you were not interested you would go away.

    Please. Give FULL expanded inference. (if you can... but you cannot... because... you know ;-))

    Because here you gave only ONE of premices "If you were not interested you would go away." -- questionable for the very least.
    And. Immediately gave conclusion "you lie when you claim not to be interested."

    That is... obviously DO NOT LOOK like "logical conclusion" AT ALL.

    That is just your whimsical BS "suggstion". Again. As always. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))



    \\Why the f*ck are you daring me to disprove this?

    Because.

    That would be logical.

    And would be CORRECT way of discussing things.

    I stated my hypothesis. And based it on fcts and certain logical constructuons.

    You... want to rebuff that hypothesis. And that can be done, in a correct rational logical way -- Either by showing that facts was cited incorrectly OR by showing that logical construction stated was somehow flawed.

    As we already confirmed many times -- my facts are sound.

    So... only one way remains for you -- to show that my logical construction are flawed.

    That's it. That is just the way the cookie crumbles. :-))))))))))))))))))))



    \\ I never said you cannot comment on any blog you want to.

    But... you said "go away". Many times already. Here. ;-P

    ReplyDelete


  20. \\In order to spin your 100% false "totalitarian wannabe" narrative. When YOU are the totalitarian wannabe. Proven by your support for the J6 insurrections' attempt to overthrow democracy.

    Thank you for giving perfect example of "totalitarian wannabe narrative" you as totalitarian wannabe using. ;-P

    Cause, that is (one of) tactics of totalitarians -- to blame others commiting sins which they enjoy indulging itself in...
    like "when you lie, call em liars", "when you kill, call em killers" and etc.

    Visibly -- all the same what Putin doing, for example.



    \\Your false accusations are not "true things".

    And you can confirm this claim with logic and facts??? Naah. :-)))))))))))))))



    \\I strongly and unequivocally support all these things. You are a f*cking liar to suggest otherwise.

    On words. Only on words.

    SAME... as totalitarians DO. Like Putin that proclaim being "biggest Democrat... to which nobody of nowaday politics could be a match... only Gandhi, maybe... but he long like dead"...



    \\Qtard: Who think that facts that is something you can like or dislike, and on that base produce any BS and call it fact.

    \\No.

    Pfft!

    How can I trust that this your "No" are truthfull???

    You declared "I believe in facts". And NEVER dismissed that you false claim and false faith. ;-P

    And... I know from other sources, that "believers i facts" AKA Religious Nutters -- feel themself free to say "No", even if it UNtruthfull.

    So-o-o-o??? HOW can I trust you? ;-P




    \\Quotes???!

    \\BULLSHIT request.

    Quite contrary -- very honest and correct request.

    That's why you OPPOSE to it.

    Because it would only confirm that I am right and you are wrong.

    And you know it.

    That's why you are so grampy. :-)))))))))))))))))))



    \\YOU KNOW what you've written. MANY comments about J6 rioters "right of revolution". You DENY making such comments?

    Then... what's the problem to give ONE CORRECT quote then??? ;-P

    *I*. DO that all of the time. And you... trying to mimic me too. You started giving quotes of my words by my example. Even making em in bold. All of the time.

    So??? Why THAT is so HARD for you to find that one -- that would prove your point???

    Maybe... just maybe. Because there is NONE. ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  21. Qtard: ...your perception became scewed. So you unable to recognise neutral factual remark as anything else but "insult...".

    No skewing of perception. It is an insult (intended derogatorily), as per the definition... Captain Obvious: humorous, usually derogatory, sarcastic...

    Qtard: \\None of this ever happened.\\ I provided all needed quotes and explanations many times already.

    Your "explanmations" involves lying about what quotes you give mean. Your lie that I demanded that you "go away", for example. When I only helpfully suggested you go away. So as to avoid "involvement" you don't want. And to avoid boredom that comes with reading and commenting on subjects you have no interest in.

    Qtard: And that just after I declared and elaborated why I inclined to NOT voice my opinions... about USA politics... here.

    Bullshit. You are VERY inclined to voice your opinion. You only decline (and give obviously BS excuse about not being inclined) when you want to dodge addressing facts I present (because they prove you wrong).

    Qtard: It's NOT up to you to decide. What other people may/can/could/might/must/should and/or ought to do.

    LIE. I have never claimed it is up to me to decide.

    Qtard: I ... do not suggest you to stop showing how much you are behaving as an idiot -- I recognize YOUR Undispensable Human Right -- to be idiot.

    Thank you, but I decline to exercise this "right". Unlike you.

    Qtard: Please. Give FULL expanded inference. ...you cannot... because... you know...

    I do know why. Because your request makes no sense at all. People who aren't interested in a subject do NOT seek out message boards where they can discuss the subject they have no interest in endlessly. It's illogical.

    Qtard: \\Why the f*ck are you daring me to disprove this?\\ Because. That would be logical.

    It is completely illogical that I would acquiesce to your qtarded demand to disprove that despotic, authoritarian, totalitarian country/systems restrict rights. Including freedom of speech. Because they do. And your "argument" that you are on one side of this issue and I'm on the other -- is completely false. Why don't YOU disprove it?

    Qtard: only one way remains for you -- to show that my logical construction are flawed.

    They aren't flawed. They are nonexistent. You have never offered any "logical construction".

    Qtard: ...tactics of totalitarians -- to blame others commiting sins which they enjoy indulging itself in... like "when you lie, call em liars", "when you kill, call em killers"...

    That explains your constant lying while accusing me. But I have never killed anyone. Have you? I know you do delight in death. By covid (why you oppose vaccination) and by gunshot (why you oppose gun control laws).

    Qtard: Only on words. SAME... as totalitarians DO. Like Putin that proclaim being "biggest Democrat...

    Qtard is in favor of denying the right for a honest trial. Qtard is strongly opposed to freedom of speech. And Qtard absolutely wants to deny human rights. If he says otherwise it is ONLY WORDS. Qtard already confirmed that he and Putin feel the same way about the J6 insurrectionists. That the Biden administration is "persecuting" them. Also about democracy. Which is that both Qtard and Putin hate it.

    Qtard: You declared "I believe in facts". And NEVER dismissed that you false claim and false faith.

    LIE. I most definitely did dismiss YOUR false claim that I believe facts on faith. I believe facts based on evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Qtard: \\YOU KNOW what you've written. MANY comments about J6 rioters "right of revolution". You DENY making such comments?\\ Then... what's the problem to give ONE CORRECT quote then???

    Dodge. You KNOW you've made many such comments. So, instead of denying this FACT, you dodge by asking for "correct" quote.

    Anyway, I looked back a little ways and found one of the comments you made in support of the J6 rioters. You said here, "...you trying to deny people their right to revolt".

    Qtard: Because it would only confirm that I am right and you are wrong. And you know it. That's why you are so grampy.

    I do NOT "know it". Because I am right and YOU are wrong. PROVEN with correct quote above. One of many. Also, I am not "grampy". I have no grandchildren.

    ReplyDelete
  23. \\No skewing of perception.

    Well... from my POV.

    For you -- it would not look like that, of course.

    From you skewed POV that is MY perception, that is skewed. Like... that I, who are foreigner who not involved in your inner political affairs -- are NOT foreigner, but some USA citizen.. who only trying to pose as foreigner.

    Contre-factual and moronic... but, who cares? ;-P



    \\Your "explanmations" involves lying about what quotes you give mean. Your lie that I demanded that you "go away", for example. When I only helpfully suggested you go away.

    Yap.

    Thank you for that self-explanatory example. ;-P



    \\So as to avoid "involvement" you don't want.

    Yawn. Involvment YOU declared that I have.

    While that is obviously and undenyably not true. That's why you DO NOT trying even to disprove my reasons -- why I CANNOT be involved.

    And just keep pushing it again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again... your BS.

    And... as I am have no reason to be involved -- there is no reason for me to wanting or don't wanting "to be involved". Yawn.



    \\And to avoid boredom that comes with reading and commenting on subjects you have no interest in.

    It's up to me to decide -- what is boring and what not for me. And what to do with my boredom.

    But you... as totalitarian wannabe, just cannot help it -- and need to scratch that your totalitarian itch -- to suggest to people what that should/ought or must do. From your totalitarian wannabe POV. ;-P



    \\Bullshit. You are VERY inclined to voice your opinion. You only decline (and give obviously BS excuse about not being inclined) when you want to dodge addressing facts I present (because they prove you wrong).

    Yap.

    That is how it looks to you... in your totalitarian delusion state. Yawn.

    I provided DEFINITION of fact(from dictionary too) -- you ignoring it.

    I keep nagging you about need to be PRECISE and CORRECT with citations -- but you ignoring it.

    I try to teach you what CORRECT ways of discussing things are -- with logical inferences...

    Duh...

    But you just keep pounding that your baseless claims and citing of non-facts... that is somehow correct way of discussing...

    That is... pecular... to be so UNeducatable. ;-P



    \\LIE. I have never claimed it is up to me to decide.

    Whatever.

    Youy not declared. But you keep doing it.

    So, who cares about yopu declaring or not, anything???



    \\Thank you, but I decline to exercise this "right". Unlike you.

    Whatever.

    You declined. But you keep doing iy.

    So, who cares about yopu declining or not, anything???


    ReplyDelete



  24. \\People who aren't interested in a subject do NOT seek out message boards where they can discuss the subject they have no interest in endlessly. It's illogical.

    So... elaborate that ill logic... explicitly.

    But you CAN'T... becausew there is NO logic in your words what so ever.

    And you don't know what Logic is about.

    And just using words like "logic" or "evidance" or "facts" as some fancy rethorical oinment that SHOULD make your babbling looking more rational. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    EXACTLY... what Religious Bonker would do. ;-P




    \\It is completely illogical that I would acquiesce to your qtarded demand to disprove that despotic, authoritarian, totalitarian country/systems restrict rights.

    See... like here.

    And where is ANY logic in that "completely illogical"? None, nada, zilch. ;-P

    YOU -- feakingly UNABLE to explain yourself. Which is natural, for u.u.r.b.



    \\And your "argument" that you are on one side of this issue and I'm on the other -- is completely false. Why don't YOU disprove it?

    Well... you said "go away!". *I* -- DO NOT. That is clear and clean dichotomy. You keep trying to shuddup me, under bogus pretence of me "not wanting being involved". You are one who keep calling me liar -- while UNABLE to show EVEN ONE lie from my side(more than that, you keep confirming that my premice are true -- like here with definition of being totalitarian). Confirmed with logic ans facts, of course. Because, when you whimsically calling something a liar -- it do not make it so. You are not Gawd -- for your mere words to become reality. But, surely, you think that you have some godly rights/powers -- judging from your behavior here. ;-P



    \\They aren't flawed. They are nonexistent. You have never offered any "logical construction".

    And how'd you know??? :-)))))))))))))))

    You showed that you cannot distinguish facts from non-facts EVEN.

    So... how'd you know that something IS or NOT a logical construction???

    Do you know what syllogism is? ;-P

    Well... you showed that you are oblivious to what "notion" is EVEN.

    So, syllogisms are far too eraly for you.

    But.

    I'd like to see how'd you google for it... and what idiotic hilarity would ensure from it. :-))))))))))))))))))))




    \\That explains your constant lying while accusing me. But I have never killed anyone. Have you?

    Wadayatkng??? That was examples. Of totalitarian behavior.

    WHY you react to it... if you prefer to oppose to idea that you are one who are (from behavior showed) totalitarian wannabe?

    Unclean consciencness? ;-P



    \\I know you do delight in death. By covid (why you oppose vaccination) and by gunshot (why you oppose gun control laws).

    And you can confirm it with PROPER quotes of my words?

    Naah.... that is just a nasty totalitarian smearing og yours.

    That's like when Hitler declared that Jews have "delight in death"... and satiate it with eating christian newborns... which is absolutely preposterous lie -- BUT, is a pinnacle of totalitarian propaganda -- the bigger lie, the easier to sway people with it.

    YET ONE totalitarian trait. Confirmed!



    \\Qtard is in favor of denying the right for a honest trial. Qtard is strongly opposed to freedom of speech. And Qtard absolutely wants to deny human rights. If he says otherwise it is ONLY WORDS. Qtard already confirmed that he and Putin feel the same way about the J6 insurrectionists. That the Biden administration is "persecuting" them. Also about democracy. Which is that both Qtard and Putin hate it.

    Yap.

    Perfect example of totalitarian wannabe sprea of lies and baseless accusations...



    \\LIE. I most definitely did dismiss YOUR false claim that I believe facts on faith. I believe facts based on evidence.

    And *I* showed. With quotes from dictionary. That "evidance" is the same -- form of belief. ;-P


    ReplyDelete



  25. \\Dodge. You KNOW you've made many such comments. So, instead of denying this FACT, you dodge by asking for "correct" quote

    Well... *I*, showing it with PRECISELY CORRECT citations of your words all of the times.

    And *YOU* dodging it with... all such strawmaning, gaslighting, smearing and direct lies.

    And NOW... you trying to gaslight me into believing that I did something I did not with your miserly dodgy gaslighting "You KNOW you've made many such comments."

    Miserly... BACAUSE (see, an explanmation) IF there REALLY was that "many such comments" -- it dould be dead simple to you -- to find a suiting quote.

    That's why... that, that YOU don't doing it -- reveal all nastines and fleamsy teethlessness... of your miserly lies.

    Well... suiting Religious Bonker, as you are one. ;-P



    \\Anyway, I looked back a little ways and found one of the comments you made in support of the J6 rioters. You said here, "...you trying to deny people their right to revolt".

    Yap?

    And what is wrong with this comment?

    ONLY your (and Putin's) burning desire to thwart, to deny people their undeniable right -- to revolt against injustice... as they see it.

    Another word... that is problem ONLY for totalitarians... like YOU, and Putin.

    Well... Putin ARE real totalitarian - he can really excercise his powers.

    While you are just a miserly totalitarian wannnabe. ;-P

    That' why your are so sad and grumnpy.

    :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))



    \\Because I am right and YOU are wrong.

    Yes?

    And you are right... BECAUSE???

    Why you are right, exactly?

    What EXACTLY facts and logic can confirm that you are right??? None, nada, zilch.

    And NO amount of your screams "I am RIGHT!!!", "I PROVED!!", "YOU -- LYING!!!" can fix that. ;-P

    And you'd know it... if only you'd not be this hopeless Religious Bonker.

    But you are one -- that's why YOU'll never be able to crawl out of that tarpit of stupidity, you yourself swamped with your idiotic efforts... and will continue swamping. :-)))))))))))





    ReplyDelete
  26. Qtard: ONLY your (and Putin's) burning desire to thwart, to deny people their undeniable right -- to revolt against injustice... as they see it.

    That is total bullplop. Your (and Putin's) desire was that the J6 insurrection be successful. Because it was a revolt against democracy -- which both Qtard and Putin hate passionately.

    Qtard: And NO amount of your screams "I am RIGHT!!!", "I PROVED!!", "YOU -- LYING!!!" can fix that.

    I don't give a shit. Given that you are referring to imaginary screams that only you can hear.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Mystere (posting above as "Rattrapper"): Whatever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?"

    So, you consider Hunter Biden to be innocent? Because Hunter Biden has not been proven guilty of ANYTHING in a court of law? AMAZING, but this is something Mystere and I agree on.

    Unless he's lying. And what he really believes is that "innocent until proven guilty" only applies to rightturd extremists who bow down to their cult leader. the White Supremacist Orange Turd dotard donald tRump.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Qtard: Perfect example of totalitarian wannabe sprea of lies and baseless accusations...

    AGREED! Those were the accusations you made against me. And, YES, they were completely baseless when you made them. Proving that it is Qtard who is a totalitarian wannabe. Thank you for admitting that.

    ReplyDelete
  29. \\Your (and Putin's) desire was that the J6 insurrection be successful.

    And???

    You can support this your claim with ANY factual quote, can you?

    Naah... :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))




    \\Because it was a revolt against democracy -- which both Qtard and Putin hate passionately.

    Yep. Direct people's demcracy -- that is NOT democracy. And totalitarian wannabe Derpy know that for sure.

    And loathing that anti-democratic revolutioners -- that gave Freedom and Independence to USA...



    \\I don't give a shit. Given that you are referring to imaginary screams that only you can hear.

    You don't give a shit to your own words?

    Especially when it words like "I proved"? Or "you are liar"?

    Ou-Key Dou-Key! I got it.

    I will not treat em as anything important too. ;-P



    \\AGREED! Those were the accusations you made against me.

    Like which???

    Like that is what *I* have said -- that BS -- "he and Putin feel the same way about the J6 insurrectionists. That the Biden administration is "persecuting" them."?????????????????

    You are TOTALLY BONKER, fer sue. ;-P

    :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))



    PS That is the problem with liars -- they DO NOT know when to stop in their lies. And. Reveal themself that way.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Qtard: You can support this your claim with ANY factual quote, can you?

    Yes. You wrote, "...you trying to deny people their right to revolt". People don't endorse revolts then hope they fail. They want them to succeed.

    Qtard: And loathing that anti-democratic revolutioners -- that gave Freedom and Independence to USA.

    These "anti-democratic revolutioners -- that gave Freedom and Independence to USA" never existed. There never was any such people for me to loath. The US was founded by PRO-democracy revolutionaries.

    Qtard: You don't give a shit to your own words? Especially when it words like "I proved"? Or "you are liar"?

    "I am RIGHT!!!", "I PROVED!!" and "YOU -- LYING!!!" aren't my words. Those are YOUR words.

    Qtard: Like which???

    The ones above. You forgot what you wrote already? You wrote, "Denying right for a honest trial. Denying Freedom of Speach. Denying Human Rights". According to you, these sentences describe me. Though your accusations are 100 percent false. I've never made any such comments. Why you gave no citations.

    Qtard: PS That is the problem with liars -- they DO NOT know when to stop in their lies. And. Reveal themself that way.

    AGREED! That *is* your problem. And you *have* revealed yourself via your constant lying.

    ReplyDelete
  31. \\Yes. You wrote, "...you trying to deny people their right to revolt". People don't endorse revolts then hope they fail. They want them to succeed.

    Right to revolt against injustice (like BLM did, for some opther example than J6) -- instilled in your Constitution.

    Do your Constitution ENDORSING revolting?

    Or... is it WRONG??? To endorse Constitution of USA. And Bill of Rights. And Declaration of Independance.



    \\The US was founded by PRO-democracy revolutionaries.

    So-o-o-o? Right of Revolution DO EXIST, still? ;-)



    \\Qtard: Like which???

    \\The ones above. You forgot what you wrote already?

    Again.

    PRECISELY CORRECT quote from my side.

    And try to squint and ignore, and give some cutted out of context, twisted quote of MY words.

    Yawn.




    \\You wrote, "Denying right for a honest trial. Denying Freedom of Speach. Denying Human Rights". According to you, these sentences describe me.

    Yap.

    I gave all facts (through quoting of YOUR words) and logical inferences of how I came to such conclusion.

    But.

    You keep pretending that you do not see that facts(quotes) and do not understand that logical conclusion.

    Or... are you really THAT stupid, and REALLY NOT able to grasp it? ;-P



    \\Though your accusations are 100 percent false.

    Claim you NEVER was able to demonstrate ANY logic behind -- why it false???

    It MUST be damn simle to you to demonstrate it -- if only that conclusion "your accusations are 100 percent false" would be really and definitely TRUTHFUL.

    But... you can't. ;-P

    Cause it is a lie.


    \\I've never made any such comments.

    Lie.



    \\Why you gave no citations.

    And lie again.

    Yawn.



    \\AGREED! That *is* your problem. And you *have* revealed yourself via your constant lying.

    "Lying" you still and never able to demonstrate with giving CORECT quotes and CORRECT logical conclusion -- why it is all lies. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    That makes your such claims too damn lightweight. ;-P

    Of a weight of feathers... of a baby-chicken.

    Which able to blow away by tiniest of wind blows.

    THAT'S WHY you need to repeat your miserly lies. Again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again, again and again..................

    ReplyDelete
  32. Qtard: Right to revolt against injustice (like BLM did, for some opther example than J6)...

    BLM did not revolt. They protested. If J6 rioters had only protested they wouldn't have been arrested.

    Qtard: ...instilled in your Constitution. ... Do your Constitution ENDORSING revolting?

    No. It speaks against it. In the 14th amendment. Also US law prohibits it. 18 U.S. Code § 2383 says "Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States".

    If the "right of revolution" was "instilled in your Constitution" this law would be unconstitutional.

    Qtard: is it WRONG??? To endorse Constitution of USA. And Bill of Rights. And Declaration of Independance.

    Why do you ask this? You think you've "endorsed" them? With your false claims that they allow citizens to revolt? That would be a bullshit thing to claim. Clearly you hate these documents and want to see them tossed out.

    Qtard likely agrees with donald tRump, who called for the "termination" of the Constitution. Because Qtard is someone who has been proven to hate democracy. Why he strongly desires to see it overthrown in the US.

    Qtard: \\The US was founded by PRO-democracy revolutionaries.\\ So-o-o-o? Right of Revolution DO EXIST, still?

    You're trying to falsely equate the pro-democracy US revolutionary war with the anti-democracy J6 attempted insurrection, which is total BULLSHIT.

    Qtard: And try to squint and ignore, and give some cutted out of context, twisted quote of MY words.

    Lie. Again. I never did this. Yawn.

    Qtard: \\You wrote, "Denying right for a honest trial. Denying Freedom of Speach. Denying Human Rights". According to you, these sentences describe me.\\ Yap. I gave all facts (through quoting of YOUR words) and logical inferences of how I came to such conclusion.

    You didn't do either.

    Qtard: But. You keep pretending that you do not see that facts(quotes) and do not understand that logical conclusion.

    Wrong. You provided no quotes that prove your accusations. You reached ZERO "logical conclusions" for me to understand or not understand.

    Qtard: ...are you really THAT stupid, and REALLY NOT able to grasp it?

    Qtard is too stupid to realize he didn't do what he claims.

    Qtard: It MUST be damn simle to you to demonstrate it -- if only that conclusion "your accusations are 100 percent false" would be really and definitely TRUTHFUL.

    It is incredibly simple. I NEVER said what you claim. I said the opposite. Why you gave no quotes to support your claims. While I *did*. Your (MANY times repeated) support for the overthrow of democracy in the US proves Qtard is a totalitarian wannabe.

    Qtard: But... you can't.

    I CAN and just did (see above).

    Qtard: Cause it is a lie.

    Your words? Yes, they are lies.

    Qtard: \\I've never made any such comments.\\ Lie. \\Why you gave no citations.\\ And lie again.

    LIE. A 100 percent truthful statement cannot be a "lie".

    Qtard: "Lying" you still and never able to demonstrate with giving CORECT quotes and CORRECT logical conclusion...

    I did. MANY times. Over and over.

    Qtard: "...you trying to deny people their right to revolt". YOUR WORDS. Support for an anti-democratic revolt. Proof of Qtard's hatred for democracy.

    ReplyDelete
  33. \\Qtard: Right to revolt against injustice (like BLM did, for some opther example than J6)...

    \\BLM did not revolt. They protested. If J6 rioters had only protested they wouldn't have been arrested.

    Yap-yap-yap-yap... :-))))))))))))))))))))))))



    \\Also US law prohibits it
    \\If the "right of revolution" was "instilled in your Constitution" this law would be unconstitutional.


    ""
    Is There an American Right of Revolution? - AEI
    www.aei.org › articles › is-there-an-american-ri...
    There is no procedure and can be none within the laws, because this right of the people is effective only when the law or the constitution itself is perverted ...
    ""

    Have a problem with understanding?

    Not my problem. Yawn.


    \\With your false claims that they allow citizens to revolt?

    With my truthful claims... that they proclaim Natural Rights of any humans should benefit from. ;-P



    \\Clearly you hate these documents and want to see them tossed out.

    And you can explain and/or demonstrate HOW that your bullshit claim "you hate these documents" is anyhow truthful???

    Naah.

    You can only talk bullshit. And try to drown opponent with tons of verbal feces. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    Because? Because you are miserly u.u.r.b. Now that is clear and obvious fact. ;-P


    \\You're trying to falsely equate the pro-democracy US revolutionary war with the anti-democracy J6 attempted insurrection, which is total BULLSHIT.

    Difference is only that -- that first was successful. While second was not.

    "Revolt can be called Revolution ONLY if it successful" (c)

    That's why there is NO such thing as "Right of Revolution", instilled in ANY legal document.

    Cause it logical paradoxal. ;-P

    But for you... such an u.u.r.b. -- it totally up and beyond your miserly understanding. Isn't it, De-Ru-Pi? Do you know what "paradox" mean? ;-P
    Go google for it.


    \\Qtard: And try to squint and ignore, and give some cutted out of context, twisted quote of MY words.

    \\Lie. Again. I never did this. Yawn.

    Drowning in PERFECT DENIAL. What a COMPLETE Religious Bonker YOU are. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    Continue-continue like that.

    Providing only some more material -- for calling you u.u.r.b. ;-P

    Do you really think that *I* do not see through that your miserly treaks of an idiot??? Are you? Are you? De-Ru-Pi. :-))))))))))))))))))))))

    Go, keep doing it. Confirming your militant idiocy. :-)))))))))))))))

    With ignoring YOUR OWN WORDS even. Thrown in your face. PERFECTLY CORRECT quotes of YOUR words. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))



    \\Yap. I gave all facts (through quoting of YOUR words) and logical inferences of how I came to such conclusion.

    \\You didn't do either.

    What I "didn't do"?

    Quotes of your words like: "\\I *DO* deny that the J6 insurrectionists had the right of revolution."???

    But... I did. Just in some other thread.

    And you trying to make use of that, and DENY that I did it at all???

    Ou'Key Dou'Key.

    I'll copy-paste it into this thread TOO. ;-P

    ""
    \\I *DO* deny that the J6 insurrectionists had the right of revolution. <-- HERE, I made it in bold for you. Your DIRECTLY ADMITTED denial. ;-P

    \\That right does not exist in a democracy.

    \\Because that is the ONLY way citizens would have any basis to claim the right of revolution. But Qtard says J6 insurrectionists have the right of revolution JUST BECAUSE they were angry that their candidate lost.

    Right of Revolution | Encyclopedia.com
    www.encyclopedia.com › politics › right-revol...
    RIGHT OF REVOLUTIONThe right of revolution is not a right that is defined and protected by the Constitution but a natural right.
    ""


    Here you can HAVE it. ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  34. \\Wrong. You provided no quotes that prove your accusations. You reached ZERO "logical conclusions" for me to understand or not understand.

    Direct lie.

    Here. Isn't "\\I *DO* deny that the J6 insurrectionists had the right of revolution." <<--- THAT is YOUR damn blurt-out????

    Go, say it. So I could accuse you in DIRECT LIE. Again. ;-P



    \\Qtard: ...are you really THAT stupid, and REALLY NOT able to grasp it?

    \\Qtard is too stupid to realize he didn't do what he claims.

    And you CAN explain? ;-)

    What is so stupid in my words?

    Or... you can't? Because you are NOT that smart, enough... to provide an explanation? :-))))))))))))))))))

    Yap... there not much smarts needed to blurt out "you are stupid".

    Not as much, as it needed to explain yourself.

    Or... you. Counter-factually. Will oppose to that obvious truth. And will try to "prove" that those who just blurting out "you are stupid" -- is te true wise-mans???? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))



    \\It is incredibly simple. I NEVER said what you claim. I said the opposite. Why you gave no quotes to support your claims.

    Hah.

    Again.

    Is that YOUR OWN WORDS -- "\\I *DO* deny that the J6 insurrectionists had the right of revolution."???

    So.

    Still.

    You HAVE HAD SAID that. At least ONCE.

    That's logically and undeniably DISPROVE your claim "I NEVER said" that. ;-P




    \\While I *did*.

    And you can point DIRECTLY -- when you "*did*"? and explain WHY you think you "*did*"???

    Naah.

    You just can continue your fact-less babbling. :-))))))))))))))))))))))

    "I *did*. I *did*. I *did*."

    You are trully IDID... iot. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))


    ReplyDelete


  35. \\Your (MANY times repeated) support for the overthrow of democracy in the US proves Qtard is a totalitarian wannabe.

    "MANY times repeated" but never provided by you via credible quote PLUS correct logical explanation... just your mere cawing. "I *did*. I *did*. I *did*."

    Trully... fit of an idiot. False fact-less claims piled atop same fact-less claims. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    In a futile attempt to disprove The Truth.

    YET ONE *blazing* trait of an idiot -- never anding tryes to disprove apparently visible truthes. ;-P




    \\Qtard: But... you can't.

    \\I CAN and just did (see above).

    Naah.

    You neither provided a fact nor gave a logical explanation.

    Without it, your miserly "I CAN. I *did*" cannot sway anyone... maybe apart from same idiots like you are. ;-P

    And you'd know it -- if you NOT be that hopeless idiot. :-)))))))))))))))))))

    But you can't...




    \\Qtard: Cause it is a lie.

    \\Your words? Yes, they are lies.

    Is this...

    \\Though your accusations are 100 percent false.

    MY words? From up there?

    NO.

    And that is APPARENT MOST TRANSPARENT lie. Only such a miserly idiot like you can lie about such APPARENT things... and think that that lie will somehow *fix* something, anything. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))



    \\LIE. A 100 percent truthful statement cannot be a "lie".

    If it said by a liar -- it is a lie. ;-P

    Or... how do you see it? When dRumpo saying that he is genius -- that is truth??? Because he said "that is Truth that I am genius"??? :-)))))))))))))))))))



    \\I did. MANY times. Over and over.

    You quoted my words many times... that, I admit.

    But was that correct quotes? Hmmm... not sure. Not when it was about something important.

    And was there ANY logical conclusion?

    But... DO YOU know what LOGIC even mean?

    Go, google for it. Go borrow some smarts from Google. Go cite here -- what word "logic" mean?

    But you WILL NOT.

    Cause you FEAR logic very much.

    Because Logic reveals your falsehood. EVERY TIME. ;-P




    \\Qtard: "...you trying to deny people their right to revolt". YOUR WORDS. Support for an anti-democratic revolt. Proof of Qtard's hatred for democracy.

    Bullshit.

    ONLY totalitarians FEAR people revolting.

    Democraticly-aligned people -- ARE PRO-revolution and PRO-revolt -- against injustice, against nasty dictatorship laws and foul government systems, against dictators...

    Go, OPPOSE to that claim. ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  36. "ONLY totalitarians FEAR people revolting.

    Democraticly-aligned people -- ARE PRO-revolution and PRO-revolt -- against injustice, against nasty dictatorship laws and foul government systems, against dictators..."


    Like J6...

    ReplyDelete
  37. Well... they was misguided.

    By Demn propaganda -- which showed how people of other nations uprise against their despots... so they decided that they NEED to, or CAN do the same at home...

    ReplyDelete
  38. No comments from De-Ru-Pi? P-R-E-Dicktable. :-))))))))))))))))

    ReplyDelete
  39. Qtard: Is There an American Right of Revolution? ... There is no procedure and can be none within the laws, because this right of the people is effective only when the law or the constitution itself is perverted ... Have a problem with understanding?

    No. Do you have a problem understanding it? Because it seems you do.

    Qtard: \\Me: With your false claims that they allow citizens to revolt?\\ Qtard: With my truthful claims... that they proclaim Natural Rights of any humans should benefit from.

    So, according to the borrowed knowledge you cut and pasted from www.aei.org, there is no right of revolution, but according to Qtard's stupidity The US founding documents DO allow citizens to revolt? Which is it?

    If it was the J6 rioters' Constitutional right to attack the Capitol, why were they arrested?

    Qtard: Is that YOUR OWN WORDS -- "\\I *DO* deny that the J6 insurrectionists had the right of revolution."??? So. Still. You HAVE HAD SAID that. At least ONCE. That's logically and undeniably DISPROVE your claim "I NEVER said" that.

    What? I said it. I didn't deny saying it. I stand by it. Your cut and pasted borrowed knowledge from www.aei.org confirms that they did not have the right to revolt.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Qtard: "ONLY totalitarians FEAR people revolting. Democraticly-aligned people -- ARE PRO-revolution and PRO-revolt -- against injustice, against nasty dictatorship laws and foul government systems, against dictators..."

    Minus: Like J6...

    No and No.

    Democratically-aligned people are NOT pro-revolution... against democracy. They strongly oppose it.

    Majority of Americans think Jan. 6 attack threatened democracy: POLL. An overwhelming majority (72%) of Americans believe the people involved in the attack on the Capitol were "threatening democracy"...

    So, according to Qtard's stupidity, 72% of Americans are totalitarians.

    ReplyDelete
  41. \\No. Do you have a problem understanding it? Because it seems you do.

    And you can demonstrate that "it seems"?

    With factual quotes and explanations?

    Naah...



    \\So, according to the borrowed knowledge you cut and pasted from www.aei.org, there is no right of revolution, but according to Qtard's stupidity The US founding documents DO allow citizens to revolt? Which is it?

    BOTH.

    AND there CANNOT be a written law which allow to overthrown existing government, legitimately -- cause, what would stop one from doing that, if that is allowed???

    AND, there is historically admitted truth -- that people CAN and DO revolt, oftenly. ;-P

    AND... very statehood of USA -- built on such riots. ;-P Know your history! Venerate YOUR revolutioners! Will ya? :-))))))))))))))))))))

    But well, they are not your ancestors. Your ancestors are from some totalitarian shithole, isn't it, De-Ru-Pi? That's why you are so inclined to hail for totalitarian rule yourself? It's inhereditary.




    \\If it was the J6 rioters' Constitutional right to attack the Capitol, why were they arrested?

    Why BLM rioters was NOT arrested?



    \\What? I said it. I didn't deny saying it. I stand by it. Your cut and pasted borrowed knowledge from www.aei.org confirms that they did not have the right to revolt.

    WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    Well... I will not throw excerpts from USA Constitution where right of revolt described.

    That is... pointless.

    You already showed too many times, too much -- that you are nothing else except definite Religious Bonker who inclined to ignore Truth and Reality.

    Because, he only "believes" "in facts". ;-P



    \\So, according to Qtard's stupidity, 72% of Americans are totalitarians.

    Interesting. What % of British Empire thought that American Revolt against Holy Power of te King... was threatening???


    Revolutions... they made by Minorities.

    Cause, if that'll was Majorities doing -- revolutions would not be needed. ;-P

    Your Captain Obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Qtard = Captain dumbshit.

    Declaration of Independence "...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it..."

    Joe Biden, the legitimate winner of the 2020 democratic election, had the consent of the governed.

    "destructive of these ends" does NOT describe the 2020 election. A fact (the election was not stolen) Qtard does not dispute.

    "Feelings" that the election was unfair do not give sore losers the right to revolt. They had (and continue to have) zero facts and no evidence proving the election was stolen. Therefore the J6 insurrectionists did NOT have the right to revolt.

    Qtard's "argument" that they can decide for themselves that there were facts supporting their belief that the election was stolen (by imagining them into existence) is complete bullplop. And proof he is a huge hypocrite who does not know what facts are. Or care about them -- as he frequently claims he does.

    ReplyDelete
  43. \\Joe Biden, the legitimate winner of the 2020 democratic election, had the consent of the governed.

    That is not a question here.

    Yawn.



    \\"Feelings" that the election was unfair do not give sore losers the right to revolt.

    It's not up to you to decide.

    Because their Natural Right is with them... naturally.

    Whatever you'd do with/against them. Maybe some killing would help you, as it "helped" Nazi, to emulate people UNABLE to indulge in their Natural Rights.

    And that... that you visibly WANT TO... makes you visibly Totalitarian WANNABE. ;-P



    \\Qtard's "argument" that they can decide for themselves that there were facts supporting their belief that the election was stolen (by imagining them into existence) is complete bullplop.

    Well.

    With this you ONLY discrediting YOUR OWN stance.

    Your very idea of "believing in facts".

    That's all.

    *I*. Do not need to move a finger even, here. ;-P




    \\ And proof he is a huge hypocrite who does not know what facts are. Or care about them -- as he frequently claims he does.

    And you can add some facts... to that "proof"???

    Like some CORRECT and FACTUAL quote of MY words here? ;-P

    Naaaaaah. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    ReplyDelete
  44. Yet one admeated defeat, from De-Ru-Pi? ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  45. Dodgy Derpy runned away ahain. :-)))))))))))))))

    ReplyDelete
  46. I admit I defeated your moronic arguments.

    \\Joe Biden, the legitimate winner of the 2020 democratic election, had the consent of the governed.\\That is not a question here.

    It is the most important question.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Yap.

    For a loser. Whoi trying to rub into own dirty furr some smell of success.

    Yes, De-Ru-Pi the Dirty Monkey? ;-P

    ReplyDelete