Is Joe Biden is going to be impeached? republicans better act fast, given that Joe Biden has less than 2 months to live. That is according to a post on Mystere's blog. It is a "prophetic message" from the "Christian YouTuber" Troy Black. Apparently. I looked at the video but it's an hour and a half. There is an image of a tombstone, though. It says Joe Biden is going to pass on 8/2/2023.
MTG is trying to distract from the fact that donald tRump was just indicted. Joe Biden, as the sitting president, is immune from prosecution. And the Senate (controlled by Democrats) won't vote to convict if the House impeaches.
The totalitarian wannabe Minus FJ has already decided that Joe Biden and Hunter Biden are guilty. Even though there has been no trial. Joe Biden can't receive a fair trial due to the opinions of Minus FJ and other tRump supporters. Any trial of Joe Biden would be a total sham, given that his guilt has been predetermined. JUST like Nazi Germany decided Jews are guilty and need to be put to death! Minus FJ says (about Joe Biden) "burn the witch!" If Joe Biden is prosecuted, it will like he is a Jew being sent to a death camp.
Hunter Biden (if he is persecuted by a kangaroo court and convicted) should definitely be pardoned by Joe Biden. Or by President Kamala Harris (if Joe Biden is no longer with us). Due to Minus FJ's opinion that he is guilty. In violation of Hunter Biden's right to be presumed innocent. By every single person on planet earth. Or the United States, at least. Because people having opinions regarding the guilt of an accused person makes us JUST LIKE Nazi Germany.
btw, donald tRump HAS been charged with espionage. Just like I said was being predicted. A prediction that resulted in a Qtard conniption fit. According to Qtard, this prediction made me a nasty-nasty liar. And that I should feel shame for relating this now-proven-accurate prediction. LOL!!!
I never claimed to be impartial. As far as I am concerned, donald tRump is bigly guilty. As far as the court system is concerned, he is innocent until proven guilty. Qtard pretends he doesn't know the difference -- because it serves his false narrative that I am a "totalitarian wannabe" who wants tRump hung without a trial.
This is complete BS. I want him convicted in a totally legit trial. Then I want him sent to prison for the rest of his miserable life. From what I've heard the facts and evidence is there to convict. If not (which I doubt) then he'll be found "not guilty". And walk away a free man. A lynch mob isn't going to grab him and string him up (what tRump wanted to happen to Mike Pence).
\\ Qtard pretends he doesn't know the difference -- because it serves his false narrative that I am a "totalitarian wannabe"
That's hypothesis. I give factual base to. Each time.
But you. Each time. Squinting from disproving facts and logic. And only trying to twist and turn it into (reverse?) sham trial of a kind....
that, looks like you DO know that you are guilty, and cannot throw off that guilt, cover it with hypocrisy, talk it around with some bullshit talks...
that's why you are so sad and grumpy.
Isn't it, De-Ru-Pi? ;-P
\\From what I've heard the facts and evidence is there to convict.
Non-facts.
Just somebody-somebody saying that THERE IS facts... but NOT showing ANY of it. Claiming it being secret.
But... it is more then enough for you, because, as you yourself proclaimed -- "I want him convicted... I want him sent to prison for the rest of his miserable life...".
Your lip-service "...in a totally legit trial" and "...I've heard the facts and evidence" is just a mere hypocrisy. Yawn.
Do you know what Hypocrisy is?
'Hypocrisy is a tribute that vice pays to virtue.' (c) Francois Duc De La Rochefoucauld
That means... that YOU DO perfectly know, that it is Virtue of Justice -- that people DO HAVE Human Rights, MUST be decided guilty ONLY through court trial AKA Presumption of Innocence.
That's why you giving your lip-service and trying to pretend that you honor it...
BUT.
All you behavior -- shows definitely -- that that is only a pretence. Hipocrisy. Is you second name. Derpy the Hypocrite. Yawn.
PS You can try to disprove it. With facts and logic.
PPS Did you googled for Aristotle's Logic? ;-P
PPPS \\(what tRump wanted to happen to Mike Pence).
Qtard: That's hypothesis. I give factual base to. Each time.
Qtard never gave a "factual base" to his assertion that people should be prohibited from having certain opinions. There can be no "factual base" to such an absurd assertion. HOW can people be stopped from commiting thought crimes that Qtard disapproves of?
Qtard: that, looks like you DO know that you are guilty, and cannot throw off that guilt, cover it with hypocrisy, talk it around with some bullshit talks...
I don't. I can NOT. Because there is no reason for "guilt" over the thought crime of having an opinion. Because thought crimes aren't crimes.
Qtard: But you. Each time. Squinting from disproving facts and logic. And only trying to twist and turn it into (reverse?) sham trial of a kind....
Impossible. Jack Smith never called me and asked what he should do. I never told him "look, even if the facts aren't there tRump has to be convicted. Even if the trial is a sham". And Jack Smith didn't respond, "OK. That's what I'll do then. You're the boss".
Qtard: that's why you are so sad and grumpy.
Me being sad and grumpy because I "know" I'm guilty of qtared thought crimes is impossible. Because I KNOW I'm innocent.
Qtard: Non-facts. Just somebody-somebody saying that THERE IS facts... but NOT showing ANY of it. Claiming it being secret.
We are discussing the charges that are being brought in regards to what donald tRump calls the "boxes hoax". The facts in this case are not secret. The indictment has been released. Qtard says this case against donald tRump consists of "non-facts" because he is a hypocrite. Previously he said he accepted facts when they "point to reality". Here he rejects such facts.
President Donald Trump acknowledged on tape in a 2021 meeting that he had retained "secret" military information that he had not declassified, according to a transcript of the audio recording... the tape is significant because it shows that Trump had an understanding the records he had with him at Mar-a-Lago after he left the White House remained classified [link].
Here the "somebody" is donald tRump and the "something-something" he said was an admission of guilt. ON TAPE.
Qtard: it is more then enough for you...
Of course. Because I believe in facts and logic. And when the accused admits his crimes. That is definitely more than enough for me. STILL the case needs to be proven in court. And donald tRump is still presumed innocent.
Qtard: Your lip-service "...in a totally legit trial" and "...I've heard the facts and evidence" is just a mere hypocrisy.
Qtard pays lip service to the idea of a fair trial. Previously he said it proved donald tRump is innocent. The fact that there has been no trial because (Qtard says) the facts are lacking. Now that there is going to be a trial? Qtard says it's going to be a sham. Because *I* have an opinion that tRump is guilty. AS IF my opinion COULD have any impact on this trial.
Qtard: Do you know what Hypocrisy is?
Does Qtard know? He practices it constantly. While falsely accusing me.
Qtard: That means... that YOU DO perfectly know, that it is Virtue of Justice -- that people DO HAVE Human Rights, MUST be decided guilty ONLY through court trial AKA Presumption of Innocence. That's why you giving your lip-service and trying to pretend that you honor it.
This is the second time that Qtard (in the same comment) has copied my smart words. Here I pointed out that Qtard is only paying lip service to human rights. Because (according to Qtard) even though the J6 rioters were arrested, charged and convicted... somehow their "human rights" were preserved. What good is a "right" that confers no benefit at all?
Previously Qtard paid lip service to fair trials. NOW that it's looking like donald tRump is in serious trouble, Qtard's tune has changed. Now he says, "fair trial, my ass". Because Qtard is a bigly hypocrite who uses whatever argument works best in the moment. For defending donald tRump.
Qtard: \\what tRump wanted to happen to Mike Pence.\\ Wanting... is not a crime. Except... for totalitarian.
This was more than "wanting".
Trump's Tweet About Pence Seen as Critical Moment During Riot ... Mr. Trump tweeted at 2:24pm, after the riot was under way: "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done". That was a reference to the vice president's refusal to block the certification of President Biden’s election win in the joint session of Congress that day.
"The tweet looked to me like the opposite of what we really needed at that moment, which was a deescalation", Matt Pottinger, Mr. Trump's former deputy national security adviser [said]. Sarah Matthews, a former White House deputy press secretary, argued that the tweet gave Mr. Trump's supporters permission to continue their assault on the U.S. Capitol. "It was essentially him giving the green light to these people"... [7/25/2022].
Incitement to violence IS a crime, Qtard. But Qtard will probably argue otherwise. Because the totalitarian admirer Qtard always defends donald tRump.
Minus: Whatever Dervy has read 3x is TRUE! It's the law of media spectale Boojum.
I've read more than 3 times that Joe Biden is corrupt and took millions in bribes. That means it's true?
\\Qtard never gave a "factual base" to his assertion that people should be prohibited from having certain opinions.
Do I really need to prove something like that to someone who allow to himself to prohibit opinions of others??? With "go away!" ;-P
\\HOW can people be stopped from commiting thought crimes that Qtard disapproves of?
Like that is a question that interests ME?????
That is YOU are leftist totalitarian wannabe... seeking whom to accuse in commiting thought crimes (like me, into faking being foregner and/or supporting dRump... in secret, without any visible evidances).
I... disapprove VERY IDEA of thought crime existance. That is bogus. And totalitarian. And bonkery religious idea. ;-P
\\Qtard: that, looks like you DO know that you are guilty, and cannot throw off that guilt, cover it with hypocrisy, talk it around with some bullshit talks...
\\I don't. I can NOT. Because there is no reason for "guilt" over the thought crime of having an opinion. Because thought crimes aren't crimes.
Who said about it being crime? You are. Who said it mere thoughts? You are.
Both is your own claims.
Bullshit ones.
To cover your hypocritical denial. ;-P
\\Qtard: But you. Each time. Squinting from disproving facts and logic. And only trying to twist and turn it into (reverse?) sham trial of a kind....
\\Impossible.
What are you talking about here?
That was said about your blatant denial of that open facts -- perfectly correct quotes of your Demn words, like: "I *DO* deny... " em their rights.
And you rising some Jack Smith. Whozzat??? Well, don't say. I don't care.
Clearly.
That is a try to derail discussed point -- of your allergy ang pure fear of facts and logic.
\\Because I KNOW I'm innocent.
Yap.
Totalitarians think that they are innocent. When they "innocently" deny people their rights. ;-P
\\We are discussing the charges that are being brought in regards to what donald tRump calls the "boxes hoax".
No, we don't.
Or... you can confirm it with quotes -- WHERE we (both!) rised and discussed anything about it...
Again.
That is try to derail discussion from question of your allergy and fear of facts and logic... into some inner political brawls in USA, in which I as foreigner NOT involved, and are pretty much indifferent (means, neither like nor dislike... just, don't care)
\\Here the "somebody" is donald tRump and the "something-something" he said was an admission of guilt. ON TAPE.
Perfect example. ;-P
Thank you.
I checked that link. And what did I found there??? Audio dRump saying that???
NO.
THIS excerpt: ""Former President Donald Trump acknowledged on tape in a 2021 meeting that he had retained “secret” military information that he had not declassified, according to a transcript of the audio recording obtained by CNN.
“As president, I could have declassified, but now I can’t,” Trump says, according to the transcript. ""
So???
I need to belive some losy CNN reporter... that he DO HAVE some tape (of unknown origin... you know, we do have deep-fakes today, so creating a fake "tape" with allegedly dRump's voice... well, do CNN even have such a right -- to wiretape some people... ex-prezidents to boot, ahh???)
And there, on that tape was that EXACTLY words... and they was said IN EXACTLY that damning context???
I bet -- there is NO court (except in totalitarian shithole) that would take such "evidance", and would agree it mean what you and that losy reporter... more like propaganda plague spreader... mean.
That's why I PRO court justice... and AGAINST media shaming compaigns "justice". No matter in what country. Because that is contagious. And I DO care about THAT plague possible coming into my home...
\\Of course. Because I believe in facts and logic.
Yap.
You "belive". To anything you like. To call "facts and logic". And don't believe something you don't like. By Sheer Power of "believeing in"... something-something. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\And when the accused admits his crimes. That is definitely more than enough for me. STILL the case needs to be proven in court.
Yap.
Like in public sham trials in Soviet Union. ;-P
Where accused. Beaten into pulp. Was admiting their crimes...
and no other evidances was provided/needed.
\\Now that there is going to be a trial? Qtard says it's going to be a sham.
Yawn.
And you can give quote -- to confirm that that was MY claim... and not just some words you try to pretend I have had said/written... the same as that losy reporter tryed to do with dRump.
SEE!
That is what I have meaned -- when I said about -- if it allowed against dRump... it in a jiffy of time will grow to be allowed AGAINST EVERYONE!!!
That's why -- breaching of Human Rights CANNOT BE allowed. No matter in regard to what heinous and apparent criminal.
Because. That breach will be used AGAINST honest and innocent people TOO.
And much more willingly.
As it was in Soviet Union.
\\Because *I* have an opinion that tRump is guilty. AS IF my opinion COULD have any impact on this trial.
Aha... the same as in Nazi Germany. Opinion of the people that "jews are scum" WAS NOT and COULD NOT... impact them being choked/burned to death.
That was somebody else's doing. NOT because of PUBLIC SUPPORT of that "jews are scum" idea.
Ough, yes!!!
\\Does Qtard know? He practices it constantly. While falsely accusing me.
Perfectly what Hypocrite would say... in response to be revealed hypocrite.
\\ Here I pointed out that Qtard is only paying lip service to human rights. Because (according to Qtard) even though the J6 rioters were arrested, charged and convicted... somehow their "human rights" were preserved. What good is a "right" that confers no benefit at all?
Perfectly totalitarian "logic" of false narrative about "unrestrained rights".
As liliPut trying to preach, to discredict democratic rule in Western countries. AKA "Go to our Dark side. We have cookies here!". :-))))))))))))
And you trying to protest against my admission that you are totalitarian... wannabe. After such a self-revealing blurts? ;-P
\\Mr. Trump tweeted at 2:24pm, after the riot was under way: "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done". That was a reference to the vice president's refusal to block the certification of President Biden’s election win in the joint session of Congress that day.
Whatever.
That is his opinion.
The same as YOUR about dRump need to be put in jail.
Yawn.
If that'll be AN ORDER. Put on paper to boot. That would be totally another story.
\\Incitement to violence IS a crime, Qtard.
Yes?
Please, cite the law. Or some on-duty judge or legal expert judgment.
Or that... just another of your opinions? You have right to? While simultaneuously have NO responsibility for anything happeming in accoradnce with that opinions?
\\I've read more than 3 times that Joe Biden is corrupt and took millions in bribes. That means it's true?
You don't like it... therefore you don't believe... therefore it is not true?
Am I presented your "logic" correclty??? ;-P
PS See. I do not make claim INSTEAD of you. I just asking questions. And give you a chance to EXPLAIN yourself. ;-P
Qtard: Do I really need to prove something like that to someone who allow to himself to prohibit opinions of others??? With "go away!"
LIE! My "go away" was not an effort by me to prohibit you for having any opinion. It was about your claim to have no involvement in discussions of American politics. Proven false by your comments here (a blog were American politics are discussed). To have no involvement you would need to go away. This is a "pointing to reality" fact.
Qtard: \\me: HOW can people be stopped from commiting thought crimes that Qtard disapproves of?\\ Like that is a question that interests ME?????
LOL!!! YOU are the one who suggested that people having the opinion that tRump is guilty will make it impossible for him to receive a fair trial. So I (logically) asked you how to stop them. And you DODGE the question! Because you know it's impossible. And the way it has ALWAYS been. QED your "fair trial, my ass" assertion is BULLSHIT.
Qtard: That is YOU... seeking whom to accuse in commiting thought crimes (like me, into faking being foregner and/or supporting dRump... in secret, without any visible evidances).
Neither of those are thought crimes. They are just lies. I have no way of knowing if you are a foreigner. You won't even say what country you are supposedly a resident of. As for "visible evidances" of you defending tRump... how about just about every one of your comments? I don't even know HOW you think you can deny this. It is SO OBVIOUS. It is NOT secret at all.
Qtard: I... disapprove VERY IDEA of thought crime existance. That is bogus. And totalitarian. And bonkery religious idea.
You have argued very strongly that my having the opinion that tRump is guilty is WRONG aka a qtarded thought crime that makes the US like Nazi Germany. Or could. So, by Qtard's OWN ADMISSION, he is an totalitarian religious bonker.
Qtard: Who said about it being crime? You are. Who said it mere thoughts? You are. Both is your own claims. Bullshit ones.
I agree that the claims are complete bullshit. But the claim is YOURS. YOU said that me, committing the "thought crime" of thinking donald tRump is guilty, would mean he can't get a fair trial. When people have ALWAYS had such opinions. And can't be prevented from having them. Yet we still have trials. Trials Qtard previously express confidence in. But now we know Qtard lied. "Fair trial, my ass". Qtard's words.
Qtard: What are you talking about here? That was said about your blatant denial of that open facts -- perfectly correct quotes of your Demn words, like: "I *DO* deny... " em their rights.
INCORRECT quote. PROVEN by the fact that you cut it off. And add lie "em their rights". I deny NOBODY their rights.
Qtard: And you rising some Jack Smith. Whozzat??? Well, don't say. I don't care.
Jack Smith is the prosecutor who is looking into donald tRump's wrongdoing. Keeping documents, refusing to return them and showing them to people he should not have. Also the J6 insurrection. You knew about Durham's report because it helped you in your strong desire to defend donald tRump. Now you pretend not to know who Jack Smith is. Because his indictment of donald tRump is SO VERY damning.
Qtard: I need to belive some losy CNN reporter... that he DO HAVE some tape (of unknown origin... you know, we do have deep-fakes today, so creating a fake "tape" with allegedly dRump's voice... well, do CNN even have such a right -- to wiretape some people... ex-prezidents to boot, ahh???
The tape is mentioned in the indictment. DOJ prosecutors on Jack Smith's team have it in their possession.
Newsweek: In the 49-page indictment that was revealed on Friday, prosecutors provided a transcription of an audio recording of the former president that was made in July 2021, during which Trump is speaking with a writer, publisher and two members of his staff at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey. The tape features Trump discussing a "highly confidential" record with his guests, and the former president says during the recording that he did not have the document declassified before he left the White House. [6/10/2023].
The origin of the recording is not unknown.
Truthout: The recording was made in the summer of 2021, and includes Trump speaking with individuals who were hired to help Mark Meadows, Trump's final chief of staff as president, with researching a book he was writing at the time. [6/9/2023].
Who gave the DOJ the tape? Must have been one of the "individuals who were hired to help Mark Meadows". CNN got a transcript from the DOJ. CNN didn't wiretap anyone. Anyway, all the evidence will be presented at trial. It HAS to be. Qtard says "I demand you show it now"! But that isn't how it works, Qtard. Nobody gives a shit about Qtard's demands.
Qtard: \\We are discussing the charges that are being brought in regards to what donald tRump calls the "boxes hoax".\\ No, we don't. Or... you can confirm it with quotes -- WHERE we (both!) rised and discussed anything about it...
Minus FJ wrote: Is Trump guilty or innocent of these new indictments (on top of NY's a few month's back)? Still impartial, dervy?
I responded: From what I've heard the facts and evidence is there to convict.
This is the case that tRump calls the "boxes hoax". It is what Minus FJ and I were discussing. You responded to my comment (about the new indictments that Minus and I were discussing) so it stands to reason (logically) that you were entering into the SAME discussion. I don't know wtf you THOUGHT you were responding to. But that is the discussion you entered into. It is NMP if you can't follow along.
Qtard: That's why I PRO court justice... and AGAINST media shaming compaigns "justice".
You are ANTI-court justice. PROVEN with your quote, "fair trial, my ass". And lies about Media doing their job by reporting the known facts. Ridiculously calling it "shaming". If the facts are shaming, that's on tRump, not the media.
Qtard: Aha... the same as in Nazi Germany. Opinion of the people that "jews are scum" WAS NOT and COULD NOT... impact them being choked/burned to death. ... Ough, yes!!!
Ough, no!!! You are making a fallacious argument.
Reductio ad Hitlerum is a type of association fallacy. The argument is that a policy leads to -- or is the same as -- one advocated or implemented by Adolf Hitler or Nazi Germany and so "proves" that the original policy is undesirable. [wikipedia]
Note that donald tRump is being indicted by Special Counsel Jack Smith and NOT Merrick Garland. And President Joe Biden has had no comment. The purpose of this is to maintain impartiality. Not AT ALL like Nazi Germany.
donald tRump, on the other hand, advocated (re his political rival in 2016) "lock her up". NO impartiality. Yet Qtard, who feigns concern, had NOTHING to say in regards to Minus FJ's post about how tRump was going to persecute his enemies in a second term. Because Qtard is a bigly hypocrite whose primary agenda is defending donald tRump. PROVEN.
Qtard: \\me: Trump tweeted ... "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done". \\That is his opinion. The same as YOUR about dRump need to be put in jail.
NO. Not the same. Incitement is a crime. My opinion can NOT incite the jailing of donald tRump. Also, as per the Constitution "the President is charged with enforcing the laws written by the legislative branch". tRump, in inciting the crowd to commit violence, broke his oath as president.
Qtard: \\Now that there is going to be a trial? Qtard says it's going to be a sham.\\ Yawn. And you can give quote -- to confirm that that was MY claim.
You wrote, "fair trial, my ass". You claimed evidence is being fabricated (audio tape where tRump admits he knows he took secret documents that he did NOT declassify).
Qtard: \\Incitement to violence IS a crime\\ Yes? Please, cite the law. Or some on-duty judge or legal expert judgment.
Is incitement to violence illegal in the US? It is a felony under federal law to intentionally "solicit, command, induce, or otherwise endeavor to persuade" another person to engage in a crime of violence against a person or property. 18 U.S.C. § 373. Many states have similar laws.
Qtard:Or that... just another of your opinions? You have right to? While simultaneuously have NO responsibility for anything happeming in accoradnce with that opinions?
Damn right I have no responsibility. I'm inciting nobody. NOTHING is "happeming in accoradnce with that opinions". Nothing could. Nobody cares about my opinion. Nobody is acting on my opinion. Anyway, my opinion is that, while I think tRump is guilty, he has the right to the presumption of innocent (by the court) and a fair trial.
Qtard: You don't like it... therefore you don't believe... therefore it is not true? Am I presented your "logic" correclty???
No. You describe your own "logic". You don't like the reporting about an audio tape on which donald tRump admits crimes... therefore it is not true. Qtarded "logic".
\\LIE! My "go away" was not an effort by me to prohibit you...
Yap-yap-yap.
The same as "I *DO* beny..." :-))))))))
I think, we can assume here that that is a firm pattern in your behavior -- wadayatnk? ;-P
\\a blog were American politics are discussed
Hardly.
It *DO* not look like discussing politics. To me. ;-P
\\LOL!!! YOU are the one who suggested that people having the opinion that tRump is guilty will make it impossible for him to receive a fair trial.
Yap.
THE SAME as people in Nazi Germany having merely an opinion that "that jews are scum"... made it possible to many-many jews to became fumes from furnace's exhaust pipes.
That is how this World tenaciously keep working -- mere opinions of ones, becomes mortal struggles for others...
Can you disprove it? With logic and facts???
Naaaaaaah.
That's why you are so gloomy and grumpy. ;-P
In keeping useless and hopeless tryes to neglect and deny Reality itself.
\\I have no way of knowing if you are a foreigner.
And my honest word, not enough? ;-P
Well... then, if you'd be smart, you'd be able to discern it from my behavior.
But... we know for sure that you are not smart. Quite opposite -- you are quite idioticly stupid.
So, yeah, I agree... hard task... fer ya. ;-P
\\You won't even say what country you are supposedly a resident of.
And you have tried to ask? Politely??? ;-P
\\As for "visible evidances" of you defending tRump... how about just about every one of your comments?
Yap. "every one of your comments" -- NONE of which you can QUOTE reliably (means, correctly and in suitable context) and use as a source for your logical conclusions? ;-P
\\ I don't even know HOW you think you can deny this. It is SO OBVIOUS. It is NOT secret at all.
Easy-Peasy. ;-P
Cause NOTHING of what you just said/written is a FACT. :-))))))))))))))))
And NO amount of words like "obvious", "undenyable", "not secret" and etc... can re-make a verbal non-fact into FACT aka manifestation of Reality itself. ;-P
ONLY pointing to the REAL facts. ;-P
Like that... that you have said "go away!", or you have said "I *DO* deny..."
See the difference? No?? Why YOU cannot thrug it off, no matter what amount of verbal spam you produced and how many times you tryed to deny it???
BECAUSE that is factual fact -- that you have had said it.
Why NOTHING of what you trying to "incriminate" me -- was said by me.
Do YOU get it???? Now??? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\ I don't even know HOW you think you can deny this. It is SO OBVIOUS. It is NOT secret at all.
Easy-Peasy. ;-P
Cause NOTHING of what you just said/written is a FACT. :-))))))))))))))))
And NO amount of words like "obvious", "undenyable", "not secret" and etc... can re-make a verbal non-fact into FACT aka manifestation of Reality itself. ;-P
ONLY pointing to the REAL facts. ;-P
Like that... that you have said "go away!", or you have said "I *DO* deny..."
See the difference? No?? Why YOU cannot thrug it off, no matter what amount of verbal spam you produced and how many times you tryed to deny it???
BECAUSE that is factual fact -- that you have had said it.
Why NOTHING of what you trying to "incriminate" me -- was said by me.
Do YOU get it???? Now??? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Doubt it.
\\You have argued very strongly that my having the opinion that tRump is guilty is WRONG aka a qtarded thought crime that makes the US like Nazi Germany. Or could. So, by Qtard's OWN ADMISSION, he is an totalitarian religious bonker.
And by which witchcraft rule YOU think that FIRST your (gibberish, by essence) claim WILL transmutate into SECOND your claim. And undenyable factual and true to boot??? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))
You clearly do not know that Golden Rule of Logic -- that for having TRUE conclusion... one NEED TO start from TRUE premices.
Yawn.
\\YOU said that me, committing the "thought crime" of thinking donald tRump is guilty, would mean he can't get a fair trial.
There is NO such thing as thought crimes. (you can quote and cite this)
And YOU -- have ALL rights to have your opinions. (you can quote and cite this)
But... never the less, people's opinions that is NOT that fluffy and harmless beasts. Like baby rabbits. They more like kittens... with fangs and claws. ;-)
Like mere opinion of ordinary frenchmans, that their queen have had said "Let em eat cakes"... have led to that queen unavoidable meeting with a guiloitine.
\\ I deny NOBODY their rights.
Ohh... now you start calling people you don't like and deny their rights, NO-BODY-ies, am I understand your this words correctly? ;-P
Isn't that... NAZI-like NewSpeak?
\\Jack Smith is the prosecutor...
I... don't care.
And YOU, did not give me ANY reason why I should care about... him? her? it?
\\ 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. ;-P
\\Now you pretend not to know who Jack Smith is. Because his indictment of donald tRump is SO VERY damning.
And what you'd do when that "SO VERY damning" thingy... will go poof??? ;-P
You'll declare it "not my business".
Like HOW MANY times already???
With dRump's impeachments. With other "SO VERY damning" cases.
Are you NOT tired, yet? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Well... I am not, cause for me it is damn too distant and unimportant performance, I looking into with half-eye while listening with half-ear...
Before it presented in court... it is doubtful that it is not fake. Or are correctly acqured evidance.
Well... it would not be revealed, if there'd be something "SO VERY damning". ;-P
\\Qtard says "I demand you show it now"! But that isn't how it works, Qtard.
Bullshit. There is no such my words. Or even my claim that could be similar to anything like that, that *I* would have said.
But... I congratulate your understanding of "how it works" -- that's it, that is How It Works -- if there is NO damning evidnces, there is NO trial. ;-P
That's why dRump still not put in trial for "all his corrupt and treasonous" deeds. ;-P
And that makes you so sad, gloomy and grumpy -- cause you are on a verge of admitting that Demn Propaganda lied to you about it... and only will continue to lie it's way... down the road. ;-P
\\I responded: From what I've heard the facts and evidence is there to convict.
Well... we already saw it many times -- how you ready to "believe in facts" that was just somabody-somebody sayings... or literal propaganda. ;-P
\\You are ANTI-court justice. PROVEN with your quote, "fair trial, my ass". And lies about Media doing their job by reporting the known facts. Ridiculously calling it "shaming". If the facts are shaming, that's on tRump, not the media.
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Yap-yap-yap... and there is White rabbits with a clockwatches. ;-P One could and should follow... down the rabbit's (back?)hole.
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Reductio ad Hitlerum is a type of association fallacy. The argument is that a policy leads to -- or is the same as -- one advocated or implemented by Adolf Hitler or Nazi Germany and so "proves" that the original policy is undesirable. [wikipedia]
Naah.
That was Argumentum ad Historium, dumbass. ;-P
\\Note that donald tRump is being indicted by Special Counsel Jack Smith and NOT Merrick Garland. And President Joe Biden has had no comment. The purpose of this is to maintain impartiality. Not AT ALL like Nazi Germany.
Yap.
But you do not like it, isn't it?
For it to not be that swift? That decisive? Punishment of that scumbag dRump???
But well... in Nazi Germany it was NOT that swift and decisive... from the very beginning.
It was rised and rised. By inflating more and more, that "mere people mere opinions"... until ANYTHING and EVERYTHING became allowed.
To punish "those nasty jews"... well, any opposition, any dissident, anyone who was not ready, not able to keep firm steps in that march!
Historical evidances, idiots teached by propaganda to ignore.
\\Because Qtard is a bigly hypocrite whose primary agenda is defending donald tRump. PROVEN.
Your standarts of proves... very nazi-like. ;-P
\\NO. Not the same. Incitement is a crime. My opinion can NOT incite the jailing of donald tRump.
Your alone -- no. But are you alone??? Are you just yourself who saying that? Are you are one who devised to spread that "incitment"?
\\You claimed evidence is being fabricated (audio tape where tRump admits he knows he took secret documents that he did NOT declassify).
Not claimed. Pointed my reasonable doubts.
\\Is incitement to violence illegal in the US? It is a felony under federal law to intentionally "solicit, command, induce, or otherwise endeavor to persuade" another person to engage in a crime of violence against a person or property. 18 U.S.C. § 373. Many states have similar laws.
""In criminal law, incitement is the encouragement of another person to commit a crime. Depending on the jurisdiction, some or all types of incitement may be illegal. Where illegal, it is known as an inchoate offense, where harm is intended but may or may not have actually occurred.""?
Well... then all is simple -- go with this in court, and go prove before judge, or even better peer court that dRumo are guilty.
Not YOUR peers, HIS. ;-P
\\Nobody cares about my opinion. Nobody is acting on my opinion.
That's why you are so sda and grumpy? ;-P
\\ Anyway, my opinion is that, while I think tRump is guilty, he has the right to the presumption of innocent (by the court) and a fair trial.
Well... about that, you started talking only AFTER (and continuous) my nagging. ;-P
\\No. You describe your own "logic".
As always. Mere babbling and name-calling. And NO facts and logic.
Which, as always, can give as sufficient evidance -- that that is merely a lie, of a hypocrite. ;-P
\\You don't like the reporting about an audio tape on which donald tRump admits crimes... therefore it is not true.
I just poinet to that FACT. That there was NO tape, or even audio record from that "tape", given on that site.
There was NO full transcript EVEN.
There was just some CNN merry babbler quotes he swears(NOT!) to the tomb of his mather ARE dRumps words... well, some of them, out of context. With lengthy exposition of propaganda -- HOW people SHOULD see and understand it all...
Easy to see why YOU like it so much.
And easy to see why I could not like -- like because I show firm and continuous disapproval of such a "fair and honest" talks. Here.
But well... that is beyond liking or disliking. I see i just a manipulative and dislogical propaganda. ;-P
Qtard: \\me: LIE! My "go away" was not an effort by me to prohibit you...\\ Yap-yap-yap. The same as "I *DO* beny..."
These are both qtarded lies. I think we can assume here that is a firm pattern in YOUR behavior. Misquotes and lies about what I "really" meant.
Qtard: \\me: a blog were American politics are discussed\\ Hardly. It *DO* not look like discussing politics. To me.
Because you are a FM.
Qtard: \\me: YOU are the one who suggested that people having the opinion that tRump is guilty will make it impossible for him to receive a fair trial.\\ Yap. THE SAME as people in Nazi Germany having merely an opinion that "that jews are scum"... made it possible to many-many jews to became fumes from furnace's exhaust pipes.
Reductio ad Hitlerum is a type of association fallacy. The argument is that a policy leads to -- or is the same as -- one advocated or implemented by Adolf Hitler or Nazi Germany and so "proves" that the original policy is undesirable. [wikipedia]
Upholding the rule of law will not transform the US in to Nazi Germany. Even though people dare to have opinions Qtard does not like.
Qtard: That is how this World tenaciously keep working -- mere opinions of ones, becomes mortal struggles for others... Can you disprove it? With logic and facts??? Naaaaaaah.
Can Qtard prove (with logic and facts) that people having the opinion that tRump is guilty is subverting the US judicial process? NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH. You cannot. Because all the facts point to an impartial prosecution of a law-breaking ex-president. In order to uphold the rule of law. Why you don't want to know who Jack Smith is. Because Jack Smith is an independent Special Prosecutor. He's just following the law. NOT listening to public opinions.
Qtard: That's why you are so gloomy and grumpy. In keeping useless and hopeless tryes to neglect and deny Reality itself.
Qtard is trying to deny reality itself. The proof is his utilization of false Nazi analogies. Qtard says people having opinions makes the US like Nazi Germany. Because tRump is being prosecuted for breaking the law millions of people will end up being murdered? Presumably tRump supporters are going to be rounded up and executed?
Qtard: \\I have no way of knowing if you are a foreigner.\\ And my honest word, not enough?
There is no such thing as the "honest word" of a proven liar.
Qtard: Well... then, if you'd be smart, you'd be able to discern it from my behavior.
"Intentional" misspellings? Unintentional bad spelling and grammar? Could just be proof that you are quite idiotically stupid.
Qtard: Yap. "every one of your comments" -- NONE of which you can QUOTE reliably (means, correctly and in suitable context) and use as a source for your logical conclusions?
"Fair trial, my ass". You don't want a fair trial. You want no trial. Because you know donald tRump will likely be convicted in a fair trial.
Qtard: Cause NOTHING of what you just said/written is a FACT.
You didn't say "fair trial, my ass"?
Qtard: And NO amount of words like "obvious", "undenyable", "not secret" and etc... can re-make a verbal non-fact into FACT aka manifestation of Reality itself.
I don't need to "remake" anything. Just quote you defending donald tRump. Over and over.
Qtard: ONLY pointing to the REAL facts. Like that... that you have said "go away!", or you have said "I *DO* deny..."
Qtard lies are not "real facts". Twisting my words. Lying about what they "really mean".
Qtard: Why NOTHING of what you trying to "incriminate" me -- was said by me.
You DID (over and over) falsely claim that opinions would be why donald tRump could not receive a fair trial. You DID say "fair trial, my ass".
Qtard: \\me: You have argued very strongly that my having the opinion that tRump is guilty is WRONG aka a qtarded thought crime that makes the US like Nazi Germany. ...by Qtard's OWN ADMISSION, he is an totalitarian religious bonker.\\ And by which witchcraft rule YOU think that FIRST your (gibberish, by essence) claim WILL transmutate into SECOND your claim. And undenyable factual and true to boot???
Qtard calls facts he can't refute "gibberish". You AREN'T continually using Nazi and Holocaust analogies to defend donald tRump?
Quote (from your comment above) "that jews are scum... made it possible to many-many jews to became fumes from furnace's exhaust pipes".
Here is another quote that proves Qtard is here is defend donald tRump... "I... don't care". This was in regards to the Special Prosecutor Jack Smith. Qtard doesn't care who he is because Qtard does not care if tRump is guilty or not. Qtard does not want a FAIR trial for donald tRump. REMEMBER, "fair trial, my ass"? donald tRump CAN'T receive a fair trial because... people have opinions. Because having an opinion makes you a Nazi?
So I asked Qtard HOW to stop people from having opinions? Qtard said he doesn't care. Right. Because people having opinions can be used as a (bad, wrong, bullshit) excuse to claim that tRump's trial won't be fair.
Qtard: You clearly do not know that Golden Rule of Logic -- that for having TRUE conclusion... one NEED TO start from TRUE premices. Yawn.
Qtard doesn't know it. Proof is his pushing of the false premise that people having opinions means donald tRump can't receive a fair trial. "Fair trial, my ass".
Qtard: There is NO such thing as thought crimes. (you can quote and cite this) And YOU -- have ALL rights to have your opinions. (you can quote and cite this) But... never the less, people's opinions that is NOT that fluffy and harmless beasts. ... They more like kittens... with fangs and claws.
Qtard ONLY supports the right of people to have opinions because he can use it as "proof" that donald tRump can't receive a fair trial. "Fair trial, my ass".
Qtard: Like mere opinion of ordinary frenchmans, that their queen have had said "Let em eat cakes"... have led to that queen unavoidable meeting with a guiloitine.
No Frenchman had that opinion. Because it didn't happen. The Queen never said "let them eat cakes".
...did Marie Antoinette really say those infuriating words? Not according to historians. Lady Antonia Fraser, author of a biography of the French queen, believes the quote would have been highly uncharacteristic of Marie-Antoinette, an intelligent woman who donated generously to charitable causes and, despite her own undeniably lavish lifestyle, displayed sensitivity towards the poor population of France. [History.com].
"Let them eat cakes" is a fake quote. Qtard likes fake quotes. "I *DO* deny em their rights" is a fake quote Qtard attributes to me. Even though Qtard (not me) wrote the second half ("em their rights"). I've never written "em" instead of "them".
Qtard: \\me: I deny NOBODY their rights.\\ Ohh... now you start calling people you don't like and deny their rights, NO-BODY-ies, am I understand your this words correctly?
No. You're lying again. By telling me what my quotes "really" mean.
"In contemporary political usage, the term Newspeak is used to impugn an opponent who, the attacker claims, is introducing new definitions of words to suit his or her political agenda".
Qtard made up this definition for "nobody", not me.
Qtard: \\me: Jack Smith is the prosecutor...\\ I... don't care. And YOU, did not give me ANY reason why I should care about... him? her? it?
I thought you were VERY concerned about donald tRump not receiving a fair trial. Jack Smith is the man prosecuting donald tRump. The person (as per Qtard's false narrative) who will be
railroading tRump. STILL Qtard does not care who this person is? I guess it does not matter in regards to Qtard continuing to spin his false narrative. Though donald tRump is attacking Jack Smith. According to dotard donald, Jack Smith is a "tRump hater".
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.
So, Qtard was eager to share his uninformed opinion. A headline that confirmed what he already BELIEVED to be true. Why it HAS to be true.
Qtard: And what you'd do when that "SO VERY damning" thingy... will go poof???
How does Qtard know that is what is going to happen? The charges are very serious. The evidence is solid (audiotape of tRump admitting he knows documents are not declassified and that he should not show them to people).
Qtard: You'll declare it "not my business".
Well, I have not been consulted. Jack Smith has not (and will not) ask my advice. It is my business as an American citizen, however. Anyway, why is Qtard so worried that donald tRump isn't going to get a fair trial ("fair trial, my ass") if he thinks the charges will "go poof"???
Qtard: Like HOW MANY times already??? With dRump's impeachments. With other "SO VERY damning" cases. Are you NOT tired, yet? :-)))))))))))))))))
Qtard laughs because he LOVES it that donald tRump is (so far) getting away with criming. "Proof" the trump-defending Qtard believes/hopes means dotard donald will continue to get away with his crimes.
Qtard: Well... I am not, cause for me it is damn too distant and unimportant performance, I looking into with half-eye while listening with half-ear... cause I am foreigner.
LOL! Why you write many words here EVERY damn day. Because you think it's "unimportant". Right.
Qtard: \\me: The tape is mentioned in the indictment.\\ Before it presented in court... it is doubtful that it is not fake. Or are correctly acqured evidance.
It is highly doubtful that it is fake. That would destroy the Jack Smith's case and his reputation. And "confirm" tRump's "witch hunt" and "they're out to get me" narrative. Common sense (which Qtard obviously lacks) says they would not fabricate evidence. It would be way too risky. Even if they were unethical enough to think to try it.
Qtard: \\me: Qtard says "I demand you show it now"! But that isn't how it works, Qtard.\\ There is no such my words. Or even my claim that could be similar to anything like that, that *I* would have said.
Right, because the tRump-defender Qtard would claim the tape is fake no matter what. Even if he could listen to it online. Because Qtard won't ever stop defending donald tRump. No matter how illogical his arguments need to be. Like the tape being a "deep fake".
Qtard: But... I congratulate your understanding of "how it works" -- that's it, that is How It Works -- if there is NO damning evidnces, there is NO trial.
All faked, right Qtard? That's why it's going to "go poof"?
Qtard: That's why dRump still not put in trial for "all his corrupt and treasonous" deeds.
Yep. That is your narrative. Ignoring the fact that the republican party is running interference.
Qtard: ...you are on a verge of admitting that Demn Propaganda lied to you about it... and only will continue to lie it's way... down the road.
"Demn propaganda" is what Qtard calls evidence and facts. "Lies" and "lied" are words Qtard uses when referring to people telling the truth about tRump's corruption and treason.
Qtard: \\I responded: From what I've heard the facts and evidence is there to convict.\\ Well... we already saw it many times -- how you ready to "believe in facts" that was just somabody-somebody sayings... or literal propaganda.
We've already seen it many times how Qtard is ready to disbelieve facts he doesn't like and falsely label them "propaganda".
Qtard: \\You are ANTI-court justice. PROVEN with your quote, "fair trial, my ass". And lies about Media...\\ Yap-yap-yap... and there is White rabbits with a clockwatches.
Non-response. No refutation of the fact that Qtard is anti-court justice. Just idiotic laughter.
Qtard: \\me: Reductio ad Hitlerum is a type of association fallacy. The argument is that a policy leads to -- or is the same as -- one advocated or implemented by Adolf Hitler or Nazi Germany and so "proves" that the original policy is undesirable.\\ Naah. That was Argumentum ad Historium, dumbass.
YOU are the dumbass. To employ (over and over) a logically fallacious argument. Then stick to your guns when called out on it.
"A logical fallacy is an argument that may sound convincing or true but is actually flawed. Logical fallacies are leaps of logic that lead us to an unsupported conclusion. People may commit a logical fallacy unintentionally, due to poor reasoning, or intentionally, in order to manipulate others".
Qtard: \\me: Note that donald tRump is being indicted by Special Counsel Jack Smith and NOT Merrick Garland. And President Joe Biden has had no comment. The purpose of this is to maintain impartiality. Not AT ALL like Nazi Germany.\\ Yap. But you do not like it, isn't it? For it to not be that swift? That decisive? Punishment of that scumbag dRump???
No. I like it. It is the RIGHT way to go about prosecuting tRump. You're the one who keeps saying the prosecution of tRump hasn't been swift enough. "That's why dRump still not put in trial for all his corrupt and treasonous deeds".
Qtard: But well... in Nazi Germany it was NOT that swift and decisive... from the very beginning. It was rised and rised. By inflating more and more, that "mere people mere opinions"... until ANYTHING and EVERYTHING became allowed. To punish "those nasty jews"...
Reductio ad Hitlerum is a type of association fallacy. The argument is that a policy leads to -- or is the same as -- one advocated or implemented by Adolf Hitler or Nazi Germany and so "proves" that the original policy is undesirable.
Qtard is a broken record. With his use of this logically fallacious argument. Poor donald tRump. He is just like a Jew being persecuted by Hitler. donald tRump is a nasty lawbreaker. Not nasty due to his ethnicity or religion. Upholding the rule of law won't cause another Holocaust. That is absurd.
Qtard: Historical evidances, idiots teached by propaganda to ignore. Like "Nazism??? But it'll NEVER happen here!"
What's going on here is that an idiot is using a logically fallacious argument. Nobody is saying "it'll never happen here" -- what is being said is that we need to uphold the rule of law (re the fair trial of donald tRump). That is NOT an example of Nazism.
Qtard: \\me: Because Qtard is a bigly hypocrite whose primary agenda is defending donald tRump. PROVEN.\\ Your standarts of proves... very nazi-like.
"Point to reality" facts are "Nazi-like"?
Qtard: Your alone -- no. But are you alone??? Are you just yourself who saying that? Are you are one who devised to spread that "incitment"?
Calls for the rule of law to be upheld aren't incitement. Incitement involves urging people to break the law. Not uphold it.
Qtard: \\me: You claimed evidence is being fabricated.\\ Not claimed. Pointed my reasonable doubts.
Qtard is (re his comment about "deep fakes") Just Asking Questions. "Just asking questions is a way of attempting to make
wild accusations acceptable by framing them as questions ... The purpose of this argument method is to influence spectators' views by asking leading questions, regardless of the answers given".
Qtard (re incitment): Well... then all is simple -- go with this in court, and go prove before judge...Qtard: ...or even better peer court that dRumo are guilty. Not YOUR peers, HIS.
Who would that be? Putin? Other ex-presidents? So, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush? That's only 4 people, not enough for a jury.
Qtard: \\me: Nobody cares about my opinion. Nobody is acting on my opinion.\\ That's why you are so sda and grumpy?
Why would I CARE?
Qtard: \\me: Anyway, my opinion is that, while I think tRump is guilty, he has the right to the presumption of innocent (by the court) and a fair trial.\\ Well... about that, you started talking only AFTER (and continuous) my nagging.
No accusation of lying or lip service? Because I'm a "totalitarian wannabe" who just wants tRump to receive "justice" from a lynch mob? Or convicted in a kangaroo court?
Qtard: \\No. You describe your own "logic".\\ As always. Mere babbling and name-calling. And NO facts and logic.
I gave evidence following "you describe your own logic". I wrote "you don't like the reporting about an audio tape on which donald tRump admits crimes, therefore it is not true". "Reasonable doubts" my ass. It's going to be presented in court during the trial.
Qtard: \\me: You don't like the reporting about an audio tape on which donald tRump admits crimes... therefore it is not true.\\ I just poinet to that FACT. That there was NO tape, or even audio record from that "tape", given on that site.
Why should it be on CNN's website? It is going to be presented at the trial. The trial has not begun yet.
Qtard: There was NO full transcript EVEN. There was just some CNN merry babbler quotes he swears(NOT!) to the tomb of his mather ARE dRumps words. Well, some of them, out of context.
Can Qtard explain what was "out of context"? Can Qtard explain what incorrect conclusion the CNN reporter (deliberately) reached based on the "out of context" quote?
Qtard: With lengthy exposition of propaganda -- HOW people SHOULD see and understand it all...
Quote some of this "lengthy exposition of propaganda". I see straight reporting and logical fact-based conclusions.
Qtard: ...because I show firm and continuous disapproval of such a "fair and honest" talks. Here.
Indeed. You do disapprove of "fair and honest talks".
Qtard: I see i just a manipulative and dislogical propaganda.
Of course. Because facts that point to donald tRump's guilt are ALL "propaganda" to you. Any fact Qtard doesn't like is "Demn propaganda".
\\Qtard: \\me: LIE! My "go away" was not an effort by me to prohibit you...\\ Yap-yap-yap. The same as "I *DO* beny..."
\\These are both qtarded lies. I think we can assume here that is a firm pattern in YOUR behavior. Misquotes and lies about what I "really" meant.
Go show it! HOW my precise quotes of your words... is "misquotes"???
(but well... I am pleased that you was able to saw a pattern of telling factual truth and using it as base for equally true logical conclusion... in my words -- that's why you repeating em, trying to look smarter, to look like me ;-P)
Because when you saying "go away!" -- you really mean "you welcome"???
And when you say "I *DO* deny" -- you really mean "I ALLOW"???
Or what???
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Well... nobody cares what you "really meaned". ;-P
That would be too big a card blanshe for any liar -- to allow em to change meaning of their words on the fly.
And well... why YOU do not allow the same to dRump???
He must have SAME rights -- to retranslate his own words?
Or what? You are two-faced hypocrite and liar, and totalitarian chouvinist -- who wanna segregate people into groups: to which ANYTHING allowed, and those who a GUILTY by default, in anything that first group have charged em with? ;-P
Yawn.
\\Because you are a FM.
And you can confirm it with any logic and facts? ;-P
Naah.
But... if I'd be FM... and you, repeating after me -- what it would mean about YOUR intellectual proves, ahh, De-Ru-Pi?
How MY logic to ya? ;-P
\\The argument is that a policy leads to -- or is the same as -- one advocated or implemented by Adolf Hitler or Nazi Germany and so "proves" that the original policy is undesirable. [wikipedia]
Yap.
Denying to people their Human's Rights -- it's O.K.????
Because Hitler did it... but mentioning Hitler is "Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy".
That mean denying to people their Human's Rights... somehow... ALLOWED????
\\Upholding the rule of law will not transform the US in to Nazi Germany.
And how denial of people's rights is "upholding the rule of law"???
\\Even though people dare to have opinions Qtard does not like.
That is YOU are one -- who showing allergy to ANY opinion that is not from Demn Propaganda.
Like accusing me being "false foreigner" or "defender of dRump". ;-P
\\Because Jack Smith is an independent Special Prosecutor. He's just following the law. NOT listening to public opinions.
I wish it to be true...
But, how it relates to that CNN reporter spreading Demn propaganda about dRump???
That is also "following the law"?
Or that crowd of people chanting "hang him up", is it too?
\\ Qtard says people having opinions makes the US like Nazi Germany.
So... that is NOT mere people's of Germany opinion that "jews are scum" have a merit, and "Hitler is OUR fuhrer" -- that is what brought NAZIs to come into power????
The same as revolutioners that decided to overthrow rule of a king, and to make USA independent?
The same as French revolution raging crowds, that stated their "mere opinions" like "cut her head! cut her head!"???
"Opinions". Instigated by propaganda. That is what moves masses of people. That is what politics is about.
Or... you can protest it out. And (with historical facts and logical arguments) show how it is NOT true. ;-P
\\There is no such thing as the "honest word" of a proven liar.
Proven with what??? :-))))))))))))))))))
With some mere baseless factless screams of some retard???
Who, as it was showed many time -- DARE to claim that HIS OWN DAMN words is NOT his own demn words... because it hypocriticaly don't like how it sounds -- when it was showed to it, what that words mean???
And screams "my words have another meaning!!!!".
That kind of "truth-teller" and "honest witness"???? :-)))))))))))))))))))))
Which would be banished from a court on the very first such contradicting claim spouted. As dishonest scumbag. ;-P
\\"Intentional" misspellings? Unintentional bad spelling and grammar? Could just be proof that you are quite idiotically stupid.
And you repeat after that "idiotically stupid" person? ;-P
What it should tell about your level of intelligence, ahh????
That you are SO DAMN STUPID, and cannot help it, that you REPEAT after "idiotically stupid" ONLY.
And freakingly CANNOT introduce anything as your own argument, or logical conclusion.
\\You DID (over and over) falsely claim that opinions would be why donald tRump could not receive a fair trial. You DID say "fair trial, my ass".
But opinions... DO influence courts. There'd be NO need to have a solid rules of prevention of influance on court decisions, if that'd be NOT true, isn't it??? So??? What you trying to proclaim here? That totalitarian propaganda missive that courts need not to be protected, and that protection need not to be honed in all of the time, to prevent any corruption???
\\You AREN'T continually using Nazi and Holocaust analogies to defend donald tRump?
Premice 1: Humans have Human Rights
Premice 2: dRump are human
Conclusion: dRump have his rights as a human.
LOGIC!
Predicate Logic Example: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man studylib.net › Math › Advanced Math › Logic Predicate Logic Example: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man · 1. There exists an even integer. · 2. Every integer is even or odd. · 3. All prime integers are ...
\\Qtard doesn't care who he is because Qtard does not care if tRump is guilty or not. Qtard does not want a FAIR trial for donald tRump.
BY WHICH LOGIC???????????????????????????????????????? :-)))))))
How it relates EVEN??? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Just by some bullshit-Deppy's-non-logic (re-enactment): "I want to accuse Q in something. So much. But I have no brains to find anything real and dumning. That's sad. But No Prob. I am idiot. So I will just scream any first thing on my mind. And will call it 'I PROVED'." :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\donald tRump CAN'T receive a fair trial because... people have opinions. Because having an opinion makes you a Nazi?
Recieving fair trial... while people screaming "hang him up" on the streets... well????
There was many such "fair trials" in history...
\\Proof is his pushing of the false premise that people having opinions means donald tRump can't receive a fair trial. "Fair trial, my ass".
You call it "false premice"... but can it DEMONSTRATE -- WHY or HOW it is false???
Naaaah. You can't. ;-P
\\No Frenchman had that opinion. Because it didn't happen. The Queen never said "let them eat cakes".
And queen was not beheaded too???
Naaah. She was.
With this, YOU YOURSELF WITH YOUR OWN DAMN WORDS comnfirmed that people can be punished... just because of some false opinion. ;-P
Cudos!
For continuing to confirm my logical and factually true conclusions. ;-P
\\Qtard likes fake quotes. "I *DO* deny em their rights" is a fake quote
You know.
I like this re-definition of "fake quote" of yours.
It showing with all precisness what a heinous liar you are.
Liar, eager to lie even about OWN DAMN WORDS. ;-P
\\Even though Qtard (not me) wrote the second half ("em their rights"). I've never written "em" instead of "them".
Bullshit.
Quote was "I *DO* deny..." as full quote is too long, and you know it anyway. ;-P
And complete quote have your claim about human rights -- rigths you deny t humans to have. ;-P
\\Qtard: \\me: I deny NOBODY their rights.\\ Ohh... now you start calling people you don't like and deny their rights, NO-BODY-ies, am I understand your this words correctly?
\\No. You're lying again. By telling me what my quotes "really" mean.
Pin-pon! Pin-pon!
Question mark.
That was a question. Not statement. ;-P
Question you cannot answer truthfully. Therefore you dewised "smart plan" to declare it lie. :-)))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard made up this definition for "nobody", not me.
From my side -- there was a question. To clirify what you mean. And. From YOUR side -- there was claim that your words "really mean" something different, from what they apparently obviously by dictionary defintion, mean.
So... with this I proved that YOU are one who trying to use NewSpeak here. ;-P
\\I thought you were VERY concerned about donald tRump not receiving a fair trial.
Yawn.
You was wrong. ;-P
\\Though donald tRump is attacking Jack Smith. According to dotard donald, Jack Smith is a "tRump hater".
Yap.
And you call me "dRump defender". And on even lesser base.
What could it mean? That you are even more dumb than dRump? ;-P
\\So, Qtard was eager to share his uninformed opinion. A headline that confirmed what he already BELIEVED to be true. Why it HAS to be true.
So what? Media spread fake news? Even if it CNN? ;-P
\\How does Qtard know that is what is going to happen? The charges are very serious. The evidence is solid (audiotape of tRump admitting he knows documents are not declassified and that he should not show them to people).
"Audiotape" nobody have seen. And even FULL transcript of which was not given. So that is just somebody-somebody's words... that "tRump admitting he knows documents are not declassified" was there.
And even less chance -- that that "solid evidance" will be amitted by court.
Another word -- that is just a solid example of spreaded through media propaganda -- to facilitate people to have some "solid opinion". Which, even if it would not influance court (while, why it'll not?), but it surely should influence public opinion... and help certain political force to have it's way... with making people vote on that base of false opinions -- isn't that is infrigment of fair voting???
\\Anyway, why is Qtard so worried that donald tRump isn't going to get a fair trial ("fair trial, my ass") if he thinks the charges will "go poof"???
Because such a direct corruption of Presumption of Innocence Principle would be damning for other people. Small fryes. And all around the world, to boot.
I, as foreigner, surely SHOULD worry about it, isn't it?
If such a plague of corruption of legla system will spread... it would increase my, or my relatives, or my friends and aquitances... to fall under such a sham trial too.
In all accordance with old saying:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
First they came - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org › wiki › First_they_came_... "First they came ..." (German: Zuerst kamen sie ...) is the poetic form of a 1946 post-war confessional prose by the German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller ...
\\Qtard laughs because he LOVES it that donald tRump is (so far) getting away with criming.
And you know him being criminal. How??? If not through propaganda in media?
\\It is highly doubtful that it is fake. That would destroy the Jack Smith's case and his reputation.
And you, who are part of general public ALREADY know that dRump is guilty. So, who will be destroying his reputation??? If not general public? While from your point of views his reputation will be destroyed if he'd NOT give that "solid evidance" and will not make dRump incarcerated. ;-P
And... if only there'd be MORE people like you. Totalitarian-aligned. Spitting on human rights. Denying Principle of Innocence.
\\Ignoring the fact that the republican party is running interference.
Interference???
To those totalitarian aligned spitting on human rights and denying principles???? ;-P
\\"Demn propaganda" is what Qtard calls evidence and facts. "Lies" and "lied" are words Qtard uses when referring to people telling the truth about tRump's corruption and treason.
NewSpeak redefinitions? ;-P
\\We've already seen it many times how Qtard is ready to disbelieve facts he doesn't like and falsely label them "propaganda".
FACTS
that is open obvious self-evidant refs to Reality ONLY.
That is NOT FACT -- that "tape". It is obviously and self-evidant OPPOSITE to a fact. As NONE, but ONLY OPPOSITE traits to that in a definition of what FACT is showed.
Is it open? NO, we do not have and have NO idea how we can have access to that tape. Even, do it exist or not.
Is it obvious? Also NO, as it EVEN no transcript given, and circumstances of it recorded not apparent too.
Is it self-evidant??? But how mere words about something can be an evidnace of that something???
And biggest question -- how it could be a reference to Reality???
\\Non-response. No refutation of the fact that Qtard is anti-court justice. Just idiotic laughter.
Yawn.
Which fact???
Like correct quote of my words???
Why I need to refute you mere factless claims??? ;-P
That is... laughable.
You unable to give facts... but you trying to yoke me with need to "refute" your empty babbling.
Of course I laughing. :-))))))))))))))))))))))
\\YOU are the dumbass. To employ (over and over) a logically fallacious argument.
And you can give logical explanation -- why it fallacious?
No, you can't. ;-P
\\"A logical fallacy is an argument that may sound convincing or true but is actually flawed. Logical fallacies are leaps of logic that lead us to an unsupported conclusion. People may commit a logical fallacy unintentionally, due to poor reasoning, or intentionally, in order to manipulate others".
That is what you do in practicly every sentence here. ;-P
Like here. Where you claimed that I did "Reductio ad Hitlerum", which are by definition YOU YOURSELF gave here is "The argument is that a policy leads to -- or is the same as -- one advocated or implemented by Adolf Hitler or Nazi German"...
BUT.
I was NOT discussing ANY policy here. ;-P
I was refering to THE FACT -- historical fact -- how instigation of falacious opinions in general public -- led to coming Nazis power.
Opinions -- is a base for politics.
And false opinions -- is a base for false, lawless, criminal, heinous politics.
That is like... self-evidant.
But totalitarian would oppose to it, obviously. Cause false opinions is a base for totalitarian rule. ;-P
And you ask why I call you totalitarian... wannabe. :-))))))))))))))))))))))
\\No. I like it. It is the RIGHT way to go about prosecuting tRump. You're the one who keeps saying the prosecution of tRump hasn't been swift enough. "That's why dRump still not put in trial for all his corrupt and treasonous deeds".
Obvious lie.
Which disproves your own tryes to smear me being "defender of dRump". ;-P
\\Poor donald tRump. He is just like a Jew being persecuted by Hitler. donald tRump is a nasty lawbreaker.
And who says so? Court justice? No.
\\Not nasty due to his ethnicity or religion.
Like it was anything about etnicity or religion in case of Jews? That just made em convinient target. Easy and interesting, because of their riches. But there was many-many-more targets. Gipsies, gays, all kinds of political parties, religions and etc.
\\ Upholding the rule of law won't cause another Holocaust. That is absurd.
Huh... not knowing history???
Persecution of jews WAS Upholding The Rule of Law -- because SUCH a heinous laws was proclaimed before it. So, Jews was directed into concentration camps and further to death, in all accordance with laws.
\\ Nobody is saying "it'll never happen here" -- what is being said is that we need to uphold the rule of law (re the fair trial of donald tRump). That is NOT an example of Nazism.
NO!
Humans Rights are more important and PRECEDE any law.
Because laws made by corrupt policymakers. And prone to be wrong or errorneously applyed.
That's why we NEED Democracy -- for such a laws to be repelled, in a lawful way.
And on the contrary -- idea that LAWS are ABOVE anything else. Likie above human rights, or human common sense and dignity -- that is DEFINITELY totalitarian ideal.
\\Qtard: \\me: Because Qtard is a bigly hypocrite whose primary agenda is defending donald tRump. PROVEN.\\ Your standarts of proves... very nazi-like.
\\"Point to reality" facts are "Nazi-like"?
That how you trying to smear me with all kinds of bullshit accusations.
It's nazi-like, yes?
\\Calls for the rule of law to be upheld aren't incitement. Incitement involves urging people to break the law. Not uphold it.
Yap. There was laws in Nazi Germany. Of how everyone need to "upright" Jews... to wear their yellow marks, for example. And those who did not do that -- was called "lawbreakers".
\\Qtard: \\me: You claimed evidence is being fabricated.\\ Not claimed. Pointed my reasonable doubts.
\\Qtard is (re his comment about "deep fakes") Just Asking Questions. "Just asking questions is a way of attempting to make
\\wild accusations acceptable by framing them as questions ... The purpose of this argument method is to influence spectators' views by asking leading questions, regardless of the answers given".
Hah... you trying to repel my reasonable doubts... by calling em "inapropariate questions"?
Isn't that fallaciously reasoning?
Or just a merry trick of a competelely idioticly stupid retard. ;-P
\\Who would that be? Putin? Other ex-presidents? So, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush? That's only 4 people, not enough for a jury.
\\Qtard: \\me: Nobody cares about my opinion. Nobody is acting on my opinion.\\ That's why you are so sda and grumpy?
\\Why would I CARE?
Sure. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\I gave evidence following "you describe your own logic". I wrote "you don't like the reporting about an audio tape on which donald tRump admits crimes, therefore it is not true". "Reasonable doubts" my ass. It's going to be presented in court during the trial.
And I guess, you will not be following court trial to confirm that it will... am I right? Cause, you don't care. ;-P
\\Why should it be on CNN's website? It is going to be presented at the trial. The trial has not begun yet.
Of course not. Cause that is just propaganda bait. ;-P
\\Can Qtard explain what was "out of context"? Can Qtard explain what incorrect conclusion the CNN reporter (deliberately) reached based on the "out of context" quote?
Easy-Peasy.
And you could see it immediately, if your eyes would not be blinded by propaganda -- from mere audio tape it is IMPOSSIBLE to confirm WHAT documents that was. ;-P The same as from mere words "I see pink elephant" it cannot be conbcluded that there really was elephant, and it was pink. ;-P
\\Quote some of this "lengthy exposition of propaganda". I see straight reporting and logical fact-based conclusions.
Of course you are. ;-P
The same as any inhabitant of shitho... I mean, totalitarian state.
\\Qtard: ...because I show firm and continuous disapproval of such a "fair and honest" talks. Here.
\\Indeed. You do disapprove of "fair and honest talks".
I'm glad. That you confirmed -- that I am against that bullshit talks not based on facts and logic you trying to spam us here with. ;-P
\\Of course. Because facts that point to donald tRump's guilt are ALL "propaganda" to you. Any fact Qtard doesn't like is "Demn propaganda".
Heh... now you confirmed. That you was here. And have read it.
But... runned away with tail in between your rear legs... having no brains to answer something/anything to my smart conclusions. ;-P
Congrats, De-Ru-Pi.
For at least you are NOT that moronic... and know when to flee. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
"First they came for donald tRump, and I did not speak out".
The law should have come for donald tRump a LONG time ago. He's been a lawbreaker his entire life. It's ABOUT TIME the law came for donald tRump. He's a nasty criminal.
"And... if only there'd be MORE people like you. Totalitarian-aligned. Spitting on human rights. Denying Principle of Innocence".
"People like me" are democratically-aligned. DEMAND upholding of human rights. DEMAND upholding of principal of Innocent until proven guilty... by the courts.
\\The law should have come for donald tRump a LONG time ago. He's been a lawbreaker his entire life. It's ABOUT TIME the law came for donald tRump. He's a nasty criminal.
And you know it, because? YOU witnessed it yourself? dRump's crimes??? WHY you was not reporting em, then? ;-P
Or... you just repeating blurts of Demn Propaganda.
Running for Governor (1870) by Mark Twain Sister Projects.sister projects: Wikidata item.
0:00
Listen to the text, read by Gregg Margarite (11m01s, 7.39MB, help | file info or download)
A few months ago I was nominated for Governor of the great State of New York, to run against Stewart L. Woodford and John T. Hoffman, on an independent ticket. I somehow felt that I had one prominent advantage over these gentlemen, and that was, good character. It was easy to see by the newspapers, that if ever they had known what it was to bear a good name, that time had gone by. It was plain that in these latter years they had become familiar with all manner of shameful crimes. But at the very moment that I was exalting my advantage and joying in it in secret, there was a muddy undercurrent of discomfort "riling" the deeps of my happiness -- and that was, the having to hear my name bandied about in familiar connection with those of such people. I grew more and more disturbed. Finally I wrote my grandmother about it. Her answer came quick and sharp. She said: You have never done one single thing in all your life to be ashamed of -- not one. Look at the newspapers -- look at them and comprehend what sort of characters Woodford and Hoffman are, and then see if you are willing to lower yourself to their level and enter a public canvass with them. It was my very thought! I did not sleep a single moment that night. But after all, I could not recede. I was fully committed and must go on with the fight. As I was looking listlessly over the papers at breakfast, I came across this paragraph, and I may truly say I never was so confounded before: PERJURY. -- Perhaps, now that Mr. Mark Twain is before the people as a candidate for Governor, he will condescend to explain how he came to be convicted of perjury by thirty-four witnesses, in Wakawak, Cochin China, in 1863, the intent of which perjury was to rob a poor native widow and her helpless family of a meagre plantain patch, their only stay and support in their bereavement and their desolation. Mr. Twain owes it to himself, as well as to the great people whose suffrages he asks, to clear this matter up. Will he do it? I thought I should burst with amazement! Such a cruel, heartless charge -- I never had seen Cochin China! I never had heard of Wakawak! I didn't know a plantain patch from a kangaroo! I did not know what to do. I was crazed and helpless. I let the day slip away without doing anything at all. The next morning the same paper had this -- nothing more: SIGNIFICANT. -- Mr. Twain, it will be observed, is suggestively silent about the Cochin China perjury. [Mem. -- During the rest of the campaign this paper never referred to me in any other way than as "the infamous perjurer Twain."] Next came the "Gazette," with this: WANTED TO KNOW. -- Will the new candidate for Governor deign to explain to certain of his fellow-citizens (who are suffering to vote for him!) the little circumstance of his cabin-mates in Montana losing small valuables from time to time, until at last, these things having been invariably found on Mr. Twain's person or in his "trunk" (newspaper he rolled his traps in), they felt compelled to give him a friendly admonition for his own good, and so tarred and feathered him and rode him on a rail, and then advised him to leave a permanent vacuum in the place he usually occupied in the camp. Will he do this?
Could anything be more deliberately malicious than that? For I never was in Montana in my life. [After this, this journal customarily spoke of me as "Twain, the Montana Thief."] I got to picking up papers apprehensively -- much as one would lift a desired blanket which he had some idea might have a rattlesnake under it. One day this met my eye: THE LIE NAILED! -- By the sworn affidavits of Michael O'Flanagan, Esq., of the Five Points, and Mr. Kit Burns and Mr. John Allen, of Water street, it is established that Mr. Mark Twain's vile statement that the lamented grandfather of our noble standard-bearer, John T. Hoffman, was hanged for highway robbery, is a brutal and gratuitous LIE, without a single shadow of foundation in fact. It is disheartening to virtuous men to see such shameful means resorted to to achieve political success as the attacking of the dead in their graves and defiling their honored names with slander. When we think of the anguish this miserable falsehood must cause the innocent relatives and friends of the deceased, we are almost driven to incite an outraged and insulted public to summary and unlawful vengeance upon the traducer. But no -- let us leave him to the agony of a lacerating conscience -- (though if passion should get the better of the public and in its blind fury they should do the traducer bodily injury, it is but too obvious that no jury could convict and no court punish the perpetrators of the deed). The ingenious closing sentence had the effect of moving me out of bed with despatch that night, and out at the back door, also, while the "outraged and insulted public" surged in the front way, breaking furniture and windows in their righteous indignation as they came, and taking off such property as they could carry when they went. And yet I can lay my hand upon the Book and say that I never slandered Governor Hoffman's grandfather. More -- I had never even heard of him or mentioned him, up to that day and date. [I will state, in passing, that the journal above quoted from always referred to me afterward as "Twain, the Body-Snatcher."] The next newspaper article that attracted my attention was the following: A SWEET CANDIDATE. -- Mark Twain, who was to make such a blighting speech at the mass meeting of the Independents last night, didn't come to time! A telegram from his physician stated that he had been knocked down by a runaway team and his leg broken in two places -- sufferer lying in great agony, and so forth, and so forth, and a lot more bosh of the same sort. And the Independents tried hard to swallow the wretched subterfuge and pretend that they did not know what was the real reason of the absence of the abandoned creature whom they denominate their standard-bearer. A certain man was seen to reel into Mr. Twain's hotel last night in state of beastly intoxication. It is the imperative duty of the Independents to prove that this besotted brute was not Mark Twain himself: We have them at last! This is a case that admits of no shirking. The voice of the people demands in thunder-tones: "WHO WAS THAT MAN? It was incredible, absolutely incredible, for a moment, that it was really my name that was coupled with this disgraceful suspicion. Three long years had passed over my head since I had tasted ale, beer, wine, or liquor of any kind. [It shows what effect the times were having on me when I say that I saw myself confidently dubbed "Mr. Delirium Tremens Twain" in the next issue of that journal without a pang -- notwithstanding I knew that with monotonous fidelity the paper would go on calling me so to the very end.] By this time anonymous letters were getting to be an important part of my mail matter. This form was common: How about that old woman you kiked of your premisers which was beging. POL PRY.
And this: There is things which you have done which is unbeknowens to anybody but me. You better trot out a few dols. to yours truly or you'll hear thro' the papers from HANDY ANDY. That is about the idea. I could continue them till the reader was surfeited, if desirable. Shortly the principal Republican journal "convicted" me of wholesale bribery, and the leading Democratic paper "nailed" an aggravated case of blackmailing to me. [In this way I acquired two additional names: "Twain, the Filthy Corruptionist," and "Twain, the Loathsome Embracer."] By this time there had grown to be such a clamor for an "answer" to all the dreadful charges that were laid to me, that the editors and leaders of my party said it would be political ruin for me to remain silent any longer. As if to make their appeal the more imperative, the following appeared in one of the papers the very next day: BEHOLD THE MAN! -- The Independent candidate still maintains Silence. Because he dare not speak. Every accusation against him has been amply proved, and they have been endorsed and re-endorsed by his own eloquent silence till at this day he stands forever convicted. Look upon your candidate, Independents! Look upon the Infamous Perjurer! the Montana Thief! the Body-Snatcher! Contemplate your incarnate Delirium Tremens! your Filthy Corruptionist! your Loath some Embracer! Gaze upon him -- ponder him well -- and then say if you can give your honest votes to a creature who has earned this dismal array of titles by his hideous crimes, and dares not open his mouth in denial of any one of them! There was no possible way of getting out of it, and so, in deep humiliation, I set about preparing to "answer" a mass of baseless charges and mean and wicked falsehoods. But I never finished the task, for the very next morning a paper came out with a new horror, a fresh malignity, and seriously charged me with burning a lunatic asylum with all its inmates because it obstructed the view from my house. This threw me into a sort of panic. Then came the charge of poisoning my uncle to get his property, with an imperative demand that the grave should be opened. This drove me to the verge of distraction. On top of this I was accused of employing toothless and incompetent old relatives to prepare the food for the foundling hospital when I was warden. I was wavering -- wavering. And at last, as a due and fitting climax to the shameless persecution that party rancor had inflicted upon me, nine little toddling children of all shades of color and degrees of raggedness were taught to rush on to the platform at a public meeting and clasp me around the legs and call me PA! I gave up. I hauled down my colors and surrendered. I was not equal to the requirements of a Gubernatorial campaign in the State of New York, and so I sent in my withdrawal from the candidacy, and in bitterness of spirit signed it, "Truly yours, "Once a decent man, but now "MARK TWAIN, I. P., M. T., B. S., D. T., F. C., and L. E."
Never the less. FACTS telling only truth -- you runned away from answering in bunch of previous topics. ;-P
\\DEMAND upholding of human rights.
With "I *DO* deny..."????
Clearly, you are Totalitarian Wannabe who using New Speak... and want to push it into Reality and make other repeat after you that Propaganda chants "War it's Peace, Lie it's Truth" and "I *DO* deny..." it's "DEMAND upholding of human rights."
Lies about political candidate Twain same as "lies" people are telling about donald tRump? Is that false point Qtard was trying to make? Except people are telling the truth about donald tRump, not lying about him.
The indictments have facts backing them up, Qtard. Though, of course, Qtard will claim there are no facts. So donald tRump will be found innocent. Or found guilty based on fabricated evidence and sent to the ovens to be executed by the corrupt Biden Nazis.
Qtard: And you know it, because? YOU witnessed it yourself? dRump's crimes??? WHY you was not reporting em, then?
How does Minus FJ "know" that Joe Biden and his son Hunter are guilty of corruption? He witnessed Joe and Hunter committing the crimes (taking the bribes) himself? Why didn't Minus report them then? Maybe Minus is just repeating blurts of repub propaganda?
In other thread Qtard is trying to deny that there are nazis still in this world. He must be one. Because that is what many of them do (Minus FJ, for example).
Is Joe Biden is going to be impeached? republicans better act fast, given that Joe Biden has less than 2 months to live. That is according to a post on Mystere's blog. It is a "prophetic message" from the "Christian YouTuber" Troy Black. Apparently. I looked at the video but it's an hour and a half. There is an image of a tombstone, though. It says Joe Biden is going to pass on 8/2/2023.
ReplyDeleteMTG is trying to distract from the fact that donald tRump was just indicted. Joe Biden, as the sitting president, is immune from prosecution. And the Senate (controlled by Democrats) won't vote to convict if the House impeaches.
ReplyDeleteHa...
ReplyDeleteThe totalitarian wannabe Minus FJ has already decided that Joe Biden and Hunter Biden are guilty. Even though there has been no trial. Joe Biden can't receive a fair trial due to the opinions of Minus FJ and other tRump supporters. Any trial of Joe Biden would be a total sham, given that his guilt has been predetermined. JUST like Nazi Germany decided Jews are guilty and need to be put to death! Minus FJ says (about Joe Biden) "burn the witch!" If Joe Biden is prosecuted, it will like he is a Jew being sent to a death camp.
ReplyDeleteHunter Biden (if he is persecuted by a kangaroo court and convicted) should definitely be pardoned by Joe Biden. Or by President Kamala Harris (if Joe Biden is no longer with us). Due to Minus FJ's opinion that he is guilty. In violation of Hunter Biden's right to be presumed innocent. By every single person on planet earth. Or the United States, at least. Because people having opinions regarding the guilt of an accused person makes us JUST LIKE Nazi Germany.
btw, donald tRump HAS been charged with espionage. Just like I said was being predicted. A prediction that resulted in a Qtard conniption fit. According to Qtard, this prediction made me a nasty-nasty liar. And that I should feel shame for relating this now-proven-accurate prediction. LOL!!!
btw, Document does not say Joe Biden received any payments. That's a Fox headline.
Documents did not say that the moon was made of cheese, either.
ReplyDeletebtw - Is Trump guilty or innocent of these new indictments (on top of NY's a few month's back)? Still impartial, dervy?
ReplyDeleteI never claimed to be impartial. As far as I am concerned, donald tRump is bigly guilty. As far as the court system is concerned, he is innocent until proven guilty. Qtard pretends he doesn't know the difference -- because it serves his false narrative that I am a "totalitarian wannabe" who wants tRump hung without a trial.
ReplyDeleteThis is complete BS. I want him convicted in a totally legit trial. Then I want him sent to prison for the rest of his miserable life. From what I've heard the facts and evidence is there to convict. If not (which I doubt) then he'll be found "not guilty". And walk away a free man. A lynch mob isn't going to grab him and string him up (what tRump wanted to happen to Mike Pence).
Totally legit like the impeachment trials? LOL! You want. show trials like Russia in the 50s.
ReplyDeleteThe impeachment trials were rigged in tRump's favor. None of the republicans (except Mitt Romney) judged impartialy. So no, absolutely not like that.
ReplyDelete\\ Qtard pretends he doesn't know the difference -- because it serves his false narrative that I am a "totalitarian wannabe"
ReplyDeleteThat's hypothesis. I give factual base to. Each time.
But you. Each time. Squinting from disproving facts and logic. And only trying to twist and turn it into (reverse?) sham trial of a kind....
that, looks like you DO know that you are guilty, and cannot throw off that guilt, cover it with hypocrisy, talk it around with some bullshit talks...
that's why you are so sad and grumpy.
Isn't it, De-Ru-Pi? ;-P
\\From what I've heard the facts and evidence is there to convict.
Non-facts.
Just somebody-somebody saying that THERE IS facts... but NOT showing ANY of it. Claiming it being secret.
But... it is more then enough for you, because, as you yourself proclaimed -- "I want him convicted... I want him sent to prison for the rest of his miserable life...".
Your lip-service "...in a totally legit trial" and "...I've heard the facts and evidence" is just a mere hypocrisy. Yawn.
Do you know what Hypocrisy is?
'Hypocrisy is a tribute that vice pays to virtue.' (c) Francois Duc De La Rochefoucauld
That means... that YOU DO perfectly know, that it is Virtue of Justice -- that people DO HAVE Human Rights, MUST be decided guilty ONLY through court trial AKA Presumption of Innocence.
That's why you giving your lip-service and trying to pretend that you honor it...
BUT.
All you behavior -- shows definitely -- that that is only a pretence. Hipocrisy.
Is you second name.
Derpy the Hypocrite.
Yawn.
PS You can try to disprove it. With facts and logic.
PPS Did you googled for Aristotle's Logic? ;-P
PPPS \\(what tRump wanted to happen to Mike Pence).
Wanting... is not a crime.
Your Captain Obvious.
Except... for totalitarian. ;-P
Whatever Dervy has read 3x is TRUE! It's the law of media spectale Boojum.
ReplyDeleteQtard: That's hypothesis. I give factual base to. Each time.
ReplyDeleteQtard never gave a "factual base" to his assertion that people should be prohibited from having certain opinions. There can be no "factual base" to such an absurd assertion. HOW can people be stopped from commiting thought crimes that Qtard disapproves of?
Qtard: that, looks like you DO know that you are guilty, and cannot throw off that guilt, cover it with hypocrisy, talk it around with some bullshit talks...
I don't. I can NOT. Because there is no reason for "guilt" over the thought crime of having an opinion. Because thought crimes aren't crimes.
Qtard: But you. Each time. Squinting from disproving facts and logic. And only trying to twist and turn it into (reverse?) sham trial of a kind....
Impossible. Jack Smith never called me and asked what he should do. I never told him "look, even if the facts aren't there tRump has to be convicted. Even if the trial is a sham". And Jack Smith didn't respond, "OK. That's what I'll do then. You're the boss".
Qtard: that's why you are so sad and grumpy.
Me being sad and grumpy because I "know" I'm guilty of qtared thought crimes is impossible. Because I KNOW I'm innocent.
Qtard: Non-facts. Just somebody-somebody saying that THERE IS facts... but NOT showing ANY of it. Claiming it being secret.
We are discussing the charges that are being brought in regards to what donald tRump calls the "boxes hoax". The facts in this case are not secret. The indictment has been released. Qtard says this case against donald tRump consists of "non-facts" because he is a hypocrite. Previously he said he accepted facts when they "point to reality". Here he rejects such facts.
President Donald Trump acknowledged on tape in a 2021 meeting that he had retained "secret" military information that he had not declassified, according to a transcript of the audio recording... the tape is significant because it shows that Trump had an understanding the records he had with him at Mar-a-Lago after he left the White House remained classified [link].
Here the "somebody" is donald tRump and the "something-something" he said was an admission of guilt. ON TAPE.
Qtard: it is more then enough for you...
Of course. Because I believe in facts and logic. And when the accused admits his crimes. That is definitely more than enough for me. STILL the case needs to be proven in court. And donald tRump is still presumed innocent.
Qtard: Your lip-service "...in a totally legit trial" and "...I've heard the facts and evidence" is just a mere hypocrisy.
Qtard pays lip service to the idea of a fair trial. Previously he said it proved donald tRump is innocent. The fact that there has been no trial because (Qtard says) the facts are lacking. Now that there is going to be a trial? Qtard says it's going to be a sham. Because *I* have an opinion that tRump is guilty. AS IF my opinion COULD have any impact on this trial.
Qtard: Do you know what Hypocrisy is?
Does Qtard know? He practices it constantly. While falsely accusing me.
Qtard: That means... that YOU DO perfectly know, that it is Virtue of Justice -- that people DO HAVE Human Rights, MUST be decided guilty ONLY through court trial AKA Presumption of Innocence. That's why you giving your lip-service and trying to pretend that you honor it.
ReplyDeleteThis is the second time that Qtard (in the same comment) has copied my smart words. Here I pointed out that Qtard is only paying lip service to human rights. Because (according to Qtard) even though the J6 rioters were arrested, charged and convicted... somehow their "human rights" were preserved. What good is a "right" that confers no benefit at all?
Previously Qtard paid lip service to fair trials. NOW that it's looking like donald tRump is in serious trouble, Qtard's tune has changed. Now he says, "fair trial, my ass". Because Qtard is a bigly hypocrite who uses whatever argument works best in the moment. For defending donald tRump.
Qtard: \\what tRump wanted to happen to Mike Pence.\\ Wanting... is not a crime. Except... for totalitarian.
This was more than "wanting".
Trump's Tweet About Pence Seen as Critical Moment During Riot ... Mr. Trump tweeted at 2:24pm, after the riot was under way: "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done". That was a reference to the vice president's refusal to block the certification of President Biden’s election win in the joint session of Congress that day.
"The tweet looked to me like the opposite of what we really needed at that moment, which was a deescalation", Matt Pottinger, Mr. Trump's former deputy national security adviser [said]. Sarah Matthews, a former White House deputy press secretary, argued that the tweet gave Mr. Trump's supporters permission to continue their assault on the U.S. Capitol. "It was essentially him giving the green light to these people"... [7/25/2022].
Incitement to violence IS a crime, Qtard. But Qtard will probably argue otherwise. Because the totalitarian admirer Qtard always defends donald tRump.
Minus: Whatever Dervy has read 3x is TRUE! It's the law of media spectale Boojum.
I've read more than 3 times that Joe Biden is corrupt and took millions in bribes. That means it's true?
\\Qtard never gave a "factual base" to his assertion that people should be prohibited from having certain opinions.
ReplyDeleteDo I really need to prove something like that to someone who allow to himself to prohibit opinions of others??? With "go away!" ;-P
\\HOW can people be stopped from commiting thought crimes that Qtard disapproves of?
Like that is a question that interests ME?????
That is YOU are leftist totalitarian wannabe... seeking whom to accuse in commiting thought crimes (like me, into faking being foregner and/or supporting dRump... in secret, without any visible evidances).
I... disapprove VERY IDEA of thought crime existance. That is bogus. And totalitarian. And bonkery religious idea. ;-P
\\Qtard: that, looks like you DO know that you are guilty, and cannot throw off that guilt, cover it with hypocrisy, talk it around with some bullshit talks...
\\I don't. I can NOT. Because there is no reason for "guilt" over the thought crime of having an opinion. Because thought crimes aren't crimes.
Who said about it being crime? You are.
Who said it mere thoughts? You are.
Both is your own claims.
Bullshit ones.
To cover your hypocritical denial. ;-P
\\Qtard: But you. Each time. Squinting from disproving facts and logic. And only trying to twist and turn it into (reverse?) sham trial of a kind....
\\Impossible.
What are you talking about here?
That was said about your blatant denial of that open facts -- perfectly correct quotes of your Demn words, like: "I *DO* deny... " em their rights.
And you rising some Jack Smith. Whozzat??? Well, don't say. I don't care.
Clearly.
That is a try to derail discussed point -- of your allergy ang pure fear of facts and logic.
\\Because I KNOW I'm innocent.
Yap.
Totalitarians think that they are innocent. When they "innocently" deny people their rights. ;-P
\\We are discussing the charges that are being brought in regards to what donald tRump calls the "boxes hoax".
No, we don't.
Or... you can confirm it with quotes -- WHERE we (both!) rised and discussed anything about it...
Again.
That is try to derail discussion from question of your allergy and fear of facts and logic... into some inner political brawls in USA, in which I as foreigner NOT involved, and are pretty much indifferent (means, neither like nor dislike... just, don't care)
ReplyDelete\\Here the "somebody" is donald tRump and the "something-something" he said was an admission of guilt. ON TAPE.
Perfect example. ;-P
Thank you.
I checked that link. And what did I found there??? Audio dRump saying that???
NO.
THIS excerpt: ""Former President Donald Trump acknowledged on tape in a 2021 meeting that he had retained “secret” military information that he had not declassified, according to a transcript of the audio recording obtained by CNN.
“As president, I could have declassified, but now I can’t,” Trump says, according to the transcript.
""
So???
I need to belive some losy CNN reporter... that he DO HAVE some tape (of unknown origin... you know, we do have deep-fakes today, so creating a fake "tape" with allegedly dRump's voice... well, do CNN even have such a right -- to wiretape some people... ex-prezidents to boot, ahh???)
And there, on that tape was that EXACTLY words... and they was said IN EXACTLY that damning context???
I bet -- there is NO court (except in totalitarian shithole) that would take such "evidance", and would agree it mean what you and that losy reporter... more like propaganda plague spreader... mean.
That's why I PRO court justice... and AGAINST media shaming compaigns "justice". No matter in what country. Because that is contagious. And I DO care about THAT plague possible coming into my home...
\\Of course. Because I believe in facts and logic.
Yap.
You "belive". To anything you like. To call "facts and logic". And don't believe something you don't like. By Sheer Power of "believeing in"... something-something. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\And when the accused admits his crimes. That is definitely more than enough for me. STILL the case needs to be proven in court.
Yap.
Like in public sham trials in Soviet Union. ;-P
Where accused. Beaten into pulp. Was admiting their crimes...
and no other evidances was provided/needed.
\\Now that there is going to be a trial? Qtard says it's going to be a sham.
Yawn.
And you can give quote -- to confirm that that was MY claim... and not just some words you try to pretend I have had said/written... the same as that losy reporter tryed to do with dRump.
SEE!
That is what I have meaned -- when I said about -- if it allowed against dRump... it in a jiffy of time will grow to be allowed AGAINST EVERYONE!!!
That's why -- breaching of Human Rights CANNOT BE allowed. No matter in regard to what heinous and apparent criminal.
Because. That breach will be used AGAINST honest and innocent people TOO.
And much more willingly.
As it was in Soviet Union.
\\Because *I* have an opinion that tRump is guilty. AS IF my opinion COULD have any impact on this trial.
Aha... the same as in Nazi Germany. Opinion of the people that "jews are scum" WAS NOT and COULD NOT... impact them being choked/burned to death.
That was somebody else's doing. NOT because of PUBLIC SUPPORT of that "jews are scum" idea.
Ough, yes!!!
\\Does Qtard know? He practices it constantly. While falsely accusing me.
Perfectly what Hypocrite would say... in response to be revealed hypocrite.
Would try to squint and redirect.
Perfectly hypocritical. ;-P
\\ Here I pointed out that Qtard is only paying lip service to human rights. Because (according to Qtard) even though the J6 rioters were arrested, charged and convicted... somehow their "human rights" were preserved. What good is a "right" that confers no benefit at all?
ReplyDeletePerfectly totalitarian "logic" of false narrative about "unrestrained rights".
As liliPut trying to preach, to discredict democratic rule in Western countries. AKA "Go to our Dark side. We have cookies here!". :-))))))))))))
And you trying to protest against my admission that you are totalitarian... wannabe. After such a self-revealing blurts? ;-P
\\Mr. Trump tweeted at 2:24pm, after the riot was under way: "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done". That was a reference to the vice president's refusal to block the certification of President Biden’s election win in the joint session of Congress that day.
Whatever.
That is his opinion.
The same as YOUR about dRump need to be put in jail.
Yawn.
If that'll be AN ORDER. Put on paper to boot. That would be totally another story.
\\Incitement to violence IS a crime, Qtard.
Yes?
Please, cite the law. Or some on-duty judge or legal expert judgment.
Or that... just another of your opinions? You have right to? While simultaneuously have NO responsibility for anything happeming in accoradnce with that opinions?
\\I've read more than 3 times that Joe Biden is corrupt and took millions in bribes. That means it's true?
You don't like it... therefore you don't believe... therefore it is not true?
Am I presented your "logic" correclty??? ;-P
PS See. I do not make claim INSTEAD of you. I just asking questions. And give you a chance to EXPLAIN yourself. ;-P
Qtard: Do I really need to prove something like that to someone who allow to himself to prohibit opinions of others??? With "go away!"
ReplyDeleteLIE! My "go away" was not an effort by me to prohibit you for having any opinion. It was about your claim to have no involvement in discussions of American politics. Proven false by your comments here (a blog were American politics are discussed). To have no involvement you would need to go away. This is a "pointing to reality" fact.
Qtard: \\me: HOW can people be stopped from commiting thought crimes that Qtard disapproves of?\\ Like that is a question that interests ME?????
LOL!!! YOU are the one who suggested that people having the opinion that tRump is guilty will make it impossible for him to receive a fair trial. So I (logically) asked you how to stop them. And you DODGE the question! Because you know it's impossible. And the way it has ALWAYS been. QED your "fair trial, my ass" assertion is BULLSHIT.
Qtard: That is YOU... seeking whom to accuse in commiting thought crimes (like me, into faking being foregner and/or supporting dRump... in secret, without any visible evidances).
Neither of those are thought crimes. They are just lies. I have no way of knowing if you are a foreigner. You won't even say what country you are supposedly a resident of. As for "visible evidances" of you defending tRump... how about just about every one of your comments? I don't even know HOW you think you can deny this. It is SO OBVIOUS. It is NOT secret at all.
Qtard: I... disapprove VERY IDEA of thought crime existance. That is bogus. And totalitarian. And bonkery religious idea.
You have argued very strongly that my having the opinion that tRump is guilty is WRONG aka a qtarded thought crime that makes the US like Nazi Germany. Or could. So, by Qtard's OWN ADMISSION, he is an totalitarian religious bonker.
Qtard: Who said about it being crime? You are. Who said it mere thoughts? You are. Both is your own claims. Bullshit ones.
I agree that the claims are complete bullshit. But the claim is YOURS. YOU said that me, committing the "thought crime" of thinking donald tRump is guilty, would mean he can't get a fair trial. When people have ALWAYS had such opinions. And can't be prevented from having them. Yet we still have trials. Trials Qtard previously express confidence in. But now we know Qtard lied. "Fair trial, my ass". Qtard's words.
Qtard: What are you talking about here? That was said about your blatant denial of that open facts -- perfectly correct quotes of your Demn words, like: "I *DO* deny... " em their rights.
INCORRECT quote. PROVEN by the fact that you cut it off. And add lie "em their rights". I deny NOBODY their rights.
Qtard: And you rising some Jack Smith. Whozzat??? Well, don't say. I don't care.
Jack Smith is the prosecutor who is looking into donald tRump's wrongdoing. Keeping documents, refusing to return them and showing them to people he should not have. Also the J6 insurrection. You knew about Durham's report because it helped you in your strong desire to defend donald tRump. Now you pretend not to know who Jack Smith is. Because his indictment of donald tRump is SO VERY damning.
Qtard: I need to belive some losy CNN reporter... that he DO HAVE some tape (of unknown origin... you know, we do have deep-fakes today, so creating a fake "tape" with allegedly dRump's voice... well, do CNN even have such a right -- to wiretape some people... ex-prezidents to boot, ahh???
ReplyDeleteThe tape is mentioned in the indictment. DOJ prosecutors on Jack Smith's team have it in their possession.
Newsweek: In the 49-page indictment that was revealed on Friday, prosecutors provided a transcription of an audio recording of the former president that was made in July 2021, during which Trump is speaking with a writer, publisher and two members of his staff at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey. The tape features Trump discussing a "highly confidential" record with his guests, and the former president says during the recording that he did not have the document declassified before he left the White House. [6/10/2023].
The origin of the recording is not unknown.
Truthout: The recording was made in the summer of 2021, and includes Trump speaking with individuals who were hired to help Mark Meadows, Trump's final chief of staff as president, with researching a book he was writing at the time. [6/9/2023].
Who gave the DOJ the tape? Must have been one of the "individuals who were hired to help Mark Meadows". CNN got a transcript from the DOJ. CNN didn't wiretap anyone. Anyway, all the evidence will be presented at trial. It HAS to be. Qtard says "I demand you show it now"! But that isn't how it works, Qtard. Nobody gives a shit about Qtard's demands.
Qtard: \\We are discussing the charges that are being brought in regards to what donald tRump calls the "boxes hoax".\\ No, we don't. Or... you can confirm it with quotes -- WHERE we (both!) rised and discussed anything about it...
Minus FJ wrote: Is Trump guilty or innocent of these new indictments (on top of NY's a few month's back)? Still impartial, dervy?
I responded: From what I've heard the facts and evidence is there to convict.
This is the case that tRump calls the "boxes hoax". It is what Minus FJ and I were discussing. You responded to my comment (about the new indictments that Minus and I were discussing) so it stands to reason (logically) that you were entering into the SAME discussion. I don't know wtf you THOUGHT you were responding to. But that is the discussion you entered into. It is NMP if you can't follow along.
Qtard: That's why I PRO court justice... and AGAINST media shaming compaigns "justice".
You are ANTI-court justice. PROVEN with your quote, "fair trial, my ass". And lies about Media doing their job by reporting the known facts. Ridiculously calling it "shaming". If the facts are shaming, that's on tRump, not the media.
Qtard: Aha... the same as in Nazi Germany. Opinion of the people that "jews are scum" WAS NOT and COULD NOT... impact them being choked/burned to death. ... Ough, yes!!!
Ough, no!!! You are making a fallacious argument.
Reductio ad Hitlerum is a type of association fallacy. The argument is that a policy leads to -- or is the same as -- one advocated or implemented by Adolf Hitler or Nazi Germany and so "proves" that the original policy is undesirable. [wikipedia]
Note that donald tRump is being indicted by Special Counsel Jack Smith and NOT Merrick Garland. And President Joe Biden has had no comment. The purpose of this is to maintain impartiality. Not AT ALL like Nazi Germany.
[continued]
ReplyDeletedonald tRump, on the other hand, advocated (re his political rival in 2016) "lock her up". NO impartiality. Yet Qtard, who feigns concern, had NOTHING to say in regards to Minus FJ's post about how tRump was going to persecute his enemies in a second term. Because Qtard is a bigly hypocrite whose primary agenda is defending donald tRump. PROVEN.
Qtard: \\me: Trump tweeted ... "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done". \\That is his opinion. The same as YOUR about dRump need to be put in jail.
NO. Not the same. Incitement is a crime. My opinion can NOT incite the jailing of donald tRump. Also, as per the Constitution "the President is charged with enforcing the laws written by the legislative branch". tRump, in inciting the crowd to commit violence, broke his oath as president.
Qtard: \\Now that there is going to be a trial? Qtard says it's going to be a sham.\\ Yawn. And you can give quote -- to confirm that that was MY claim.
You wrote, "fair trial, my ass". You claimed evidence is being fabricated (audio tape where tRump admits he knows he took secret documents that he did NOT declassify).
Qtard: \\Incitement to violence IS a crime\\ Yes? Please, cite the law. Or some on-duty judge or legal expert judgment.
Is incitement to violence illegal in the US? It is a felony under federal law to intentionally "solicit, command, induce, or otherwise endeavor to persuade" another person to engage in a crime of violence against a person or property. 18 U.S.C. § 373. Many states have similar laws.
Qtard:Or that... just another of your opinions? You have right to? While simultaneuously have NO responsibility for anything happeming in accoradnce with that opinions?
Damn right I have no responsibility. I'm inciting nobody. NOTHING is "happeming in accoradnce with that opinions". Nothing could. Nobody cares about my opinion. Nobody is acting on my opinion. Anyway, my opinion is that, while I think tRump is guilty, he has the right to the presumption of innocent (by the court) and a fair trial.
Qtard: You don't like it... therefore you don't believe... therefore it is not true? Am I presented your "logic" correclty???
No. You describe your own "logic". You don't like the reporting about an audio tape on which donald tRump admits crimes... therefore it is not true. Qtarded "logic".
\\LIE! My "go away" was not an effort by me to prohibit you...
ReplyDeleteYap-yap-yap.
The same as "I *DO* beny..." :-))))))))
I think, we can assume here that that is a firm pattern in your behavior -- wadayatnk? ;-P
\\a blog were American politics are discussed
Hardly.
It *DO* not look like discussing politics. To me. ;-P
\\LOL!!! YOU are the one who suggested that people having the opinion that tRump is guilty will make it impossible for him to receive a fair trial.
Yap.
THE SAME as people in Nazi Germany having merely an opinion that "that jews are scum"... made it possible to many-many jews to became fumes from furnace's exhaust pipes.
That is how this World tenaciously keep working -- mere opinions of ones, becomes mortal struggles for others...
Can you disprove it? With logic and facts???
Naaaaaaah.
That's why you are so gloomy and grumpy. ;-P
In keeping useless and hopeless tryes to neglect and deny Reality itself.
\\I have no way of knowing if you are a foreigner.
And my honest word, not enough? ;-P
Well... then, if you'd be smart, you'd be able to discern it from my behavior.
But... we know for sure that you are not smart. Quite opposite -- you are quite idioticly stupid.
So, yeah, I agree... hard task... fer ya. ;-P
\\You won't even say what country you are supposedly a resident of.
And you have tried to ask? Politely??? ;-P
\\As for "visible evidances" of you defending tRump... how about just about every one of your comments?
Yap. "every one of your comments" -- NONE of which you can QUOTE reliably (means, correctly and in suitable context) and use as a source for your logical conclusions? ;-P
\\ I don't even know HOW you think you can deny this. It is SO OBVIOUS. It is NOT secret at all.
Easy-Peasy. ;-P
Cause NOTHING of what you just said/written is a FACT. :-))))))))))))))))
And NO amount of words like "obvious", "undenyable", "not secret" and etc... can re-make a verbal non-fact into FACT aka manifestation of Reality itself. ;-P
ONLY pointing to the REAL facts. ;-P
Like that... that you have said "go away!", or you have said "I *DO* deny..."
See the difference? No?? Why YOU cannot thrug it off, no matter what amount of verbal spam you produced and how many times you tryed to deny it???
BECAUSE that is factual fact -- that you have had said it.
Why NOTHING of what you trying to "incriminate" me -- was said by me.
Do YOU get it???? Now??? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Doubt it.
ReplyDelete\\ I don't even know HOW you think you can deny this. It is SO OBVIOUS. It is NOT secret at all.
Easy-Peasy. ;-P
Cause NOTHING of what you just said/written is a FACT. :-))))))))))))))))
And NO amount of words like "obvious", "undenyable", "not secret" and etc... can re-make a verbal non-fact into FACT aka manifestation of Reality itself. ;-P
ONLY pointing to the REAL facts. ;-P
Like that... that you have said "go away!", or you have said "I *DO* deny..."
See the difference? No?? Why YOU cannot thrug it off, no matter what amount of verbal spam you produced and how many times you tryed to deny it???
BECAUSE that is factual fact -- that you have had said it.
Why NOTHING of what you trying to "incriminate" me -- was said by me.
Do YOU get it???? Now??? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Doubt it.
\\You have argued very strongly that my having the opinion that tRump is guilty is WRONG aka a qtarded thought crime that makes the US like Nazi Germany. Or could. So, by Qtard's OWN ADMISSION, he is an totalitarian religious bonker.
And by which witchcraft rule YOU think that FIRST your (gibberish, by essence) claim WILL transmutate into SECOND your claim. And undenyable factual and true to boot??? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))
You clearly do not know that Golden Rule of Logic -- that for having TRUE conclusion... one NEED TO start from TRUE premices.
Yawn.
\\YOU said that me, committing the "thought crime" of thinking donald tRump is guilty, would mean he can't get a fair trial.
There is NO such thing as thought crimes. (you can quote and cite this)
And YOU -- have ALL rights to have your opinions. (you can quote and cite this)
But... never the less, people's opinions that is NOT that fluffy and harmless beasts. Like baby rabbits. They more like kittens... with fangs and claws. ;-)
Like mere opinion of ordinary frenchmans, that their queen have had said "Let em eat cakes"... have led to that queen unavoidable meeting with a guiloitine.
\\ I deny NOBODY their rights.
Ohh... now you start calling people you don't like and deny their rights, NO-BODY-ies, am I understand your this words correctly? ;-P
Isn't that... NAZI-like NewSpeak?
\\Jack Smith is the prosecutor...
I... don't care.
And YOU, did not give me ANY reason why I should care about... him? her? it?
\\ 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. ;-P
\\Now you pretend not to know who Jack Smith is. Because his indictment of donald tRump is SO VERY damning.
And what you'd do when that "SO VERY damning" thingy... will go poof??? ;-P
You'll declare it "not my business".
Like HOW MANY times already???
With dRump's impeachments. With other "SO VERY damning" cases.
Are you NOT tired, yet? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Well... I am not, cause for me it is damn too distant and unimportant performance, I looking into with half-eye while listening with half-ear...
cause I am foreigner. ;-P
\\The tape is mentioned in the indictment.
ReplyDeleteBefore it presented in court... it is doubtful that it is not fake. Or are correctly acqured evidance.
Well... it would not be revealed, if there'd be something "SO VERY damning". ;-P
\\Qtard says "I demand you show it now"! But that isn't how it works, Qtard.
Bullshit. There is no such my words. Or even my claim that could be similar to anything like that, that *I* would have said.
But... I congratulate your understanding of "how it works" -- that's it, that is How It Works -- if there is NO damning evidnces, there is NO trial. ;-P
That's why dRump still not put in trial for "all his corrupt and treasonous" deeds. ;-P
And that makes you so sad, gloomy and grumpy -- cause you are on a verge of admitting that Demn Propaganda lied to you about it... and only will continue to lie it's way... down the road. ;-P
\\I responded: From what I've heard the facts and evidence is there to convict.
Well... we already saw it many times -- how you ready to "believe in facts" that was just somabody-somebody sayings... or literal propaganda. ;-P
\\You are ANTI-court justice. PROVEN with your quote, "fair trial, my ass". And lies about Media doing their job by reporting the known facts. Ridiculously calling it "shaming". If the facts are shaming, that's on tRump, not the media.
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Yap-yap-yap... and there is White rabbits with a clockwatches. ;-P
One could and should follow... down the rabbit's (back?)hole.
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Reductio ad Hitlerum is a type of association fallacy. The argument is that a policy leads to -- or is the same as -- one advocated or implemented by Adolf Hitler or Nazi Germany and so "proves" that the original policy is undesirable. [wikipedia]
Naah.
That was Argumentum ad Historium, dumbass. ;-P
\\Note that donald tRump is being indicted by Special Counsel Jack Smith and NOT Merrick Garland. And President Joe Biden has had no comment. The purpose of this is to maintain impartiality. Not AT ALL like Nazi Germany.
Yap.
But you do not like it, isn't it?
For it to not be that swift? That decisive? Punishment of that scumbag dRump???
But well... in Nazi Germany it was NOT that swift and decisive... from the very beginning.
It was rised and rised. By inflating more and more, that "mere people mere opinions"... until ANYTHING and EVERYTHING became allowed.
To punish "those nasty jews"... well, any opposition, any dissident, anyone who was not ready, not able to keep firm steps in that march!
Historical evidances, idiots teached by propaganda to ignore.
Like "Nazism??? But it'll NEVER happen here!"
ReplyDelete\\Because Qtard is a bigly hypocrite whose primary agenda is defending donald tRump. PROVEN.
Your standarts of proves... very nazi-like. ;-P
\\NO. Not the same. Incitement is a crime. My opinion can NOT incite the jailing of donald tRump.
Your alone -- no. But are you alone??? Are you just yourself who saying that? Are you are one who devised to spread that "incitment"?
\\You claimed evidence is being fabricated (audio tape where tRump admits he knows he took secret documents that he did NOT declassify).
Not claimed. Pointed my reasonable doubts.
\\Is incitement to violence illegal in the US? It is a felony under federal law to intentionally "solicit, command, induce, or otherwise endeavor to persuade" another person to engage in a crime of violence against a person or property. 18 U.S.C. § 373. Many states have similar laws.
""In criminal law, incitement is the encouragement of another person to commit a crime. Depending on the jurisdiction, some or all types of incitement may be illegal. Where illegal, it is known as an inchoate offense, where harm is intended but may or may not have actually occurred.""?
Well... then all is simple -- go with this in court, and go prove before judge, or even better peer court that dRumo are guilty.
Not YOUR peers, HIS. ;-P
\\Nobody cares about my opinion. Nobody is acting on my opinion.
That's why you are so sda and grumpy? ;-P
\\ Anyway, my opinion is that, while I think tRump is guilty, he has the right to the presumption of innocent (by the court) and a fair trial.
Well... about that, you started talking only AFTER (and continuous) my nagging. ;-P
\\No. You describe your own "logic".
As always. Mere babbling and name-calling. And NO facts and logic.
Which, as always, can give as sufficient evidance -- that that is merely a lie, of a hypocrite. ;-P
\\You don't like the reporting about an audio tape on which donald tRump admits crimes... therefore it is not true.
I just poinet to that FACT. That there was NO tape, or even audio record from that "tape", given on that site.
There was NO full transcript EVEN.
There was just some CNN merry babbler quotes he swears(NOT!) to the tomb of his mather ARE dRumps words... well, some of them, out of context. With lengthy exposition of propaganda -- HOW people SHOULD see and understand it all...
Easy to see why YOU like it so much.
And easy to see why I could not like -- like because I show firm and continuous disapproval of such a "fair and honest" talks. Here.
But well... that is beyond liking or disliking. I see i just a manipulative and dislogical propaganda. ;-P
Qtard: \\me: LIE! My "go away" was not an effort by me to prohibit you...\\ Yap-yap-yap. The same as "I *DO* beny..."
ReplyDeleteThese are both qtarded lies. I think we can assume here that is a firm pattern in YOUR behavior. Misquotes and lies about what I "really" meant.
Qtard: \\me: a blog were American politics are discussed\\ Hardly. It *DO* not look like discussing politics. To me.
Because you are a FM.
Qtard: \\me: YOU are the one who suggested that people having the opinion that tRump is guilty will make it impossible for him to receive a fair trial.\\ Yap. THE SAME as people in Nazi Germany having merely an opinion that "that jews are scum"... made it possible to many-many jews to became fumes from furnace's exhaust pipes.
Reductio ad Hitlerum is a type of association fallacy. The argument is that a policy leads to -- or is the same as -- one advocated or implemented by Adolf Hitler or Nazi Germany and so "proves" that the original policy is undesirable. [wikipedia]
Upholding the rule of law will not transform the US in to Nazi Germany. Even though people dare to have opinions Qtard does not like.
Qtard: That is how this World tenaciously keep working -- mere opinions of ones, becomes mortal struggles for others... Can you disprove it? With logic and facts??? Naaaaaaah.
Can Qtard prove (with logic and facts) that people having the opinion that tRump is guilty is subverting the US judicial process? NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH. You cannot. Because all the facts point to an impartial prosecution of a law-breaking ex-president. In order to uphold the rule of law. Why you don't want to know who Jack Smith is. Because Jack Smith is an independent Special Prosecutor. He's just following the law. NOT listening to public opinions.
Qtard: That's why you are so gloomy and grumpy. In keeping useless and hopeless tryes to neglect and deny Reality itself.
Qtard is trying to deny reality itself. The proof is his utilization of false Nazi analogies. Qtard says people having opinions makes the US like Nazi Germany. Because tRump is being prosecuted for breaking the law millions of people will end up being murdered? Presumably tRump supporters are going to be rounded up and executed?
Qtard: \\I have no way of knowing if you are a foreigner.\\ And my honest word, not enough?
There is no such thing as the "honest word" of a proven liar.
Qtard: Well... then, if you'd be smart, you'd be able to discern it from my behavior.
"Intentional" misspellings? Unintentional bad spelling and grammar? Could just be proof that you are quite idiotically stupid.
Qtard: Yap. "every one of your comments" -- NONE of which you can QUOTE reliably (means, correctly and in suitable context) and use as a source for your logical conclusions?
"Fair trial, my ass". You don't want a fair trial. You want no trial. Because you know donald tRump will likely be convicted in a fair trial.
Qtard: Cause NOTHING of what you just said/written is a FACT.
You didn't say "fair trial, my ass"?
Qtard: And NO amount of words like "obvious", "undenyable", "not secret" and etc... can re-make a verbal non-fact into FACT aka manifestation of Reality itself.
I don't need to "remake" anything. Just quote you defending donald tRump. Over and over.
Qtard: ONLY pointing to the REAL facts. Like that... that you have said "go away!", or you have said "I *DO* deny..."
Qtard lies are not "real facts". Twisting my words. Lying about what they "really mean".
Qtard: Why NOTHING of what you trying to "incriminate" me -- was said by me.
ReplyDeleteYou DID (over and over) falsely claim that opinions would be why donald tRump could not receive a fair trial. You DID say "fair trial, my ass".
Qtard: \\me: You have argued very strongly that my having the opinion that tRump is guilty is WRONG aka a qtarded thought crime that makes the US like Nazi Germany. ...by Qtard's OWN ADMISSION, he is an totalitarian religious bonker.\\ And by which witchcraft rule YOU think that FIRST your (gibberish, by essence) claim WILL transmutate into SECOND your claim. And undenyable factual and true to boot???
Qtard calls facts he can't refute "gibberish". You AREN'T continually using Nazi and Holocaust analogies to defend donald tRump?
Quote (from your comment above) "that jews are scum... made it possible to many-many jews to became fumes from furnace's exhaust pipes".
Here is another quote that proves Qtard is here is defend donald tRump... "I... don't care". This was in regards to the Special Prosecutor Jack Smith. Qtard doesn't care who he is because Qtard does not care if tRump is guilty or not. Qtard does not want a FAIR trial for donald tRump. REMEMBER, "fair trial, my ass"? donald tRump CAN'T receive a fair trial because... people have opinions. Because having an opinion makes you a Nazi?
So I asked Qtard HOW to stop people from having opinions? Qtard said he doesn't care. Right. Because people having opinions can be used as a (bad, wrong, bullshit) excuse to claim that tRump's trial won't be fair.
Qtard: You clearly do not know that Golden Rule of Logic -- that for having TRUE conclusion... one NEED TO start from TRUE premices. Yawn.
Qtard doesn't know it. Proof is his pushing of the false premise that people having opinions means donald tRump can't receive a fair trial. "Fair trial, my ass".
Qtard: There is NO such thing as thought crimes. (you can quote and cite this) And YOU -- have ALL rights to have your opinions. (you can quote and cite this) But... never the less, people's opinions that is NOT that fluffy and harmless beasts. ... They more like kittens... with fangs and claws.
Qtard ONLY supports the right of people to have opinions because he can use it as "proof" that donald tRump can't receive a fair trial. "Fair trial, my ass".
Qtard: Like mere opinion of ordinary frenchmans, that their queen have had said "Let em eat cakes"... have led to that queen unavoidable meeting with a guiloitine.
No Frenchman had that opinion. Because it didn't happen. The Queen never said "let them eat cakes".
...did Marie Antoinette really say those infuriating words? Not according to historians. Lady Antonia Fraser, author of a biography of the French queen, believes the quote would have been highly uncharacteristic of Marie-Antoinette, an intelligent woman who donated generously to charitable causes and, despite her own undeniably lavish lifestyle, displayed sensitivity towards the poor population of France. [History.com].
"Let them eat cakes" is a fake quote. Qtard likes fake quotes. "I *DO* deny em their rights" is a fake quote Qtard attributes to me. Even though Qtard (not me) wrote the second half ("em their rights"). I've never written "em" instead of "them".
Qtard: \\me: I deny NOBODY their rights.\\ Ohh... now you start calling people you don't like and deny their rights, NO-BODY-ies, am I understand your this words correctly?
No. You're lying again. By telling me what my quotes "really" mean.
Qtard: Isn't that... NAZI-like NewSpeak?
ReplyDelete"In contemporary political usage, the term Newspeak is used to impugn an opponent who, the attacker claims, is introducing new definitions of words to suit his or her political agenda".
Qtard made up this definition for "nobody", not me.
Qtard: \\me: Jack Smith is the prosecutor...\\ I... don't care. And YOU, did not give me ANY reason why I should care about... him? her? it?
I thought you were VERY concerned about donald tRump not receiving a fair trial. Jack Smith is the man prosecuting donald tRump. The person (as per Qtard's false narrative) who will be
railroading tRump. STILL Qtard does not care who this person is? I guess it does not matter in regards to Qtard continuing to spin his false narrative. Though donald tRump is attacking Jack Smith. According to dotard donald, Jack Smith is a "tRump hater".
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.
So, Qtard was eager to share his uninformed opinion. A headline that confirmed what he already BELIEVED to be true. Why it HAS to be true.
Qtard: And what you'd do when that "SO VERY damning" thingy... will go poof???
How does Qtard know that is what is going to happen? The charges are very serious. The evidence is solid (audiotape of tRump admitting he knows documents are not declassified and that he should not show them to people).
Qtard: You'll declare it "not my business".
Well, I have not been consulted. Jack Smith has not (and will not) ask my advice. It is my business as an American citizen, however. Anyway, why is Qtard so worried that donald tRump isn't going to get a fair trial ("fair trial, my ass") if he thinks the charges will "go poof"???
Qtard: Like HOW MANY times already??? With dRump's impeachments. With other "SO VERY damning" cases. Are you NOT tired, yet? :-)))))))))))))))))
Qtard laughs because he LOVES it that donald tRump is (so far) getting away with criming. "Proof" the trump-defending Qtard believes/hopes means dotard donald will continue to get away with his crimes.
Qtard: Well... I am not, cause for me it is damn too distant and unimportant performance, I looking into with half-eye while listening with half-ear... cause I am foreigner.
LOL! Why you write many words here EVERY damn day. Because you think it's "unimportant". Right.
Qtard: \\me: The tape is mentioned in the indictment.\\ Before it presented in court... it is doubtful that it is not fake. Or are correctly acqured evidance.
It is highly doubtful that it is fake. That would destroy the Jack Smith's case and his reputation. And "confirm" tRump's "witch hunt" and "they're out to get me" narrative. Common sense (which Qtard obviously lacks) says they would not fabricate evidence. It would be way too risky. Even if they were unethical enough to think to try it.
Qtard: \\me: Qtard says "I demand you show it now"! But that isn't how it works, Qtard.\\ There is no such my words. Or even my claim that could be similar to anything like that, that *I* would have said.
Right, because the tRump-defender Qtard would claim the tape is fake no matter what. Even if he could listen to it online. Because Qtard won't ever stop defending donald tRump. No matter how illogical his arguments need to be. Like the tape being a "deep fake".
Qtard: But... I congratulate your understanding of "how it works" -- that's it, that is How It Works -- if there is NO damning evidnces, there is NO trial.
All faked, right Qtard? That's why it's going to "go poof"?
Qtard: That's why dRump still not put in trial for "all his corrupt and treasonous" deeds.
ReplyDeleteYep. That is your narrative. Ignoring the fact that the republican party is running interference.
Qtard: ...you are on a verge of admitting that Demn Propaganda lied to you about it... and only will continue to lie it's way... down the road.
"Demn propaganda" is what Qtard calls evidence and facts. "Lies" and "lied" are words Qtard uses when referring to people telling the truth about tRump's corruption and treason.
Qtard: \\I responded: From what I've heard the facts and evidence is there to convict.\\ Well... we already saw it many times -- how you ready to "believe in facts" that was just somabody-somebody sayings... or literal propaganda.
We've already seen it many times how Qtard is ready to disbelieve facts he doesn't like and falsely label them "propaganda".
Qtard: \\You are ANTI-court justice. PROVEN with your quote, "fair trial, my ass". And lies about Media...\\ Yap-yap-yap... and there is White rabbits with a clockwatches.
Non-response. No refutation of the fact that Qtard is anti-court justice. Just idiotic laughter.
Qtard: \\me: Reductio ad Hitlerum is a type of association fallacy. The argument is that a policy leads to -- or is the same as -- one advocated or implemented by Adolf Hitler or Nazi Germany and so "proves" that the original policy is undesirable.\\ Naah. That was Argumentum ad Historium, dumbass.
YOU are the dumbass. To employ (over and over) a logically fallacious argument. Then stick to your guns when called out on it.
"A logical fallacy is an argument that may sound convincing or true but is actually flawed. Logical fallacies are leaps of logic that lead us to an unsupported conclusion. People may commit a logical fallacy unintentionally, due to poor reasoning, or intentionally, in order to manipulate others".
Qtard: \\me: Note that donald tRump is being indicted by Special Counsel Jack Smith and NOT Merrick Garland. And President Joe Biden has had no comment. The purpose of this is to maintain impartiality. Not AT ALL like Nazi Germany.\\ Yap. But you do not like it, isn't it? For it to not be that swift? That decisive? Punishment of that scumbag dRump???
No. I like it. It is the RIGHT way to go about prosecuting tRump. You're the one who keeps saying the prosecution of tRump hasn't been swift enough. "That's why dRump still not put in trial for all his corrupt and treasonous deeds".
Qtard: But well... in Nazi Germany it was NOT that swift and decisive... from the very beginning. It was rised and rised. By inflating more and more, that "mere people mere opinions"... until ANYTHING and EVERYTHING became allowed. To punish "those nasty jews"...
Reductio ad Hitlerum is a type of association fallacy. The argument is that a policy leads to -- or is the same as -- one advocated or implemented by Adolf Hitler or Nazi Germany and so "proves" that the original policy is undesirable.
Qtard is a broken record. With his use of this logically fallacious argument. Poor donald tRump. He is just like a Jew being persecuted by Hitler. donald tRump is a nasty lawbreaker. Not nasty due to his ethnicity or religion. Upholding the rule of law won't cause another Holocaust. That is absurd.
Qtard: Historical evidances, idiots teached by propaganda to ignore. Like "Nazism??? But it'll NEVER happen here!"
What's going on here is that an idiot is using a logically fallacious argument. Nobody is saying "it'll never happen here" -- what is being said is that we need to uphold the rule of law (re the fair trial of donald tRump). That is NOT an example of Nazism.
Qtard: \\me: Because Qtard is a bigly hypocrite whose primary agenda is defending donald tRump. PROVEN.\\ Your standarts of proves... very nazi-like.
ReplyDelete"Point to reality" facts are "Nazi-like"?
Qtard: Your alone -- no. But are you alone??? Are you just yourself who saying that? Are you are one who devised to spread that "incitment"?
Calls for the rule of law to be upheld aren't incitement. Incitement involves urging people to break the law. Not uphold it.
Qtard: \\me: You claimed evidence is being fabricated.\\ Not claimed. Pointed my reasonable doubts.
Qtard is (re his comment about "deep fakes") Just Asking Questions. "Just asking questions is a way of attempting to make
wild accusations acceptable by framing them as questions ... The purpose of this argument method is to influence spectators' views by asking leading questions, regardless of the answers given".
Qtard (re incitment): Well... then all is simple -- go with this in court, and go prove before judge...Qtard: ...or even better peer court that dRumo are guilty. Not YOUR peers, HIS.
Who would that be? Putin? Other ex-presidents? So, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush? That's only 4 people, not enough for a jury.
Qtard: \\me: Nobody cares about my opinion. Nobody is acting on my opinion.\\ That's why you are so sda and grumpy?
Why would I CARE?
Qtard: \\me: Anyway, my opinion is that, while I think tRump is guilty, he has the right to the presumption of innocent (by the court) and a fair trial.\\ Well... about that, you started talking only AFTER (and continuous) my nagging.
No accusation of lying or lip service? Because I'm a "totalitarian wannabe" who just wants tRump to receive "justice" from a lynch mob? Or convicted in a kangaroo court?
Qtard: \\No. You describe your own "logic".\\ As always. Mere babbling and name-calling. And NO facts and logic.
I gave evidence following "you describe your own logic". I wrote "you don't like the reporting about an audio tape on which donald tRump admits crimes, therefore it is not true". "Reasonable doubts" my ass. It's going to be presented in court during the trial.
Qtard: \\me: You don't like the reporting about an audio tape on which donald tRump admits crimes... therefore it is not true.\\ I just poinet to that FACT. That there was NO tape, or even audio record from that "tape", given on that site.
Why should it be on CNN's website? It is going to be presented at the trial. The trial has not begun yet.
Qtard: There was NO full transcript EVEN. There was just some CNN merry babbler quotes he swears(NOT!) to the tomb of his mather ARE dRumps words. Well, some of them, out of context.
Can Qtard explain what was "out of context"? Can Qtard explain what incorrect conclusion the CNN reporter (deliberately) reached based on the "out of context" quote?
Qtard: With lengthy exposition of propaganda -- HOW people SHOULD see and understand it all...
Quote some of this "lengthy exposition of propaganda". I see straight reporting and logical fact-based conclusions.
Qtard: ...because I show firm and continuous disapproval of such a "fair and honest" talks. Here.
Indeed. You do disapprove of "fair and honest talks".
Qtard: I see i just a manipulative and dislogical propaganda.
Of course. Because facts that point to donald tRump's guilt are ALL "propaganda" to you. Any fact Qtard doesn't like is "Demn propaganda".
\\Qtard: \\me: LIE! My "go away" was not an effort by me to prohibit you...\\ Yap-yap-yap. The same as "I *DO* beny..."
ReplyDelete\\These are both qtarded lies. I think we can assume here that is a firm pattern in YOUR behavior. Misquotes and lies about what I "really" meant.
Go show it! HOW my precise quotes of your words... is "misquotes"???
(but well... I am pleased that you was able to saw a pattern of telling factual truth and using it as base for equally true logical conclusion... in my words -- that's why you repeating em, trying to look smarter, to look like me ;-P)
Because when you saying "go away!" -- you really mean "you welcome"???
And when you say "I *DO* deny" -- you really mean "I ALLOW"???
Or what???
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Well... nobody cares what you "really meaned". ;-P
That would be too big a card blanshe for any liar -- to allow em to change meaning of their words on the fly.
And well... why YOU do not allow the same to dRump???
He must have SAME rights -- to retranslate his own words?
Or what? You are two-faced hypocrite and liar, and totalitarian chouvinist -- who wanna segregate people into groups: to which ANYTHING allowed, and those who a GUILTY by default, in anything that first group have charged em with? ;-P
Yawn.
\\Because you are a FM.
And you can confirm it with any logic and facts? ;-P
Naah.
But... if I'd be FM... and you, repeating after me -- what it would mean about YOUR intellectual proves, ahh, De-Ru-Pi?
How MY logic to ya? ;-P
\\The argument is that a policy leads to -- or is the same as -- one advocated or implemented by Adolf Hitler or Nazi Germany and so "proves" that the original policy is undesirable. [wikipedia]
Yap.
Denying to people their Human's Rights -- it's O.K.????
Because Hitler did it... but mentioning Hitler is "Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy".
That mean denying to people their Human's Rights... somehow... ALLOWED????
\\Upholding the rule of law will not transform the US in to Nazi Germany.
And how denial of people's rights is "upholding the rule of law"???
\\Even though people dare to have opinions Qtard does not like.
That is YOU are one -- who showing allergy to ANY opinion that is not from Demn Propaganda.
Like accusing me being "false foreigner" or "defender of dRump". ;-P
\\Because Jack Smith is an independent Special Prosecutor. He's just following the law. NOT listening to public opinions.
I wish it to be true...
But, how it relates to that CNN reporter spreading Demn propaganda about dRump???
That is also "following the law"?
Or that crowd of people chanting "hang him up", is it too?
ReplyDelete\\ Qtard says people having opinions makes the US like Nazi Germany.
So... that is NOT mere people's of Germany opinion that "jews are scum" have a merit, and "Hitler is OUR fuhrer" -- that is what brought NAZIs to come into power????
The same as revolutioners that decided to overthrow rule of a king, and to make USA independent?
The same as French revolution raging crowds, that stated their "mere opinions" like "cut her head! cut her head!"???
"Opinions". Instigated by propaganda. That is what moves masses of people. That is what politics is about.
Or... you can protest it out. And (with historical facts and logical arguments) show how it is NOT true. ;-P
\\There is no such thing as the "honest word" of a proven liar.
Proven with what??? :-))))))))))))))))))
With some mere baseless factless screams of some retard???
Who, as it was showed many time -- DARE to claim that HIS OWN DAMN words is NOT his own demn words... because it hypocriticaly don't like how it sounds -- when it was showed to it, what that words mean???
And screams "my words have another meaning!!!!".
That kind of "truth-teller" and "honest witness"???? :-)))))))))))))))))))))
Which would be banished from a court on the very first such contradicting claim spouted. As dishonest scumbag. ;-P
\\"Intentional" misspellings? Unintentional bad spelling and grammar? Could just be proof that you are quite idiotically stupid.
And you repeat after that "idiotically stupid" person? ;-P
What it should tell about your level of intelligence, ahh????
That you are SO DAMN STUPID, and cannot help it, that you REPEAT after "idiotically stupid" ONLY.
And freakingly CANNOT introduce anything as your own argument, or logical conclusion.
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
You are... damn hilarious. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))
As you are.
\\Because you know donald tRump will likely be convicted in a fair trial.
Yawn.
And why he still not, then? ;-P
\\You didn't say "fair trial, my ass"?
And?
Provide logical explanation -- WHAT that should mean? HOW it relates to any of your mokey-screams?
Or... just confirm YET ONE TIME... that you have NO BRAINS for that. ;-P
You can only repeat after "idiotically stupid". :-)))))))))))))))))))))
EACH TIME confirming your inferiority. ;-P
\\Just quote you defending donald tRump. Over and over.
Yap.
Let's see.
That quote.
At least ONE. ;-P
True, precise, correct, in needed context... consising of MY words. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Lying about what they "really mean".
And what they "really mean"? ;-P
Ough, don't tell. I'll try to guess.
That is -- a secret? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Because if you'd reveal that "real and true" ad hok meaning -- I, with my smarts, would found a way to show em being EVEN MORE damning.
So... it is wise (wisdom of a dumbass) to NOT reveal anything about that "real and true" new meaning.
But I bet... you WILL show that you are even bigger dumbass... and will show it. Isn't it, De-Ru-Pi? ;-P
\\You DID (over and over) falsely claim that opinions would be why donald tRump could not receive a fair trial. You DID say "fair trial, my ass".
ReplyDeleteBut opinions... DO influence courts.
There'd be NO need to have a solid rules of prevention of influance on court decisions, if that'd be NOT true, isn't it???
So??? What you trying to proclaim here?
That totalitarian propaganda missive that courts need not to be protected, and that protection need not to be honed in all of the time, to prevent any corruption???
\\You AREN'T continually using Nazi and Holocaust analogies to defend donald tRump?
Premice 1: Humans have Human Rights
Premice 2: dRump are human
Conclusion: dRump have his rights as a human.
LOGIC!
Predicate Logic Example: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man
studylib.net › Math › Advanced Math › Logic
Predicate Logic Example: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man · 1. There exists an even integer. · 2. Every integer is even or odd. · 3. All prime integers are ...
\\Qtard doesn't care who he is because Qtard does not care if tRump is guilty or not. Qtard does not want a FAIR trial for donald tRump.
BY WHICH LOGIC???????????????????????????????????????? :-)))))))
How it relates EVEN??? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Just by some bullshit-Deppy's-non-logic (re-enactment): "I want to accuse Q in something. So much. But I have no brains to find anything real and dumning. That's sad. But No Prob. I am idiot. So I will just scream any first thing on my mind. And will call it 'I PROVED'." :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\donald tRump CAN'T receive a fair trial because... people have opinions. Because having an opinion makes you a Nazi?
Recieving fair trial... while people screaming "hang him up" on the streets... well????
There was many such "fair trials" in history...
\\Proof is his pushing of the false premise that people having opinions means donald tRump can't receive a fair trial. "Fair trial, my ass".
You call it "false premice"... but can it DEMONSTRATE -- WHY or HOW it is false???
Naaaah. You can't. ;-P
\\No Frenchman had that opinion. Because it didn't happen. The Queen never said "let them eat cakes".
And queen was not beheaded too???
Naaah. She was.
With this, YOU YOURSELF WITH YOUR OWN DAMN WORDS comnfirmed that people can be punished... just because of some false opinion. ;-P
Cudos!
For continuing to confirm my logical and factually true conclusions. ;-P
\\Qtard likes fake quotes. "I *DO* deny em their rights" is a fake quote
You know.
I like this re-definition of "fake quote" of yours.
It showing with all precisness what a heinous liar you are.
Liar, eager to lie even about OWN DAMN WORDS. ;-P
\\Even though Qtard (not me) wrote the second half ("em their rights"). I've never written "em" instead of "them".
Bullshit.
Quote was "I *DO* deny..." as full quote is too long, and you know it anyway. ;-P
And complete quote have your claim about human rights -- rigths you deny t humans to have. ;-P
\\Qtard: \\me: I deny NOBODY their rights.\\ Ohh... now you start calling people you don't like and deny their rights, NO-BODY-ies, am I understand your this words correctly?
\\No. You're lying again. By telling me what my quotes "really" mean.
Pin-pon! Pin-pon!
Question mark.
That was a question. Not statement. ;-P
Question you cannot answer truthfully. Therefore you dewised "smart plan" to declare it lie. :-)))))))))))))))))))))
Ya stupid. And ya merryly stupid tricks
Yawn.
ReplyDelete\\Qtard made up this definition for "nobody", not me.
From my side -- there was a question. To clirify what you mean.
And.
From YOUR side -- there was claim that your words "really mean" something different, from what they apparently obviously by dictionary defintion, mean.
So... with this I proved that YOU are one who trying to use NewSpeak here. ;-P
\\I thought you were VERY concerned about donald tRump not receiving a fair trial.
Yawn.
You was wrong. ;-P
\\Though donald tRump is attacking Jack Smith. According to dotard donald, Jack Smith is a "tRump hater".
Yap.
And you call me "dRump defender". And on even lesser base.
What could it mean? That you are even more dumb than dRump? ;-P
\\So, Qtard was eager to share his uninformed opinion. A headline that confirmed what he already BELIEVED to be true. Why it HAS to be true.
So what? Media spread fake news? Even if it CNN? ;-P
\\How does Qtard know that is what is going to happen? The charges are very serious. The evidence is solid (audiotape of tRump admitting he knows documents are not declassified and that he should not show them to people).
"Audiotape" nobody have seen. And even FULL transcript of which was not given. So that is just somebody-somebody's words... that "tRump admitting he knows documents are not declassified" was there.
And even less chance -- that that "solid evidance" will be amitted by court.
Another word -- that is just a solid example of spreaded through media propaganda -- to facilitate people to have some "solid opinion".
Which, even if it would not influance court (while, why it'll not?), but it surely should influence public opinion... and help certain political force to have it's way... with making people vote on that base of false opinions -- isn't that is infrigment of fair voting???
\\Anyway, why is Qtard so worried that donald tRump isn't going to get a fair trial ("fair trial, my ass") if he thinks the charges will "go poof"???
Because such a direct corruption of Presumption of Innocence Principle would be damning for other people. Small fryes. And all around the world, to boot.
I, as foreigner, surely SHOULD worry about it, isn't it?
If such a plague of corruption of legla system will spread... it would increase my, or my relatives, or my friends and aquitances... to fall under such a sham trial too.
In all accordance with old saying:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
First they came - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › First_they_came_...
"First they came ..." (German: Zuerst kamen sie ...) is the poetic form of a 1946 post-war confessional prose by the German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller ...
\\Qtard laughs because he LOVES it that donald tRump is (so far) getting away with criming.
And you know him being criminal. How???
If not through propaganda in media?
\\It is highly doubtful that it is fake. That would destroy the Jack Smith's case and his reputation.
And you, who are part of general public ALREADY know that dRump is guilty.
So, who will be destroying his reputation??? If not general public?
While from your point of views his reputation will be destroyed if he'd NOT give that "solid evidance" and will not make dRump incarcerated. ;-P
And... if only there'd be MORE people like you. Totalitarian-aligned. Spitting on human rights. Denying Principle of Innocence.
\\Ignoring the fact that the republican party is running interference.
ReplyDeleteInterference???
To those totalitarian aligned spitting on human rights and denying principles???? ;-P
\\"Demn propaganda" is what Qtard calls evidence and facts. "Lies" and "lied" are words Qtard uses when referring to people telling the truth about tRump's corruption and treason.
NewSpeak redefinitions? ;-P
\\We've already seen it many times how Qtard is ready to disbelieve facts he doesn't like and falsely label them "propaganda".
FACTS
that is open obvious self-evidant refs to Reality ONLY.
That is NOT FACT -- that "tape". It is obviously and self-evidant OPPOSITE to a fact. As NONE, but ONLY OPPOSITE traits to that in a definition of what FACT is showed.
Is it open? NO, we do not have and have NO idea how we can have access to that tape. Even, do it exist or not.
Is it obvious? Also NO, as it EVEN no transcript given, and circumstances of it recorded not apparent too.
Is it self-evidant??? But how mere words about something can be an evidnace of that something???
And biggest question -- how it could be a reference to Reality???
\\Non-response. No refutation of the fact that Qtard is anti-court justice. Just idiotic laughter.
Yawn.
Which fact???
Like correct quote of my words???
Why I need to refute you mere factless claims??? ;-P
That is... laughable.
You unable to give facts... but you trying to yoke me with need to "refute" your empty babbling.
Of course I laughing. :-))))))))))))))))))))))
\\YOU are the dumbass. To employ (over and over) a logically fallacious argument.
And you can give logical explanation -- why it fallacious?
No, you can't. ;-P
\\"A logical fallacy is an argument that may sound convincing or true but is actually flawed. Logical fallacies are leaps of logic that lead us to an unsupported conclusion. People may commit a logical fallacy unintentionally, due to poor reasoning, or intentionally, in order to manipulate others".
That is what you do in practicly every sentence here. ;-P
Like here. Where you claimed that I did "Reductio ad Hitlerum", which are by definition YOU YOURSELF gave here is "The argument is that a policy leads to -- or is the same as -- one advocated or implemented by Adolf Hitler or Nazi German"...
BUT.
I was NOT discussing ANY policy here. ;-P
I was refering to THE FACT -- historical fact -- how instigation of falacious opinions in general public -- led to coming Nazis power.
Opinions -- is a base for politics.
And false opinions -- is a base for false, lawless, criminal, heinous politics.
That is like... self-evidant.
But totalitarian would oppose to it, obviously. Cause false opinions is a base for totalitarian rule. ;-P
And you ask why I call you totalitarian... wannabe. :-))))))))))))))))))))))
ReplyDelete\\No. I like it. It is the RIGHT way to go about prosecuting tRump. You're the one who keeps saying the prosecution of tRump hasn't been swift enough. "That's why dRump still not put in trial for all his corrupt and treasonous deeds".
Obvious lie.
Which disproves your own tryes to smear me being "defender of dRump". ;-P
\\Poor donald tRump. He is just like a Jew being persecuted by Hitler. donald tRump is a nasty lawbreaker.
And who says so? Court justice? No.
\\Not nasty due to his ethnicity or religion.
Like it was anything about etnicity or religion in case of Jews?
That just made em convinient target. Easy and interesting, because of their riches.
But there was many-many-more targets. Gipsies, gays, all kinds of political parties, religions and etc.
\\ Upholding the rule of law won't cause another Holocaust. That is absurd.
Huh... not knowing history???
Persecution of jews WAS Upholding The Rule of Law -- because SUCH a heinous laws was proclaimed before it.
So, Jews was directed into concentration camps and further to death, in all accordance with laws.
\\ Nobody is saying "it'll never happen here" -- what is being said is that we need to uphold the rule of law (re the fair trial of donald tRump). That is NOT an example of Nazism.
NO!
Humans Rights are more important and PRECEDE any law.
Because laws made by corrupt policymakers. And prone to be wrong or errorneously applyed.
That's why we NEED Democracy -- for such a laws to be repelled, in a lawful way.
And on the contrary -- idea that LAWS are ABOVE anything else. Likie above human rights, or human common sense and dignity -- that is DEFINITELY totalitarian ideal.
\\Qtard: \\me: Because Qtard is a bigly hypocrite whose primary agenda is defending donald tRump. PROVEN.\\ Your standarts of proves... very nazi-like.
\\"Point to reality" facts are "Nazi-like"?
That how you trying to smear me with all kinds of bullshit accusations.
It's nazi-like, yes?
\\Calls for the rule of law to be upheld aren't incitement. Incitement involves urging people to break the law. Not uphold it.
Yap. There was laws in Nazi Germany. Of how everyone need to "upright" Jews... to wear their yellow marks, for example.
And those who did not do that -- was called "lawbreakers".
\\Qtard: \\me: You claimed evidence is being fabricated.\\ Not claimed. Pointed my reasonable doubts.
ReplyDelete\\Qtard is (re his comment about "deep fakes") Just Asking Questions. "Just asking questions is a way of attempting to make
\\wild accusations acceptable by framing them as questions ... The purpose of this argument method is to influence spectators' views by asking leading questions, regardless of the answers given".
Hah... you trying to repel my reasonable doubts... by calling em "inapropariate questions"?
Isn't that fallaciously reasoning?
Or just a merry trick of a competelely idioticly stupid retard. ;-P
\\Who would that be? Putin? Other ex-presidents? So, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush? That's only 4 people, not enough for a jury.
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: \\me: Nobody cares about my opinion. Nobody is acting on my opinion.\\ That's why you are so sda and grumpy?
\\Why would I CARE?
Sure. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\I gave evidence following "you describe your own logic". I wrote "you don't like the reporting about an audio tape on which donald tRump admits crimes, therefore it is not true". "Reasonable doubts" my ass. It's going to be presented in court during the trial.
And I guess, you will not be following court trial to confirm that it will... am I right?
Cause, you don't care. ;-P
\\Why should it be on CNN's website? It is going to be presented at the trial. The trial has not begun yet.
Of course not.
Cause that is just propaganda bait. ;-P
\\Can Qtard explain what was "out of context"? Can Qtard explain what incorrect conclusion the CNN reporter (deliberately) reached based on the "out of context" quote?
Easy-Peasy.
And you could see it immediately, if your eyes would not be blinded by propaganda -- from mere audio tape it is IMPOSSIBLE to confirm WHAT documents that was. ;-P
The same as from mere words "I see pink elephant" it cannot be conbcluded that there really was elephant, and it was pink. ;-P
\\Quote some of this "lengthy exposition of propaganda". I see straight reporting and logical fact-based conclusions.
Of course you are. ;-P
The same as any inhabitant of shitho... I mean, totalitarian state.
\\Qtard: ...because I show firm and continuous disapproval of such a "fair and honest" talks. Here.
\\Indeed. You do disapprove of "fair and honest talks".
I'm glad. That you confirmed -- that I am against that bullshit talks not based on facts and logic you trying to spam us here with. ;-P
\\Of course. Because facts that point to donald tRump's guilt are ALL "propaganda" to you. Any fact Qtard doesn't like is "Demn propaganda".
Again.
What is "facts"??? In your NewSpeak. ;-P
No Derpish ravings???
ReplyDeleteNope. Only moronic lie-filled Qtard ravings.
ReplyDeleteHeh... now you confirmed. That you was here. And have read it.
ReplyDeleteBut... runned away with tail in between your rear legs... having no brains to answer something/anything to my smart conclusions. ;-P
Congrats, De-Ru-Pi.
For at least you are NOT that moronic... and know when to flee. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Qtard: But... runned away with tail in between your rear legs.
ReplyDelete:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Qtard: having no brains to answer something/anything to my smart conclusions.
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
"First they came for donald tRump, and I did not speak out".
ReplyDeleteThe law should have come for donald tRump a LONG time ago. He's been a lawbreaker his entire life. It's ABOUT TIME the law came for donald tRump. He's a nasty criminal.
"And... if only there'd be MORE people like you. Totalitarian-aligned. Spitting on human rights. Denying Principle of Innocence".
"People like me" are democratically-aligned. DEMAND upholding of human rights. DEMAND upholding of principal of Innocent until proven guilty... by the courts.
\\The law should have come for donald tRump a LONG time ago. He's been a lawbreaker his entire life. It's ABOUT TIME the law came for donald tRump. He's a nasty criminal.
ReplyDeleteAnd you know it, because? YOU witnessed it yourself? dRump's crimes???
WHY you was not reporting em, then? ;-P
Or... you just repeating blurts of Demn Propaganda.
Running for Governor (1870)
by Mark Twain
Sister Projects.sister projects: Wikidata item.
0:00
Listen to the text, read by Gregg Margarite (11m01s, 7.39MB, help | file info or download)
A few months ago I was nominated for Governor of the great State of New York, to run against Stewart L. Woodford and John T. Hoffman, on an independent ticket. I somehow felt that I had one prominent advantage over these gentlemen, and that was, good character. It was easy to see by the newspapers, that if ever they had known what it was to bear a good name, that time had gone by. It was plain that in these latter years they had become familiar with all manner of shameful crimes. But at the very moment that I was exalting my advantage and joying in it in secret, there was a muddy undercurrent of discomfort "riling" the deeps of my happiness -- and that was, the having to hear my name bandied about in familiar connection with those of such people. I grew more and more disturbed. Finally I wrote my grandmother about it. Her answer came quick and sharp. She said:
You have never done one single thing in all your life to be ashamed of -- not one. Look at the newspapers -- look at them and comprehend what sort of characters Woodford and Hoffman are, and then see if you are willing to lower yourself to their level and enter a public canvass with them.
It was my very thought! I did not sleep a single moment that night. But after all, I could not recede. I was fully committed and must go on with the fight. As I was looking listlessly over the papers at breakfast, I came across this paragraph, and I may truly say I never was so confounded before:
PERJURY. -- Perhaps, now that Mr. Mark Twain is before the people as a candidate for Governor, he will condescend to explain how he came to be convicted of perjury by thirty-four witnesses, in Wakawak, Cochin China, in 1863, the intent of which perjury was to rob a poor native widow and her helpless family of a meagre plantain patch, their only stay and support in their bereavement and their desolation. Mr. Twain owes it to himself, as well as to the great people whose suffrages he asks, to clear this matter up. Will he do it?
I thought I should burst with amazement! Such a cruel, heartless charge -- I never had seen Cochin China! I never had heard of Wakawak! I didn't know a plantain patch from a kangaroo! I did not know what to do. I was crazed and helpless. I let the day slip away without doing anything at all. The next morning the same paper had this -- nothing more:
SIGNIFICANT. -- Mr. Twain, it will be observed, is suggestively silent about the Cochin China perjury.
[Mem. -- During the rest of the campaign this paper never referred to me in any other way than as "the infamous perjurer Twain."]
Next came the "Gazette," with this:
WANTED TO KNOW. -- Will the new candidate for Governor deign to explain to certain of his fellow-citizens (who are suffering to vote for him!) the little circumstance of his cabin-mates in Montana losing small valuables from time to time, until at last, these things having been invariably found on Mr. Twain's person or in his "trunk" (newspaper he rolled his traps in), they felt compelled to give him a friendly admonition for his own good, and so tarred and feathered him and rode him on a rail, and then advised him to leave a permanent vacuum in the place he usually occupied in the camp. Will he do this?
ReplyDeleteCould anything be more deliberately malicious than that? For I never was in Montana in my life.
[After this, this journal customarily spoke of me as "Twain, the Montana Thief."]
I got to picking up papers apprehensively -- much as one would lift a desired blanket which he had some idea might have a rattlesnake under it. One day this met my eye:
THE LIE NAILED! -- By the sworn affidavits of Michael O'Flanagan, Esq., of the Five Points, and Mr. Kit Burns and Mr. John Allen, of Water street, it is established that Mr. Mark Twain's vile statement that the lamented grandfather of our noble standard-bearer, John T. Hoffman, was hanged for highway robbery, is a brutal and gratuitous LIE, without a single shadow of foundation in fact. It is disheartening to virtuous men to see such shameful means resorted to to achieve political success as the attacking of the dead in their graves and defiling their honored names with slander. When we think of the anguish this miserable falsehood must cause the innocent relatives and friends of the deceased, we are almost driven to incite an outraged and insulted public to summary and unlawful vengeance upon the traducer. But no -- let us leave him to the agony of a lacerating conscience -- (though if passion should get the better of the public and in its blind fury they should do the traducer bodily injury, it is but too obvious that no jury could convict and no court punish the perpetrators of the deed).
The ingenious closing sentence had the effect of moving me out of bed with despatch that night, and out at the back door, also, while the "outraged and insulted public" surged in the front way, breaking furniture and windows in their righteous indignation as they came, and taking off such property as they could carry when they went. And yet I can lay my hand upon the Book and say that I never slandered Governor Hoffman's grandfather. More -- I had never even heard of him or mentioned him, up to that day and date.
[I will state, in passing, that the journal above quoted from always referred to me afterward as "Twain, the Body-Snatcher."]
The next newspaper article that attracted my attention was the following:
A SWEET CANDIDATE. -- Mark Twain, who was to make such a blighting speech at the mass meeting of the Independents last night, didn't come to time! A telegram from his physician stated that he had been knocked down by a runaway team and his leg broken in two places -- sufferer lying in great agony, and so forth, and so forth, and a lot more bosh of the same sort. And the Independents tried hard to swallow the wretched subterfuge and pretend that they did not know what was the real reason of the absence of the abandoned creature whom they denominate their standard-bearer. A certain man was seen to reel into Mr. Twain's hotel last night in state of beastly intoxication. It is the imperative duty of the Independents to prove that this besotted brute was not Mark Twain himself: We have them at last! This is a case that admits of no shirking. The voice of the people demands in thunder-tones: "WHO WAS THAT MAN?
It was incredible, absolutely incredible, for a moment, that it was really my name that was coupled with this disgraceful suspicion. Three long years had passed over my head since I had tasted ale, beer, wine, or liquor of any kind.
[It shows what effect the times were having on me when I say that I saw myself confidently dubbed "Mr. Delirium Tremens Twain" in the next issue of that journal without a pang -- notwithstanding I knew that with monotonous fidelity the paper would go on calling me so to the very end.]
By this time anonymous letters were getting to be an important part of my mail matter. This form was common:
How about that old woman you kiked of your premisers which was beging. POL PRY.
And this:
ReplyDeleteThere is things which you have done which is unbeknowens to anybody but me. You better trot out a few dols. to yours truly or you'll hear thro' the papers from HANDY ANDY.
That is about the idea. I could continue them till the reader was surfeited, if desirable.
Shortly the principal Republican journal "convicted" me of wholesale bribery, and the leading Democratic paper "nailed" an aggravated case of blackmailing to me.
[In this way I acquired two additional names: "Twain, the Filthy Corruptionist," and "Twain, the Loathsome Embracer."]
By this time there had grown to be such a clamor for an "answer" to all the dreadful charges that were laid to me, that the editors and leaders of my party said it would be political ruin for me to remain silent any longer. As if to make their appeal the more imperative, the following appeared in one of the papers the very next day:
BEHOLD THE MAN! -- The Independent candidate still maintains Silence. Because he dare not speak. Every accusation against him has been amply proved, and they have been endorsed and re-endorsed by his own eloquent silence till at this day he stands forever convicted. Look upon your candidate, Independents! Look upon the Infamous Perjurer! the Montana Thief! the Body-Snatcher! Contemplate your incarnate Delirium Tremens! your Filthy Corruptionist! your Loath some Embracer! Gaze upon him -- ponder him well -- and then say if you can give your honest votes to a creature who has earned this dismal array of titles by his hideous crimes, and dares not open his mouth in denial of any one of them!
There was no possible way of getting out of it, and so, in deep humiliation, I set about preparing to "answer" a mass of baseless charges and mean and wicked falsehoods. But I never finished the task, for the very next morning a paper came out with a new horror, a fresh malignity, and seriously charged me with burning a lunatic asylum with all its inmates because it obstructed the view from my house. This threw me into a sort of panic. Then came the charge of poisoning my uncle to get his property, with an imperative demand that the grave should be opened. This drove me to the verge of distraction. On top of this I was accused of employing toothless and incompetent old relatives to prepare the food for the foundling hospital when I was warden. I was wavering -- wavering. And at last, as a due and fitting climax to the shameless persecution that party rancor had inflicted upon me, nine little toddling children of all shades of color and degrees of raggedness were taught to rush on to the platform at a public meeting and clasp me around the legs and call me PA!
I gave up. I hauled down my colors and surrendered. I was not equal to the requirements of a Gubernatorial campaign in the State of New York, and so I sent in my withdrawal from the candidacy, and in bitterness of spirit signed it,
"Truly yours,
"Once a decent man, but now "MARK TWAIN, I. P., M. T., B. S., D. T., F. C., and L. E."
\\Qtard: But... runned away with tail in between your rear legs.
ReplyDelete:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Never the less. FACTS telling only truth -- you runned away from answering in bunch of previous topics. ;-P
\\DEMAND upholding of human rights.
With "I *DO* deny..."????
Clearly, you are Totalitarian Wannabe who using New Speak... and want to push it into Reality and make other repeat after you that Propaganda chants "War it's Peace, Lie it's Truth" and "I *DO* deny..." it's "DEMAND upholding of human rights."
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Clearly Qtard is a totalitarian wannabe who is using New Speak. "War it's Peace", "Lie it's Truth" and "human rights it's overthrowing democracy."
ReplyDelete:P
ReplyDeleteAre Mark Twain "totalitarian wannabe" too? ;-P
ReplyDeleteToo? You mean like you? No. He's dead. Can't "wannabe" anything.
ReplyDeleteLies about political candidate Twain same as "lies" people are telling about donald tRump? Is that false point Qtard was trying to make? Except people are telling the truth about donald tRump, not lying about him.
ReplyDeleteThe indictments have facts backing them up, Qtard. Though, of course, Qtard will claim there are no facts. So donald tRump will be found innocent. Or found guilty based on fabricated evidence and sent to the ovens to be executed by the corrupt Biden Nazis.
Qtard: And you know it, because? YOU witnessed it yourself? dRump's crimes??? WHY you was not reporting em, then?
ReplyDeleteHow does Minus FJ "know" that Joe Biden and his son Hunter are guilty of corruption? He witnessed Joe and Hunter committing the crimes (taking the bribes) himself? Why didn't Minus report them then? Maybe Minus is just repeating blurts of repub propaganda?
\\How does Minus FJ "know" that Joe Biden and his son Hunter are guilty of corruption?
ReplyDeleteAnd where I said something like that???
\\Lies about political candidate Twain same as "lies" people are telling about donald tRump?
That was... just an example of how politics works...
Yawn.
Wasted on complete idiot.
\\Too? You mean like you? No. He's dead. Can't "wannabe" anything.
Who can know???
In other thread you trying to claim that true nazis still are in this world. ;-P
In other thread Qtard is trying to deny that there are nazis still in this world. He must be one. Because that is what many of them do (Minus FJ, for example).
ReplyDeleteRepublicans and racists and NAZI's, Oh my!
ReplyDeleteRepublicans and racists and NAZI's, Oh my!
Republicans and racists and NAZI's, Oh my!
You self-identified as a Nazi when you wrote "happy 8/8" on Lisa's blog.
DeleteLooks like Minus "runned away".
Delete