tRump's corruption. He was impeached for trying to extort Zelinskyy to announce a fake investigation into Biden and his son. Remember? Now Putin is trying to get dotard donald back into the White House so his puppet can "fix" the problem in 24 hours.
As for the Ukrainian guy in the video, CNN "says Andrii "Telizhenko is a stalwart Giuliani ally who has traveled with the former mayor and has promoted the conspiracy theory that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election to weaken Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and defeat President Donald Trump. That theory flies in the face of the unanimous assessment from US intelligence agencies that it was the Russian government who interfered in the 2016 election, and their goal was to elect Trump".
Speaking about Telizhenko's visa revocation, Ukrainian ambassador to the US Volodymyr Yelchenko told CNN, "The guy fully deserved it".
lol! Hillary Clinton's Deep State, that followed her Campaign plan to demonize Trump AND Russia using Ukraine's forged "black book" said it was a lie? That certainly convinces me.
Your belief that God is a trumper is an idiotic joke, Mystere.
"Despite claims by Manafort to the president's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, that the ledger was a forgery, bank records described in an FBI search warrant, and reviewed by the Associated Press, confirmed that at least $1.2 million in payments listed in the records next to Manafort’s name were actually deposited in one of his firm’s bank accounts in Virginia". LINK.
So Rudy Giuliani said it was a forgery? That certainly convinces me... it was real.
\\Blogger -FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said... lol! Hillary Clinton's Deep State, that followed her Campaign plan to demonize Trump AND Russia using Ukraine's forged "black book" said it was a lie?
And was revealed by that mr.D report, you forgot to add. ;-P
Means... EXPERTS said it. But... HOW Depry do not like it.
Means.
Depry LIKES only THAT "somebody-somebody who saying something-something" which falls well into holes made by propaganda into his scull. ;-P
It wasn't. As we previously established, quote Qtard attributed to Durham -- "dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE" -- was fabricated by Qtard.
Qtard claimed I "...ommited that that was YOUR DAMN USA general prosecutor words". But those were NOT his words. Those were Qtard's words.
Qtard even admitted that he knew nothing (and did not care to know anything) about the Durham report. That "dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE" was Qtard's conclusion after reading rightturd propaganda that he liked.
Are you of that crazy bucnh who use "we" instead of "I"??? :-)))))))))))))))))
established /ΙͺΛstablΙͺΚt,ΙΛstablΙͺΚt/ adjective having existed or done something for a long time and therefore recognized and generally accepted.
(of a Church or religion) recognized by the state as the national Church or religion.
In that sense we established here only ONE thing -- that you are idiot:
you -- with consistently beghaving like one, I -- as consistently observing... that funny process. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
\\quote Qtard attributed to Durham -- "dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE" -- was fabricated by Qtard.
Excerpts from news... of OWN WORDS of that mr.D was given too. And they are not LESS damning.
But... YOU do not like to talk about it, isn't it, Derpy? ;-P
That's why you trying, idioticly, to spin that fake narrative about my "fake quote". While that was REAL quote, from one of EXPERTS... you like to venerate that much -- CNN(and other) reporters...
BUT...
ONLY...
when it suits your needs.
And showed that you know and SUPPORT perfectly well idea -- that it is NOT wise to take as granted "something-something told by somebody-somebody".
Captain Obvious says... that's CONFIRMATION BIAS! As it is. ;-P
\\Qtard even admitted that he knew nothing (and did not care to know anything) about the Durham report.
Yap.
And why should I???
\\That "dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE" was Qtard's conclusion after reading rightturd propaganda that he liked.
Read: The Durham report | CNN Politics www.cnn.com › 2023/05/15 › politics › read-durham-report Special counsel John Durham on Monday released his highly anticipated report surrounding the investigation into Donald Trump's campaign and ...
Do CNN spreading "rightturd propaganda"???
I'm confused?!! Can it be true?!! :-))))))))))))))))
Qtard: While that was REAL quote, from one of EXPERTS... you like to venerate that much -- CNN(and other) reporters...
100 PERCENT FAKE. You are delusional.
CNN saying the Durham report was released is a point-to-reality fact. CNN article does contain Qtard's fabricated quote, "dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE". Qtard is confused because he is an idiot.
fyi, I've never "venerated" CNN. That is yet another Qtard delusion.
When I said "we established" that it was a fake quote, I meant you and I. You admitted the quote was fake. Though (as usually happens) it looks like Qtard is retracting his admission.
If the quote isn't fake, then link to a video or transcript of audio where John Durham says "dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE". Or cite the page number in Durham's report where it says "dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE". I DARE you to do it. I DEMAND you do it. You can NOT continue to insist the quote isn't fake otherwise.
But you won't. Because you are a liar. A DUMB liar. Dumb because the quote being fake is so obvious.
Google: "dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE" = "Your search did not match any documents".
\\When I said "we established" that it was a fake quote, I meant you and I. You admitted the quote was fake. Though (as usually happens) it looks like Qtard is retracting his admission.
I admited just that that that :-) was Wise Experts -- News Reporters who said it.
Can I treat this your words as YOUR admission, that "somebody-somebody saying something-something" can said something which is FAKE??? ;-P
Or... you'll try to perform Derpy's Escape. AGAIN. :-))))))))))))))
\\If the quote isn't fake, then link to a video or transcript of audio where John Durham says "dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE".
That was news reporter saying -- go haunt him, whoever. ;-P
But there is whole TWO facts, which even if partial, correctly summarising that case:
1) NO RESULTS of investigation.
2) that mr.D's OWN WORDS about "inapropriate eagerness".
Which for bravaty CAN be used in a headlines as "dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE".
;-P
Or... you are free to provide facts and logiclly sound elaborations -- why it shouldn't. ;-P
\\You can NOT continue to insist the quote isn't fake otherwise.
You continue to claim that "somebody-somebody", like some closet experts, secret agents, academia researches, tinfoil nutters, garden gnomes said that dRump obviously guilt in this or that...
but NO COURT TRIAL verdict, no smoking gun facts provided... NONE, ZILCH, NOTHING...
which smells only more and more -- that that all is political treaks.
Especially, as more and more indictments... by which court trials *MAGICLY* posponed to happen AFTER elections... when it would be absolutely pointless to know the verdict.
dRump maybe guilty... in something. Like crossing road in wrong place. Or whatever.
But, all amassed evidances (by now) is 99% PRO that this all screaching about "dRump's guilty" -- is just a political technologies, to shoot out of elections the prime candidate from opposition.
THE SAME as in Russia (where such candidates was literally shut), or Turkey where prime candidate was yoked with such criminal charges...
CONGRATS, Derpy... you are NOT ANY BETTER then any other semi-tyranic shit-hole out there!!!
Regarding law-abiding democracy-alignment.
And that all because of your Demns Tump Derangmewnt Syndrome. :-(
And congrats to Joe... you are close and closer to becoming empire... and any other around corner... happy?
\\Google: "dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE" = "Your search did not match any documents".
But.
"collusion with Russian was FAKE"
Gives THIS as first result.
Durham report on Trump-Russia investigation: What led to it and ... apnews.com › article An investigation into the origins of the FBI's probe into ties between Russia and Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign has finally been ...
And "tRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE" (with quote marks)
Works just fine too. ;-P
So... you are just a bulshit-talker who trying to hide behing literality of No True Scotsman FALLACY. ;-P
Qtard: "tRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE" (with quote marks) Works just fine too. ;-P
LIE!!!
Google says...
No results found for "tRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE".
Results for tRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE (without quotes)...
Anyway... once again, again, again and AGAIN... Qtard proves it has absolutely no idea what it is talking about!!
Google's goal is to give you results. If it needs to ignore words to do that, it WILL. Here the word "FAKE" is obviously being ignored.
As PROVEN by the result you cited. It does not contain the word "FAKE".
Yet, Qtard, a total and complete moron, says the article he quotes (which does not contain the word "fake") proves that a reporter (and not Qtard) said "dRumps collusion with Rusha was FAKE".
Which reporter, dipshit? Give me a name. Was it "somebody somebody" saying something Qtard likes? "Somebody somebody" from Fox, OAN, or NewsMax?
"The no true Scotsman fallacy is the attempt to defend a generalization by denying the validity of any counterexamples given".
Qtad did NOT give any counterexamples. NONE.
Qtard: Gives THIS as first result.
So what, LIAR? Why no link, LIAR?
Because the article does NOT say that tRump's collusion with Russia was fake. I Googled for the article you quote and found it. Read it. Searched for the word "fake". The word "fake" is NOT contained in the article. I-D-I-O-T!!!!
What the article does say is, "The report, the culmination of a four-year investigation into possible misconduct by U.S. government officials, contained withering criticism of the FBI but few significant revelations".
FEW SIGNIFICANT REVELATIONS.
Like collusion being fake. That would be significant. But Durham's report does NOT say that!!
Qtard: I admited just that that that :-) was Wise Experts -- News Reporters who said it.
No, you lied. Maybe a rightturd propaganda reporter said something similar. BUT... you cited NOBODY. NOT "somebody somebody". "Nobody, nobody". Or, who REALLY said it, Qtard.
Qtard: Can I treat this your words as YOUR admission, that "somebody-somebody saying something-something" can said something which is FAKE???
Sure. Here "somebody somebody" is Qtard. And what he said is DEFINITELY fake/a lie.
Qtard: Or... you'll try to perform Derpy's Escape. AGAIN.
I don't know what "Derpy's escape" is. How could I possibly "perform" it "again" when I don't what it is??
Qtard: That was news reporter saying -- go haunt him, whoever.
Name him or her.
Qtard: But there is whole TWO facts, which even if partial, correctly summarising that case: 1) NO RESULTS of investigation. 2) that mr.D's OWN WORDS about "inapropriate eagerness".
[1] Durham is full of shit. The "earnerness" was lacking. Because the FBI is pro-tRump (like you) and ran interference for him.
[2] Durham report claiming "inappropriate eagerness" is NOT the same as "collusion was FAKE".
Qtard: Which for bravaty CAN be used in a headlines as "dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE".
No, it cannot. Unless you are a liar like Qtard.
Qtard: Or... you are free to provide facts and logiclly sound elaborations -- why it shouldn't. ;-P
Qtard can NOT provide fact and logically sound elaborations as to why it SHOULD.
Qtard: You continue to claim that "somebody-somebody", like some closet experts, secret agents...
Some "closeted", others not.
According to Peter Strzok (one of the FBI agents who investigated tRump) the tRump "presidential campaign... seemed to find unlimited time to meet with Russians, practically inviting exploitation by a foreign adversary".
Strozk writes (in his book) that tRump was "badly compromised. ... because of his questionable business dealings, the hush money paid on his behalf to silence women, shady transactions at his charity and, most importantly, his lies about his Russia dealings, including his secret 2015 effort to build a Trump Tower in Moscow even as he told the world that he had no business with Russia".
"Putin knew he had lied. And Trump knew that Putin knew — a shared understanding that provided the framework for a potentially coercive relationship between the president of the United States and the leader of one of our greatest adversaries"...
FYI, I have never quoted a tinfoil nutter or a garden gnome.
Qtard: but NO COURT TRIAL verdict, no smoking gun facts provided... NONE, ZILCH, NOTHING...
Bullshit. tRump tower meeting. donald tRump ASKING Russia for help in public aka "Russia, if you're listening".
Qtard: ...which smells only more and more -- that that all is political treaks. Especially, as more and more indictments... by which court trials *MAGICLY* posponed to happen AFTER elections... when it would be absolutely pointless to know the verdict.
Indeed. Because tRump could be president again. And instruct the DOJ to stop prosecuting him. Why tRump and the tRump-appointed judge are trying to DELAY. But Qtard says delay is the Democrat's strategy. Which is BULLSHIT. Jack Smith is pushing for a SPEEDY trial. tRump (and his allies) want delay. Because they know tRump is GUILTY.
The "political treak" of delaying trials is being perpetrated by the republicans, NOT Democrats. Dipshit.
Qtard: dRump maybe guilty... in something. Like crossing road in wrong place. Or whatever.
You truly are an IDIOT. And totalitarian wannabe.
Qtard: But, all amassed evidances (by now) is 99% PRO that this all screaching about "dRump's guilty" -- is just a political technologies, to shoot out of elections the prime candidate from opposition.
BULLSHIT. As per Mitch McConnell (senate majority leader when tRump was president), "President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office as an ordinary citizen. He didn't get away with anything yet".
Mitch McConnell is a fellow republican. WHY would he say tRump hasn't "gotten away" with anything? If there was nothing for tRump to "get away with" (because he is innocent of any wrongdoing)?
Qtard: THE SAME as in Russia (where such candidates was literally shut), or Turkey where prime candidate was yoked with such criminal charges...
BULLSHIT. Democracies have prosecuted leaders who committed crimes. Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, for example;
On 24 June 2013, Berlusconi was found guilty of paying for sex with the underaged El Mahroug and of abusing his office. He was sentenced by the Court of First Instance to seven years in prison, one more year than had been requested by the prosecution, and banned from public office for life.
Qtard: ...you are NOT ANY BETTER then any other semi-tyranic shit-hole out there!!!
Wikipedia: "Italy has been a democratic republic since 2 June 1946, when the monarchy was abolished by popular referendum and a constituent assembly was elected to draft a constitution, which was promulgated on 1 January 1948".
Yet Qtard smears Italy as a "semi-tyranic shit-hole".
The IDIOT Qtard probably thinks Berlusconi was railroaded. Because politicians can NOT be guilty of ANY crime. Just being a politician means you're innocent of any crime you commit. Apparently. Or Qtard just doesn't care. Being a politician gives a person a free pass to commit any crime they want. Because politicians are only prosecuted in "shit-hole" countries.
Qtard believes this (leader, or ex-leader) is always innocent... because Qtard is a totalitarian wannabe. Quite clearly. Says tRump is innocent simply because he is running for political office.
Though the hypocrite says Joe Biden is guilty. Because a tape that has not been produced (because it doesn't exist) and "whistleblowers" who are Chinese spies (or dead) -- "prove" he is. Because of "mincemeats".
\\Qtard: "tRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE" (with quote marks) Works just fine too. ;-P
\\LIE!!!
\\Google says...
\\No results found for "tRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE".
How could I know, why Google do it to you???
Maybe it became tired of your idiocy? ;-P
I just copy-pasted that Qtard: "tRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE" (with quote marks) Works just fine too. ;-P
LIE!!!
Google says...
No results found for "tRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE", with quotes.
And veri first result it gave.
FBI criticised over handling of Trump-Russia collusion investigation www.euronews.com › News › World › USA Prosecutor points to series of mistakes by the FBI and Justice Department in probe over whether the Trump campaign was colluding with ...
Try to use some other computer. Anonimously. Who knows, maybe Google tracked you, and created confirmation bubble FER U. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Google's goal is to give you results. If it needs to ignore words to do that, it WILL. Here the word "FAKE" is obviously being ignored.
So what?
You think headline from above -- "FBI criticised over handling of Trump-Russia collusion investigation" sounds LESS damning? ;-P
\\Which reporter, dipshit? Give me a name. Was it "somebody somebody" saying something Qtard likes? "Somebody somebody" from Fox, OAN, or NewsMax?
Now... you confirmed, that you like to give links and quotes which confirm your biased views, isn't it, De-Ru-Pi? :-)))))))))))))))))
\\"The no true Scotsman fallacy is the attempt to defend a generalization by denying the validity of any counterexamples given".
\\Qtad did NOT give any counterexamples. NONE.
One you'd admit seeing through your tonned glasses of confirmation bias?
Yeah. You are right. I did not provided such things.
And hardly anyone can. ;-P
You can lead horse to a river, but cannot make it drink.
\\Qtard: Gives THIS as first result.
\\So what, LIAR? Why no link, LIAR?
But??? That IS link. Link from a Google Search results page.
Or you have a problem with copy-pasting it back into Google to go to that page???
\\Because the article does NOT say that tRump's collusion with Russia was fake. I Googled for the article you quote and found it. Read it. Searched for the word "fake". The word "fake" is NOT contained in the article. I-D-I-O-T!!!!
No need to emphatise your signature in each paragraph.
Like I EVER claimed that that page contain word "fake".
Like I would care... :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
\\What the article does say is, "The report, the culmination of a four-year investigation into possible misconduct by U.S. government officials, contained withering criticism of the FBI but few significant revelations".
\\FEW SIGNIFICANT REVELATIONS.
Of course.
Ravens do not peck out eyes of ravens. ;-P
\\Like collusion being fake. That would be significant. But Durham's report does NOT say that!!
Still... there is NO result of that investigation. No?
\\No, you lied. Maybe a rightturd propaganda reporter said something similar. BUT... you cited NOBODY. NOT "somebody somebody". "Nobody, nobody". Or, who REALLY said it, Qtard.
And why it matter???
While I gave perfectly correct links on news... with not less damning formulations.
Admit it derp... you just showing HOW DESPERATE you are here.
Too revealing. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
But yeah, you cannot help it -- you are idiot. You even started adding your signatures to your text here. ;-P
\\Sure. Here "somebody somebody" is Qtard. And what he said is DEFINITELY fake/a lie.
Link to CNN article too? ;-)
\\[1] Durham is full of shit. The "earnerness" was lacking. Because the FBI is pro-tRump (like you) and ran interference for him.
Oh, yeah???
Well, now, that is perfect tinfoil nutter screaching. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0
\\[2] Durham report claiming "inappropriate eagerness" is NOT the same as "collusion was FAKE".
Reminder. There's STILL NO results. ;-P
\\Qtard: Or... you are free to provide facts and logiclly sound elaborations -- why it shouldn't. ;-P
\\Qtard can NOT provide fact and logically sound elaborations as to why it SHOULD.
Facts? Article where it said "inapropriate eagerness" -- CHECKED.
Logical inference? It's not a problem if investigation not successful. But. If investigation performed with "inapropriate eagerness" EVEN... but still failed... that can suggest with dully noticed certainity, that it was faked.
As we know about such kind of investigation from history. And how it happen all around the world -- using criminal investigations performed with "inapropriate eagerness" -- is on its prime in using AGAINST political rivals, against (DEMOCRATICAL!) opposition all around the Globe.
CHECKED!!!
But... totalitarian wannabe Derpy will be against it. Because IT LIKES it -- using dirty cops against political opposition.
\\FYI, I have never quoted a tinfoil nutter or a garden gnome.
You just did. ;-P
You want your bias confirmed THAT BADLY, that you falling for less and less credible sources. :-))))))))))))))))))))))
But unable to understand it. Cause... idiot.
\\ But Qtard says delay is the Democrat's strategy
Democrats have had four. FOUR damn years. In full power. To find ANY smoking gun, or just any sound for a court evidances.
Which could mean... with hypothesis that dRump really did something.
That EITHER dRump is TOO DAMN masterful... which is preposterous. :-)))))))))))))
OR... that your Demon-rats is just a bunch of ioncompetent fools.
Either way -- you are losers.
And it will be confirmed... if dRump will became POTUS... or even if he'd recieve significant amount of votes.
That's why your Demon-rats is so damn "inapropriately eager" -- nobody wants to be revered as damn fool. ;-P
\\The "political treak" of delaying trials is being perpetrated by the republicans, NOT Democrats. Dipshit.
Whatever. They trying to defend themself from Jaggernaut of State Power.
That is what Democracy is FOR -- for people be able to protect onself from Juggernaut of State Power.
\\Mitch McConnell is a fellow republican. WHY would he say tRump hasn't "gotten away" with anything? If
Politics... is that rats nest. Where everybody is at everybodies throat.
You didn't knew it???
Well, yes, cause you are idiot.
Yawn.
\\BULLSHIT. Democracies have prosecuted leaders who committed crimes. Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, for example;
Remind me... which prison that Berluchkony attend today?
\\Yet Qtard smears Italy as a "semi-tyranic shit-hole".
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
What an idiot.
Even in excerpt you gave only Rush'A and Turkey was mentioned. No Italy. :-)))))
But well... Italy that is country that gave to the World such a "democratic" words as "fascism" and "mafioso"... VERY democratic. ;-P
\\The IDIOT Qtard probably thinks Berlusconi was railroaded.
He... lost his power. And even political influence...
Became dead horse... so to say.
\\Qtard believes this (leader, or ex-leader) is always innocent...
Ditto 0-bama and Bi-den... after he'd lose? ;-P
\\FYI, It's Actually Common to Indict Leaders of Democracies... Trump is just one of 78 political leaders in democratic nations who have faced criminal charges since the year 2000. [Foreign Policy].
Before elections? With what results?
Well... I never claimed that is NOT common practice.
Qtard: You think headline from above -- "FBI criticised over handling of Trump-Russia collusion investigation" sounds LESS damning?
The fake Durham report criticizes the FBI because Durham is a dotard donald stooge. He did what he was told. Though not exactly as he was told. dotard donald wanted Hillary Clinton indicted and convicted. Durham didn't do that because he couldn't. Because Hillary Clinton trying to alert the FBI about dotard donald's collusion was not a crime.
What is damning for the FBI is that they were uneager to do their job. Also to eager to protect dotard donald.
Qtard: \\Which reporter, dipshit? Give me a name. Was it "somebody somebody" saying something Qtard likes? "Somebody somebody" from Fox, OAN, or NewsMax?\\ Now... you confirmed, that you like to give links and quotes which confirm your biased views, isn't it...
OK, I get it. You CAN'T give a name/source. Because that would confirm your biases and hypocrisy. Also why you're (laughably) asserting that a CNN article is the source of your fake quote.
Qtard: One you'd admit seeing through your tonned glasses of confirmation bias? Yeah. You are right. I did not provided such things. And hardly anyone can.
I only asked for a source. I didn't say it had to be one I'd believe. You can't because the source would confirm YOUR biases. You can lead a Qtard to a river, but cannot make it drink.
Qtard: But??? That IS link. Link from a Google Search results page.
It isn't. Qtard has no idea what a link is? Obviously.
Qtard: Or you have a problem with copy-pasting it back into Google to go to that page??? What an idiot.
I agree. Qtard is an idiot who does not know what a hyperlink looks like.
Qtard: No need to emphatise your signature in each paragraph. Like I EVER claimed that that page contain word "fake". Like I would care...
Dodge. To avoid answering for getting caught faking the quote.
Qtard: \\FEW SIGNIFICANT REVELATIONS\\Of course. Ravens do not peck out eyes of ravens.
The report, YOUR WORDS, supposedly proved "dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE". It did not. Durham was appointed by tRump's toady Bill Barr to rebuke (true) Russia collusion narrative, dipshit. This isn't a case of "Ravens do not peck out eyes of ravens". Durham WAS supposed to peck out eyes. repuliturds reacted to the report as if he did (even though he didn't).
Also, "Ravens do not peck out eyes of ravens" flies in the face of your assertion that the Durham report doesn't look good for Democrats. Another dodge.
Qtard: \\Like collusion being fake. That would be significant. But Durham's report does NOT say that!!\\Still... there is NO result of that investigation. No?
No, there was no result. Because there was nothing to find, re "disproving" that dotard donald colluded with Russia. Because he did.
Qtard: And why it matter???
Because you got really angry and accused me of misquoting you. You claimed Durham said "dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE" was a John Durham quote. I caught you lying. Now you say "why does it matter that I lied"??? (summary of what Qtard said, not an exact quote).
Qtard: While I gave perfectly correct links on news... with not less damning formulations.
You didn't.
Qtard: Admit it derp... you just showing HOW DESPERATE you are here.
Qtard is desperate. Says it does not matter that he got caught lying.
Qtard: Too revealing. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Indeed. Reveals that Qtard lies. And thinks getting caught isn't a big deal.
Qtard: But yeah, you cannot help it -- you are idiot. You even started adding your signatures to your text here.
Not "signature". Me calling Qtard an idiot. But the idiot is so dumb it thinks me calling it an idiot is a "signature".
Qtard: \\Sure. Here "somebody somebody" is Qtard. And what he said is DEFINITELY fake/a lie.\\Link to CNN article too?
You didn't give a link. But yes, that the CNN article confirms your fake quote is a lie.
Qtard: \\Durham is full of shit. The "earnerness" was lacking. Because the FBI is pro-tRump (like you) and ran interference for him.\\Oh, yeah??? Well, now, that is perfect tinfoil nutter screaching.
Of course the truth sounds like tinfoil hat screeching to the biased tRump-defending Qtard. It's the opposite of the false rightturd narrative. A narrative that confirms Qtard's biases (why he believes it).
Qtard: \\Durham report claiming "inappropriate eagerness" is NOT the same as "collusion was FAKE".\\Reminder. There's STILL NO results.
There were results of republiturds and the FBI protecting dotard donald. dotard donald got away with colluding.
Qtard: It's not a problem if investigation not successful. But. If investigation performed with "inapropriate eagerness" EVEN... but still failed... that can suggest with dully noticed certainity, that it was faked.
Bingo. The investigation was fake. Why dotard donald got away with colluding with Putin.
Qtard: As we know about such kind of investigation from history. And how it happen all around the world -- using criminal investigations performed with "inapropriate eagerness" -- is on its prime in using AGAINST political rivals, against (DEMOCRATICAL!) opposition all around the Globe.
We know that corrupt politicians claim "political motivations" for investigations into their corruption. Supporters of Richard Nixon said the Watergate investigation was "politically motivated". As opposed to ordered by Nixon himself. Which it was.
Qtard: CHECKED!!!
You gave no examples. So no check. Fictional "example" of Mark Twain running for governor does not count. Because it was a fiction story.
Qtard: But... totalitarian wannabe Derpy will be against it. Because IT LIKES it -- using dirty cops against political opposition.
I am strongly opposed to dirty cops covering up for corrupt politicians. Qtard supports this.
Qtard: \\FYI, I have never quoted a tinfoil nutter or a garden gnome.\\You just did.
Qtard: ...you falling for less and less credible sources.
When? What was the last "less credible source" I quoted?
Qtard: But unable to understand it. Cause... idiot.
Agreed! Thank you for FINALLY admitting your idiocy. Qtard is so desperate to have his biases confirmed that he says CNN confirms his fake quote, "dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE".
Qtard: \\Qtard says delay is the Democrat's strategy\\ Democrats have had four. ... In full power. To find ANY smoking gun, or just any sound for a court evidances.
They haven't. Democrats shared power with republicans. And continue to share power with republicans. republicans who protect tRump.
Qtard: ...with hypothesis that dRump really did something. ...EITHER dRump is TOO DAMN masterful... OR... your Demon-rats is just a bunch of ioncompetent fools.
Not "masterful". Corrupt. Unlike when Nixon was president. His fellow republicans didn't protect him. They told him they'd vote to convict him in an impeachment trial. So he resigned.
Qtard: And it will be confirmed... if dRump will became POTUS... or ... recieve significant amount of votes. That's why your Demon-rats is so damn "inapropriately eager"...
republiturd politician corruption and republiturd voter gullibility will be confirmed with such a result.
Qtard: They trying to defend themself from Jaggernaut of State Power. That is what Democracy is FOR...
Which is what happened. People saw juggernaut of state power growing under tRump and didn't like it (acting more like a king than a president). So they elected Joe Biden to replace him. But democracy-hater Qtard would have liked it if the J6 insurrections had been successful.
Qtard: \\Mitch McConnell is a fellow republican. WHY would he say tRump hasn't "gotten away" with anything?\\Politics ... everybody is at everybodies throat.
That isn't what happened. Mitch McConnell refused to hold tRump accountable in the moment. Claimed tRump could be held accountable later. When he figured he would not be. And so far he has not. Because republicans are protecting him.
Qtard: \\Democracies have prosecuted leaders who committed crimes. Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, for example\\Remind me... which prison that Berluchkony attend today?
Silvio Berlusconi (not "Berluchkony") died in 2023. So he "attends" no prison. Wikipedia says "Aged 76, he was exempted from direct imprisonment, and instead served his sentence by doing unpaid community service".
Qtard: \\Qtard smears Italy as a "semi-tyranic shit-hole".\\Even in excerpt you gave only Rush'A and Turkey was mentioned. No Italy.
You said that prosecuting leaders is what shithole countries do. I gave an example of a democratic country that prosecuted a leader.
Qtard: But well... Italy ... gave to the World such a "democratic" words as "fascism" and "mafioso"... VERY democratic.
Benito Mussolini was the fascist dictator of Italy from 1922-1943. In 1946, "following a civil war and the Liberation of Italy from Axis troops in 1945, a popular referendum ... was called [which] resulted in voters choosing the replacement of the monarchy with a republic".
So is Italy "VERY democratic"? Yes.
Qtard: \\...Qtard probably thinks Berlusconi was railroaded.\\He... lost his power. And even political influence...
And that was why he was convicted? What about guilt? Irrelative? Is that what Qtard believes about tRump? Guilt or innocence is irrelative? He's running for president and so should be immune from prosecution? Because politicians should be above the law? Sounds like the thinking of a totalitarian wannabe.
Qtard: \\Qtard believes ... leader, or ex-leader ... is always innocent\\Ditto 0-bama and Bi-den... after he'd lose?
Obama has been charged with some crime? Qtard would like to see him charged and convicted of a crime? Biden too (after leaving office)? For crime of being "Demon-rats"?
Qtard: \\...78 political leaders in democratic nations who have faced criminal charges since the year 2000.\\Before elections? With what results?
No, after. That's tRump's plan. Then he can tell his AG to drop the prosecutions. Qtard would like that, yes?
Qtard: I never claimed that is NOT common practice. Remember??? Mark Twain's being Governor?
No. I do not remember. Mark Twain was never governor. That was a fictional run for office. And (in the fictional story) candidate Twain was the victim of lies. He wasn't prosecuted. Also, Mark Twain died in 1910. I couldn't "remember" something that happened (fiction story published) before I was born.
I don't care... dude. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))
To help you drag yo... err, itself, out of this predicaments.
You trying to stick conversation to this "where's reporter who said it was FAKE" just to derail discussion from much more damning issues.
Why I should help you with this? Ahh??? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
\\I only asked for a source. I didn't say it had to be one I'd believe. You can't because the source would confirm YOUR biases.
And what is my biases??? ;-P
Can ya spell it?
For now, it apparent that there is only ONE my bias -- that I DO NOT agree to accomodate myself to YOUR biases.
Like "blame all on dRump".
Because... I don't care. I'm not from USA.
I... for example. DO NOT ask you to state your opinion about liliPut. Or Zelensky. Or Duda. Or Macron. Or... whatever.
WHY YOU so inclined to ask for such opinion, and to blame if it not given????
What good of it to you??? If foreigner... who have no play in the USA political games... would support your views???
He CANNOT vote for your cause, anyway.
Isn't it would be better to concentrate on some USAians??? To make em vote for your Holy Bi-den???
And do that with calm and pleading attitude... as loud shouts HARDLY can persuade anyone doing as you like...
But... what em I talking here about -- you'd know it... itself, if you'd not be that hopeless idiot. ;-P
\\I agree. Qtard is an idiot who does not know what a hyperlink looks like.
SO desperate. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\No, there was no result. Because there was nothing to find, re "disproving" that dotard donald colluded with Russia. Because he did.
And you don't need any proofs to belioeve it? ;-P
\\Because you got really angry and accused me of misquoting you. You claimed Durham said "dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE" was a John Durham quote. I caught you lying. Now you say "why does it matter that I lied"??? (summary of what Qtard said, not an exact quote).
What a perfectly gibberish bullshit.
Is it Derpy's Escape already? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: Admit it derp... you just showing HOW DESPERATE you are here.
\\Qtard is desperate. Says it does not matter that he got caught lying.
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
And you can show it as fact??? That "I caught you lying".
Naah... cause you are self-deluded idiot, who "believes in facts" and that means "inventing" facts on the go.
But... do I displeased by it? No. :-)))))))))))))))))))))
I like your merry tricks of an apparent idiot, Deroy.
\\We know that corrupt politicians claim "political motivations" for investigations into their corruption.
This too... happens often enough.
ONLY.
With one little difference -- in that cases facts are apparent, and no need for law-inforcment services to bent itelf into a pretcels, to show "inapropriate eagerness"... to "prove" something that already visible to everybody, because of apparent facts provided...
\\Supporters of Richard Nixon said the Watergate investigation was "politically motivated". As opposed to ordered by Nixon himself. Which it was.
Yap.
There is nothing new.
In this political games... yawn.
\\You gave no examples. So no check. Fictional "example" of Mark Twain running for governor does not count. Because it was a fiction story.
Based on real world case.
Go, enlight yourself. ;-P
But naah, you'd not. Cause... you are idiot. Delirious. And ignorant. And allergic to a facts.
\\republiturd politician corruption and republiturd voter gullibility will be confirmed with such a result.
Yep.
That's what Demn Propaganda want you to think. ;-P
And you do.
Because you are idiot, who thinks that it is for your benefit... not wholely and only THEIR. ;-P
They using you, stoooopid.
\\Which is what happened. People saw juggernaut of state power growing under tRump and didn't like it (acting more like a king than a president).
Eeeehhh????
Examples?
\\But democracy-hater Qtard would have liked it if the J6 insurrections had been successful.
See...
Yet one proof you are idiot -- pushing this BS.
Why I... foreigner... should care about that J6tians???
To support em. Or to blame em.
That -- doesn't matter for me. Foreigner from far-far-away.
\\Benito Mussolini was the fascist dictator of Italy from 1922-1943. In 1946, "following a civil war and the Liberation of Italy from Axis troops in 1945, a popular referendum ... was called [which] resulted in voters choosing the replacement of the monarchy with a republic".
\\So is Italy "VERY democratic"? Yes.
So... mafia. Which thoroughly corrupted government -- that's Democracy??? :-))))))))))))))))
\\Obama has been charged with some crime? Qtard would like to see him charged and convicted of a crime? Biden too (after leaving office)? For crime of being "Demon-rats"?
Is it some miserly crimes... that we care about, when we assess leaders of a state???
Not their performance when they was in power?
What propsperity... or on the contrary -- hardships, they made people suffer from, because of their decisions and plans???
Qtard: \\The fake Durham report criticizes the FBI because Durham is a dotard donald stooge.\\ Perfect tinfoil nuttery!
So, I correctly label one man a stooge and that is "tinfoil nuttery", while Minus 100 percent believes thousands of people are in on a "deep state" conspiracy to thwart donald tRump. Again Qtard ignores actual religious nuttery in Mystere, and also ignores actual tinfoil hat nuttery in Minus FJ. He just falsely accuses me of both.
Qtard: \\OK, I get it. You CAN'T give a name/source.\\I don't care... dude. To help you drag yo... err, itself, out of this predicaments.
First you tried to attribute your fake quote, "dRump collusion with Rasah was FAKE" to John Durham. And GOT CAUGHT. Then you tried to attribute the fake quote to an unnamed reporter. And GOT CAUGHT. That is YOUR predicament. But of course you don't care. Qtard "thrugs" off getting caught lying (twice) with yet another lie (that this is somehow MY predicament).
Qtard: You trying to stick conversation to this "where's reporter who said it was FAKE" just to derail discussion from much more damning issues.
Qtard is trying to derail from the fact that it (now) has been caught lying THREE times. With bullshit about a fake report from a dotard tRump stooge (Durham) being "more damning". More damning, how? The investigation wasn't "fake". Methodology was criticized. Too much "eagerness". When there actually was a lack of eagerness. Helping, even.
Qtard: Why I should help you with this? Ahh???
You HAVE helped me. PROVE you are a liar.
Qtard: \\I only asked for a source. I didn't say it had to be one I'd believe. You can't because the source would confirm YOUR biases.\\And what is my biases???
To believe ANYTHING that seems to vindicate donald tRump. Even obvious bullshit from an obvious stooge like Durham.
Qtard: Can ya spell it? For now, it apparent that there is only ONE my bias -- that I DO NOT agree to accomodate myself to YOUR biases. Like "blame all on dRump".
Qtard's biases are "blame all on Demns". And "defend tRump". Most often with a Nazi analogy.
Qtard: Because... I don't care. I'm not from USA.
But you clearly do care.
Qtard: I... for example. DO NOT ask you to state your opinion about liliPut. Or Zelensky. Or Duda. Or Macron. Or... whatever.
You HAVE stated your opinion about dotard donald. Which is "I MUST defend tRump".
Qtard: WHY YOU so inclined to ask for such opinion, and to blame if it not given????
You gave your opinion. Many-many times. You continue to give your opinion.
Qtard: What good of it to you??? If foreigner... who have no play in the USA political games... would support your views???
What good of it to you... to keep defending donald tRump? Yet you do it anyway. Dedicating many hours to the task.
Qtard: He CANNOT vote for your cause, anyway.
Who is "he". You? Prove it. I say Qtard is an "it".
Qtard: Isn't it would be better to concentrate on some USAians??? To make em vote for your Holy Bi-den???
I don't know anything about any "holy Bi-den" that I could convince any "USAian" to vote for.
Qtard: And do that with calm and pleading attitude... as loud shouts HARDLY can persuade anyone doing as you like...
Qtard has no clue regarding my motivations for blogging. Or commenting on other's blogs. Still he DEMANDS that I adopt the motivation that I do so to convince others to vote for "holy Bi-den". Stuff your demands, Qtard. I don't take orders from you.
Qtard: But... what em I talking here about -- you'd know it... itself, if you'd not be that hopeless idiot.
I do know what you're talking about. Defending donald tRump. Blaming politicians you call "Demns". Or "demon-rats". Also "libtards".
Qtard: \\I agree. Qtard is an idiot who does not know what a hyperlink looks like.\\SO desperate.
No evidence that Qtard has any idea what a hyperlink looks like. Because it does not know.
Qtard: \\...dotard donald colluded with Russia.\\And you don't need any proofs to belioeve it?
I do. Qtard doesn't need any proof to believe there was no tRump/Putin collusion. A fake report from the Durham stooge and a "summary" of that report (from an unnamed reporter) that "dRump collusion with Rusha was FAKE" is good enough for Qtard. Even though this reporter does not exist. PROVEN by the fact that, when asked for the reporters name, Qtard refuses to provide it.
Qtard thinks it is "damning" for a dotard donald stooge to criticize how the investigation began. That is "proof" according to Qtard. Proof Qtard doesn't know what proof looks like.
Qtard: \\Because you got really angry and accused me of misquoting you. You claimed Durham said "dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE" was a John Durham quote. I caught you lying. Now you say "why does it matter that I lied"???\\ What a perfectly gibberish bullshit.
"dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE" is gibberish? If so, it's Qtard's gibberish. I say it's a LIE, however. Given that Durham didn't say it. A reporter didn't say it. Qtard said it.
Qtard: Is it Derpy's Escape already? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
No. It is Qtard's "I'll just call it gibberish" escape/dodge.
FYI, Qtard, Inspector General Michael Horowitz looked at this prior to John Durham. The Horowitz report concludes that "there was an authorized purpose and adequate factual predication for launching the Crossfire Hurricane investigation".
That is the OPPOSITE of what the stooge Durham's report says.
\\So, I correctly label one man a stooge and that is "tinfoil nuttery", while Minus 100 percent believes thousands of people are in on a "deep state" conspiracy to thwart donald tRump. Again Qtard ignores actual religious nuttery in Mystere, and also ignores actual tinfoil hat nuttery in Minus FJ. He just falsely accuses me of both.
Accused??? :-))))))
That would mean that I think it something bad.
But why?
While it so entertaining -- your merry idiotic tricks.
Please, don't stop. Continue-continue!
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\First you tried to attribute your fake quote, "dRump collusion with Rasah was FAKE" to John Durham. And GOT CAUGHT.
And you can provide FACTS???
Like perfectly correct quote of my words?
Yawn.
Naaah.
\\Qtard is trying to derail from the fact that it (now) has been caught lying THREE times.
In you dreams... no, your delusions.
Which you CANNOT confirm with any facts. ;-P
\\The investigation wasn't "fake". Methodology was criticized. Too much "eagerness". When there actually was a lack of eagerness. Helping, even.
Yap. By totalitarian standards.
In a totalitarian country such opposition leader would be dead already.
Under despoty, he would be in jail.
Under slightly undemocratic rule he would be defamed into oblivion.
And only in democracy, it's possible to withstand Jaffernaut of the State Power...
But, HOW MUCH you don't like it, Derpy.
HOW MUCH self-revealingly... you show that you are miserly totalitarian wannabe. ;-P
\\Qtard: Why I should help you with this? Ahh???
\\You HAVE helped me. PROVE you are a liar.
What mean "prove" in your idiotic slang, I wonder. :-))))))))))))))))))
Because to any raional thinker it's beyond apparent, that "proof" means facts and sound logic being provided.
But you... provided only your lame screachings, of totalitarian wannabe -- your desire that "prove" would mean -- those who screams louider, who are in bigger mob, who repeats his dogmas more eagerly -- that make it Right and True.
\\To believe ANYTHING that seems to vindicate donald tRump. Even obvious bullshit from an obvious stooge like Durham.
Oh, yeah.
I ready to admit.
That I am biased. To look at word from reality and racionality standpoint. Thinking and talking on the base of facts and logic...
That... can be called "bias", yes. ;-P
Well, only. It do not mean "anything to believe into". That is YOU are one who declared "I believe in facts".
I. While my thought based on knowing/seeing facts and sound logic -- do not need to believe into ANYTHING. ;-P
And... that is so freeing, and so refreshing... addictive even. As few of smart and rational people only know.
\\Qtard's biases are "blame all on Demns". And "defend tRump". Most often with a Nazi analogy.
Well... it's just how it look like... from over here.
\\Qtard: Because... I don't care. I'm not from USA.
\\But you clearly do care.
That's your bias.
Quite natural and non-idiotic this time. People tend to think that what THEY do think MUST be the same FOR ALL other people...
Very natural. And very hard to measure by oneself...
\\You HAVE stated your opinion about dotard donald. Which is "I MUST defend tRump".
Because YOU talking only about it. Non-stop. For almost an year, here.
\\What good of it to you... to keep defending donald tRump? Yet you do it anyway. Dedicating many hours to the task.
You delusion again.
Yawn.
I just stating facts. And have sheer entertsainment from observing your stubbornly idiotic merry tricks of religious bonker who trying to oppose to that facts... :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\I don't know anything about any "holy Bi-den" that I could convince any "USAian" to vote for.
Yep.
That's your problem.
You don't knwo who Biden really is. What is his motives. What is his plans. And how much place for you in that plans. And what role.
But still... you are ready to extortn ocean of verbal shit at anybody... in his stead, it seems. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0
Even though he hardly need it.
\\Qtard: And do that with calm and pleading attitude... as loud shouts HARDLY can persuade anyone doing as you like...
\\Qtard has no clue regarding my motivations for blogging. Or commenting on other's blogs. Still he DEMANDS that I adopt the motivation that I do so to convince others to vote for "holy Bi-den". Stuff your demands, Qtard. I don't take orders from you.
Well... I tryed to imagine rightful and maybe even noble, somewhat, cause. For you to extort verbal shit at people on the Internet.
But it seems... sheer pleasure of extorting verbal shit is quite enough... for itself. ;-P
\\I do know what you're talking about. Defending donald tRump. Blaming politicians you call "Demns". Or "demon-rats". Also "libtards".
Isn't it wise of me, as foreigner, to use proper lexic in talking with native speakers? ;-P
And I am very wise, and masterful. It seems.
\\No evidence that Qtard has any idea what a hyperlink looks like. Because it does not know.
\\I do. Qtard doesn't need any proof to believe there was no tRump/Putin collusion.
That is called "proof by contradiction". Go, Google for it. Enlighten yourself.
But, naaah... you will not, because you are idiot.
Idiots are allergic to education, to knowing new things. ;-P
YET ONE....
\\Proof Qtard doesn't know what proof looks like.
Oh, please. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))
And you can give an example.
And elaborately explain how it works???
That thing called "proof"? ;-P
\\FYI, Qtard, Inspector General Michael Horowitz looked at this prior to John Durham. The Horowitz report concludes that "there was an authorized purpose and adequate factual predication for launching the Crossfire Hurricane investigation".
That's... just "somebody-somebody saying something-something".
While that mr.D's report coroborates well with known and apparent to anybody (apart ffrom delirious religious bonkers) fact -- that there is NO results of that investigation.
Qtard: While it so entertaining -- your merry idiotic tricks.
Qtard is entertained by his delusions. I argue with the truth and facts, not "merry idiotic tricks". IDK why these alleged "idiotic tricks" are "merry" though. I'm laughing as I post a "trick"? "Idiotically" thinking I can fool Qtard? But Qtard sees through my tricks? Yet I am too dumb to catch on? I just keep posting tricks thinking I MIGHT fool Qtard?
btw, the idiotic tricks that fool Qtard -- they are rightturd tricks. Minus FJ posts such tricks. Very infrequently disputed by Qtard. Mostly agreed with. Like idiotic trick of John Durham. Prosecuted 3 people, 2 of which were found innocent. Yet the idiot Qtard thinks that equals "results".
Qtard: \\First you tried to attribute your fake quote, "dRump collusion with Rasha was FAKE" to John Durham. And GOT CAUGHT.\\And you can provide FACTS???\\Like perfectly correct quote of my words? Yawn. Naaah.
You tried to attribute the quote to a reporter. Then refused to give the reporter's name. You KNOW this happened. Why do I need to search for a "perfectly correct" quote? If Qtard claims he does not know this happened? It will be proof positive Qtard is an idiot.
Qtard: \\Qtard is trying to derail from the fact that it (now) has been caught lying THREE times.\\In you dreams... no, your delusions.\\Which you CANNOT confirm with any facts.
I can. Though Qtard does not know what a fact is. The first lie was that Durham said "dRump collusion with Rasha FAKE". 2nd lie was that a reporter said it. Third lie was that providing name of reporter who said "dRump collusion with Rusha FAKE" was "my predicament".
Qtard: \\The investigation wasn't "fake". Methodology was criticized. Too much "eagerness". When there actually was a lack of eagerness. Helping, even.\\Yap. By totalitarian standards.
Bingo. FBI should have worked to protect democracy. Not to protect tRump's colluding with Russia.
Qtard: In a totalitarian country such opposition leader would be dead already. Under despoty, he would be in jail.
USA is not a totalitarian country. Though Qtard would obviously like it to be. Why he argues so passionately for the "human right" of tRump supporters to overthrow democracy to install dictator-wannabe dotard donald.
Qtard: Under slightly undemocratic rule he would be defamed into oblivion.
Which Qtard likes. But only in regards to Joe Biden. Why he argued that an audio tape that doesn't exist could prove Joe Biden accepted bribes.
Qtard: And only in democracy, it's possible to withstand Jaffernaut of the State Power... But, HOW MUCH you don't like it, Derpy.
Joe Biden withstood state power when donald tRump wielded it as president. A fact Qtard despises. donald tRump tried to stay in power even though he had lost the election. He sent a mob to the Capitol to attack it. Miserly totalitarian wannabe Qtard is sad the mob failed to prevent the winner (Joe Biden) from becoming president.
Miserly totalitarian wannabe Qtard is sad that the loser (donald tRump) didn't become "president for life". HOW MUCH self-revealingly it was when Qtard claimed this was a "joke" (made by Minus FJ).
Qtard: Why I should help you with this? Ahh???\\You HAVE helped me. PROVE you are a liar.\\What mean "prove" in your idiotic slang, I wonder.
No. We were talking about the (imaginary) reporter who said "dRump collusion with Rasha FAKE". Idiot Qtard claims this would help me. Like Qtard providing alibis for when the police say Qtard raped all those men. As opposed to helping Qtard... stay out of prison.
Qtard: Because to any raional thinker it's beyond apparent, that "proof" means facts and sound logic being provided.
Sure. Though Qtard doesn't know what "facts and sound logic" look like. No clue. Qtard, as proven by it's lame totalitarian wannabe screachings, thinks those who scream louder and who repeats his dogmas more eagerly -- that make it Right and True.
Qtard: I ready to admit. That I am biased. To look at word from reality and racionality standpoint. Thinking and talking on the base of facts and logic...
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Qtard: That... can be called "bias", yes.
Qtard looks at the world from unreality and irrationality standpoint. Thinking and talking on the base of false facts and illogic.
Qtard: Well, only. It do not mean "anything to believe into". That is YOU are one who declared "I believe in facts".
And Qtard has declared he doesn't believe facts.
Qtard: I. While my thought based on knowing/seeing facts and sound logic -- do not need to believe into ANYTHING.
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Qtard: And... that is so freeing, and so refreshing... addictive even. As few of smart and rational people only know.
Qtard finds it freeing, refreshing and addictive to tell nonstop lies.
Qtard: \\Qtard's biases are "blame all on Demns". And "defend tRump". Most often with a Nazi analogy.\\Well... it's just how it look like... from over here.
That America is like Nazi Germany? Because J6 rioters DIDN'T overthrow democracy? Figures.
Qtard: Because... I don't care. I'm not from USA.\\But you clearly do care.\\That's your bias.
No, yours. Proven by your comments and unending defense of donald tRump and J6 insurrection. Democracy falling in the USA would make Qtard very happy.
Qtard: People tend to think that what THEY do think MUST be the same FOR ALL other people... Very natural.
OK, but that isn't what's going on here. Your interest in American politics is proven by the fact that you comment on this board. I know people who have no interest in politics. They don't comment on such forums. Pretty simple logic. But Qtard is too dumb to understand.
Qtard: \\You HAVE stated your opinion about dotard donald. Which is "I MUST defend tRump".\\Because YOU talking only about it. Non-stop. For almost an year, here.
Because the proprietor of this blog (Minus FJ) is a tRump supporter. He posts about his love for donald tRump. Yet Qtard thinks we should be discussing it's love of Star Trek?
Qtard: \\What good of it to you... to keep defending donald tRump? Yet you do it anyway. Dedicating many hours to the task.\\You delusion again. Yawn.
A point-to-reality fact is only a "delusion" in the mind of an idiot.
Qtard: I just stating facts. And have sheer entertsainment from observing your stubbornly idiotic merry tricks of religious bonker who trying to oppose to that facts.
I've never opposed facts. What would be the point? The facts would not change just because I oppose them. Though Qtard thinks facts he opposes will change. He must be projecting his beliefs onto me.
Qtard: \\I don't know anything about any "holy Bi-den" that I could convince any "USAian" to vote for.\\That's your problem. You don't knwo who Biden really is. What is his motives. What is his plans...
Well, before you were talking about "holy Bi-den". My response was in regards to this person. "holy Bi-den", not Biden. Qtard doesn't know who Biden really is. He doesn't even know his first name is "Joe", not "holy". btw, I know what Joe Biden's motives are. To do a great job for the American people. Qtard probably believes Minus FJ's lies about him doing the job to enrich himself. But this is what motivates dotard donald.
Qtard: But still... you are ready to extortn ocean of verbal shit at anybody... in his stead, it seems.
Qtard describes what he does.
Qtard: Even though he hardly need it.
dotard donald doesn't need your spewing of verbal feces. Yet you do it so eagerly.
Qtard: ...loud shouts HARDLY can persuade anyone doing as you like\\Qtard has no clue regarding my motivations for blogging.\\Well... I tryed to imagine rightful and maybe even noble, somewhat, cause. For you to extort verbal shit at people on the Internet.
My smart words appear to be "verbal shit" to Qtard because Qtard is an idiot.
Qtard: But it seems... sheer pleasure of extorting verbal shit is quite enough... for itself.
Agreed. In regards to your spewing of verbal shit bringing you pleasure. You admitted it. Asking for smart response from me you could laugh at. By saying you wanted "moar" (instead of "more").
Qtard: \\...you call "Demns". Or "demon-rats". Also "libtards".\\Isn't it wise of me, as foreigner, to use proper lexic in talking with native speakers?
No. It only proves only your rightturd proclivities.
Qtard: And I am very wise, and masterful. It seems.
No f*cking way.
Qtard: \\No evidence that Qtard has any idea what a hyperlink looks like. Because it does not know.\\Enormously desperate.
Qtard desperate to derail from the fact that he doesn't know what a hyperlink looks like. Easy to provide one, yet he refuses. Because he doesn't know what it is. A logical conclusion.
Qtard: That is called "proof by contradiction". Go, Google for it. Enlighten yourself. But, naaah... you will not, because you are idiot. Idiots are allergic to education, to knowing new things.
"To prove something by contradiction, we assume that what we want to prove is not true, and then show that the consequences of this are not possible".
I agree. It isn't possible that donald tRump didn't collude with Russia. Like I told you previously, his "Obama spied on me" proves he colluded. Because the FBI was spying on Russians. And found these Russians were meeting with members of the tRump campaign.
Qtard: \\Proof Qtard doesn't know what proof looks like.\\Oh, please. And you can give an example.
Yep. "Obama spied on me" proves the dotard campaign was colluding.
Qtard: \\IG Michael Horowitz looked at this prior to John Durham.\\That's... just "somebody-somebody saying something-something".
LOL. John Durham couldn't even prove what he was tasked to prove. Your fake quote, "dRump collusion with Rusha FAKE". Why he resorted to criticizing how the investigation was opened. A very lame end to his "investigation". Given that he was supposed to put Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden (people alleged to have "framed" tRump) behind bars.
Qtard: While that mr.D's report coroborates ... apparent to anybody (apart ffrom delirious religious bonkers) fact -- that there is NO results of that investigation.
There were results. The tRump campaign was caught colluding. "Obama spied on me"... remember? But they failed to bring charges because the FBI was on tRump's side. And republicans ran interference for tRump. Another result -- showed how corrupt republiturds are.
\\You tried to attribute the quote to a reporter. Then refused to give the reporter's name.
Because... that doesn't matter. And I will not try to investigate where and how I received that info... weeks or even month ago.
What for? What that would prove??? Nothing.
That is only sign of your desperation -- as you unable to say something about real and damning matters... so you trying to catch me in a net of your lame babbling about totally unimportant things -- which is idiotic tactics. Against smart aces. ;-P
Go try it on idiots like you... oh, I know, I know... there is not enough that idiots, who even more idiotic then you. And they are drooling imbeciles, with whom conversation not possible. :-))))))))))))))
But that's not my problem.
Am I frank (and eloquent) enough? Here.
Or... you will think that what I'm saying.. it's some kind of trick? :-)))))))))))))))
\\I can. Though Qtard does not know what a fact is.
Then. Give the definition. ;-P
But... you can't. You freakingly CANNOT do even that.
That means that all about you knowing what fact is -- is lame bragging. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\The first lie was that Durham said "dRump collusion with Rasha FAKE".
I never claimed that.
And just said that that was said that way by some news-reporter.
DO I responsible for what any "somebody-somebody who saying something-somthing" babbling???
If "yes", why YOU not, then?
If "no", what we talking about here, then?
\\2nd lie was that a reporter said it. Third lie was that providing name of reporter who said "dRump collusion with Rusha FAKE" was "my predicament".
WTF???? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))
But well, thank you for this vivid example of how idiot's dislogic working. ;-P
\\Bingo. FBI should have worked to protect democracy. Not to protect tRump's colluding with Russia.
With bending into a pretcel laws and correct law-enforcing practices?
Rethorical question.
\\Qtard: Because to any raional thinker it's beyond apparent, that "proof" means facts and sound logic being provided.
\\Sure. Though Qtard doesn't know what "facts and sound logic" look like. No clue.
Test me. ;-P
Give an example. Make a quiz.
But... you freakingly CANNOT, because you just and idiot. Who poofing itself with hot air. But will gone ka-boom after all that pretence would be pierce with even small pointed tip. ;-P
\\Qtard, as proven by it's lame totalitarian wannabe screachings, thinks those who scream louder and who repeats his dogmas more eagerly -- that make it Right and True.
Yawn.
With repeating MY words you only CONFIRM that they are smart and truthful.
And you are lame idiotic pretender who trying to sound smart and truthful... itself.
That's why repeating MY words -- even though it lame, and revealing you idiot, incapable to produce own thoughts. ;-P
\\Qtard: I ready to admit. That I am biased. To look at word from reality and racionality standpoint. Thinking and talking on the base of facts and logic...
\\:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Ehm??? Neurotical reaction of allergic to facts idiot?
\\Qtard looks at the world from unreality and irrationality standpoint. Thinking and talking on the base of false facts and illogic.
And you can dissect it with logic and facts????
Naaaah... :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\And Qtard has declared he doesn't believe facts.
Of course!
Cause FACTS it's elements of Reality itself -- bellieveing or not believing is totally useless, in regard to their existance.
Your Captain Obvious. ;-P
And that is ONLY Religious Bonker can blame it as something despicable -- non-believing in facts. And believing, as something good...
\\Qtard: I. While my thought based on knowing/seeing facts and sound logic -- do not need to believe into ANYTHING.
\\Qtard finds it freeing, refreshing and addictive to tell nonstop lies.
Of which Derpy CANNOT find neither facts nor logic or even some plausible explanation -- why it lie?
You know, Dumb Ass, LIE DO NOT exist. ;-P
So... if one claim that something is LIE one must be able to point at Direct and Inevitable TRUTH.
Because LIE it's just a shadow of The Truth.
Here. I made it in BOLD. For you. To nota bene.
But... naaah. You will PROVE YET ONE time that you are idiot -- incapable to learn. Unable to understand. Silly monkey. Shit thrower.
But... do I find you despicable? ;-P
Naaah... continue-continue you hoples hapless merry tricks, my little monkey. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\That America is like Nazi Germany?
YOU said it.
But little time will pass. And you will start claim that that was MY words. :-))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Democracy falling in the USA would make Qtard very happy.
For failing... there need to be democracy in the first place... But, people like you, demonstrate to all World... that that all can be not exactly true...
\\OK, but that isn't what's going on here. Your interest in American politics is proven by the fact that you comment on this board.
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\I know people who have no interest in politics. They don't comment on such forums. Pretty simple logic. But Qtard is too dumb to understand.
Yap. Idiot's dislogic. ;-P
\\A point-to-reality fact is only a "delusion" in the mind of an idiot.
It's good that you know about own deficiencies. ;-P
\\I've never opposed facts. What would be the point?
But... you declared it yourself. "I believe in facts".
And... demonstrated enough times here -- what it mean.
My little religious little bonker. ;-P
\\He must be projecting his beliefs onto me.
And who declared "I believe in facts", again??? ME???? %-))))
\\Qtard doesn't know who Biden really is. He doesn't even know his first name is "Joe", not "holy". btw, I know what Joe Biden's motives are.
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard describes what he does.
And you can quote me? ;-P
Naaah! :-)))))
\\My smart words appear to be "verbal shit" to Qtard because Qtard is an idiot.
It... ROFL it... ROFL no, I can't... it said... "my smart words" :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\No. It only proves only your rightturd proclivities.
HOW??????!!!!
I am not from USA. And cannot care less about your inner political brawls and divisions.
And even less I care about your previoius... or your next POTUS.
Well... merry tricks of current one, I can meet with concern, cause it influence the World... too much.
\\Qtard: And I am very wise, and masterful. It seems.
\\No f*cking way.
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Envious? ;-P
Don't be. You'd not be able to change your idiotic nature. So, it would ne only bitter hopeless envy.
\\Qtard desperate to derail from the fact that he doesn't know what a hyperlink looks like. Easy to provide one, yet he refuses. Because he doesn't know what it is. A logical conclusion.
Humongously desperate. :-)))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: That is called "proof by contradiction". Go, Google for it. Enlighten yourself. But, naaah... you will not, because you are idiot. Idiots are allergic to education, to knowing new things.
\\"To prove something by contradiction, we assume that what we want to prove is not true, and then show that the consequences of this are not possible".
\\I agree.
But... how can you???
You said that I'm idiot.
That I spewing ONLY verbal shit.
Tell only lies.
HOW you can agree????
Are you an idiot? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\LOL. John Durham couldn't even prove what he was tasked to prove.
Yep. In idiotic mind of Derpy such investigation commited only to prove some predestined prejudged points....
Yawn.
\\There were results. The tRump campaign was caught colluding. "Obama spied on me"... remember? But they failed to bring charges because the FBI was on tRump's side. And republicans ran interference for tRump. Another result -- showed how corrupt republiturds are.
Qtard: \\I argue with the truth and facts, not "merry idiotic tricks"\\THAT IS exactly an example of that merry idiotic tricks.
Only to people who hate truth and facts. People like Qtard.
Qtard: ...cite correct definition of what FACTS is.
"A fact is a thing that is known or proved to be true". Qtard asks because it doesn't know. It only cuts and pastes borrowed knowledge.
Qtard: And give correct logical explanation -- that what you do is "arguing with the truth and facts".
I argue with truth and facts by citing experts. But Qtard baselessly claims facts experts arrived at by studying the data is "Demn propaganda".
Qtard: Cause... I-D-I-O-T.
Agreed. Qtard cannot give correct and logical explanation that what it does is "arguing with the truth and facts". Because Qtard does not. Because Qtard is an idiot.
Qtard: It was unable to comprehend that definition. Even while it was given manyu times... to it. Yawn.
Qtard cut and pasted borrowed knowledge without understanding many many times. Yes.
Qtard: \\Yet I am too dumb to catch on? I just keep posting tricks thinking I MIGHT fool Qtard?\\You... gotcha.
Qtard can NOT be "fooled" with facts. Because Qtard disbelieves facts.
Qtard: And how this "wise" thought even came to your mind? Can it be that you able to learn?
I learned what Qtard's delusions are. Not hard. It repeats them over and over.
Qtard: \\You ... refused to give the reporter's name\\ Because... that doesn't matter. And I will not try to investigate where and how I received that info... weeks or even month ago. What for? What that would prove??? Nothing.
Qtard doesn't care about proving it didn't lie. Because it knows it did lie. And it continues to lie.
Qtard: That is only sign of your desperation -- as you unable to say something about real and damning matters... so you trying to catch me in a net of your lame babbling about totally unimportant things -- which is idiotic tactics.
Asking for proof only "lame babbling" to a liar like Qtard.
Qtard: Against smart aces.
LOL.
Qtard: Go try it on ... idiots, who even more idiotic then you. And they are drooling imbeciles, with whom conversation not possible. But that's not my problem.
Only a drooling imbecile is dumber than Qtard. Though there could be drool dripping down Qtard's chin following some of it's maniacal laughter.
Qtard: Am I frank (and eloquent) enough? Here.
Frankness and eloquence = 0%
Qtard: Or... you will think that what I'm saying.. it's some kind of trick?
Qtard: \\...Qtard does not know what a fact is\\Then. Give the definition. But... you can't. You freakingly CANNOT do even that.
I can go to a dictionary website and cut and paste a definition. WITH understanding. Unlike Qtard. He obviously cuts and pastes definitions without understanding.
Qtard: That means that all about you knowing what fact is -- is lame bragging.
Only "bragging" to liars like Qtard.
Qtard: \\The first lie was that Durham said "dRump collusion with Rasha FAKE"\\I never claimed that.
LOL! That is a quote. You wrote it several times. Retract that claim if you want, but you can't say "I never claimed that". Only if you lie. Which you are.
Qtard: And just said that that was said that way by some news-reporter.
Name the reporter.
Qtard: DO I responsible for what any "somebody-somebody who saying something-somthing" babbling???
So, what the (imaginary) reporter said is false? You are admitting the truth that donald tRump did collude with Putin? If not, how is that "babbling"? Though, the TRUTH is that Qtard said it. And it is Qtard's babbling.
Qtard: If "yes", why YOU not, then? If "no", what we talking about here, then?
Yes. Qtard is responsible for Qtard's claims. Why would it not be? "Why you not"? I am. I never claimed I am not.
Qtard: \\2nd lie was that a reporter said it. Third lie was that providing name of reporter who said "dRump collusion with Rusha FAKE" was "my predicament"\\WTF????
An idiot is confused. By its OWN WORDS! LOL.
Qtard: But well, thank you for this vivid example of how idiot's dislogic working.
Qtard provided the examples. Many of them.
Qtard: \\Bingo. FBI should have worked to protect democracy. Not to protect tRump's colluding with Russia\\With bending into a pretcel laws and correct law-enforcing practices? Rethorical question.
donald tRump was allowed to get away with colluding due to laws not being enforced.
Qtard: \\...Qtard doesn't know what "facts and sound logic" look like. No clue.\\Test me.
Qtard has been tested. Many times. It failed many times.
Qtard: Give an example.
donald tRump says "Obama spied on me". The "spying" occured when IC agents heard tRump campaign people talking to Russians. This fact (confirmed by donald tRump) is evidence of collusion.
One of the things discussed was getting dirt on Hillary Clinton. The idiot Qtard says that had something to do with establishing diplomacy. Which (the idiot thinks) donald tRump was "required" to do. When tRump was required (by law) NOT to do this.
Qtard: Make a quiz. But... you freakingly CANNOT, because you just and idiot. Who poofing itself with hot air. But will gone ka-boom after all that pretence would be pierce with even small pointed tip.
LOL. "Poofing itself with hot air" describes Qtard. But he will never go "ka-boom". Because Qtard is protected by an impenetrable shell of ignorance and self delusion.
Qtard: \\Qtard, as proven by it's lame totalitarian wannabe screachings, thinks those who scream louder and who repeats his dogmas more eagerly -- that make it Right and True\\ Yawn.
With repeating MY words you only CONFIRM that they are smart and truthful.
Qtard's words are neither smart nor truthful. Because Qtard said them about me. Those words ONLY become smart and truthful when I say them about Qtard.
Qtard: ...who trying to sound smart and truthful... itself. That's why repeating MY words -- even though it lame, and revealing you idiot, incapable to produce own thoughts.
MY thought, after reading Qtards stupid and false words? "Idiot Qtard doesn't realize it is talking about itself". That was also my smart and truthful realization.
Qtard: Ehm??? Neurotical reaction of allergic to facts idiot?
Could be. Maybe Qtard should consult a neurologist? Ask neurologist, "why am I always laughing at my own stupidity"? Though it would probably be a better idea for Qtard to consult a psychiatrist. And get a prescription for some antipsychotic meds.
"Psychosis refers to a collection of symptoms that affect the mind, where there has been some loss of contact with reality".
Qtard: \\Qtard looks at the world from unreality and irrationality standpoint. Thinking and talking on the base of false facts and illogic.\\And you can dissect it with logic and facts??
The fact is that Qtard has a long history of doing that here, on this blog. Imagining that it finds adhearing to the facts and truth "refreshing".
Qtard: \\Qtard has declared he doesn't believe facts\\Of course! Cause FACTS it's elements of Reality itself -- bellieveing or not believing is totally useless, in regard to their existance.
Not believing facts is useful in deceiving itself. Which is something Qtard is very good at doing. imagines non-facts and claiming they are facts.
Lying can also be useful in getting what you want. It is the strategy donald tRump has employed his entire life. Qtard acknowledges that it works in politics. Candidate Mark Twain dropped out of the governor race in story Qtard posted here. So not believing facts (MT did none of the things he was accused of) benefited the other candidates. Voters had negative opinion of candidate Twain. Because they believed things that were not true.
Totally useless? No. VERY useful. For pathological liars like donald tRump. Also useful for pathological liars like Qtard.
Qtard: Your Captain Obvious.
Thank you.
Qtard: And that is ONLY Religious Bonker can blame it as something despicable -- non-believing in facts. And believing, as something good...
It is despicable. But other people beside a "religious bonker" use this strategy of fooling idiots into believing lies. donald tRump does it. Could be why Qtard admires and emulates him. Of course believing facts is good. Shows a person is smart.
Qtard: I. While my thought based on knowing/seeing facts and sound logic -- do not need to believe into ANYTHING.
Bull. Qtard believes that telling lies is a winning strategy. It imagines that non-facts and illogic can win debates.
Qtard: \\**laughter**\\Neurotic reaction of Religious Bonker?
No. Me laughing at Qtard's idiocy.
Qtard: \\Qtard finds it freeing, refreshing and addictive to tell nonstop lies\\Of which Derpy CANNOT find neither facts nor logic or even some plausible explanation -- why it lie?
Because it (things Qtard imagines) is the opposite of the truth.
Qtard: You know, Dumb Ass, LIE DO NOT exist. So... if one claim that something is LIE one must be able to point at Direct and Inevitable TRUTH. Because LIE it's just a shadow of The Truth.
OK. So why doesn't Qtard ever point to a "direct and inevitable truth"? Instead he only imagines non-facts that are more pleasing to it.
Qtard: Here. I made it in BOLD. For you. To nota bene. But... naaah. You will PROVE YET ONE time that you are idiot -- incapable to learn. Unable to understand. Silly monkey. Shit thrower.
I am very capable of learning. And I have no need to "throw shit". Not when facts are on my side.
Qtard: But... do I find you despicable? Naaah... continue-continue you hoples hapless merry tricks, my little monkey.
Humans and chimps are 98.8 percent similar, DNA-wise. But my DNA (as a human) is 1.2 percent dissimilar from a monkey. Because I'm not a monkey. Metaphorically or literally.
Qtard: \\That America is like Nazi Germany?\\YOU said it. But little time will pass. And you will start claim that that was MY words.
Because they ARE your words. Words about USA being like Nazi Germany repeated many many times. Endlessly. Will be repeated AGAIN. And AGAIN. And AGAIN.
Qtard: For failing... there need to be democracy in the first place... But, people like you, demonstrate to all World... that that all can be not exactly true.
No, people like donald tRump and his supporters. Denying Russian collusion that helped him steal the 2016 election. That donald tRump was president demonstrated to all the world that America being a democracy "can be not exactly true".
Qtard: \\OK, but that isn't what's going on here. Your interest in American politics is proven by the fact that you comment on this board\\**moronic laughter**
You don't comment on this blog? Because you stopped using "Q"? Are you somebody else? ANOTHER idiot who says American politics don't interest it? Even though it comments on a blog where American politics are discussed?
Qtard: \\I know people who have no interest in politics. They don't comment on such forums. Pretty simple logic. But Qtard is too dumb to understand\\Yap. Idiot's dislogic.
Only in the eyes of an idiot.
Qtard: \\A point-to-reality fact is only a "delusion" in the mind of an idiot\\It's good that you know about own deficiencies.
I doubt you are aware of this deficiency in yourself.
Qtard: \\I've never opposed facts. What would be the point?\\But... you declared it yourself. "I believe in facts". And... demonstrated enough times here -- what it mean. My little religious little bonker.
I have never demonstrated "religious bonkery". Not once. Qtard only imagines I do.
Qtard: \\He must be projecting his beliefs onto me\\And who declared "I believe in facts", again??? ME????
No. Why would you? Qtard hates facts. He disbelieves them. And imagines non-facts to take the place of facts.
Qtard: \\I know what Joe Biden's motives are\\**moronic laugher**
Qtard imagines that Joe Biden's true motives are not doing what is best for America? What does Qtard imagine these motives might be? Enrich himself by taking bribes? As "proven" with an audio recording that has not been presented and likely doesn't exist?
Qtard: \\Qtard describes what he does\\And you can quote me? Naaah!
Yes. "dRump collusion with Rasha FAKE". One example of many. All Qtard can cite from me is that I believe in facts. Then the liar ADDS bullplop about me not believing facts I don't like. Just like it added "em their rights" to another of my quotes. When I never wrote that.
Qtard: \\My smart words appear to be "verbal shit" to Qtard because Qtard is an idiot\\It... ROFL it... ROFL no, I can't... it said... "my smart words"
Qtard: \\...only proves only your rightturd proclivities. HOW ... I am not from USA. And cannot care less about your inner political brawls and divisions. And even less I care about your previoius... or your next POTUS.
Prove it. Go away. Why stick around when things you CLAIM not to care about are the main topics of discussion?
Qtard: Well... merry tricks of current one, I can meet with concern, cause it influence the World... too much.
Qtard would prefer influencer of the world be Vlad Putin, yes? Or Vlad Putin by way of his puppet, donald tRump.
Qtard: And I am very wise, and masterful. It seems\\No f*cking way\\Envious? Don't be. You'd not be able to change your idiotic nature. So, it would ne only bitter hopeless envy.
Not envious. In the least.
Qtard: \\Qtard desperate to derail from the fact that he doesn't know what a hyperlink looks like. Easy to provide one, yet he refuses\\Humongously desperate.
Qtard is desperate to know what a hyperlink is? Google for it.
Qtard: \\I agree\\But... how can you??? You said that I'm idiot. That I spewing ONLY verbal shit.
An idiot can cut and paste borrowed knowledge. Or reference it without understanding.
To agree with logic Qtard quoted (but didn't understand)? Why would that make me an idiot?
Qtard: \\John Durham couldn't even prove what he was tasked to prove\\Yep. In idiotic mind of Derpy such investigation commited only to prove some predestined prejudged points.
In the minds of people who were convinced Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden were going to be arrested, charged and convicted for "framing tRump". I NEVER thought this would happen. Minus FJ, Mystere and other tRump supporters thought this. Were totally convinced it was going to happen.
Qtard: \\There were results. The tRump campaign was caught colluding. "Obama spied on me" ... But they failed to bring charges because the FBI was on tRump's side. And republicans ran interference for tRump\\Yap. Demn Religious Nuttery.
"Demn religious nuttery" card played. Yet again. As if that automatically disproves facts. Qtard doesn't remember that donald tRump claimed that Obama spied on him? Because the FBI was watching Russians in the US and found they were in communication with tRump campaign people. And the Russians were offering help which the tRump campaign was eagerly accepting.
Qtard IMAGINES this is "Demn Religious Nuttery". Because, as Qtard has confessed, it is really good at denying reality and imaging something that is more pleasing to it.
\\Qtard: \\I argue with the truth and facts, not "merry idiotic tricks"\\THAT IS exactly an example of that merry idiotic tricks.
\\Only to people who hate truth and facts. People like Qtard.
Said that thing that declared, NO sweared to -- NOT providing FACTUAL quotes... because sees em as some kind "black magic". :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Clear Oruelian "Truth -- it's lie" used.
\\Qtard: ...cite correct definition of what FACTS is.
\\"A fact is a thing that is known or proved to be true". Qtard asks because it doesn't know. It only cuts and pastes borrowed knowledge.
OK, Google. What "fact meaning"?
something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
I'm a Scientist, and I Don't Believe in Facts - Scientific American Blogs blogs.scientificamerican.com › mind-guest-blog According to the Oxford dictionary, a fact is “a thing that is known or proved to be true.” And where does proof come from? Science?
\\I argue with truth and facts by citing experts.
Words of expets -- it's not facts itself.
Your Captain Obvious. ;-P
So "citing expets" that is NOT "arguing with truth and facts" by itself, that is just hyporitical try to use someone else *OPINIONS* to claim being "arguing with truth and facts".
EXACTLY what a idiotic hyporite would do... in hopeless try to "sound smart".
Naturally. Being UNABLE to discern facts of Reality by itself. Clinging to somebody's OPINION as that invalid clinging to his cluthes/wheelchair. ;-P
\\But Qtard baselessly claims facts experts arrived at by studying the data is "Demn propaganda".
YOU... do not provide that excerpts where that "experts" would provide any facts... more then that, even their opinion.
But... somnehow it is MY fault, for you not performing your duty in a rational based on facts and logic conversation... :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: Cause... I-D-I-O-T.
\\Agreed. Qtard cannot give correct and logical explanation that what it does is "arguing with the truth and facts". Because Qtard does not. Because Qtard is an idiot.
And what DID I said... I-D-I-O-T.
Completele oblivious to that that such an idiotic trick of turning MY words against me -- only PROVE its idiocy. :-)))))
Easy to see -- if that words is WRONG -- repeating em, would be stupid.
And if they RIGHT... trying to using em opposite way -- would make em FALSE, inevitable.
\\Qtard: \\I argue with the truth and facts, not "merry idiotic tricks"\\THAT IS exactly an example of that merry idiotic tricks.
\\Only to people who hate truth and facts. People like Qtard.
Said that thing that declared, NO sweared to -- NOT providing FACTUAL quotes... because sees em as some kind "black magic". :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Clear Oruelian "Truth -- it's lie" used.
\\Qtard: ...cite correct definition of what FACTS is.
\\"A fact is a thing that is known or proved to be true". Qtard asks because it doesn't know. It only cuts and pastes borrowed knowledge.
OK, Google. What "fact meaning"?
something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
I'm a Scientist, and I Don't Believe in Facts - Scientific American Blogs blogs.scientificamerican.com › mind-guest-blog According to the Oxford dictionary, a fact is “a thing that is known or proved to be true.” And where does proof come from? Science?
\\I argue with truth and facts by citing experts.
Words of expets -- it's not facts itself.
Your Captain Obvious. ;-P
So "citing expets" that is NOT "arguing with truth and facts" by itself, that is just hyporitical try to use someone else *OPINIONS* to claim being "arguing with truth and facts".
EXACTLY what a idiotic hyporite would do... in hopeless try to "sound smart".
Naturally. Being UNABLE to discern facts of Reality by itself. Clinging to somebody's OPINION as that invalid clinging to his cluthes/wheelchair. ;-P
\\But Qtard baselessly claims facts experts arrived at by studying the data is "Demn propaganda".
YOU... do not provide that excerpts where that "experts" would provide any facts... more then that, even their opinion.
But... somnehow it is MY fault, for you not performing your duty in a rational based on facts and logic conversation... :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Agreed. Qtard cannot give correct and logical explanation that what it does is "arguing with the truth and facts". Because Qtard does not. Because Qtard is an idiot.
And what DID I said... I-D-I-O-T.
Completele oblivious to that that such an idiotic trick of turning MY words against me -- only PROVE its idiocy. :-)))))
Easy to see -- if that words is WRONG -- repeating em, would be stupid.
And if they RIGHT... trying to using em opposite way -- would make em FALSE, inevitable.
Because OPPOSITION to Truth is... False.;-P
FLAWLESS LOGIC!
\\Qtard cut and pasted borrowed knowledge without understanding many many times. Yes.
Same as above. ;-P
\\Qtard: \\Yet I am too dumb to catch on? I just keep posting tricks thinking I MIGHT fool Qtard?\\You... gotcha.
\\Qtard can NOT be "fooled" with facts. Because Qtard disbelieves facts.
But... WHO claimed "I believe in facts".
Same as above.
\\I learned what Qtard's delusions are. Not hard. It repeats them over and over.
As precisely correct quotes of YOUR words? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
What an idiot. ;-P
\\Qtard doesn't care about proving it didn't lie. Because it knows it did lie. And it continues to lie.
Depry sweared that it will not provide QUOTES even. Cause, it sees as some kind "black magic" that disproves its delusional babbling each and every time. And now it trying to babble something about lying. That nasty relentless lyar and idiotic hypocrite, who lies EVEN about OWN words just said. :-) (ad infinitum)
Same as above.
\\Asking for proof only "lame babbling" to a liar like Qtard.
Proof of what? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))
That youy are idiot? Byt you proving it with each and ever of your blurts. :-))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Frankness and eloquence = 0%
Wasted on such an idiot. I know. :-))))))))))))))))
That was rethorical question. ;-P
\\Qtard: Or... you will think that what I'm saying.. it's some kind of trick?
\\Always.
Hah... you confirmed it!!! :-)))))))))) Itself.
That you are idiot, who sees logic and facts as some kind of "black magic". :-))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: \\...Qtard does not know what a fact is\\Then. Give the definition. But... you can't. You freakingly CANNOT do even that.
\\I can go to a dictionary website and cut and paste a definition. WITH understanding. Unlike Qtard. He obviously cuts and pastes definitions without understanding.
Empty babbling.
So... WHAT that "with understanding" mean??? If you SO wise and understanding -- you should be able to EXPLAIN it.
But... you can't.
All you can -- repeat MY words. In shallow try. To sound smart.
What a loser.
Same as above.
\\Qtard: \\The first lie was that Durham said "dRump collusion with Rasha FAKE"\\I never claimed that.
\\LOL! That is a quote. You wrote it several times. Retract that claim if you want, but you can't say "I never claimed that". Only if you lie. Which you are.
Dumb ass...
HOW???? Quoting something CAN mean "claiming it"???
Clearly and idiot.
Whoi do not understand difference between claiming anf refering.
OMG!!! I didn't know SUCH idiocy possible!!! :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Well, it explains. A lot.
\\Name the reporter.
What for???
\\Qtard: DO I responsible for what any "somebody-somebody who saying something-somthing" babbling???
\\So, what the (imaginary) reporter said is false?
No. It's just "somebody-somebody said something-something".
Mere words -- they are NOT facts.
And as we confirmed here many times here -- on your example.
There is lots of people -- idiots, who do not understand it.
\\Qtard: \\2nd lie was that a reporter said it. Third lie was that providing name of reporter who said "dRump collusion with Rusha FAKE" was "my predicament"\\WTF????
\\An idiot is confused. By its OWN WORDS! LOL.
Yap.
You are right.
You are damn confused. By itself.
With that demand to give name of "that reporter", while unable to explain -- and what importance of that info? What you need it for? :-))))))))))))
You are in a dare predicaments.
Hole you dug itself... and for itself. And swamped to the state of quciksands... to drown in them. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
But yeah... damn usual for idiots... that dummies. Habitually drowning in own delusions. Or... some crafted for them delusions...
\\Qtard: But well, thank you for this vivid example of how idiot's dislogic working.
\\Qtard provided the examples. Many of them.
But... IT... cannot provide quote of any... :-))))))))))))))))))))
\\donald tRump was allowed to get away with colluding due to laws not being enforced.
Idiot... do not know what Rethorical Question is. :-)))
Well... idiot, as it is.
\\Qtard has been tested. Many times. It failed many times.
But... no quote of ANY.
Same as above. :-)))))))))))))))))
\\donald tRump says "Obama spied on me". The "spying" occured when IC agents heard tRump campaign people talking to Russians. This fact (confirmed by donald tRump) is evidence of collusion.
Yap... in idiot's mind.
Go to the court... with such an "evidances". :-))))))))))))))))))))
\\One of the things discussed was getting dirt on Hillary Clinton. The idiot Qtard says that had something to do with establishing diplomacy.
IT... was not that picky, in regard to getting dirt on dRump...
\\LOL. "Poofing itself with hot air" describes Qtard. But he will never go "ka-boom". Because Qtard is protected by an impenetrable shell of ignorance and self delusion.
\\MY thought, after reading Qtards stupid and false words? "Idiot Qtard doesn't realize it is talking about itself". That was also my smart and truthful realization.
Clearly an idea disfunctional brain of an idiot could come up with... being UNABLE to produce OWN thoughts... because of how disfunctional its brain is... so it can only twist and turn words of smart opponent.
\\Qtard: \\I argue with the truth and facts, not "merry idiotic tricks"\\THAT IS exactly an example of that merry idiotic tricks.
\\Only to people who hate truth and facts. People like Qtard.
Said that thing that declared, NO sweared to -- NOT providing FACTUAL quotes... because sees em as some kind "black magic". :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Clear Oruelian "Truth -- it's lie" used.
\\Qtard: ...cite correct definition of what FACTS is.
\\"A fact is a thing that is known or proved to be true". Qtard asks because it doesn't know. It only cuts and pastes borrowed knowledge.
OK, Google. What "fact meaning"?
something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
I'm a Scientist, and I Don't Believe in Facts - Scientific American Blogs blogs.scientificamerican.com › mind-guest-blog According to the Oxford dictionary, a fact is “a thing that is known or proved to be true.” And where does proof come from? Science?
\\I argue with truth and facts by citing experts.
Words of expets -- it's not facts itself.
Your Captain Obvious. ;-P
So "citing expets" that is NOT "arguing with truth and facts" by itself, that is just hyporitical try to use someone else *OPINIONS* to claim being "arguing with truth and facts".
EXACTLY what a idiotic hyporite would do... in hopeless try to "sound smart".
Naturally. Being UNABLE to discern facts of Reality by itself. Clinging to somebody's OPINION as that invalid clinging to his cluthes/wheelchair. ;-P
\\But Qtard baselessly claims facts experts arrived at by studying the data is "Demn propaganda".
YOU... do not provide that excerpts where that "experts" would provide any facts... more then that, even their opinion.
But... somnehow it is MY fault, for you not performing your duty in a rational based on facts and logic conversation... :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: \\I argue with the truth and facts, not "merry idiotic tricks"\\THAT IS exactly an example of that merry idiotic tricks.
\\Only to people who hate truth and facts. People like Qtard.
Said that thing that declared, NO sweared to -- NOT providing FACTUAL quotes... because sees em as some kind "black magic". :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Clear Oruelian "Truth -- it's LIE" used.
\\Qtard: ...cite correct definition of what FACTS is.
\\"A fact is a thing that is known or proved to be true". Qtard asks because it doesn't know. It only cuts and pastes borrowed knowledge.
OK, Google. What "fact meaning"?
something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
I'm a Scientist, and I Don't Believe in Facts - Scientific American Blogs blogs.scientificamerican.com › mind-guest-blog According to the Oxford dictionary, a fact is “a thing that is known or proved to be true.” And where does proof come from? Science?
\\I argue with truth and facts by citing experts.
Words of expets -- it's not facts itself.
Your Captain Obvious. ;-P
So "citing expets" that is NOT "arguing with truth and facts" by itself, that is just hyporitical try to use someone else *OPINIONS* to claim being "arguing with truth and facts".
EXACTLY what a idiotic hyporite would do... in hopeless try to "sound smart".
Naturally. Being UNABLE to discern facts of Reality by itself. Clinging to somebody's OPINION as that invalid clinging to his cluthes/wheelchair. ;-P
\\But Qtard baselessly claims facts experts arrived at by studying the data is "Demn propaganda".
YOU... do not provide that excerpts where that "experts" would provide any facts... more then that, even their opinion.
But... somnehow it is MY fault, for you not performing your duty in a rational based on facts and logic conversation... :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: Cause... I-D-I-O-T.
\\Agreed. Qtard cannot give correct and logical explanation that what it does is "arguing with the truth and facts". Because Qtard does not. Because Qtard is an idiot.
And what DID I said... I-D-I-O-T.
Completele oblivious to that that such an idiotic trick of turning MY words against me -- only PROVE its idiocy. :-)))))
Easy to see -- if that words is WRONG -- repeating em, would be stupid.
And if they RIGHT... trying to using em opposite way -- would make em FALSE, inevitable.
\\Qtard cut and pasted borrowed knowledge without understanding many many times. Yes.
Same as above. ;-P
\\Qtard: \\Yet I am too dumb to catch on? I just keep posting tricks thinking I MIGHT fool Qtard?\\You... gotcha.
\\Qtard can NOT be "fooled" with facts. Because Qtard disbelieves facts.
But... WHO claimed "I believe in facts".
Same as above.
\\I learned what Qtard's delusions are. Not hard. It repeats them over and over.
As precisely correct quotes of YOUR words? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
What an idiot. ;-P
\\Qtard doesn't care about proving it didn't lie. Because it knows it did lie. And it continues to lie.
Depry sweared that it will not provide QUOTES even. Cause, it sees as some kind "black magic" that disproves its delusional babbling each and every time. And now it trying to babble something about lying. That nasty relentless lyar and idiotic hypocrite, who lies EVEN about OWN words just said. :-) (ad infinitum)
Same as above.
\\Asking for proof only "lame babbling" to a liar like Qtard.
Proof of what? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))
That youy are idiot? Byt you proving it with each and ever of your blurts. :-))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Frankness and eloquence = 0%
Wasted on such an idiot. I know. :-))))))))))))))))
That was rethorical question. ;-P
\\Qtard: Or... you will think that what I'm saying.. it's some kind of trick?
\\Always.
Hah... you confirmed it!!! :-)))))))))) Itself.
That you are idiot, who sees logic and facts as some kind of "black magic". :-))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: \\...Qtard does not know what a fact is\\Then. Give the definition. But... you can't. You freakingly CANNOT do even that.
\\I can go to a dictionary website and cut and paste a definition. WITH understanding. Unlike Qtard. He obviously cuts and pastes definitions without understanding.
Empty babbling.
So... WHAT that "with understanding" mean??? If you SO wise and understanding -- you should be able to EXPLAIN it.
But... you can't.
All you can -- repeat MY words. In shallow try. To sound smart.
\\Qtard: \\I argue with the truth and facts, not "merry idiotic tricks"\\THAT IS exactly an example of that merry idiotic tricks.
\\Only to people who hate truth and facts. People like Qtard.
Said that thing that declared, NO sweared to -- NOT providing FACTUAL quotes... because sees em as some kind "black magic". :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: ...cite correct definition of what FACTS is.
\\"A fact is a thing that is known or proved to be true". Qtard asks because it doesn't know. It only cuts and pastes borrowed knowledge.
OK, Google. What "fact meaning"?
something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
I'm a Scientist, and I Don't Believe in Facts - Scientific American Blogs blogs.scientificamerican.com › mind-guest-blog According to the Oxford dictionary, a fact is “a thing that is known or proved to be true.” And where does proof come from? Science?
Said that thing that declared, NO sweared to -- NOT providing FACTUAL quotes... because sees em as some kind "black magic". :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Said that thing that declared, NO sweared to -- NOT providing FACTUAL quotes... because sees em as some kind "black magic". :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Said that thing that declared, NO sweared to -- NOT providing FACTUAL quotes... because sees em as some kind "black magic". :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Said that thing that declared, NO sweared to -- NOT providing FACTUAL quotes... because sees em as some kind "black magic". :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Said that thing that declared, NO sweared to -- NOT providing FACTUAL quotes... because sees em as some kind "black magic". :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: \\I argue with the truth and facts, not "merry idiotic tricks"\\THAT IS exactly an example of that merry idiotic tricks.
\\Only to people who hate truth and facts. People like Qtard.
Said that thing that declared, NO sweared to -- NOT providing FACTUAL quotes... because sees em as some kind "black magic". :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: \\I argue with the truth and facts, not "merry idiotic tricks"\\THAT IS exactly an example of that merry idiotic tricks.
\\Only to people who hate truth and facts. People like Qtard.
Said that thing that declared, NO sweared to -- NOT providing FACTUAL quotes... because sees em as some kind "b.l.a.c.k magic". :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: \\I argue with the truth and facts, not "merry idiotic tricks"\\THAT IS exactly an example of that merry idiotic tricks.
\\Only to people who hate truth and facts. People like Qtard.
Said that thing that declared, NO sweared to -- NOT providing FACTUAL quotes... because sees em as some kind "afroamerican magic". :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Clear Oruelian "Truth -- it's lie" used.
\\Qtard: ...cite correct definition of what FACTS is.
\\"A fact is a thing that is known or proved to be true". Qtard asks because it doesn't know. It only cuts and pastes borrowed knowledge.
OK, Google. What "fact meaning"?
something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
I'm a Scientist, and I Don't Believe in Facts - Scientific American Blogs blogs.scientificamerican.com › mind-guest-blog According to the Oxford dictionary, a fact is “a thing that is known or proved to be true.” And where does proof come from? Science?
\\I argue with truth and facts by citing experts.
Words of expets -- it's not facts itself.
Your Captain Obvious. ;-P
So "citing expets" that is NOT "arguing with truth and facts" by itself, that is just hyporitical try to use someone else *OPINIONS* to claim being "arguing with truth and facts".
EXACTLY what a idiotic hyporite would do... in hopeless try to "sound smart".
Naturally. Being UNABLE to discern facts of Reality by itself. Clinging to somebody's OPINION as that invalid clinging to his cluthes/wheelchair. ;-P
\\But Qtard baselessly claims facts experts arrived at by studying the data is "Demn propaganda".
YOU... do not provide that excerpts where that "experts" would provide any facts... more then that, even their opinion.
But... somnehow it is MY fault, for you not performing your duty in a rational based on facts and logic conversation... :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: Cause... I-D-I-O-T.
\\Agreed. Qtard cannot give correct and logical explanation that what it does is "arguing with the truth and facts". Because Qtard does not. Because Qtard is an idiot.
And what DID I said... I-D-I-O-T.
Completele oblivious to that that such an idiotic trick of turning MY words against me -- only PROVE its idiocy. :-)))))
Easy to see -- if that words is WRONG -- repeating em, would be stupid.
And if they RIGHT... trying to using em opposite way -- would make em FALSE, inevitable.
Because OPPOSITION to Truth is... False.;-P
FLAWLESS LOGIC!
\\Qtard cut and pasted borrowed knowledge without understanding many many times. Yes.
Same as above. ;-P
\\Qtard: \\Yet I am too dumb to catch on? I just keep posting tricks thinking I MIGHT fool Qtard?\\You... gotcha.
\\Qtard can NOT be "fooled" with facts. Because Qtard disbelieves facts.
But... WHO claimed "I believe in facts".
Same as above.
\\I learned what Qtard's delusions are. Not hard. It repeats them over and over.
As precisely correct quotes of YOUR words? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
What an idiot. ;-P
\\Qtard doesn't care about proving it didn't lie. Because it knows it did lie. And it continues to lie.
Depry sweared that it will not provide QUOTES even. Cause, it sees as some kind "black magic" that disproves its delusional babbling each and every time. And now it trying to babble something about lying. That nasty relentless lyar and idiotic hypocrite, who lies EVEN about OWN words just said. :-) (ad infinitum)
Same as above.
\\Asking for proof only "lame babbling" to a liar like Qtard.
Proof of what? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))
That youy are idiot? Byt you proving it with each and ever of your blurts. :-))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Frankness and eloquence = 0%
Wasted on such an idiot. I know. :-))))))))))))))))
That was rethorical question. ;-P
\\Qtard: Or... you will think that what I'm saying.. it's some kind of trick?
\\Always.
Hah... you confirmed it!!! :-)))))))))) Itself.
That you are idiot, who sees logic and facts as some kind of "black magic". :-))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: \\...Qtard does not know what a fact is\\Then. Give the definition. But... you can't. You freakingly CANNOT do even that.
\\I can go to a dictionary website and cut and paste a definition. WITH understanding. Unlike Qtard. He obviously cuts and pastes definitions without understanding.
Empty babbling.
So... WHAT that "with understanding" mean??? If you SO wise and understanding -- you should be able to EXPLAIN it.
But... you can't.
All you can -- repeat MY words. In shallow try. To sound smart.
\\But Qtard baselessly claims facts experts arrived at by studying the data is "Demn propaganda".
YOU... do not provide that excerpts where that "experts" would provide any facts... more then that, even their opinion.
But... somnehow it is MY fault, for you not performing your duty in a rational based on facts and logic conversation... :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: Cause... I-D-I-O-T.
\\Agreed. Qtard cannot give correct and logical explanation that what it does is "arguing with the truth and facts". Because Qtard does not. Because Qtard is an idiot.
And what DID I said... I-D-I-O-T.
Completele oblivious to that that such an idiotic trick of turning MY words against me -- only PROVE its idiocy. :-)))))
Easy to see -- if that words is WRONG -- repeating em, would be stupid.
And if they RIGHT... trying to using em opposite way -- would make em FALSE, inevitable.
Because OPPOSITION to Truth is... False.;-P
FLAWLESS LOGIC!
\\Qtard cut and pasted borrowed knowledge without understanding many many times. Yes.
Same as above. ;-P
\\Qtard: \\Yet I am too dumb to catch on? I just keep posting tricks thinking I MIGHT fool Qtard?\\You... gotcha.
\\Qtard can NOT be "fooled" with facts. Because Qtard disbelieves facts.
But... WHO claimed "I believe in facts".
Same as above.
\\I learned what Qtard's delusions are. Not hard. It repeats them over and over.
As precisely correct quotes of YOUR words? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
What an idiot. ;-P
\\Qtard doesn't care about proving it didn't lie. Because it knows it did lie. And it continues to lie.
Depry sweared that it will not provide QUOTES even. Cause, it sees as some kind "black magic" that disproves its delusional babbling each and every time. And now it trying to babble something about lying. That nasty relentless lyar and idiotic hypocrite, who lies EVEN about OWN words just said. :-) (ad infinitum)
Same as above.
\\Asking for proof only "lame babbling" to a liar like Qtard.
Proof of what? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))
That youy are idiot? Byt you proving it with each and ever of your blurts. :-))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Frankness and eloquence = 0%
Wasted on such an idiot. I know. :-))))))))))))))))
That was rethorical question. ;-P
\\Qtard: Or... you will think that what I'm saying.. it's some kind of trick?
\\Always.
Hah... you confirmed it!!! :-)))))))))) Itself.
That you are idiot, who sees logic and facts as some kind of "black magic". :-))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: \\...Qtard does not know what a fact is\\Then. Give the definition. But... you can't. You freakingly CANNOT do even that.
\\I can go to a dictionary website and cut and paste a definition. WITH understanding. Unlike Qtard. He obviously cuts and pastes definitions without understanding.
Empty babbling.
So... WHAT that "with understanding" mean??? If you SO wise and understanding -- you should be able to EXPLAIN it.
But... you can't.
All you can -- repeat MY words. In shallow try. To sound smart.
\\But Qtard baselessly claims facts experts arrived at by studying the data is "Demn propaganda".
YOU... do not provide that excerpts where that "experts" would provide any facts... more then that, even their opinion.
But... somnehow it is MY fault, for you not performing your duty in a rational based on facts and logic conversation... :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: Cause... I-D-I-O-T.
\\Agreed. Qtard cannot give correct and logical explanation that what it does is "arguing with the truth and facts". Because Qtard does not. Because Qtard is an idiot.
And what DID I said... I-D-I-O-T.
Completele oblivious to that that such an idiotic trick of turning MY words against me -- only PROVE its idiocy. :-)))))
Easy to see -- if that words is WRONG -- repeating em, would be stupid.
And if they RIGHT... trying to using em opposite way -- would make em FALSE, inevitable.
Because OPPOSITION to Truth is... False.;-P
FLAWLESS LOGIC!
\\Qtard cut and pasted borrowed knowledge without understanding many many times. Yes.
Same as above. ;-P
\\Qtard: \\Yet I am too dumb to catch on? I just keep posting tricks thinking I MIGHT fool Qtard?\\You... gotcha.
\\Qtard can NOT be "fooled" with facts. Because Qtard disbelieves facts.
But... WHO claimed "I believe in facts".
Same as above.
\\I learned what Qtard's delusions are. Not hard. It repeats them over and over.
As precisely correct quotes of YOUR words? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
What an idiot. ;-P
\\Qtard doesn't care about proving it didn't lie. Because it knows it did lie. And it continues to lie.
Depry sweared that it will not provide QUOTES even. Cause, it sees as some kind "b_l_ack magic" that disproves its delusional babbling each and every time. And now it trying to babble something about lying. That nasty relentless lyar and idiotic hypocrite, who lies EVEN about OWN words just said. :-) (ad infinitum)
Same as above.
\\Asking for proof only "lame babbling" to a liar like Qtard.
Proof of what? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))
That youy are idiot? Byt you proving it with each and ever of your blurts. :-))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Frankness and eloquence = 0%
Wasted on such an idiot. I know. :-))))))))))))))))
That was rethorical question. ;-P
\\Qtard: Or... you will think that what I'm saying.. it's some kind of trick?
\\Always.
Hah... you confirmed it!!! :-)))))))))) Itself.
That you are idiot, who sees logic and facts as some kind of "black magic". :-))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: \\...Qtard does not know what a fact is\\Then. Give the definition. But... you can't. You freakingly CANNOT do even that.
\\I can go to a dictionary website and cut and paste a definition. WITH understanding. Unlike Qtard. He obviously cuts and pastes definitions without understanding.
Empty babbling.
So... WHAT that "with understanding" mean??? If you SO wise and understanding -- you should be able to EXPLAIN it.
But... you can't.
All you can -- repeat MY words. In shallow try. To sound smart.
\\But Qtard baselessly claims facts experts arrived at by studying the data is "Demn propaganda".
YOU... do not provide that excerpts where that "experts" would provide any facts... more then that, even their opinion.
But... somnehow it is MY fault, for you not performing your duty in a rational based on facts and logic conversation... :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: Cause... I-D-I-O-T.
\\Agreed. Qtard cannot give correct and logical explanation that what it does is "arguing with the truth and facts". Because Qtard does not. Because Qtard is an idiot.
And what DID I said... I-D-I-O-T.
Completele oblivious to that that such an idiotic trick of turning MY words against me -- only PROVE its idiocy. :-)))))
Easy to see -- if that words is WRONG -- repeating em, would be stupid.
And if they RIGHT... trying to using em opposite way -- would make em FALSE, inevitable.
Because OPPOSITION to Truth is... False.;-P
FLAWLESS LOGIC!
\\Qtard cut and pasted borrowed knowledge without understanding many many times. Yes.
Same as above. ;-P
\\Qtard: \\Yet I am too dumb to catch on? I just keep posting tricks thinking I MIGHT fool Qtard?\\You... gotcha.
\\Qtard can NOT be "fooled" with facts. Because Qtard disbelieves facts.
But... WHO claimed "I believe in facts".
Same as above.
\\I learned what Qtard's delusions are. Not hard. It repeats them over and over.
As precisely correct quotes of YOUR words? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
What an idiot. ;-P
\\Qtard doesn't care about proving it didn't lie. Because it knows it did lie. And it continues to lie.
Depry sweared that it will not provide QUOTES even. Cause, it sees as some kind "blac_k magic" that disproves its delusional babbling each and every time. And now it trying to babble something about lying. That nasty relentless lyar and idiotic hypocrite, who lies EVEN about OWN words just said. :-) (ad infinitum)
Same as above.
\\Asking for proof only "lame babbling" to a liar like Qtard.
Proof of what? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))
That youy are idiot? Byt you proving it with each and ever of your blurts. :-))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Frankness and eloquence = 0%
Wasted on such an idiot. I know. :-))))))))))))))))
That was rethorical question. ;-P
\\Qtard: Or... you will think that what I'm saying.. it's some kind of trick?
\\Always.
Hah... you confirmed it!!! :-)))))))))) Itself.
That you are idiot, who sees logic and facts as some kind of "blac_k magic". :-))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: \\...Qtard does not know what a fact is\\Then. Give the definition. But... you can't. You freakingly CANNOT do even that.
\\I can go to a dictionary website and cut and paste a definition. WITH understanding. Unlike Qtard. He obviously cuts and pastes definitions without understanding.
Empty babbling.
So... WHAT that "with understanding" mean??? If you SO wise and understanding -- you should be able to EXPLAIN it.
But... you can't.
All you can -- repeat MY words. In shallow try. To sound smart.
\\ Then the liar ADDS bullplop about me not believing facts I don't like. Just like it added "em their rights" to another of my quotes. When I never wrote that.
That is... logical conclusions.
If one declare believing into something -- it same time concludes his inclination to NOT believe...
If one declare denying people to do something -- even though it is among theit freedoms, it simultaneuosly is denyal of ALL freedoms.
And etc, and etc, and etc...
Like.
Is Socrates a human? Yes, of course.
Do humans are mortals? Sure.
So... is Socraes mortal... well, actually dead already?
Maybe, No??? In accordance to idiot-Derpy, who do not know what Logic is. There CANNOT be, and SHOULD NOT be... such conclusions, anybody who know Logic could do.
ONLY something-something said by somebody-somebody -- "experts" it says... must be revered as conclusions.
Am I correct with my observations?
\\Prove it. Go away. Why stick around when things you CLAIM not to care about are the main topics of discussion?
Totalitarian Wannabe Derpy AGAIN trying to decide in my stead how to use my freedom? ;-P
Well... I do not see it -- where here is "main topics of discussion" is political brawls of USA???
Can you point to it? ;-P
For me to comprehend what you mean. :-)))))))))))))))
Well... anyway, WHY a cannot observe something... EVEN, if I am not interested in it?
Like... I am not interested in commercal advertisment... but, still happen to watch it -- as it everywhere.
\\Qtard: And I am very wise, and masterful. It seems\\No f*cking way\\Envious? Don't be. You'd not be able to change your idiotic nature. So, it would ne only bitter hopeless envy.
\\Not envious. In the least.
I'm glad that you able to listen to my wise advice. ;-P
\\Qtard is desperate to know what a hyperlink is? Google for it.
Homericly desperate. :-))))))))))))))))
\\To agree with logic Qtard quoted (but didn't understand)? Why would that make me an idiot?
Like you can distinguish. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0
\\"Demn religious nuttery" card played. Yet again. As if that automatically disproves facts. Qtard doesn't remember that donald tRump claimed that Obama spied on him? Because the FBI was watching Russians in the US and found they were in communication with tRump campaign people. And the Russians were offering help which the tRump campaign was eagerly accepting.
NOW!
I will properly demonstrate that I am NOT involved in your inner political brawls. And don't care about such things.
And will ignore it. ;-P Happy? :-))))))))))))))))))))))
LOL! LOTS of qtarded gibberish and babbling above. I am NOT going to reply to it all.
Qtard: \\The first lie was that Durham said "dRump collusion with Rasha FAKE"\\I never claimed that\\LOL! That is a quote. ... Retract that claim if you want, but you can't say "I never claimed that"\\ Dumb ass... HOW???? Quoting something CAN mean "claiming it"???
You CLAIMED Durham said it. You also claim that there was no collusion. Qtard wrote (on this page, so easy to find)... That is called "proof by contradiction". Go, Google for it. Enlighten yourself.
Qtard: Whoi do not understand difference between claiming anf refering. OMG!!! I didn't know SUCH idiocy possible!!!
Qtard referred AND claimed. *I* didn't know such idiocy was possible. Idiot claims something, then says, "no, I was just referring". If only referring, then Qtard thinks maybe tRump did collude? Even though it says collusion was disproved via "proof by contradiction"? Also because there has been no trial. Which he brings up over and over.
Qtard: DO I responsible for what any "somebody-somebody who saying something-somthing" babbling???
Babbling that Qtard said. Why I asked for the name of the reporter Qtard claims said it. But Qtard refuses. "proof by contradiction"... Qtard refuses to give name proves Qtard said it.
Qtard: And you can give logical and factual explanation -- how it possible??? That magical transmogrification of "false and stupid" words -- while *I* say it. INTO "wise and truthful", when IT says it. IT... do not know that ONE AND THE SAME thing CANNOT be True and False SAME TIME.
Depends on WHO it is said about. CAN be false about me and true about you. THAT is how it is possible. It isn't "True and False SAME TIME". Qtard doesn't understand because it is an idiot.
Qtard: ...do not provide that excerpts where that "experts" would provide any facts... more then that, even their opinion.
I have. Many times. Your comment doesn't even make sense. If I quote neither facts given by experts nor opinions given by experts -- that is nothing. A quote is something. I have never written, I have proof from an expert, which is that the expert said nothing.
Qtard: Accidental gem. I'm a Scientist, and I Don't Believe in Facts - Scientific American Blogs
Bullshit. You didn't even read the article beyond the title. Proven by the fact that the author does not agree with you. That facts are a reflection of reality. Point to reality. The author says "facts don't actually exist". If you did read the article? Then Qtard lied. Didn't think I'd check.
Qtard: \\Asking for proof only "lame babbling" to a liar like Qtard\\Proof of what?
That some reporter (initially claimed to be John Durham) said "dRump collusion Rasha FAKE". Pay attention! Idiot can NOT follow along.
Qtard: As it's impossible for idiot to groke logic.
LOL! How does one "groke" logic? Urban dictionary says Groke is "Someone who stares at you while you are eating, in hopes that you will share your meal".
Qtard: Hah... and WHO will be defining what "best for America"??? Bi-den again?
Nope. "Bi-den" will not. Joe Biden will. Because that is how democracy works. The People voted for him to make such decisions. The democracy-hating Qtard obviously is clueless.
Qtard: \\"dRump collusion with Rasha FAKE". One example of many\\But that... not MY words.
Qtard given MANY chances to give the name of who those words are. First he said John Durham said it. Then he said an unspecified reporter said it. Now he refuses to say. Logical conclusion is because Qtard lies. Qtard made up the fake quote. Qtard has been caught faking quotes several times already.
Qtard: ...that you do not like to be compared to Chinese. Or... that you *DO* deny people their Human Rights.
More fake quotes. Faked by the proven liar, Qtard. Link to where I supposedly said something along the lines of "I don't like being comparred to a Chinese person"?? Or "That", as you originally (falsely) claimed I said.
Qtard: \\ Then the liar ADDS bullplop about me not believing facts I don't like. Just like it added "em their rights" to another of my quotes. When I never wrote that\\ That is... logical conclusions.
It is not. I quoted John Locke to you, remember? He said "right of revolution" is conditional. Locke said there must be "a long train of abuses over an extended period". Qtard claimed it wasn't up to Locke to decide. Said he was "Locked brain".
John Locke "was an English philosopher and physician, widely regarded as one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers". While Qtard is some idiot on the internet. Who do I believe? John Locke. NOT the proven idiot, Qtard.
Qtard: If one declare believing into something -- it same time concludes his inclination to NOT believe.
"inclination to NOT believe" never stated by me.
Qtard: Is Socrates a human? Yes, of course. Do humans are mortals? Sure. So... is Socraes mortal... well, actually dead already? Maybe, No??? In accordance to idiot-Derpy ... Am I correct with my observations?
Stupidly incorrect. Every human is mortal. Answer couldn't possibly be "Maybe, no".
Qtard: Well... I do not see it -- where here is "main topics of discussion" is political brawls of USA??? Can you point to it? For me to comprehend what you mean.
Comprehension is clearly something you are incapable of. Look at Minus FJ's blog tagline (at the top of every page). It says "Politics from within a Conservative Bastion inside the People's Republic of Maryland". Maryland is a state in the United States. Joe Biden is an American politician. Marjorie Taylor Greene (mentioned in many posts) is a brawling US politician. She attacks Joe Biden and her son often. Minus FJ likes and posts about this. Yet Qtard CAN'T see that this is the main topic of discussion? Why? Serious brain damage?
Qtard: I will properly demonstrate that I am NOT involved in your inner political brawls. And don't care about such things. And will ignore it. Happy?
Qtard is involved in a discussion (many comments in) and NOW he says he will ignore my response? Proves that he doesn't care? No way. Proves that the "escape" Qtard mentioned previously is "Qtard's escape".
That there is NO proofs of collusion. Like: no dRump in jail, no cort trial verdict, no court trial EVEN... or some smoking gun evidances for at least...
Just Demn propaganda and infected by that Demn propaganda idiot ravings...
WHY I should admit being factual... something so stupid and apparently FALSE????
Am I an isiot? No, of course not. As rational and logical and smart being -- I must not fall for such a stupid trickery.
Especially, as that all doesn't touch me much. I do not live among that idiots. And do not need to play along with their idiotic and erratic behavior. :-))))))))))))))))))))
Am I frank and eloquent enough,here? ;-P
\\Qtard wrote (on this page, so easy to find)... That is called "proof by contradiction". Go, Google for it. Enlighten yourself.
Gibberish.
\\Qtard referred AND claimed.
B.S. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
\\If only referring, then Qtard thinks maybe tRump did collude? Even though it says collusion was disproved via "proof by contradiction"? Also because there has been no trial. Which he brings up over and over.
Gibberish again.
Well... that is natural result of lbourous idiotic brain... which cannot do thinking in accordance with Logic.
All kinds of gibberish nonsense it only produceing. ;-P
\\Why I asked for the name of the reporter Qtard claims said it.
Do YOU paying much attention to the names of reporters?
Well... in a news feeds they do not show em anyway.
And that is just a idiotic try of Derpy to incriminate to me something.
I didn't tracked and did not remembered name of some semi-anonimous dude on the internet -- OMG, what a heinous crime I commited!!!! :-))))))))))))))))
Yes, De-Ru-Pi??? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: And you can give logical and factual explanation -- how it possible??? That magical transmogrification of "false and stupid" words -- while *I* say it. INTO "wise and truthful", when IT says it. IT... do not know that ONE AND THE SAME thing CANNOT be True and False SAME TIME.
\\Depends on WHO it is said about.
Naaaah, it not.
You only YET ONE time showed... that you TOTALLY OBLIVIOUS of what Logic is about. ;-P
\\CAN be false about me and true about you.
Not... "false about me and true about you"... but about FACTS.
If there is that fact that you are idiot (because, demionstrating idiotic behavior: lack of logic, idiotic stubborness, lack of metaphor understanding and imagination, and etc...) -- then calling you idiot whould be TRUTHFUL and factual.
If there is that screaching of an idiot (with gaslighting, false pretence, faked quotes and all kinds of lame idiotic tricks altogether) that somebosy else is idiot -- that is apparently FALSE claim.
But... FACTS first.
And facts... tell no lies. ;-) (if it not some idiot which "(dis)believes in facts")
\\THAT is how it is possible. It isn't "True and False SAME TIME". Qtard doesn't understand because it is an idiot.
Yap.
Idiot do not know what Transitivity Rule is about.
Cause... it's I-D-I-O-T.
\\I have. Many times. Your comment doesn't even make sense. If I quote neither facts given by experts nor opinions given by experts -- that is nothing. A quote is something. I have never written, I have proof from an expert, which is that the expert said nothing.
Gibberish.
Yawn.
\\Bullshit. You didn't even read the article beyond the title. Proven by the fact that the author does not agree with you. That facts are a reflection of reality. Point to reality. The author says "facts don't actually exist". If you did read the article? Then Qtard lied. Didn't think I'd check.
As I thought... idiot would not understand what OTHER smart person would write. ;-P
Now your idiocy confirmed even more.
Even past your lame pretence -- that it's ONLY between you and me.
YOU, do not understand other smart people too.
Cause... you are idiot. ;-P
\\Qtard: \\Asking for proof only "lame babbling" to a liar like Qtard\\Proof of what?
\\That some reporter (initially claimed to be John Durham) said "dRump collusion Rasha FAKE". Pay attention! Idiot can NOT follow along.
Here.
I'll give attyention to it. ;-P
That is lame idiot's trick to gaslight that something "(initially claimed to be John Durham) said" really happend.
But... it cannot provide a proper quote where and how it happened.
What an idiot.
Which thinks that if it CANNOT follow conversation and remember what and where and in what context was said... it can freely try to gaslight opponent. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
What a moron. ;-P
\\Qtard: As it's impossible for idiot to groke logic.
\\LOL! How does one "groke" logic? Urban dictionary says Groke is "Someone who stares at you while you are eating, in hopes that you will share your meal".
THANKS for helping bettering my English. ;-P
Grok Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › grok The meaning of GROK is to understand profoundly and intuitively. Did you know?
\\Qtard: Hah... and WHO will be defining what "best for America"??? Bi-den again?
\\Nope. "Bi-den" will not. Joe Biden will. Because that is how democracy works.
YOU said it. ;-P
My little totalitarian wannabe... who want to thrug off burden of responsibility of deciding... for itself.
At somebody else.
\\Qtard given MANY chances to give the name of who those words are.
Whatever.
It's not important.
Or... you are free to EXPLAIN. With facts amd logic -- WHY that is SO DAMN important. (apart from your idiotic desperation to find at least something to "sting" me with) :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0
\\Then he said an unspecified reporter said it. Now he refuses to say. Logical conclusion is because Qtard lies.
ELABORATE please.
HOW you came to that "logical conclusion"? ;-P
IT should be able... if that REALLY was logical conclusion.
But, naaaah... IT... do not get it, what "logical conclusion" mean.
IT... just uses such a words in shallow and idiotic pretence to "sound smarter". :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
While in reality... IT UNABLE even to use Google to find definition of what logical conclusion is... CAUSE, I-D-I-O-T would not be able to grok and use it anyway. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
\\More fake quotes. Faked by the proven liar, Qtard. Link to where I supposedly said something along the lines of "I don't like being comparred to a Chinese person"?? Or "That", as you originally (falsely) claimed I said.
We both know. That you'll IGNORE that lonks and quotes.
Will claim "that is not my words". Or "that words mean something else".
\\I quoted John Locke to you, remember? He said "right of revolution" is conditional.
That is... just his opinion.
While FACTS talking for itself.
\\Qtard claimed it wasn't up to Locke to decide.
Yep.
And that is obvious.
That Locke CANNOT know what other people, separated from him in thousand iles and hundreds of years would deem as "a long train of abuses over an extended period".
Like Yellow Jackets in France today. Or BLM rioter. Or... who ever.
That is UP TO THAT people to decide -- what they feel, and deem as grave matters... deserving rioting, and even uprising. Or Revolution.
Not up to some long as dead "Locke". Or some idiot, with totalitarian wannabe streaks...
\\John Locke "was an English philosopher and physician, widely regarded as one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers".
In China? Or in deeps of Africa? Maybe, they revere him in Russia?
\\While Qtard is some idiot on the internet. Who do I believe? John Locke. NOT the proven idiot, Qtard.
Like I asked to believe me... even once. ;-P
I just talk with facts and logic.
And that is up to opponents... to "believe" into em, ot not.
\\"inclination to NOT believe" never stated by me.
But... demonstrated. ;-P
\\Qtard: Is Socrates a human? Yes, of course. Do humans are mortals? Sure. So... is Socraes mortal... well, actually dead already? Maybe, No??? In accordance to idiot-Derpy ... Am I correct with my observations?
\\Stupidly incorrect. Every human is mortal. Answer couldn't possibly be "Maybe, no".
YAP!
Maybe you still able to grok some Logic... :-))))
Naaah.
\\Comprehension is clearly something you are incapable of. Look at Minus FJ's blog tagline (at the top of every page). It says "Politics from within a Conservative Bastion inside the People's Republic of Maryland". Maryland is a state in the United States. Joe Biden is an American politician. Marjorie Taylor Greene (mentioned in many posts) is a brawling US politician. She attacks Joe Biden and her son often. Minus FJ likes and posts about this. Yet Qtard CAN'T see that this is the main topic of discussion? Why? Serious brain damage?
Easy-peasy.
Does anybody who posts fotos of a food is a cook?
Or one who posts canvas prints -- painter?
He disclosed to me that he just like to see lively discussions in his blog.
That is... not enough to decide that goal is to talk about politics exactly.
And well... I am foreigner... and that's not easy for me to decide -- is any(?) of that topics have any relation to USA politics...
Quite opposite, from what I know about politics. I looks like some stupid noise. And... there is no proper discussion, naturally.
\\Qtard is involved in a discussion (many comments in) and NOW he says he will ignore my response? Proves that he doesn't care? No way. Proves that the "escape" Qtard mentioned previously is "Qtard's escape".
tRump's corruption. He was impeached for trying to extort Zelinskyy to announce a fake investigation into Biden and his son. Remember? Now Putin is trying to get dotard donald back into the White House so his puppet can "fix" the problem in 24 hours.
ReplyDeleteπΊπππππππππππΊ
DeleteYour fixation on Putin is a real joke, Dervish!
Fake investigation? That's not what the FBI whistleblowers are saying.
ReplyDelete...or the Ukrainian guy in this thread's video.
ReplyDelete"Whistleblowers"? LOL. You mean the Chinese spy and the dead guy?
ReplyDeleteAs for the Ukrainian guy in the video, CNN "says Andrii "Telizhenko is a stalwart Giuliani ally who has traveled with the former mayor and has promoted the conspiracy theory that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election to weaken Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and defeat President Donald Trump. That theory flies in the face of the unanimous assessment from US intelligence agencies that it was the Russian government who interfered in the 2016 election, and their goal was to elect Trump".
Speaking about Telizhenko's visa revocation, Ukrainian ambassador to the US Volodymyr Yelchenko told CNN, "The guy fully deserved it".
Telizhenko wanted to travel to New York and could not. LOL. Also, Aaron MatΓ© is a Putin puppet. As a Canadian he also should be barred from entry to the USA. If he isn't currently.
lol! Hillary Clinton's Deep State, that followed her Campaign plan to demonize Trump AND Russia using Ukraine's forged "black book" said it was a lie? That certainly convinces me.
ReplyDeleteYour belief that God is a trumper is an idiotic joke, Mystere.
ReplyDelete"Despite claims by Manafort to the president's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, that the ledger was a forgery, bank records described in an FBI search warrant, and reviewed by the Associated Press, confirmed that at least $1.2 million in payments listed in the records next to Manafort’s name were actually deposited in one of his firm’s bank accounts in Virginia". LINK.
So Rudy Giuliani said it was a forgery? That certainly convinces me... it was real.
\\Blogger -FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...
ReplyDeletelol! Hillary Clinton's Deep State, that followed her Campaign plan to demonize Trump AND Russia using Ukraine's forged "black book" said it was a lie?
And was revealed by that mr.D report, you forgot to add. ;-P
Means... EXPERTS said it. But... HOW Depry do not like it.
Means.
Depry LIKES only THAT "somebody-somebody who saying something-something" which falls well into holes made by propaganda into his scull. ;-P
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Confirmation bias.
Qtard: And was revealed by that mr.D report...
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't. As we previously established, quote Qtard attributed to Durham -- "dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE" -- was fabricated by Qtard.
Qtard claimed I "...ommited that that was YOUR DAMN USA general prosecutor words". But those were NOT his words. Those were Qtard's words.
Qtard even admitted that he knew nothing (and did not care to know anything) about the Durham report. That "dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE" was Qtard's conclusion after reading rightturd propaganda that he liked.
\\It wasn't. As we previously established
ReplyDeleteWho "we"??? :-)))))
Are you of that crazy bucnh who use "we" instead of "I"??? :-)))))))))))))))))
established
/ΙͺΛstablΙͺΚt,ΙΛstablΙͺΚt/
adjective
having existed or done something for a long time and therefore recognized and generally accepted.
(of a Church or religion) recognized by the state as the national Church or religion.
In that sense we established here only ONE thing -- that you are idiot:
you -- with consistently beghaving like one, I -- as consistently observing... that funny process. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
\\quote Qtard attributed to Durham -- "dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE" -- was fabricated by Qtard.
Excerpts from news... of OWN WORDS of that mr.D was given too.
And they are not LESS damning.
But... YOU do not like to talk about it, isn't it, Derpy? ;-P
That's why you trying, idioticly, to spin that fake narrative about my "fake quote". While that was REAL quote, from one of EXPERTS... you like to venerate that much -- CNN(and other) reporters...
BUT...
ONLY...
when it suits your needs.
And showed that you know and SUPPORT perfectly well idea -- that it is NOT wise to take as granted "something-something told by somebody-somebody".
Captain Obvious says... that's CONFIRMATION BIAS! As it is. ;-P
\\Qtard even admitted that he knew nothing (and did not care to know anything) about the Durham report.
Yap.
And why should I???
\\That "dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE" was Qtard's conclusion after reading rightturd propaganda that he liked.
Read: The Durham report | CNN Politics
www.cnn.com › 2023/05/15 › politics › read-durham-report
Special counsel John Durham on Monday released his highly anticipated report surrounding the investigation into Donald Trump's campaign and ...
Do CNN spreading "rightturd propaganda"???
I'm confused?!! Can it be true?!! :-))))))))))))))))
Qtard: While that was REAL quote, from one of EXPERTS... you like to venerate that much -- CNN(and other) reporters...
ReplyDelete100 PERCENT FAKE. You are delusional.
CNN saying the Durham report was released is a point-to-reality fact. CNN article does contain Qtard's fabricated quote, "dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE". Qtard is confused because he is an idiot.
fyi, I've never "venerated" CNN. That is yet another Qtard delusion.
When I said "we established" that it was a fake quote, I meant you and I. You admitted the quote was fake. Though (as usually happens) it looks like Qtard is retracting his admission.
If the quote isn't fake, then link to a video or transcript of audio where John Durham says "dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE". Or cite the page number in Durham's report where it says "dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE". I DARE you to do it. I DEMAND you do it. You can NOT continue to insist the quote isn't fake otherwise.
But you won't. Because you are a liar. A DUMB liar. Dumb because the quote being fake is so obvious.
Google: "dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE" = "Your search did not match any documents".
\\When I said "we established" that it was a fake quote, I meant you and I. You admitted the quote was fake. Though (as usually happens) it looks like Qtard is retracting his admission.
ReplyDeleteI admited just that that that :-) was Wise Experts -- News Reporters who said it.
Can I treat this your words as YOUR admission, that "somebody-somebody saying something-something" can said something which is FAKE??? ;-P
Or... you'll try to perform Derpy's Escape. AGAIN. :-))))))))))))))
\\If the quote isn't fake, then link to a video or transcript of audio where John Durham says "dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE".
That was news reporter saying -- go haunt him, whoever. ;-P
But there is whole TWO facts, which even if partial, correctly summarising that case:
1) NO RESULTS of investigation.
2) that mr.D's OWN WORDS about "inapropriate eagerness".
Which for bravaty CAN be used in a headlines as "dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE".
;-P
Or... you are free to provide facts and logiclly sound elaborations -- why it shouldn't. ;-P
\\You can NOT continue to insist the quote isn't fake otherwise.
You continue to claim that "somebody-somebody", like some closet experts, secret agents, academia researches, tinfoil nutters, garden gnomes said that dRump obviously guilt in this or that...
but NO COURT TRIAL verdict, no smoking gun facts provided... NONE, ZILCH, NOTHING...
which smells only more and more -- that that all is political treaks.
Especially, as more and more indictments... by which court trials *MAGICLY* posponed to happen AFTER elections... when it would be absolutely pointless to know the verdict.
dRump maybe guilty... in something. Like crossing road in wrong place. Or whatever.
But, all amassed evidances (by now) is 99% PRO that this all screaching about "dRump's guilty" -- is just a political technologies, to shoot out of elections the prime candidate from opposition.
THE SAME as in Russia (where such candidates was literally shut), or Turkey where prime candidate was yoked with such criminal charges...
CONGRATS, Derpy... you are NOT ANY BETTER then any other semi-tyranic shit-hole out there!!!
Regarding law-abiding democracy-alignment.
And that all because of your Demns Tump Derangmewnt Syndrome. :-(
And congrats to Joe... you are close and closer to becoming empire... and any other around corner... happy?
\\Google: "dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE" = "Your search did not match any documents".
But.
"collusion with Russian was FAKE"
Gives THIS as first result.
Durham report on Trump-Russia investigation: What led to it and ...
apnews.com › article
An investigation into the origins of the FBI's probe into ties between Russia and Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign has finally been ...
And "tRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE" (with quote marks)
Works just fine too. ;-P
So... you are just a bulshit-talker who trying to hide behing literality of No True Scotsman FALLACY. ;-P
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Qtard: "tRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE" (with quote marks) Works just fine too. ;-P
ReplyDeleteLIE!!!
Google says...
No results found for "tRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE".
Results for tRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE (without quotes)...
Anyway... once again, again, again and AGAIN... Qtard proves it has absolutely no idea what it is talking about!!
Google's goal is to give you results. If it needs to ignore words to do that, it WILL. Here the word "FAKE" is obviously being ignored.
As PROVEN by the result you cited. It does not contain the word "FAKE".
Yet, Qtard, a total and complete moron, says the article he quotes (which does not contain the word "fake") proves that a reporter (and not Qtard) said "dRumps collusion with Rusha was FAKE".
Which reporter, dipshit? Give me a name. Was it "somebody somebody" saying something Qtard likes? "Somebody somebody" from Fox, OAN, or NewsMax?
"The no true Scotsman fallacy is the attempt to defend a generalization by denying the validity of any counterexamples given".
Qtad did NOT give any counterexamples. NONE.
Qtard: Gives THIS as first result.
So what, LIAR? Why no link, LIAR?
Because the article does NOT say that tRump's collusion with Russia was fake. I Googled for the article you quote and found it. Read it. Searched for the word "fake". The word "fake" is NOT contained in the article. I-D-I-O-T!!!!
What the article does say is, "The report, the culmination of a four-year investigation into possible misconduct by U.S. government officials, contained withering criticism of the FBI but few significant revelations".
FEW SIGNIFICANT REVELATIONS.
Like collusion being fake. That would be significant. But Durham's report does NOT say that!!
I-D-I-O-T!!!!
Qtard: I admited just that that that :-) was Wise Experts -- News Reporters who said it.
ReplyDeleteNo, you lied. Maybe a rightturd propaganda reporter said something similar. BUT... you cited NOBODY. NOT "somebody somebody". "Nobody, nobody". Or, who REALLY said it, Qtard.
Qtard: Can I treat this your words as YOUR admission, that "somebody-somebody saying something-something" can said something which is FAKE???
Sure. Here "somebody somebody" is Qtard. And what he said is DEFINITELY fake/a lie.
Qtard: Or... you'll try to perform Derpy's Escape. AGAIN.
I don't know what "Derpy's escape" is. How could I possibly "perform" it "again" when I don't what it is??
Qtard: That was news reporter saying -- go haunt him, whoever.
Name him or her.
Qtard: But there is whole TWO facts, which even if partial, correctly summarising that case: 1) NO RESULTS of investigation. 2) that mr.D's OWN WORDS about "inapropriate eagerness".
[1] Durham is full of shit. The "earnerness" was lacking. Because the FBI is pro-tRump (like you) and ran interference for him.
[2] Durham report claiming "inappropriate eagerness" is NOT the same as "collusion was FAKE".
Qtard: Which for bravaty CAN be used in a headlines as "dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE".
No, it cannot. Unless you are a liar like Qtard.
Qtard: Or... you are free to provide facts and logiclly sound elaborations -- why it shouldn't. ;-P
Qtard can NOT provide fact and logically sound elaborations as to why it SHOULD.
Qtard: You continue to claim that "somebody-somebody", like some closet experts, secret agents...
Some "closeted", others not.
According to Peter Strzok (one of the FBI agents who investigated tRump) the tRump "presidential campaign... seemed to find unlimited time to meet with Russians, practically inviting exploitation by a foreign adversary".
Strozk writes (in his book) that tRump was "badly compromised. ... because of his questionable business dealings, the hush money paid on his behalf to silence women, shady transactions at his charity and, most importantly, his lies about his Russia dealings, including his secret 2015 effort to build a Trump Tower in Moscow even as he told the world that he had no business with Russia".
"Putin knew he had lied. And Trump knew that Putin knew — a shared understanding that provided the framework for a potentially coercive relationship between the president of the United States and the leader of one of our greatest adversaries"...
FYI, I have never quoted a tinfoil nutter or a garden gnome.
Qtard: but NO COURT TRIAL verdict, no smoking gun facts provided... NONE, ZILCH, NOTHING...
Bullshit. tRump tower meeting. donald tRump ASKING Russia for help in public aka "Russia, if you're listening".
S. Senate Report Confirms Trump Campaign Colluded With Russia is not "none", "zilch" or "nothing".
Qtard: ...which smells only more and more -- that that all is political treaks. Especially, as more and more indictments... by which court trials *MAGICLY* posponed to happen AFTER elections... when it would be absolutely pointless to know the verdict.
Indeed. Because tRump could be president again. And instruct the DOJ to stop prosecuting him. Why tRump and the tRump-appointed judge are trying to DELAY. But Qtard says delay is the Democrat's strategy. Which is BULLSHIT. Jack Smith is pushing for a SPEEDY trial. tRump (and his allies) want delay. Because they know tRump is GUILTY.
The "political treak" of delaying trials is being perpetrated by the republicans, NOT Democrats. Dipshit.
ReplyDeleteQtard: dRump maybe guilty... in something. Like crossing road in wrong place. Or whatever.
You truly are an IDIOT. And totalitarian wannabe.
Qtard: But, all amassed evidances (by now) is 99% PRO that this all screaching about "dRump's guilty" -- is just a political technologies, to shoot out of elections the prime candidate from opposition.
BULLSHIT. As per Mitch McConnell (senate majority leader when tRump was president), "President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office as an ordinary citizen. He didn't get away with anything yet".
Mitch McConnell is a fellow republican. WHY would he say tRump hasn't "gotten away" with anything? If there was nothing for tRump to "get away with" (because he is innocent of any wrongdoing)?
Qtard: THE SAME as in Russia (where such candidates was literally shut), or Turkey where prime candidate was yoked with such criminal charges...
BULLSHIT. Democracies have prosecuted leaders who committed crimes. Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, for example;
On 24 June 2013, Berlusconi was found guilty of paying for sex with the underaged El Mahroug and of abusing his office. He was sentenced by the Court of First Instance to seven years in prison, one more year than had been requested by the prosecution, and banned from public office for life.
Qtard: ...you are NOT ANY BETTER then any other semi-tyranic shit-hole out there!!!
Wikipedia: "Italy has been a democratic republic since 2 June 1946, when the monarchy was abolished by popular referendum and a constituent assembly was elected to draft a constitution, which was promulgated on 1 January 1948".
Yet Qtard smears Italy as a "semi-tyranic shit-hole".
The IDIOT Qtard probably thinks Berlusconi was railroaded. Because politicians can NOT be guilty of ANY crime. Just being a politician means you're innocent of any crime you commit. Apparently. Or Qtard just doesn't care. Being a politician gives a person a free pass to commit any crime they want. Because politicians are only prosecuted in "shit-hole" countries.
Qtard believes this (leader, or ex-leader) is always innocent... because Qtard is a totalitarian wannabe. Quite clearly. Says tRump is innocent simply because he is running for political office.
Though the hypocrite says Joe Biden is guilty. Because a tape that has not been produced (because it doesn't exist) and "whistleblowers" who are Chinese spies (or dead) -- "prove" he is. Because of "mincemeats".
FYI, It's Actually Common to Indict Leaders of Democracies... Trump is just one of 78 political leaders in democratic nations who have faced criminal charges since the year 2000. [Foreign Policy].
\\Qtard: "tRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE" (with quote marks) Works just fine too. ;-P
ReplyDelete\\LIE!!!
\\Google says...
\\No results found for "tRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE".
How could I know, why Google do it to you???
Maybe it became tired of your idiocy? ;-P
I just copy-pasted that Qtard: "tRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE" (with quote marks) Works just fine too. ;-P
LIE!!!
Google says...
No results found for "tRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE", with quotes.
And veri first result it gave.
FBI criticised over handling of Trump-Russia collusion investigation
www.euronews.com › News › World › USA
Prosecutor points to series of mistakes by the FBI and Justice Department in probe over whether the Trump campaign was colluding with ...
Try to use some other computer. Anonimously. Who knows, maybe Google tracked you, and created confirmation bubble FER U. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Google's goal is to give you results. If it needs to ignore words to do that, it WILL. Here the word "FAKE" is obviously being ignored.
So what?
You think headline from above -- "FBI criticised over handling of Trump-Russia collusion investigation" sounds LESS damning? ;-P
\\Which reporter, dipshit? Give me a name. Was it "somebody somebody" saying something Qtard likes? "Somebody somebody" from Fox, OAN, or NewsMax?
Now... you confirmed, that you like to give links and quotes which confirm your biased views, isn't it, De-Ru-Pi? :-)))))))))))))))))
\\"The no true Scotsman fallacy is the attempt to defend a generalization by denying the validity of any counterexamples given".
\\Qtad did NOT give any counterexamples. NONE.
One you'd admit seeing through your tonned glasses of confirmation bias?
Yeah. You are right. I did not provided such things.
And hardly anyone can. ;-P
You can lead horse to a river, but cannot make it drink.
\\Qtard: Gives THIS as first result.
\\So what, LIAR? Why no link, LIAR?
But??? That IS link. Link from a Google Search results page.
Or you have a problem with copy-pasting it back into Google to go to that page???
What an idiot. :-))))))))))))))))))))))
ReplyDelete\\Because the article does NOT say that tRump's collusion with Russia was fake. I Googled for the article you quote and found it. Read it. Searched for the word "fake". The word "fake" is NOT contained in the article. I-D-I-O-T!!!!
No need to emphatise your signature in each paragraph.
Like I EVER claimed that that page contain word "fake".
Like I would care... :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
\\What the article does say is, "The report, the culmination of a four-year investigation into possible misconduct by U.S. government officials, contained withering criticism of the FBI but few significant revelations".
\\FEW SIGNIFICANT REVELATIONS.
Of course.
Ravens do not peck out eyes of ravens. ;-P
\\Like collusion being fake. That would be significant. But Durham's report does NOT say that!!
Still... there is NO result of that investigation. No?
\\No, you lied. Maybe a rightturd propaganda reporter said something similar. BUT... you cited NOBODY. NOT "somebody somebody". "Nobody, nobody". Or, who REALLY said it, Qtard.
And why it matter???
While I gave perfectly correct links on news... with not less damning formulations.
Admit it derp... you just showing HOW DESPERATE you are here.
Too revealing. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
But yeah, you cannot help it -- you are idiot. You even started adding your signatures to your text here. ;-P
\\Sure. Here "somebody somebody" is Qtard. And what he said is DEFINITELY fake/a lie.
Link to CNN article too? ;-)
\\[1] Durham is full of shit. The "earnerness" was lacking. Because the FBI is pro-tRump (like you) and ran interference for him.
Oh, yeah???
Well, now, that is perfect tinfoil nutter screaching. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0
\\[2] Durham report claiming "inappropriate eagerness" is NOT the same as "collusion was FAKE".
Reminder. There's STILL NO results. ;-P
\\Qtard: Or... you are free to provide facts and logiclly sound elaborations -- why it shouldn't. ;-P
\\Qtard can NOT provide fact and logically sound elaborations as to why it SHOULD.
Facts? Article where it said "inapropriate eagerness" -- CHECKED.
Logical inference? It's not a problem if investigation not successful. But. If investigation performed with "inapropriate eagerness" EVEN... but still failed... that can suggest with dully noticed certainity, that it was faked.
As we know about such kind of investigation from history. And how it happen all around the world -- using criminal investigations performed with "inapropriate eagerness" -- is on its prime in using AGAINST political rivals, against (DEMOCRATICAL!) opposition all around the Globe.
CHECKED!!!
But... totalitarian wannabe Derpy will be against it. Because IT LIKES it -- using dirty cops against political opposition.
ReplyDelete\\FYI, I have never quoted a tinfoil nutter or a garden gnome.
You just did. ;-P
You want your bias confirmed THAT BADLY, that you falling for less and less credible sources. :-))))))))))))))))))))))
But unable to understand it. Cause... idiot.
\\ But Qtard says delay is the Democrat's strategy
Democrats have had four. FOUR damn years. In full power. To find ANY smoking gun, or just any sound for a court evidances.
Which could mean... with hypothesis that dRump really did something.
That EITHER dRump is TOO DAMN masterful... which is preposterous. :-)))))))))))))
OR... that your Demon-rats is just a bunch of ioncompetent fools.
Either way -- you are losers.
And it will be confirmed... if dRump will became POTUS... or even if he'd recieve significant amount of votes.
That's why your Demon-rats is so damn "inapropriately eager" -- nobody wants to be revered as damn fool. ;-P
\\The "political treak" of delaying trials is being perpetrated by the republicans, NOT Democrats. Dipshit.
Whatever. They trying to defend themself from Jaggernaut of State Power.
That is what Democracy is FOR -- for people be able to protect onself from Juggernaut of State Power.
\\Mitch McConnell is a fellow republican. WHY would he say tRump hasn't "gotten away" with anything? If
Politics... is that rats nest. Where everybody is at everybodies throat.
You didn't knew it???
Well, yes, cause you are idiot.
Yawn.
\\BULLSHIT. Democracies have prosecuted leaders who committed crimes. Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, for example;
Remind me... which prison that Berluchkony attend today?
\\Yet Qtard smears Italy as a "semi-tyranic shit-hole".
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
What an idiot.
Even in excerpt you gave only Rush'A and Turkey was mentioned. No Italy. :-)))))
But well... Italy that is country that gave to the World such a "democratic" words as "fascism" and "mafioso"... VERY democratic. ;-P
\\The IDIOT Qtard probably thinks Berlusconi was railroaded.
He... lost his power. And even political influence...
Became dead horse... so to say.
\\Qtard believes this (leader, or ex-leader) is always innocent...
Ditto 0-bama and Bi-den... after he'd lose? ;-P
\\FYI, It's Actually Common to Indict Leaders of Democracies... Trump is just one of 78 political leaders in democratic nations who have faced criminal charges since the year 2000. [Foreign Policy].
Before elections? With what results?
Well... I never claimed that is NOT common practice.
Remember??? Mark Twain's being Governor?
Qtard: You think headline from above -- "FBI criticised over handling of Trump-Russia collusion investigation" sounds LESS damning?
ReplyDeleteThe fake Durham report criticizes the FBI because Durham is a dotard donald stooge. He did what he was told. Though not exactly as he was told. dotard donald wanted Hillary Clinton indicted and convicted. Durham didn't do that because he couldn't. Because Hillary Clinton trying to alert the FBI about dotard donald's collusion was not a crime.
What is damning for the FBI is that they were uneager to do their job. Also to eager to protect dotard donald.
Qtard: \\Which reporter, dipshit? Give me a name. Was it "somebody somebody" saying something Qtard likes? "Somebody somebody" from Fox, OAN, or NewsMax?\\ Now... you confirmed, that you like to give links and quotes which confirm your biased views, isn't it...
OK, I get it. You CAN'T give a name/source. Because that would confirm your biases and hypocrisy. Also why you're (laughably) asserting that a CNN article is the source of your fake quote.
Qtard: One you'd admit seeing through your tonned glasses of confirmation bias? Yeah. You are right. I did not provided such things. And hardly anyone can.
I only asked for a source. I didn't say it had to be one I'd believe. You can't because the source would confirm YOUR biases. You can lead a Qtard to a river, but cannot make it drink.
Qtard: But??? That IS link. Link from a Google Search results page.
It isn't. Qtard has no idea what a link is? Obviously.
Qtard: Or you have a problem with copy-pasting it back into Google to go to that page??? What an idiot.
I agree. Qtard is an idiot who does not know what a hyperlink looks like.
Qtard: No need to emphatise your signature in each paragraph. Like I EVER claimed that that page contain word "fake". Like I would care...
Dodge. To avoid answering for getting caught faking the quote.
Qtard: \\FEW SIGNIFICANT REVELATIONS\\Of course. Ravens do not peck out eyes of ravens.
The report, YOUR WORDS, supposedly proved "dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE". It did not. Durham was appointed by tRump's toady Bill Barr to rebuke (true) Russia collusion narrative, dipshit. This isn't a case of "Ravens do not peck out eyes of ravens". Durham WAS supposed to peck out eyes. repuliturds reacted to the report as if he did (even though he didn't).
Also, "Ravens do not peck out eyes of ravens" flies in the face of your assertion that the Durham report doesn't look good for Democrats. Another dodge.
Qtard: \\Like collusion being fake. That would be significant. But Durham's report does NOT say that!!\\Still... there is NO result of that investigation. No?
No, there was no result. Because there was nothing to find, re "disproving" that dotard donald colluded with Russia. Because he did.
Qtard: And why it matter???
Because you got really angry and accused me of misquoting you. You claimed Durham said "dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE" was a John Durham quote. I caught you lying. Now you say "why does it matter that I lied"??? (summary of what Qtard said, not an exact quote).
Qtard: While I gave perfectly correct links on news... with not less damning formulations.
ReplyDeleteYou didn't.
Qtard: Admit it derp... you just showing HOW DESPERATE you are here.
Qtard is desperate. Says it does not matter that he got caught lying.
Qtard: Too revealing. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Indeed. Reveals that Qtard lies. And thinks getting caught isn't a big deal.
Qtard: But yeah, you cannot help it -- you are idiot. You even started adding your signatures to your text here.
Not "signature". Me calling Qtard an idiot. But the idiot is so dumb it thinks me calling it an idiot is a "signature".
Qtard: \\Sure. Here "somebody somebody" is Qtard. And what he said is DEFINITELY fake/a lie.\\Link to CNN article too?
You didn't give a link. But yes, that the CNN article confirms your fake quote is a lie.
Qtard: \\Durham is full of shit. The "earnerness" was lacking. Because the FBI is pro-tRump (like you) and ran interference for him.\\Oh, yeah??? Well, now, that is perfect tinfoil nutter screaching.
Of course the truth sounds like tinfoil hat screeching to the biased tRump-defending Qtard. It's the opposite of the false rightturd narrative. A narrative that confirms Qtard's biases (why he believes it).
Qtard: \\Durham report claiming "inappropriate eagerness" is NOT the same as "collusion was FAKE".\\Reminder. There's STILL NO results.
There were results of republiturds and the FBI protecting dotard donald. dotard donald got away with colluding.
Qtard: It's not a problem if investigation not successful. But. If investigation performed with "inapropriate eagerness" EVEN... but still failed... that can suggest with dully noticed certainity, that it was faked.
Bingo. The investigation was fake. Why dotard donald got away with colluding with Putin.
Qtard: As we know about such kind of investigation from history. And how it happen all around the world -- using criminal investigations performed with "inapropriate eagerness" -- is on its prime in using AGAINST political rivals, against (DEMOCRATICAL!) opposition all around the Globe.
We know that corrupt politicians claim "political motivations" for investigations into their corruption. Supporters of Richard Nixon said the Watergate investigation was "politically motivated". As opposed to ordered by Nixon himself. Which it was.
Qtard: CHECKED!!!
You gave no examples. So no check. Fictional "example" of Mark Twain running for governor does not count. Because it was a fiction story.
Qtard: But... totalitarian wannabe Derpy will be against it. Because IT LIKES it -- using dirty cops against political opposition.
I am strongly opposed to dirty cops covering up for corrupt politicians. Qtard supports this.
Qtard: \\FYI, I have never quoted a tinfoil nutter or a garden gnome.\\You just did.
You're right. I quoted YOU.
Qtard: ...you falling for less and less credible sources.
ReplyDeleteWhen? What was the last "less credible source" I quoted?
Qtard: But unable to understand it. Cause... idiot.
Agreed! Thank you for FINALLY admitting your idiocy. Qtard is so desperate to have his biases confirmed that he says CNN confirms his fake quote, "dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE".
Qtard: \\Qtard says delay is the Democrat's strategy\\ Democrats have had four. ... In full power. To find ANY smoking gun, or just any sound for a court evidances.
They haven't. Democrats shared power with republicans. And continue to share power with republicans. republicans who protect tRump.
Qtard: ...with hypothesis that dRump really did something. ...EITHER dRump is TOO DAMN masterful... OR... your Demon-rats is just a bunch of ioncompetent fools.
Not "masterful". Corrupt. Unlike when Nixon was president. His fellow republicans didn't protect him. They told him they'd vote to convict him in an impeachment trial. So he resigned.
Qtard: And it will be confirmed... if dRump will became POTUS... or ... recieve significant amount of votes. That's why your Demon-rats is so damn "inapropriately eager"...
republiturd politician corruption and republiturd voter gullibility will be confirmed with such a result.
Qtard: They trying to defend themself from Jaggernaut of State Power. That is what Democracy is FOR...
Which is what happened. People saw juggernaut of state power growing under tRump and didn't like it (acting more like a king than a president). So they elected Joe Biden to replace him. But democracy-hater Qtard would have liked it if the J6 insurrections had been successful.
Qtard: \\Mitch McConnell is a fellow republican. WHY would he say tRump hasn't "gotten away" with anything?\\Politics ... everybody is at everybodies throat.
That isn't what happened. Mitch McConnell refused to hold tRump accountable in the moment. Claimed tRump could be held accountable later. When he figured he would not be. And so far he has not. Because republicans are protecting him.
Qtard: \\Democracies have prosecuted leaders who committed crimes. Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, for example\\Remind me... which prison that Berluchkony attend today?
Silvio Berlusconi (not "Berluchkony") died in 2023. So he "attends" no prison. Wikipedia says "Aged 76, he was exempted from direct imprisonment, and instead served his sentence by doing unpaid community service".
Qtard: \\Qtard smears Italy as a "semi-tyranic shit-hole".\\Even in excerpt you gave only Rush'A and Turkey was mentioned. No Italy.
You said that prosecuting leaders is what shithole countries do. I gave an example of a democratic country that prosecuted a leader.
Qtard: But well... Italy ... gave to the World such a "democratic" words as "fascism" and "mafioso"... VERY democratic.
Benito Mussolini was the fascist dictator of Italy from 1922-1943. In 1946, "following a civil war and the Liberation of Italy from Axis troops in 1945, a popular referendum ... was called [which] resulted in voters choosing the replacement of the monarchy with a republic".
So is Italy "VERY democratic"? Yes.
Qtard: \\...Qtard probably thinks Berlusconi was railroaded.\\He... lost his power. And even political influence...
And that was why he was convicted? What about guilt? Irrelative? Is that what Qtard believes about tRump? Guilt or innocence is irrelative? He's running for president and so should be immune from prosecution? Because politicians should be above the law? Sounds like the thinking of a totalitarian wannabe.
Qtard: \\Qtard believes ... leader, or ex-leader ... is always innocent\\Ditto 0-bama and Bi-den... after he'd lose?
ReplyDeleteObama has been charged with some crime? Qtard would like to see him charged and convicted of a crime? Biden too (after leaving office)? For crime of being "Demon-rats"?
Qtard: \\...78 political leaders in democratic nations who have faced criminal charges since the year 2000.\\Before elections? With what results?
No, after. That's tRump's plan. Then he can tell his AG to drop the prosecutions. Qtard would like that, yes?
Qtard: I never claimed that is NOT common practice. Remember??? Mark Twain's being Governor?
No. I do not remember. Mark Twain was never governor. That was a fictional run for office. And (in the fictional story) candidate Twain was the victim of lies. He wasn't prosecuted. Also, Mark Twain died in 1910. I couldn't "remember" something that happened (fiction story published) before I was born.
\\Qtard: You think headline from above -- "FBI criticised over handling of Trump-Russia collusion investigation" sounds LESS damning?
ReplyDelete\\The fake Durham report criticizes the FBI because Durham is a dotard donald stooge.
Perfect tinfoil nuttery! Thank you. :-))))))))))))))))
\\OK, I get it. You CAN'T give a name/source.
I don't care... dude. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))
To help you drag yo... err, itself, out of this predicaments.
You trying to stick conversation to this "where's reporter who said it was FAKE" just to derail discussion from much more damning issues.
Why I should help you with this? Ahh??? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
\\I only asked for a source. I didn't say it had to be one I'd believe. You can't because the source would confirm YOUR biases.
And what is my biases??? ;-P
Can ya spell it?
For now, it apparent that there is only ONE my bias -- that I DO NOT agree to accomodate myself to YOUR biases.
Like "blame all on dRump".
Because... I don't care. I'm not from USA.
I... for example. DO NOT ask you to state your opinion about liliPut. Or Zelensky. Or Duda. Or Macron. Or... whatever.
WHY YOU so inclined to ask for such opinion, and to blame if it not given????
What good of it to you??? If foreigner... who have no play in the USA political games... would support your views???
He CANNOT vote for your cause, anyway.
Isn't it would be better to concentrate on some USAians??? To make em vote for your Holy Bi-den???
And do that with calm and pleading attitude... as loud shouts HARDLY can persuade anyone doing as you like...
But... what em I talking here about -- you'd know it... itself, if you'd not be that hopeless idiot. ;-P
\\I agree. Qtard is an idiot who does not know what a hyperlink looks like.
SO desperate. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\No, there was no result. Because there was nothing to find, re "disproving" that dotard donald colluded with Russia. Because he did.
And you don't need any proofs to belioeve it? ;-P
\\Because you got really angry and accused me of misquoting you. You claimed Durham said "dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE" was a John Durham quote. I caught you lying. Now you say "why does it matter that I lied"??? (summary of what Qtard said, not an exact quote).
What a perfectly gibberish bullshit.
Is it Derpy's Escape already? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: Admit it derp... you just showing HOW DESPERATE you are here.
\\Qtard is desperate. Says it does not matter that he got caught lying.
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
And you can show it as fact??? That "I caught you lying".
Naah... cause you are self-deluded idiot, who "believes in facts" and that means "inventing" facts on the go.
But... do I displeased by it? No. :-)))))))))))))))))))))
I like your merry tricks of an apparent idiot, Deroy.
Continue-continue. :-))))))))))))))
ReplyDelete\\We know that corrupt politicians claim "political motivations" for investigations into their corruption.
This too... happens often enough.
ONLY.
With one little difference -- in that cases facts are apparent, and no need for law-inforcment services to bent itelf into a pretcels, to show "inapropriate eagerness"... to "prove" something that already visible to everybody, because of apparent facts provided...
\\Supporters of Richard Nixon said the Watergate investigation was "politically motivated". As opposed to ordered by Nixon himself. Which it was.
Yap.
There is nothing new.
In this political games... yawn.
\\You gave no examples. So no check. Fictional "example" of Mark Twain running for governor does not count. Because it was a fiction story.
Based on real world case.
Go, enlight yourself. ;-P
But naah, you'd not. Cause... you are idiot. Delirious. And ignorant. And allergic to a facts.
\\republiturd politician corruption and republiturd voter gullibility will be confirmed with such a result.
Yep.
That's what Demn Propaganda want you to think. ;-P
And you do.
Because you are idiot, who thinks that it is for your benefit... not wholely and only THEIR. ;-P
They using you, stoooopid.
\\Which is what happened. People saw juggernaut of state power growing under tRump and didn't like it (acting more like a king than a president).
Eeeehhh????
Examples?
\\But democracy-hater Qtard would have liked it if the J6 insurrections had been successful.
See...
Yet one proof you are idiot -- pushing this BS.
Why I... foreigner... should care about that J6tians???
To support em. Or to blame em.
That -- doesn't matter for me. Foreigner from far-far-away.
\\Benito Mussolini was the fascist dictator of Italy from 1922-1943. In 1946, "following a civil war and the Liberation of Italy from Axis troops in 1945, a popular referendum ... was called [which] resulted in voters choosing the replacement of the monarchy with a republic".
\\So is Italy "VERY democratic"? Yes.
So... mafia. Which thoroughly corrupted government -- that's Democracy??? :-))))))))))))))))
\\Obama has been charged with some crime? Qtard would like to see him charged and convicted of a crime? Biden too (after leaving office)? For crime of being "Demon-rats"?
Is it some miserly crimes... that we care about, when we assess leaders of a state???
Not their performance when they was in power?
What propsperity... or on the contrary -- hardships, they made people suffer from, because of their decisions and plans???
Qtard: \\The fake Durham report criticizes the FBI because Durham is a dotard donald stooge.\\ Perfect tinfoil nuttery!
ReplyDeleteSo, I correctly label one man a stooge and that is "tinfoil nuttery", while Minus 100 percent believes thousands of people are in on a "deep state" conspiracy to thwart donald tRump. Again Qtard ignores actual religious nuttery in Mystere, and also ignores actual tinfoil hat nuttery in Minus FJ. He just falsely accuses me of both.
Qtard: \\OK, I get it. You CAN'T give a name/source.\\I don't care... dude. To help you drag yo... err, itself, out of this predicaments.
First you tried to attribute your fake quote, "dRump collusion with Rasah was FAKE" to John Durham. And GOT CAUGHT. Then you tried to attribute the fake quote to an unnamed reporter. And GOT CAUGHT. That is YOUR predicament. But of course you don't care. Qtard "thrugs" off getting caught lying (twice) with yet another lie (that this is somehow MY predicament).
Qtard: You trying to stick conversation to this "where's reporter who said it was FAKE" just to derail discussion from much more damning issues.
Qtard is trying to derail from the fact that it (now) has been caught lying THREE times. With bullshit about a fake report from a dotard tRump stooge (Durham) being "more damning". More damning, how? The investigation wasn't "fake". Methodology was criticized. Too much "eagerness". When there actually was a lack of eagerness. Helping, even.
Qtard: Why I should help you with this? Ahh???
You HAVE helped me. PROVE you are a liar.
Qtard: \\I only asked for a source. I didn't say it had to be one I'd believe. You can't because the source would confirm YOUR biases.\\And what is my biases???
To believe ANYTHING that seems to vindicate donald tRump. Even obvious bullshit from an obvious stooge like Durham.
Qtard: Can ya spell it? For now, it apparent that there is only ONE my bias -- that I DO NOT agree to accomodate myself to YOUR biases. Like "blame all on dRump".
Qtard's biases are "blame all on Demns". And "defend tRump". Most often with a Nazi analogy.
Qtard: Because... I don't care. I'm not from USA.
But you clearly do care.
Qtard: I... for example. DO NOT ask you to state your opinion about liliPut. Or Zelensky. Or Duda. Or Macron. Or... whatever.
You HAVE stated your opinion about dotard donald. Which is "I MUST defend tRump".
Qtard: WHY YOU so inclined to ask for such opinion, and to blame if it not given????
You gave your opinion. Many-many times. You continue to give your opinion.
Qtard: What good of it to you??? If foreigner... who have no play in the USA political games... would support your views???
What good of it to you... to keep defending donald tRump? Yet you do it anyway. Dedicating many hours to the task.
Qtard: He CANNOT vote for your cause, anyway.
Who is "he". You? Prove it. I say Qtard is an "it".
Qtard: Isn't it would be better to concentrate on some USAians??? To make em vote for your Holy Bi-den???
I don't know anything about any "holy Bi-den" that I could convince any "USAian" to vote for.
Qtard: And do that with calm and pleading attitude... as loud shouts HARDLY can persuade anyone doing as you like...
Qtard has no clue regarding my motivations for blogging. Or commenting on other's blogs. Still he DEMANDS that I adopt the motivation that I do so to convince others to vote for "holy Bi-den". Stuff your demands, Qtard. I don't take orders from you.
Qtard: But... what em I talking here about -- you'd know it... itself, if you'd not be that hopeless idiot.
I do know what you're talking about. Defending donald tRump. Blaming politicians you call "Demns". Or "demon-rats". Also "libtards".
Qtard: \\I agree. Qtard is an idiot who does not know what a hyperlink looks like.\\SO desperate.
ReplyDeleteNo evidence that Qtard has any idea what a hyperlink looks like. Because it does not know.
Qtard: \\...dotard donald colluded with Russia.\\And you don't need any proofs to belioeve it?
I do. Qtard doesn't need any proof to believe there was no tRump/Putin collusion. A fake report from the Durham stooge and a "summary" of that report (from an unnamed reporter) that "dRump collusion with Rusha was FAKE" is good enough for Qtard. Even though this reporter does not exist. PROVEN by the fact that, when asked for the reporters name, Qtard refuses to provide it.
Qtard thinks it is "damning" for a dotard donald stooge to criticize how the investigation began. That is "proof" according to Qtard. Proof Qtard doesn't know what proof looks like.
Qtard: \\Because you got really angry and accused me of misquoting you. You claimed Durham said "dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE" was a John Durham quote. I caught you lying. Now you say "why does it matter that I lied"???\\ What a perfectly gibberish bullshit.
"dRumps collusion with Russian was FAKE" is gibberish? If so, it's Qtard's gibberish. I say it's a LIE, however. Given that Durham didn't say it. A reporter didn't say it. Qtard said it.
Qtard: Is it Derpy's Escape already? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
No. It is Qtard's "I'll just call it gibberish" escape/dodge.
FYI, Qtard, Inspector General Michael Horowitz looked at this prior to John Durham. The Horowitz report concludes that "there was an authorized purpose and adequate factual predication for launching the Crossfire Hurricane investigation".
That is the OPPOSITE of what the stooge Durham's report says.
\\So, I correctly label one man a stooge and that is "tinfoil nuttery", while Minus 100 percent believes thousands of people are in on a "deep state" conspiracy to thwart donald tRump. Again Qtard ignores actual religious nuttery in Mystere, and also ignores actual tinfoil hat nuttery in Minus FJ. He just falsely accuses me of both.
ReplyDeleteAccused??? :-))))))
That would mean that I think it something bad.
But why?
While it so entertaining -- your merry idiotic tricks.
Please, don't stop. Continue-continue!
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\First you tried to attribute your fake quote, "dRump collusion with Rasah was FAKE" to John Durham. And GOT CAUGHT.
And you can provide FACTS???
Like perfectly correct quote of my words?
Yawn.
Naaah.
\\Qtard is trying to derail from the fact that it (now) has been caught lying THREE times.
In you dreams... no, your delusions.
Which you CANNOT confirm with any facts. ;-P
\\The investigation wasn't "fake". Methodology was criticized. Too much "eagerness". When there actually was a lack of eagerness. Helping, even.
Yap. By totalitarian standards.
In a totalitarian country such opposition leader would be dead already.
Under despoty, he would be in jail.
Under slightly undemocratic rule he would be defamed into oblivion.
And only in democracy, it's possible to withstand Jaffernaut of the State Power...
But, HOW MUCH you don't like it, Derpy.
HOW MUCH self-revealingly... you show that you are miserly totalitarian wannabe. ;-P
\\Qtard: Why I should help you with this? Ahh???
\\You HAVE helped me. PROVE you are a liar.
What mean "prove" in your idiotic slang, I wonder. :-))))))))))))))))))
Because to any raional thinker it's beyond apparent, that "proof" means facts and sound logic being provided.
But you... provided only your lame screachings, of totalitarian wannabe -- your desire that "prove" would mean -- those who screams louider, who are in bigger mob, who repeats his dogmas more eagerly -- that make it Right and True.
\\To believe ANYTHING that seems to vindicate donald tRump. Even obvious bullshit from an obvious stooge like Durham.
Oh, yeah.
I ready to admit.
That I am biased. To look at word from reality and racionality standpoint. Thinking and talking on the base of facts and logic...
That... can be called "bias", yes. ;-P
Well, only. It do not mean "anything to believe into". That is YOU are one who declared "I believe in facts".
I. While my thought based on knowing/seeing facts and sound logic -- do not need to believe into ANYTHING. ;-P
And... that is so freeing, and so refreshing... addictive even. As few of smart and rational people only know.
\\Qtard's biases are "blame all on Demns". And "defend tRump". Most often with a Nazi analogy.
Well... it's just how it look like... from over here.
\\Qtard: Because... I don't care. I'm not from USA.
\\But you clearly do care.
That's your bias.
Quite natural and non-idiotic this time. People tend to think that what THEY do think MUST be the same FOR ALL other people...
Very natural. And very hard to measure by oneself...
ReplyDelete\\You HAVE stated your opinion about dotard donald. Which is "I MUST defend tRump".
Because YOU talking only about it. Non-stop. For almost an year, here.
\\What good of it to you... to keep defending donald tRump? Yet you do it anyway. Dedicating many hours to the task.
You delusion again.
Yawn.
I just stating facts. And have sheer entertsainment from observing your stubbornly idiotic merry tricks of religious bonker who trying to oppose to that facts... :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\I don't know anything about any "holy Bi-den" that I could convince any "USAian" to vote for.
Yep.
That's your problem.
You don't knwo who Biden really is. What is his motives. What is his plans. And how much place for you in that plans. And what role.
But still... you are ready to extortn ocean of verbal shit at anybody... in his stead, it seems. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0
Even though he hardly need it.
\\Qtard: And do that with calm and pleading attitude... as loud shouts HARDLY can persuade anyone doing as you like...
\\Qtard has no clue regarding my motivations for blogging. Or commenting on other's blogs. Still he DEMANDS that I adopt the motivation that I do so to convince others to vote for "holy Bi-den". Stuff your demands, Qtard. I don't take orders from you.
Well... I tryed to imagine rightful and maybe even noble, somewhat, cause.
For you to extort verbal shit at people on the Internet.
But it seems... sheer pleasure of extorting verbal shit is quite enough... for itself. ;-P
\\I do know what you're talking about. Defending donald tRump. Blaming politicians you call "Demns". Or "demon-rats". Also "libtards".
Isn't it wise of me, as foreigner, to use proper lexic in talking with native speakers? ;-P
And I am very wise, and masterful. It seems.
\\No evidence that Qtard has any idea what a hyperlink looks like. Because it does not know.
Enormously desperate. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\I do. Qtard doesn't need any proof to believe there was no tRump/Putin collusion.
That is called "proof by contradiction". Go, Google for it. Enlighten yourself.
But, naaah... you will not, because you are idiot.
Idiots are allergic to education, to knowing new things. ;-P
YET ONE....
\\Proof Qtard doesn't know what proof looks like.
Oh, please. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))
And you can give an example.
And elaborately explain how it works???
That thing called "proof"? ;-P
\\FYI, Qtard, Inspector General Michael Horowitz looked at this prior to John Durham. The Horowitz report concludes that "there was an authorized purpose and adequate factual predication for launching the Crossfire Hurricane investigation".
That's... just "somebody-somebody saying something-something".
While that mr.D's report coroborates well with known and apparent to anybody (apart ffrom delirious religious bonkers) fact -- that there is NO results of that investigation.
Qtard: While it so entertaining -- your merry idiotic tricks.
ReplyDeleteQtard is entertained by his delusions. I argue with the truth and facts, not "merry idiotic tricks". IDK why these alleged "idiotic tricks" are "merry" though. I'm laughing as I post a "trick"? "Idiotically" thinking I can fool Qtard? But Qtard sees through my tricks? Yet I am too dumb to catch on? I just keep posting tricks thinking I MIGHT fool Qtard?
btw, the idiotic tricks that fool Qtard -- they are rightturd tricks. Minus FJ posts such tricks. Very infrequently disputed by Qtard. Mostly agreed with. Like idiotic trick of John Durham. Prosecuted 3 people, 2 of which were found innocent. Yet the idiot Qtard thinks that equals "results".
Qtard: \\First you tried to attribute your fake quote, "dRump collusion with Rasha was FAKE" to John Durham. And GOT CAUGHT.\\And you can provide FACTS???\\Like perfectly correct quote of my words? Yawn. Naaah.
You tried to attribute the quote to a reporter. Then refused to give the reporter's name. You KNOW this happened. Why do I need to search for a "perfectly correct" quote? If Qtard claims he does not know this happened? It will be proof positive Qtard is an idiot.
Qtard: \\Qtard is trying to derail from the fact that it (now) has been caught lying THREE times.\\In you dreams... no, your delusions.\\Which you CANNOT confirm with any facts.
I can. Though Qtard does not know what a fact is. The first lie was that Durham said "dRump collusion with Rasha FAKE". 2nd lie was that a reporter said it. Third lie was that providing name of reporter who said "dRump collusion with Rusha FAKE" was "my predicament".
Qtard: \\The investigation wasn't "fake". Methodology was criticized. Too much "eagerness". When there actually was a lack of eagerness. Helping, even.\\Yap. By totalitarian standards.
Bingo. FBI should have worked to protect democracy. Not to protect tRump's colluding with Russia.
Qtard: In a totalitarian country such opposition leader would be dead already. Under despoty, he would be in jail.
USA is not a totalitarian country. Though Qtard would obviously like it to be. Why he argues so passionately for the "human right" of tRump supporters to overthrow democracy to install dictator-wannabe dotard donald.
Qtard: Under slightly undemocratic rule he would be defamed into oblivion.
Which Qtard likes. But only in regards to Joe Biden. Why he argued that an audio tape that doesn't exist could prove Joe Biden accepted bribes.
Qtard: And only in democracy, it's possible to withstand Jaffernaut of the State Power... But, HOW MUCH you don't like it, Derpy.
Joe Biden withstood state power when donald tRump wielded it as president. A fact Qtard despises. donald tRump tried to stay in power even though he had lost the election. He sent a mob to the Capitol to attack it. Miserly totalitarian wannabe Qtard is sad the mob failed to prevent the winner (Joe Biden) from becoming president.
Miserly totalitarian wannabe Qtard is sad that the loser (donald tRump) didn't become "president for life". HOW MUCH self-revealingly it was when Qtard claimed this was a "joke" (made by Minus FJ).
Qtard: Why I should help you with this? Ahh???\\You HAVE helped me. PROVE you are a liar.\\What mean "prove" in your idiotic slang, I wonder.
No. We were talking about the (imaginary) reporter who said "dRump collusion with Rasha FAKE". Idiot Qtard claims this would help me. Like Qtard providing alibis for when the police say Qtard raped all those men. As opposed to helping Qtard... stay out of prison.
Qtard: Because to any raional thinker it's beyond apparent, that "proof" means facts and sound logic being provided.
ReplyDeleteSure. Though Qtard doesn't know what "facts and sound logic" look like. No clue. Qtard, as proven by it's lame totalitarian wannabe screachings, thinks those who scream louder and who repeats his dogmas more eagerly -- that make it Right and True.
Qtard: I ready to admit. That I am biased. To look at word from reality and racionality standpoint. Thinking and talking on the base of facts and logic...
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Qtard: That... can be called "bias", yes.
Qtard looks at the world from unreality and irrationality standpoint. Thinking and talking on the base of false facts and illogic.
Qtard: Well, only. It do not mean "anything to believe into". That is YOU are one who declared "I believe in facts".
And Qtard has declared he doesn't believe facts.
Qtard: I. While my thought based on knowing/seeing facts and sound logic -- do not need to believe into ANYTHING.
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Qtard: And... that is so freeing, and so refreshing... addictive even. As few of smart and rational people only know.
Qtard finds it freeing, refreshing and addictive to tell nonstop lies.
Qtard: \\Qtard's biases are "blame all on Demns". And "defend tRump". Most often with a Nazi analogy.\\Well... it's just how it look like... from over here.
That America is like Nazi Germany? Because J6 rioters DIDN'T overthrow democracy? Figures.
Qtard: Because... I don't care. I'm not from USA.\\But you clearly do care.\\That's your bias.
No, yours. Proven by your comments and unending defense of donald tRump and J6 insurrection. Democracy falling in the USA would make Qtard very happy.
Qtard: People tend to think that what THEY do think MUST be the same FOR ALL other people... Very natural.
OK, but that isn't what's going on here. Your interest in American politics is proven by the fact that you comment on this board. I know people who have no interest in politics. They don't comment on such forums. Pretty simple logic. But Qtard is too dumb to understand.
Qtard: \\You HAVE stated your opinion about dotard donald. Which is "I MUST defend tRump".\\Because YOU talking only about it. Non-stop. For almost an year, here.
Because the proprietor of this blog (Minus FJ) is a tRump supporter. He posts about his love for donald tRump. Yet Qtard thinks we should be discussing it's love of Star Trek?
Qtard: \\What good of it to you... to keep defending donald tRump? Yet you do it anyway. Dedicating many hours to the task.\\You delusion again. Yawn.
A point-to-reality fact is only a "delusion" in the mind of an idiot.
Qtard: I just stating facts. And have sheer entertsainment from observing your stubbornly idiotic merry tricks of religious bonker who trying to oppose to that facts.
I've never opposed facts. What would be the point? The facts would not change just because I oppose them. Though Qtard thinks facts he opposes will change. He must be projecting his beliefs onto me.
Qtard: \\I don't know anything about any "holy Bi-den" that I could convince any "USAian" to vote for.\\That's your problem. You don't knwo who Biden really is. What is his motives. What is his plans...
Well, before you were talking about "holy Bi-den". My response was in regards to this person. "holy Bi-den", not Biden. Qtard doesn't know who Biden really is. He doesn't even know his first name is "Joe", not "holy". btw, I know what Joe Biden's motives are. To do a great job for the American people. Qtard probably believes Minus FJ's lies about him doing the job to enrich himself. But this is what motivates dotard donald.
Qtard: But still... you are ready to extortn ocean of verbal shit at anybody... in his stead, it seems.
ReplyDeleteQtard describes what he does.
Qtard: Even though he hardly need it.
dotard donald doesn't need your spewing of verbal feces. Yet you do it so eagerly.
Qtard: ...loud shouts HARDLY can persuade anyone doing as you like\\Qtard has no clue regarding my motivations for blogging.\\Well... I tryed to imagine rightful and maybe even noble, somewhat, cause. For you to extort verbal shit at people on the Internet.
My smart words appear to be "verbal shit" to Qtard because Qtard is an idiot.
Qtard: But it seems... sheer pleasure of extorting verbal shit is quite enough... for itself.
Agreed. In regards to your spewing of verbal shit bringing you pleasure. You admitted it. Asking for smart response from me you could laugh at. By saying you wanted "moar" (instead of "more").
Qtard: \\...you call "Demns". Or "demon-rats". Also "libtards".\\Isn't it wise of me, as foreigner, to use proper lexic in talking with native speakers?
No. It only proves only your rightturd proclivities.
Qtard: And I am very wise, and masterful. It seems.
No f*cking way.
Qtard: \\No evidence that Qtard has any idea what a hyperlink looks like. Because it does not know.\\Enormously desperate.
Qtard desperate to derail from the fact that he doesn't know what a hyperlink looks like. Easy to provide one, yet he refuses. Because he doesn't know what it is. A logical conclusion.
Qtard: That is called "proof by contradiction". Go, Google for it. Enlighten yourself. But, naaah... you will not, because you are idiot. Idiots are allergic to education, to knowing new things.
"To prove something by contradiction, we assume that what we want to prove is not true, and then show that the consequences of this are not possible".
I agree. It isn't possible that donald tRump didn't collude with Russia. Like I told you previously, his "Obama spied on me" proves he colluded. Because the FBI was spying on Russians. And found these Russians were meeting with members of the tRump campaign.
Qtard: \\Proof Qtard doesn't know what proof looks like.\\Oh, please. And you can give an example.
Yep. "Obama spied on me" proves the dotard campaign was colluding.
Qtard: \\IG Michael Horowitz looked at this prior to John Durham.\\That's... just "somebody-somebody saying something-something".
LOL. John Durham couldn't even prove what he was tasked to prove. Your fake quote, "dRump collusion with Rusha FAKE". Why he resorted to criticizing how the investigation was opened. A very lame end to his "investigation". Given that he was supposed to put Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden (people alleged to have "framed" tRump) behind bars.
Qtard: While that mr.D's report coroborates ... apparent to anybody (apart ffrom delirious religious bonkers) fact -- that there is NO results of that investigation.
There were results. The tRump campaign was caught colluding. "Obama spied on me"... remember? But they failed to bring charges because the FBI was on tRump's side. And republicans ran interference for tRump. Another result -- showed how corrupt republiturds are.
\\I argue with the truth and facts, not "merry idiotic tricks".
ReplyDeleteTHAT IS exactly an example of that merry idiotic tricks. ;-P
Or... you can disprove it -- cite correct definition of what FACTS is.
And give correct logical explanation -- that what you do is "arguing with the truth and facts".
But naaaaah... :-(((((((((((((((((((((((
You cannot.
Cause... I-D-I-O-T.
It was unable to comprehend that definition. Even while it was given manyu times... to it.
Yawn.
\\IDK why these alleged "idiotic tricks" are "merry" though.
And why it not???
Do nibbling of teethless puppies is merry? But that same reasons. ;-P
But... you have no imagination, and do not understand metaphor...
\\ I'm laughing as I post a "trick"?
Most funny are clowns that do that with serious or sad face. ;-P
\\Yet I am too dumb to catch on? I just keep posting tricks thinking I MIGHT fool Qtard?
You... gotcha. ;-P
And how this "wise" thought even came to your mind? Can it be that you able to learn?
Naaaah. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\You tried to attribute the quote to a reporter. Then refused to give the reporter's name.
Because... that doesn't matter. And I will not try to investigate where and how I received that info... weeks or even month ago.
What for? What that would prove??? Nothing.
That is only sign of your desperation -- as you unable to say something about real and damning matters... so you trying to catch me in a net of your lame babbling about totally unimportant things -- which is idiotic tactics. Against smart aces. ;-P
Go try it on idiots like you... oh, I know, I know... there is not enough that idiots, who even more idiotic then you. And they are drooling imbeciles, with whom conversation not possible. :-))))))))))))))
But that's not my problem.
Am I frank (and eloquent) enough? Here.
Or... you will think that what I'm saying.. it's some kind of trick? :-)))))))))))))))
\\I can. Though Qtard does not know what a fact is.
ReplyDeleteThen. Give the definition. ;-P
But... you can't. You freakingly CANNOT do even that.
That means that all about you knowing what fact is -- is lame bragging. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\The first lie was that Durham said "dRump collusion with Rasha FAKE".
I never claimed that.
And just said that that was said that way by some news-reporter.
DO I responsible for what any "somebody-somebody who saying something-somthing" babbling???
If "yes", why YOU not, then?
If "no", what we talking about here, then?
\\2nd lie was that a reporter said it. Third lie was that providing name of reporter who said "dRump collusion with Rusha FAKE" was "my predicament".
WTF???? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))
But well, thank you for this vivid example of how idiot's dislogic working. ;-P
\\Bingo. FBI should have worked to protect democracy. Not to protect tRump's colluding with Russia.
With bending into a pretcel laws and correct law-enforcing practices?
Rethorical question.
\\Qtard: Because to any raional thinker it's beyond apparent, that "proof" means facts and sound logic being provided.
\\Sure. Though Qtard doesn't know what "facts and sound logic" look like. No clue.
Test me. ;-P
Give an example. Make a quiz.
But... you freakingly CANNOT, because you just and idiot. Who poofing itself with hot air. But will gone ka-boom after all that pretence would be pierce with even small pointed tip. ;-P
\\Qtard, as proven by it's lame totalitarian wannabe screachings, thinks those who scream louder and who repeats his dogmas more eagerly -- that make it Right and True.
Yawn.
With repeating MY words you only CONFIRM that they are smart and truthful.
And you are lame idiotic pretender who trying to sound smart and truthful... itself.
That's why repeating MY words -- even though it lame, and revealing you idiot, incapable to produce own thoughts. ;-P
\\Qtard: I ready to admit. That I am biased. To look at word from reality and racionality standpoint. Thinking and talking on the base of facts and logic...
ReplyDelete\\:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Ehm??? Neurotical reaction of allergic to facts idiot?
\\Qtard looks at the world from unreality and irrationality standpoint. Thinking and talking on the base of false facts and illogic.
And you can dissect it with logic and facts????
Naaaah... :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\And Qtard has declared he doesn't believe facts.
Of course!
Cause FACTS it's elements of Reality itself -- bellieveing or not believing is totally useless, in regard to their existance.
Your Captain Obvious. ;-P
And that is ONLY Religious Bonker can blame it as something despicable -- non-believing in facts. And believing, as something good...
\\Qtard: I. While my thought based on knowing/seeing facts and sound logic -- do not need to believe into ANYTHING.
\\:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Neurotic reaction of Religious Bonker? ;-P
\\Qtard finds it freeing, refreshing and addictive to tell nonstop lies.
Of which Derpy CANNOT find neither facts nor logic or even some plausible explanation -- why it lie?
You know, Dumb Ass, LIE DO NOT exist. ;-P
So... if one claim that something is LIE one must be able to point at Direct and Inevitable TRUTH.
Because LIE it's just a shadow of The Truth.
Here. I made it in BOLD. For you. To nota bene.
But... naaah. You will PROVE YET ONE time that you are idiot -- incapable to learn. Unable to understand. Silly monkey. Shit thrower.
But... do I find you despicable? ;-P
Naaah... continue-continue you hoples hapless merry tricks, my little monkey. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\That America is like Nazi Germany?
YOU said it.
But little time will pass. And you will start claim that that was MY words. :-))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Democracy falling in the USA would make Qtard very happy.
For failing... there need to be democracy in the first place...
But, people like you, demonstrate to all World... that that all can be not exactly true...
\\OK, but that isn't what's going on here. Your interest in American politics is proven by the fact that you comment on this board.
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\I know people who have no interest in politics. They don't comment on such forums. Pretty simple logic. But Qtard is too dumb to understand.
Yap. Idiot's dislogic. ;-P
\\A point-to-reality fact is only a "delusion" in the mind of an idiot.
It's good that you know about own deficiencies. ;-P
ReplyDelete\\I've never opposed facts. What would be the point?
But... you declared it yourself. "I believe in facts".
And... demonstrated enough times here -- what it mean.
My little religious little bonker. ;-P
\\He must be projecting his beliefs onto me.
And who declared "I believe in facts", again??? ME???? %-))))
\\Qtard doesn't know who Biden really is. He doesn't even know his first name is "Joe", not "holy". btw, I know what Joe Biden's motives are.
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard describes what he does.
And you can quote me? ;-P
Naaah! :-)))))
\\My smart words appear to be "verbal shit" to Qtard because Qtard is an idiot.
It... ROFL it... ROFL no, I can't... it said... "my smart words" :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\No. It only proves only your rightturd proclivities.
HOW??????!!!!
I am not from USA. And cannot care less about your inner political brawls and divisions.
And even less I care about your previoius... or your next POTUS.
Well... merry tricks of current one, I can meet with concern, cause it influence the World... too much.
\\Qtard: And I am very wise, and masterful. It seems.
\\No f*cking way.
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Envious? ;-P
Don't be. You'd not be able to change your idiotic nature. So, it would ne only bitter hopeless envy.
\\Qtard desperate to derail from the fact that he doesn't know what a hyperlink looks like. Easy to provide one, yet he refuses. Because he doesn't know what it is. A logical conclusion.
Humongously desperate. :-)))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: That is called "proof by contradiction". Go, Google for it. Enlighten yourself. But, naaah... you will not, because you are idiot. Idiots are allergic to education, to knowing new things.
\\"To prove something by contradiction, we assume that what we want to prove is not true, and then show that the consequences of this are not possible".
\\I agree.
But... how can you???
You said that I'm idiot.
That I spewing ONLY verbal shit.
Tell only lies.
HOW you can agree????
Are you an idiot? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\LOL. John Durham couldn't even prove what he was tasked to prove.
Yep. In idiotic mind of Derpy such investigation commited only to prove some predestined prejudged points....
Yawn.
\\There were results. The tRump campaign was caught colluding. "Obama spied on me"... remember? But they failed to bring charges because the FBI was on tRump's side. And republicans ran interference for tRump. Another result -- showed how corrupt republiturds are.
Yap. Demn Religious Nuttery. ;P
No Derpy's ravings? ;-P
ReplyDeleteQtard: \\I argue with the truth and facts, not "merry idiotic tricks"\\THAT IS exactly an example of that merry idiotic tricks.
ReplyDeleteOnly to people who hate truth and facts. People like Qtard.
Qtard: ...cite correct definition of what FACTS is.
"A fact is a thing that is known or proved to be true". Qtard asks because it doesn't know. It only cuts and pastes borrowed knowledge.
Qtard: And give correct logical explanation -- that what you do is "arguing with the truth and facts".
I argue with truth and facts by citing experts. But Qtard baselessly claims facts experts arrived at by studying the data is "Demn propaganda".
Qtard: Cause... I-D-I-O-T.
Agreed. Qtard cannot give correct and logical explanation that what it does is "arguing with the truth and facts". Because Qtard does not. Because Qtard is an idiot.
Qtard: It was unable to comprehend that definition. Even while it was given manyu times... to it. Yawn.
Qtard cut and pasted borrowed knowledge without understanding many many times. Yes.
Qtard: \\Yet I am too dumb to catch on? I just keep posting tricks thinking I MIGHT fool Qtard?\\You... gotcha.
Qtard can NOT be "fooled" with facts. Because Qtard disbelieves facts.
Qtard: And how this "wise" thought even came to your mind? Can it be that you able to learn?
I learned what Qtard's delusions are. Not hard. It repeats them over and over.
Qtard: \\You ... refused to give the reporter's name\\ Because... that doesn't matter. And I will not try to investigate where and how I received that info... weeks or even month ago. What for? What that would prove??? Nothing.
Qtard doesn't care about proving it didn't lie. Because it knows it did lie. And it continues to lie.
Qtard: That is only sign of your desperation -- as you unable to say something about real and damning matters... so you trying to catch me in a net of your lame babbling about totally unimportant things -- which is idiotic tactics.
Asking for proof only "lame babbling" to a liar like Qtard.
Qtard: Against smart aces.
LOL.
Qtard: Go try it on ... idiots, who even more idiotic then you. And they are drooling imbeciles, with whom conversation not possible. But that's not my problem.
Only a drooling imbecile is dumber than Qtard. Though there could be drool dripping down Qtard's chin following some of it's maniacal laughter.
Qtard: Am I frank (and eloquent) enough? Here.
Frankness and eloquence = 0%
Qtard: Or... you will think that what I'm saying.. it's some kind of trick?
Always.
Qtard: \\...Qtard does not know what a fact is\\Then. Give the definition. But... you can't. You freakingly CANNOT do even that.
ReplyDeleteI can go to a dictionary website and cut and paste a definition. WITH understanding. Unlike Qtard. He obviously cuts and pastes definitions without understanding.
Qtard: That means that all about you knowing what fact is -- is lame bragging.
Only "bragging" to liars like Qtard.
Qtard: \\The first lie was that Durham said "dRump collusion with Rasha FAKE"\\I never claimed that.
LOL! That is a quote. You wrote it several times. Retract that claim if you want, but you can't say "I never claimed that". Only if you lie. Which you are.
Qtard: And just said that that was said that way by some news-reporter.
Name the reporter.
Qtard: DO I responsible for what any "somebody-somebody who saying something-somthing" babbling???
So, what the (imaginary) reporter said is false? You are admitting the truth that donald tRump did collude with Putin? If not, how is that "babbling"? Though, the TRUTH is that Qtard said it. And it is Qtard's babbling.
Qtard: If "yes", why YOU not, then? If "no", what we talking about here, then?
Yes. Qtard is responsible for Qtard's claims. Why would it not be? "Why you not"? I am. I never claimed I am not.
Qtard: \\2nd lie was that a reporter said it. Third lie was that providing name of reporter who said "dRump collusion with Rusha FAKE" was "my predicament"\\WTF????
An idiot is confused. By its OWN WORDS! LOL.
Qtard: But well, thank you for this vivid example of how idiot's dislogic working.
Qtard provided the examples. Many of them.
Qtard: \\Bingo. FBI should have worked to protect democracy. Not to protect tRump's colluding with Russia\\With bending into a pretcel laws and correct law-enforcing practices? Rethorical question.
donald tRump was allowed to get away with colluding due to laws not being enforced.
Qtard: \\...Qtard doesn't know what "facts and sound logic" look like. No clue.\\Test me.
Qtard has been tested. Many times. It failed many times.
Qtard: Give an example.
donald tRump says "Obama spied on me". The "spying" occured when IC agents heard tRump campaign people talking to Russians. This fact (confirmed by donald tRump) is evidence of collusion.
One of the things discussed was getting dirt on Hillary Clinton. The idiot Qtard says that had something to do with establishing diplomacy. Which (the idiot thinks) donald tRump was "required" to do. When tRump was required (by law) NOT to do this.
Qtard: Make a quiz. But... you freakingly CANNOT, because you just and idiot. Who poofing itself with hot air. But will gone ka-boom after all that pretence would be pierce with even small pointed tip.
LOL. "Poofing itself with hot air" describes Qtard. But he will never go "ka-boom". Because Qtard is protected by an impenetrable shell of ignorance and self delusion.
Qtard: \\Qtard, as proven by it's lame totalitarian wannabe screachings, thinks those who scream louder and who repeats his dogmas more eagerly -- that make it Right and True\\ Yawn.
With repeating MY words you only CONFIRM that they are smart and truthful.
Qtard's words are neither smart nor truthful. Because Qtard said them about me. Those words ONLY become smart and truthful when I say them about Qtard.
Qtard: ...who trying to sound smart and truthful... itself. That's why repeating MY words -- even though it lame, and revealing you idiot, incapable to produce own thoughts.
MY thought, after reading Qtards stupid and false words? "Idiot Qtard doesn't realize it is talking about itself". That was also my smart and truthful realization.
Qtard: Ehm??? Neurotical reaction of allergic to facts idiot?
ReplyDeleteCould be. Maybe Qtard should consult a neurologist? Ask neurologist, "why am I always laughing at my own stupidity"? Though it would probably be a better idea for Qtard to consult a psychiatrist. And get a prescription for some antipsychotic meds.
"Psychosis refers to a collection of symptoms that affect the mind, where there has been some loss of contact with reality".
Qtard: \\Qtard looks at the world from unreality and irrationality standpoint. Thinking and talking on the base of false facts and illogic.\\And you can dissect it with logic and facts??
The fact is that Qtard has a long history of doing that here, on this blog. Imagining that it finds adhearing to the facts and truth "refreshing".
Qtard: \\Qtard has declared he doesn't believe facts\\Of course! Cause FACTS it's elements of Reality itself -- bellieveing or not believing is totally useless, in regard to their existance.
Not believing facts is useful in deceiving itself. Which is something Qtard is very good at doing. imagines non-facts and claiming they are facts.
Lying can also be useful in getting what you want. It is the strategy donald tRump has employed his entire life. Qtard acknowledges that it works in politics. Candidate Mark Twain dropped out of the governor race in story Qtard posted here. So not believing facts (MT did none of the things he was accused of) benefited the other candidates. Voters had negative opinion of candidate Twain. Because they believed things that were not true.
Totally useless? No. VERY useful. For pathological liars like donald tRump. Also useful for pathological liars like Qtard.
Qtard: Your Captain Obvious.
Thank you.
Qtard: And that is ONLY Religious Bonker can blame it as something despicable -- non-believing in facts. And believing, as something good...
It is despicable. But other people beside a "religious bonker" use this strategy of fooling idiots into believing lies. donald tRump does it. Could be why Qtard admires and emulates him. Of course believing facts is good. Shows a person is smart.
Qtard: I. While my thought based on knowing/seeing facts and sound logic -- do not need to believe into ANYTHING.
Bull. Qtard believes that telling lies is a winning strategy. It imagines that non-facts and illogic can win debates.
Qtard: \\**laughter**\\Neurotic reaction of Religious Bonker?
No. Me laughing at Qtard's idiocy.
Qtard: \\Qtard finds it freeing, refreshing and addictive to tell nonstop lies\\Of which Derpy CANNOT find neither facts nor logic or even some plausible explanation -- why it lie?
Because it (things Qtard imagines) is the opposite of the truth.
Qtard: You know, Dumb Ass, LIE DO NOT exist. So... if one claim that something is LIE one must be able to point at Direct and Inevitable TRUTH. Because LIE it's just a shadow of The Truth.
OK. So why doesn't Qtard ever point to a "direct and inevitable truth"? Instead he only imagines non-facts that are more pleasing to it.
Qtard: Here. I made it in BOLD. For you. To nota bene. But... naaah. You will PROVE YET ONE time that you are idiot -- incapable to learn. Unable to understand. Silly monkey. Shit thrower.
I am very capable of learning. And I have no need to "throw shit". Not when facts are on my side.
Qtard: But... do I find you despicable? Naaah... continue-continue you hoples hapless merry tricks, my little monkey.
ReplyDeleteHumans and chimps are 98.8 percent similar, DNA-wise. But my DNA (as a human) is 1.2 percent dissimilar from a monkey. Because I'm not a monkey. Metaphorically or literally.
Qtard: \\That America is like Nazi Germany?\\YOU said it. But little time will pass. And you will start claim that that was MY words.
Because they ARE your words. Words about USA being like Nazi Germany repeated many many times. Endlessly. Will be repeated AGAIN. And AGAIN. And AGAIN.
Qtard: For failing... there need to be democracy in the first place... But, people like you, demonstrate to all World... that that all can be not exactly true.
No, people like donald tRump and his supporters. Denying Russian collusion that helped him steal the 2016 election. That donald tRump was president demonstrated to all the world that America being a democracy "can be not exactly true".
Qtard: \\OK, but that isn't what's going on here. Your interest in American politics is proven by the fact that you comment on this board\\**moronic laughter**
You don't comment on this blog? Because you stopped using "Q"? Are you somebody else? ANOTHER idiot who says American politics don't interest it? Even though it comments on a blog where American politics are discussed?
Qtard: \\I know people who have no interest in politics. They don't comment on such forums. Pretty simple logic. But Qtard is too dumb to understand\\Yap. Idiot's dislogic.
Only in the eyes of an idiot.
Qtard: \\A point-to-reality fact is only a "delusion" in the mind of an idiot\\It's good that you know about own deficiencies.
I doubt you are aware of this deficiency in yourself.
Qtard: \\I've never opposed facts. What would be the point?\\But... you declared it yourself. "I believe in facts". And... demonstrated enough times here -- what it mean. My little religious little bonker.
I have never demonstrated "religious bonkery". Not once. Qtard only imagines I do.
Qtard: \\He must be projecting his beliefs onto me\\And who declared "I believe in facts", again??? ME????
No. Why would you? Qtard hates facts. He disbelieves them. And imagines non-facts to take the place of facts.
Qtard: \\I know what Joe Biden's motives are\\**moronic laugher**
Qtard imagines that Joe Biden's true motives are not doing what is best for America? What does Qtard imagine these motives might be? Enrich himself by taking bribes? As "proven" with an audio recording that has not been presented and likely doesn't exist?
Qtard: \\Qtard describes what he does\\And you can quote me? Naaah!
Yes. "dRump collusion with Rasha FAKE". One example of many. All Qtard can cite from me is that I believe in facts. Then the liar ADDS bullplop about me not believing facts I don't like. Just like it added "em their rights" to another of my quotes. When I never wrote that.
Qtard: \\My smart words appear to be "verbal shit" to Qtard because Qtard is an idiot\\It... ROFL it... ROFL no, I can't... it said... "my smart words"
Envious?
Qtard: \\...only proves only your rightturd proclivities. HOW ... I am not from USA. And cannot care less about your inner political brawls and divisions. And even less I care about your previoius... or your next POTUS.
ReplyDeleteProve it. Go away. Why stick around when things you CLAIM not to care about are the main topics of discussion?
Qtard: Well... merry tricks of current one, I can meet with concern, cause it influence the World... too much.
Qtard would prefer influencer of the world be Vlad Putin, yes? Or Vlad Putin by way of his puppet, donald tRump.
Qtard: And I am very wise, and masterful. It seems\\No f*cking way\\Envious? Don't be. You'd not be able to change your idiotic nature. So, it would ne only bitter hopeless envy.
Not envious. In the least.
Qtard: \\Qtard desperate to derail from the fact that he doesn't know what a hyperlink looks like. Easy to provide one, yet he refuses\\Humongously desperate.
Qtard is desperate to know what a hyperlink is? Google for it.
Qtard: \\I agree\\But... how can you??? You said that I'm idiot. That I spewing ONLY verbal shit.
An idiot can cut and paste borrowed knowledge. Or reference it without understanding.
To agree with logic Qtard quoted (but didn't understand)? Why would that make me an idiot?
Qtard: \\John Durham couldn't even prove what he was tasked to prove\\Yep. In idiotic mind of Derpy such investigation commited only to prove some predestined prejudged points.
In the minds of people who were convinced Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden were going to be arrested, charged and convicted for "framing tRump". I NEVER thought this would happen. Minus FJ, Mystere and other tRump supporters thought this. Were totally convinced it was going to happen.
Qtard: \\There were results. The tRump campaign was caught colluding. "Obama spied on me" ... But they failed to bring charges because the FBI was on tRump's side. And republicans ran interference for tRump\\Yap. Demn Religious Nuttery.
"Demn religious nuttery" card played. Yet again. As if that automatically disproves facts. Qtard doesn't remember that donald tRump claimed that Obama spied on him? Because the FBI was watching Russians in the US and found they were in communication with tRump campaign people. And the Russians were offering help which the tRump campaign was eagerly accepting.
Qtard IMAGINES this is "Demn Religious Nuttery". Because, as Qtard has confessed, it is really good at denying reality and imaging something that is more pleasing to it.
\\Qtard: \\I argue with the truth and facts, not "merry idiotic tricks"\\THAT IS exactly an example of that merry idiotic tricks.
ReplyDelete\\Only to people who hate truth and facts. People like Qtard.
Said that thing that declared, NO sweared to -- NOT providing FACTUAL quotes... because sees em as some kind "black magic". :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Clear Oruelian "Truth -- it's lie" used.
\\Qtard: ...cite correct definition of what FACTS is.
\\"A fact is a thing that is known or proved to be true". Qtard asks because it doesn't know. It only cuts and pastes borrowed knowledge.
OK, Google. What "fact meaning"?
something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
Fact Definition & Meaning - Dictionary.com
www.dictionary.com › browse › fact
And...
Accidental gem.
I'm a Scientist, and I Don't Believe in Facts - Scientific American Blogs
blogs.scientificamerican.com › mind-guest-blog
According to the Oxford dictionary, a fact is “a thing that is known or proved to be true.” And where does proof come from? Science?
\\I argue with truth and facts by citing experts.
Words of expets -- it's not facts itself.
Your Captain Obvious. ;-P
So "citing expets" that is NOT "arguing with truth and facts" by itself, that is just hyporitical try to use someone else *OPINIONS* to claim being "arguing with truth and facts".
EXACTLY what a idiotic hyporite would do... in hopeless try to "sound smart".
Naturally. Being UNABLE to discern facts of Reality by itself. Clinging to somebody's OPINION as that invalid clinging to his cluthes/wheelchair. ;-P
\\But Qtard baselessly claims facts experts arrived at by studying the data is "Demn propaganda".
YOU... do not provide that excerpts where that "experts" would provide any facts... more then that, even their opinion.
But... somnehow it is MY fault, for you not performing your duty in a rational based on facts and logic conversation... :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: Cause... I-D-I-O-T.
\\Agreed. Qtard cannot give correct and logical explanation that what it does is "arguing with the truth and facts". Because Qtard does not. Because Qtard is an idiot.
And what DID I said... I-D-I-O-T.
Completele oblivious to that that such an idiotic trick of turning MY words against me -- only PROVE its idiocy. :-)))))
Easy to see -- if that words is WRONG -- repeating em, would be stupid.
And if they RIGHT... trying to using em opposite way -- would make em FALSE, inevitable.
Because OPPOSITION to Truth is... False.;-P
FLAWLESS LOGIC!
\\Qtard: \\I argue with the truth and facts, not "merry idiotic tricks"\\THAT IS exactly an example of that merry idiotic tricks.
ReplyDelete\\Only to people who hate truth and facts. People like Qtard.
Said that thing that declared, NO sweared to -- NOT providing FACTUAL quotes... because sees em as some kind "black magic". :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Clear Oruelian "Truth -- it's lie" used.
\\Qtard: ...cite correct definition of what FACTS is.
\\"A fact is a thing that is known or proved to be true". Qtard asks because it doesn't know. It only cuts and pastes borrowed knowledge.
OK, Google. What "fact meaning"?
something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
Fact Definition & Meaning - Dictionary.com
www.dictionary.com › browse › fact
And...
Accidental gem.
I'm a Scientist, and I Don't Believe in Facts - Scientific American Blogs
blogs.scientificamerican.com › mind-guest-blog
According to the Oxford dictionary, a fact is “a thing that is known or proved to be true.” And where does proof come from? Science?
\\I argue with truth and facts by citing experts.
Words of expets -- it's not facts itself.
Your Captain Obvious. ;-P
So "citing expets" that is NOT "arguing with truth and facts" by itself, that is just hyporitical try to use someone else *OPINIONS* to claim being "arguing with truth and facts".
EXACTLY what a idiotic hyporite would do... in hopeless try to "sound smart".
Naturally. Being UNABLE to discern facts of Reality by itself. Clinging to somebody's OPINION as that invalid clinging to his cluthes/wheelchair. ;-P
\\But Qtard baselessly claims facts experts arrived at by studying the data is "Demn propaganda".
YOU... do not provide that excerpts where that "experts" would provide any facts... more then that, even their opinion.
But... somnehow it is MY fault, for you not performing your duty in a rational based on facts and logic conversation... :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
ReplyDelete\\Qtard: Cause... I-D-I-O-T.
\\Agreed. Qtard cannot give correct and logical explanation that what it does is "arguing with the truth and facts". Because Qtard does not. Because Qtard is an idiot.
And what DID I said... I-D-I-O-T.
Completele oblivious to that that such an idiotic trick of turning MY words against me -- only PROVE its idiocy. :-)))))
Easy to see -- if that words is WRONG -- repeating em, would be stupid.
And if they RIGHT... trying to using em opposite way -- would make em FALSE, inevitable.
Because OPPOSITION to Truth is... False.;-P
FLAWLESS LOGIC!
\\Qtard cut and pasted borrowed knowledge without understanding many many times. Yes.
Same as above. ;-P
\\Qtard: \\Yet I am too dumb to catch on? I just keep posting tricks thinking I MIGHT fool Qtard?\\You... gotcha.
\\Qtard can NOT be "fooled" with facts. Because Qtard disbelieves facts.
But... WHO claimed "I believe in facts".
Same as above.
\\I learned what Qtard's delusions are. Not hard. It repeats them over and over.
As precisely correct quotes of YOUR words? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
What an idiot. ;-P
\\Qtard doesn't care about proving it didn't lie. Because it knows it did lie. And it continues to lie.
Depry sweared that it will not provide QUOTES even. Cause, it sees as some kind "black magic" that disproves its delusional babbling each and every time. And now it trying to babble something about lying. That nasty relentless lyar and idiotic hypocrite, who lies EVEN about OWN words just said. :-) (ad infinitum)
Same as above.
\\Asking for proof only "lame babbling" to a liar like Qtard.
Proof of what? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))
That youy are idiot? Byt you proving it with each and ever of your blurts. :-))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Frankness and eloquence = 0%
Wasted on such an idiot. I know. :-))))))))))))))))
That was rethorical question. ;-P
\\Qtard: Or... you will think that what I'm saying.. it's some kind of trick?
\\Always.
Hah... you confirmed it!!! :-)))))))))) Itself.
That you are idiot, who sees logic and facts as some kind of "black magic". :-))))))))))))))))))
ReplyDelete\\Qtard: \\...Qtard does not know what a fact is\\Then. Give the definition. But... you can't. You freakingly CANNOT do even that.
\\I can go to a dictionary website and cut and paste a definition. WITH understanding. Unlike Qtard. He obviously cuts and pastes definitions without understanding.
Empty babbling.
So... WHAT that "with understanding" mean??? If you SO wise and understanding -- you should be able to EXPLAIN it.
But... you can't.
All you can -- repeat MY words. In shallow try. To sound smart.
What a loser.
Same as above.
\\Qtard: \\The first lie was that Durham said "dRump collusion with Rasha FAKE"\\I never claimed that.
\\LOL! That is a quote. You wrote it several times. Retract that claim if you want, but you can't say "I never claimed that". Only if you lie. Which you are.
Dumb ass...
HOW???? Quoting something CAN mean "claiming it"???
Clearly and idiot.
Whoi do not understand difference between claiming anf refering.
OMG!!! I didn't know SUCH idiocy possible!!! :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Well, it explains. A lot.
\\Name the reporter.
What for???
\\Qtard: DO I responsible for what any "somebody-somebody who saying something-somthing" babbling???
\\So, what the (imaginary) reporter said is false?
No. It's just "somebody-somebody said something-something".
Mere words -- they are NOT facts.
And as we confirmed here many times here -- on your example.
There is lots of people -- idiots, who do not understand it.
\\Qtard: \\2nd lie was that a reporter said it. Third lie was that providing name of reporter who said "dRump collusion with Rusha FAKE" was "my predicament"\\WTF????
\\An idiot is confused. By its OWN WORDS! LOL.
Yap.
You are right.
You are damn confused. By itself.
With that demand to give name of "that reporter", while unable to explain -- and what importance of that info? What you need it for? :-))))))))))))
You are in a dare predicaments.
Hole you dug itself... and for itself. And swamped to the state of quciksands... to drown in them. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
But yeah... damn usual for idiots... that dummies. Habitually drowning in own delusions. Or... some crafted for them delusions...
\\Qtard: But well, thank you for this vivid example of how idiot's dislogic working.
\\Qtard provided the examples. Many of them.
But... IT... cannot provide quote of any... :-))))))))))))))))))))
What an idiot.
ReplyDelete\\donald tRump was allowed to get away with colluding due to laws not being enforced.
Idiot... do not know what Rethorical Question is. :-)))
Well... idiot, as it is.
\\Qtard has been tested. Many times. It failed many times.
But... no quote of ANY.
Same as above. :-)))))))))))))))))
\\donald tRump says "Obama spied on me". The "spying" occured when IC agents heard tRump campaign people talking to Russians. This fact (confirmed by donald tRump) is evidence of collusion.
Yap... in idiot's mind.
Go to the court... with such an "evidances". :-))))))))))))))))))))
\\One of the things discussed was getting dirt on Hillary Clinton. The idiot Qtard says that had something to do with establishing diplomacy.
IT... was not that picky, in regard to getting dirt on dRump...
\\LOL. "Poofing itself with hot air" describes Qtard. But he will never go "ka-boom". Because Qtard is protected by an impenetrable shell of ignorance and self delusion.
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Blurted out truth about... itself? ;-P
\\With repeating MY words you only CONFIRM that they are smart and truthful.
\\Qtard's words are neither smart nor truthful.
Then... WHAT it makes of you -- if you REPEATING that "neither smart nor truthful".
Isn't it shows you as a fool? Rethorical question (idiot will strugglr to "answer" anyway) :-)))))))))))))))))))
\\Because Qtard said them about me. Those words ONLY become smart and truthful when I say them about Qtard.
Oh, yes??? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
And you can give logical and factual explanation -- how it possible???
That magical transmogrification of "false and stupid" words -- while *I* say it.
INTO
"wise and truthful", when IT says it. ;-P
I-D-I-O-T... IT... do not know that ONE AND THE SAME thing CANNOT be True and False SAME TIME. ;-P
That is... illogical.
Well. Perfectly suiting dislogically blurting idiot.
\\MY thought, after reading Qtards stupid and false words? "Idiot Qtard doesn't realize it is talking about itself". That was also my smart and truthful realization.
Clearly an idea disfunctional brain of an idiot could come up with... being UNABLE to produce OWN thoughts... because of how disfunctional its brain is... so it can only twist and turn words of smart opponent.
\\Qtard: \\I argue with the truth and facts, not "merry idiotic tricks"\\THAT IS exactly an example of that merry idiotic tricks.
ReplyDelete\\Only to people who hate truth and facts. People like Qtard.
Said that thing that declared, NO sweared to -- NOT providing FACTUAL quotes... because sees em as some kind "black magic". :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Clear Oruelian "Truth -- it's lie" used.
\\Qtard: ...cite correct definition of what FACTS is.
\\"A fact is a thing that is known or proved to be true". Qtard asks because it doesn't know. It only cuts and pastes borrowed knowledge.
OK, Google. What "fact meaning"?
something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
Fact Definition & Meaning - Dictionary.com
www.dictionary.com › browse › fact
And...
Accidental gem.
I'm a Scientist, and I Don't Believe in Facts - Scientific American Blogs
blogs.scientificamerican.com › mind-guest-blog
According to the Oxford dictionary, a fact is “a thing that is known or proved to be true.” And where does proof come from? Science?
\\I argue with truth and facts by citing experts.
Words of expets -- it's not facts itself.
Your Captain Obvious. ;-P
So "citing expets" that is NOT "arguing with truth and facts" by itself, that is just hyporitical try to use someone else *OPINIONS* to claim being "arguing with truth and facts".
EXACTLY what a idiotic hyporite would do... in hopeless try to "sound smart".
Naturally. Being UNABLE to discern facts of Reality by itself. Clinging to somebody's OPINION as that invalid clinging to his cluthes/wheelchair. ;-P
\\But Qtard baselessly claims facts experts arrived at by studying the data is "Demn propaganda".
YOU... do not provide that excerpts where that "experts" would provide any facts... more then that, even their opinion.
But... somnehow it is MY fault, for you not performing your duty in a rational based on facts and logic conversation... :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: \\I argue with the truth and facts, not "merry idiotic tricks"\\THAT IS exactly an example of that merry idiotic tricks.
ReplyDelete\\Only to people who hate truth and facts. People like Qtard.
Said that thing that declared, NO sweared to -- NOT providing FACTUAL quotes... because sees em as some kind "black magic". :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Clear Oruelian "Truth -- it's LIE" used.
\\Qtard: ...cite correct definition of what FACTS is.
\\"A fact is a thing that is known or proved to be true". Qtard asks because it doesn't know. It only cuts and pastes borrowed knowledge.
OK, Google. What "fact meaning"?
something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
Fact Definition & Meaning - Dictionary.com
www.dictionary.com › browse › fact
And...
Accidental gem.
I'm a Scientist, and I Don't Believe in Facts - Scientific American Blogs
blogs.scientificamerican.com › mind-guest-blog
According to the Oxford dictionary, a fact is “a thing that is known or proved to be true.” And where does proof come from? Science?
\\I argue with truth and facts by citing experts.
Words of expets -- it's not facts itself.
Your Captain Obvious. ;-P
So "citing expets" that is NOT "arguing with truth and facts" by itself, that is just hyporitical try to use someone else *OPINIONS* to claim being "arguing with truth and facts".
EXACTLY what a idiotic hyporite would do... in hopeless try to "sound smart".
Naturally. Being UNABLE to discern facts of Reality by itself. Clinging to somebody's OPINION as that invalid clinging to his cluthes/wheelchair. ;-P
ReplyDelete\\But Qtard baselessly claims facts experts arrived at by studying the data is "Demn propaganda".
YOU... do not provide that excerpts where that "experts" would provide any facts... more then that, even their opinion.
But... somnehow it is MY fault, for you not performing your duty in a rational based on facts and logic conversation... :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: Cause... I-D-I-O-T.
\\Agreed. Qtard cannot give correct and logical explanation that what it does is "arguing with the truth and facts". Because Qtard does not. Because Qtard is an idiot.
And what DID I said... I-D-I-O-T.
Completele oblivious to that that such an idiotic trick of turning MY words against me -- only PROVE its idiocy. :-)))))
Easy to see -- if that words is WRONG -- repeating em, would be stupid.
And if they RIGHT... trying to using em opposite way -- would make em FALSE, inevitable.
Because OPPOSITION to Truth is... False.;-P
FLAWLESS LOGIC!
ReplyDelete\\Qtard cut and pasted borrowed knowledge without understanding many many times. Yes.
Same as above. ;-P
\\Qtard: \\Yet I am too dumb to catch on? I just keep posting tricks thinking I MIGHT fool Qtard?\\You... gotcha.
\\Qtard can NOT be "fooled" with facts. Because Qtard disbelieves facts.
But... WHO claimed "I believe in facts".
Same as above.
\\I learned what Qtard's delusions are. Not hard. It repeats them over and over.
As precisely correct quotes of YOUR words? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
What an idiot. ;-P
\\Qtard doesn't care about proving it didn't lie. Because it knows it did lie. And it continues to lie.
Depry sweared that it will not provide QUOTES even. Cause, it sees as some kind "black magic" that disproves its delusional babbling each and every time. And now it trying to babble something about lying. That nasty relentless lyar and idiotic hypocrite, who lies EVEN about OWN words just said. :-) (ad infinitum)
Same as above.
\\Asking for proof only "lame babbling" to a liar like Qtard.
Proof of what? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))
That youy are idiot? Byt you proving it with each and ever of your blurts. :-))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Frankness and eloquence = 0%
Wasted on such an idiot. I know. :-))))))))))))))))
That was rethorical question. ;-P
\\Qtard: Or... you will think that what I'm saying.. it's some kind of trick?
\\Always.
Hah... you confirmed it!!! :-)))))))))) Itself.
That you are idiot, who sees logic and facts as some kind of "black magic". :-))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: \\...Qtard does not know what a fact is\\Then. Give the definition. But... you can't. You freakingly CANNOT do even that.
\\I can go to a dictionary website and cut and paste a definition. WITH understanding. Unlike Qtard. He obviously cuts and pastes definitions without understanding.
Empty babbling.
So... WHAT that "with understanding" mean??? If you SO wise and understanding -- you should be able to EXPLAIN it.
But... you can't.
All you can -- repeat MY words. In shallow try. To sound smart.
What a loser.
Same as above.
\\Qtard: \\I argue with the truth and facts, not "merry idiotic tricks"\\THAT IS exactly an example of that merry idiotic tricks.
ReplyDelete\\Only to people who hate truth and facts. People like Qtard.
Said that thing that declared, NO sweared to -- NOT providing FACTUAL quotes... because sees em as some kind "black magic". :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Clear Oruelian "Truth -- it's lie" used.
ReplyDelete\\Qtard: ...cite correct definition of what FACTS is.
\\"A fact is a thing that is known or proved to be true". Qtard asks because it doesn't know. It only cuts and pastes borrowed knowledge.
OK, Google. What "fact meaning"?
something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
Fact Definition & Meaning - Dictionary.com
www.dictionary.com › browse › fact
And...
Accidental gem.
I'm a Scientist, and I Don't Believe in Facts - Scientific American Blogs
blogs.scientificamerican.com › mind-guest-blog
According to the Oxford dictionary, a fact is “a thing that is known or proved to be true.” And where does proof come from? Science?
\\Qtard: \\I argue with the truth and facts, not "merry idiotic tricks"\\THAT IS exactly an example of that merry idiotic tricks.
ReplyDelete\\Only to people who hate truth and facts. People like Qtard.
Said that thing that declared, NO sweared to -- NOT providing FACTUAL quotes... because sees em as some kind "black magic".
Clear Orvelian "Truuth -- it's liie" used.
\\Qtard: \\I argue with the truth and facts, not "merry idiotic tricks"\\THAT IS exactly an example of that merry idiotic tricks.
ReplyDelete\\Only to people who hate truth and facts. People like Qtard.
Said that thing that declared, NO sweeared to -- NOT providing FACTUAL quotes... because sees em as some kind "back magic".
Clear O.r.u.e.l.i.a.n "T.r.u.t.h -- it's l.i.e" used.
HAH... Gogle's spambot DISLIKES mentioning o-r-u-e-l
Deleted my post several times... maybe your spambox will be overflowed, sorry.
ReplyDeleteBut... what if it WILL NOT even appear there. ARE our AI masters ALREADY here???
Please, give hint. ;-P
YET ONE time... just to be sure
ReplyDelete\\Only to people who hate truth and facts. People like Qtard.
Said that thing that declared, NO sweared to -- NOT providing FACTUAL quotes... because sees em as some kind "black magic".
Clear Oruelian "Truth -- it's lie" used.
Yep!
ReplyDeleteClear O.r.u.e.l.i.a.n "T.r.u.t.h -- it's l.i.e" used.
ERADICATED!!!
YET ONE time
ReplyDeleteClear Oruelian "Truth -- it's lie" used.
ReplyDeleteSaid that thing that declared, NO sweared to -- NOT providing FACTUAL quotes... because sees em as some kind "black magic".
Clear Oruelian "Truth -- it's lie" used.
BUSTED!
ReplyDelete\\Qtard: \\I argue with the truth and facts, not "merry idiotic tricks"\\THAT IS exactly an example of that merry idiotic tricks.
ReplyDelete\\Only to people who hate truth and facts. People like Qtard.
Said that thing that declared, NO sweared to -- NOT providing FACTUAL quotes... because sees em as some kind "black magic". :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
ReplyDeleteClear O.r.u.e.l.i.a.n "Truth -- it's lie" used.
Said that thing that declared, NO sweared to -- NOT providing FACTUAL quotes... because sees em as some kind "black magic". :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
ReplyDeleteClear Oruelian "Truth -- it's lie" used.
Said that thing that declared, NO sweared to -- NOT providing FACTUAL quotes... because sees em as some kind "black magic". :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
ReplyDeleteClear O.r.u.e.l.i.a.n "Truth -- it's lie" used.
Said that thing that declared, NO sweared to -- NOT providing FACTUAL quotes... because sees em as some kind "black magic". :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
ReplyDeleteClear O.r.u.e.l.i.a.n "T.r.u.t.h -- it's l.i.e" used.
Said that thing that declared, NO sweared to -- NOT providing FACTUAL quotes... because sees em as some kind "black magic". :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
ReplyDeleteClear O.r.u.e.l.i.a.n "T.r.u.t.h -- it's l.i.e" used.
Oruelian Oruelian Oruelian Oruelian Oruelian Oruelian Oruelian Oruelian
ReplyDeleteOruelian Oruelian Oruelian Oruelian Oruelian Oruelian
ReplyDelete\\Qtard: \\I argue with the truth and facts, not "merry idiotic tricks"\\THAT IS exactly an example of that merry idiotic tricks.
ReplyDelete\\Only to people who hate truth and facts. People like Qtard.
Said that thing that declared, NO sweared to -- NOT providing FACTUAL quotes... because sees em as some kind "black magic". :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Clear Oruelian "Truth -- it's lie" used.
\\Qtard: \\I argue with the truth and facts, not "merry idiotic tricks"\\THAT IS exactly an example of that merry idiotic tricks.
ReplyDelete\\Only to people who hate truth and facts. People like Qtard.
Said that thing that declared, NO sweared to -- NOT providing FACTUAL quotes... because sees em as some kind "b.l.a.c.k magic". :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Clear Oruelian "Truth -- it's lie" used.
No... even MOAR funny.
ReplyDeleteIt fears black magic :-)))))))))))))))))))
No... even MOAR funny.
ReplyDeleteIt fears b.l.a.c.k m.a.g.i.c :-)))))))))))))))))))
No... even MOAR funny.
ReplyDeleteIt fears black magic :-)))))))))))))))))))
No... even MOAR funny.
ReplyDeleteIt fears b_l_a_c_k magic :-)))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: \\I argue with the truth and facts, not "merry idiotic tricks"\\THAT IS exactly an example of that merry idiotic tricks.
ReplyDelete\\Only to people who hate truth and facts. People like Qtard.
Said that thing that declared, NO sweared to -- NOT providing FACTUAL quotes... because sees em as some kind "afroamerican magic". :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Clear Oruelian "Truth -- it's lie" used.
\\Qtard: ...cite correct definition of what FACTS is.
\\"A fact is a thing that is known or proved to be true". Qtard asks because it doesn't know. It only cuts and pastes borrowed knowledge.
OK, Google. What "fact meaning"?
something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
Fact Definition & Meaning - Dictionary.com
www.dictionary.com › browse › fact
And...
Accidental gem.
I'm a Scientist, and I Don't Believe in Facts - Scientific American Blogs
blogs.scientificamerican.com › mind-guest-blog
According to the Oxford dictionary, a fact is “a thing that is known or proved to be true.” And where does proof come from? Science?
\\I argue with truth and facts by citing experts.
Words of expets -- it's not facts itself.
Your Captain Obvious. ;-P
So "citing expets" that is NOT "arguing with truth and facts" by itself, that is just hyporitical try to use someone else *OPINIONS* to claim being "arguing with truth and facts".
EXACTLY what a idiotic hyporite would do... in hopeless try to "sound smart".
Naturally. Being UNABLE to discern facts of Reality by itself. Clinging to somebody's OPINION as that invalid clinging to his cluthes/wheelchair. ;-P
\\But Qtard baselessly claims facts experts arrived at by studying the data is "Demn propaganda".
ReplyDeleteYOU... do not provide that excerpts where that "experts" would provide any facts... more then that, even their opinion.
But... somnehow it is MY fault, for you not performing your duty in a rational based on facts and logic conversation... :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: Cause... I-D-I-O-T.
\\Agreed. Qtard cannot give correct and logical explanation that what it does is "arguing with the truth and facts". Because Qtard does not. Because Qtard is an idiot.
And what DID I said... I-D-I-O-T.
Completele oblivious to that that such an idiotic trick of turning MY words against me -- only PROVE its idiocy. :-)))))
Easy to see -- if that words is WRONG -- repeating em, would be stupid.
And if they RIGHT... trying to using em opposite way -- would make em FALSE, inevitable.
Because OPPOSITION to Truth is... False.;-P
FLAWLESS LOGIC!
\\Qtard cut and pasted borrowed knowledge without understanding many many times. Yes.
Same as above. ;-P
\\Qtard: \\Yet I am too dumb to catch on? I just keep posting tricks thinking I MIGHT fool Qtard?\\You... gotcha.
\\Qtard can NOT be "fooled" with facts. Because Qtard disbelieves facts.
But... WHO claimed "I believe in facts".
Same as above.
\\I learned what Qtard's delusions are. Not hard. It repeats them over and over.
As precisely correct quotes of YOUR words? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
What an idiot. ;-P
\\Qtard doesn't care about proving it didn't lie. Because it knows it did lie. And it continues to lie.
Depry sweared that it will not provide QUOTES even. Cause, it sees as some kind "black magic" that disproves its delusional babbling each and every time. And now it trying to babble something about lying. That nasty relentless lyar and idiotic hypocrite, who lies EVEN about OWN words just said. :-) (ad infinitum)
Same as above.
\\Asking for proof only "lame babbling" to a liar like Qtard.
Proof of what? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))
That youy are idiot? Byt you proving it with each and ever of your blurts. :-))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Frankness and eloquence = 0%
Wasted on such an idiot. I know. :-))))))))))))))))
That was rethorical question. ;-P
\\Qtard: Or... you will think that what I'm saying.. it's some kind of trick?
\\Always.
Hah... you confirmed it!!! :-)))))))))) Itself.
That you are idiot, who sees logic and facts as some kind of "black magic". :-))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: \\...Qtard does not know what a fact is\\Then. Give the definition. But... you can't. You freakingly CANNOT do even that.
\\I can go to a dictionary website and cut and paste a definition. WITH understanding. Unlike Qtard. He obviously cuts and pastes definitions without understanding.
Empty babbling.
So... WHAT that "with understanding" mean??? If you SO wise and understanding -- you should be able to EXPLAIN it.
But... you can't.
All you can -- repeat MY words. In shallow try. To sound smart.
What a loser.
Same as above.
\\But Qtard baselessly claims facts experts arrived at by studying the data is "Demn propaganda".
ReplyDeleteYOU... do not provide that excerpts where that "experts" would provide any facts... more then that, even their opinion.
But... somnehow it is MY fault, for you not performing your duty in a rational based on facts and logic conversation... :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: Cause... I-D-I-O-T.
\\Agreed. Qtard cannot give correct and logical explanation that what it does is "arguing with the truth and facts". Because Qtard does not. Because Qtard is an idiot.
And what DID I said... I-D-I-O-T.
Completele oblivious to that that such an idiotic trick of turning MY words against me -- only PROVE its idiocy. :-)))))
Easy to see -- if that words is WRONG -- repeating em, would be stupid.
And if they RIGHT... trying to using em opposite way -- would make em FALSE, inevitable.
Because OPPOSITION to Truth is... False.;-P
FLAWLESS LOGIC!
\\Qtard cut and pasted borrowed knowledge without understanding many many times. Yes.
Same as above. ;-P
\\Qtard: \\Yet I am too dumb to catch on? I just keep posting tricks thinking I MIGHT fool Qtard?\\You... gotcha.
\\Qtard can NOT be "fooled" with facts. Because Qtard disbelieves facts.
But... WHO claimed "I believe in facts".
Same as above.
\\I learned what Qtard's delusions are. Not hard. It repeats them over and over.
As precisely correct quotes of YOUR words? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
What an idiot. ;-P
\\Qtard doesn't care about proving it didn't lie. Because it knows it did lie. And it continues to lie.
Depry sweared that it will not provide QUOTES even. Cause, it sees as some kind "black magic" that disproves its delusional babbling each and every time. And now it trying to babble something about lying. That nasty relentless lyar and idiotic hypocrite, who lies EVEN about OWN words just said. :-) (ad infinitum)
Same as above.
\\Asking for proof only "lame babbling" to a liar like Qtard.
Proof of what? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))
That youy are idiot? Byt you proving it with each and ever of your blurts. :-))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Frankness and eloquence = 0%
Wasted on such an idiot. I know. :-))))))))))))))))
That was rethorical question. ;-P
\\Qtard: Or... you will think that what I'm saying.. it's some kind of trick?
\\Always.
Hah... you confirmed it!!! :-)))))))))) Itself.
That you are idiot, who sees logic and facts as some kind of "black magic". :-))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: \\...Qtard does not know what a fact is\\Then. Give the definition. But... you can't. You freakingly CANNOT do even that.
\\I can go to a dictionary website and cut and paste a definition. WITH understanding. Unlike Qtard. He obviously cuts and pastes definitions without understanding.
Empty babbling.
So... WHAT that "with understanding" mean??? If you SO wise and understanding -- you should be able to EXPLAIN it.
But... you can't.
All you can -- repeat MY words. In shallow try. To sound smart.
What a loser.
Same as above.
\\But Qtard baselessly claims facts experts arrived at by studying the data is "Demn propaganda".
ReplyDeleteYOU... do not provide that excerpts where that "experts" would provide any facts... more then that, even their opinion.
But... somnehow it is MY fault, for you not performing your duty in a rational based on facts and logic conversation... :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: Cause... I-D-I-O-T.
\\Agreed. Qtard cannot give correct and logical explanation that what it does is "arguing with the truth and facts". Because Qtard does not. Because Qtard is an idiot.
And what DID I said... I-D-I-O-T.
Completele oblivious to that that such an idiotic trick of turning MY words against me -- only PROVE its idiocy. :-)))))
Easy to see -- if that words is WRONG -- repeating em, would be stupid.
And if they RIGHT... trying to using em opposite way -- would make em FALSE, inevitable.
Because OPPOSITION to Truth is... False.;-P
FLAWLESS LOGIC!
\\Qtard cut and pasted borrowed knowledge without understanding many many times. Yes.
Same as above. ;-P
\\Qtard: \\Yet I am too dumb to catch on? I just keep posting tricks thinking I MIGHT fool Qtard?\\You... gotcha.
\\Qtard can NOT be "fooled" with facts. Because Qtard disbelieves facts.
But... WHO claimed "I believe in facts".
Same as above.
\\I learned what Qtard's delusions are. Not hard. It repeats them over and over.
As precisely correct quotes of YOUR words? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
What an idiot. ;-P
\\Qtard doesn't care about proving it didn't lie. Because it knows it did lie. And it continues to lie.
Depry sweared that it will not provide QUOTES even. Cause, it sees as some kind "b_l_ack magic" that disproves its delusional babbling each and every time. And now it trying to babble something about lying. That nasty relentless lyar and idiotic hypocrite, who lies EVEN about OWN words just said. :-) (ad infinitum)
Same as above.
\\Asking for proof only "lame babbling" to a liar like Qtard.
Proof of what? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))
That youy are idiot? Byt you proving it with each and ever of your blurts. :-))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Frankness and eloquence = 0%
Wasted on such an idiot. I know. :-))))))))))))))))
That was rethorical question. ;-P
\\Qtard: Or... you will think that what I'm saying.. it's some kind of trick?
\\Always.
Hah... you confirmed it!!! :-)))))))))) Itself.
That you are idiot, who sees logic and facts as some kind of "black magic". :-))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: \\...Qtard does not know what a fact is\\Then. Give the definition. But... you can't. You freakingly CANNOT do even that.
\\I can go to a dictionary website and cut and paste a definition. WITH understanding. Unlike Qtard. He obviously cuts and pastes definitions without understanding.
Empty babbling.
So... WHAT that "with understanding" mean??? If you SO wise and understanding -- you should be able to EXPLAIN it.
But... you can't.
All you can -- repeat MY words. In shallow try. To sound smart.
What a loser.
Same as above.
\\But Qtard baselessly claims facts experts arrived at by studying the data is "Demn propaganda".
ReplyDeleteYOU... do not provide that excerpts where that "experts" would provide any facts... more then that, even their opinion.
But... somnehow it is MY fault, for you not performing your duty in a rational based on facts and logic conversation... :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: Cause... I-D-I-O-T.
\\Agreed. Qtard cannot give correct and logical explanation that what it does is "arguing with the truth and facts". Because Qtard does not. Because Qtard is an idiot.
And what DID I said... I-D-I-O-T.
Completele oblivious to that that such an idiotic trick of turning MY words against me -- only PROVE its idiocy. :-)))))
Easy to see -- if that words is WRONG -- repeating em, would be stupid.
And if they RIGHT... trying to using em opposite way -- would make em FALSE, inevitable.
Because OPPOSITION to Truth is... False.;-P
FLAWLESS LOGIC!
\\Qtard cut and pasted borrowed knowledge without understanding many many times. Yes.
Same as above. ;-P
\\Qtard: \\Yet I am too dumb to catch on? I just keep posting tricks thinking I MIGHT fool Qtard?\\You... gotcha.
\\Qtard can NOT be "fooled" with facts. Because Qtard disbelieves facts.
But... WHO claimed "I believe in facts".
Same as above.
\\I learned what Qtard's delusions are. Not hard. It repeats them over and over.
As precisely correct quotes of YOUR words? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
What an idiot. ;-P
\\Qtard doesn't care about proving it didn't lie. Because it knows it did lie. And it continues to lie.
Depry sweared that it will not provide QUOTES even. Cause, it sees as some kind "blac_k magic" that disproves its delusional babbling each and every time. And now it trying to babble something about lying. That nasty relentless lyar and idiotic hypocrite, who lies EVEN about OWN words just said. :-) (ad infinitum)
Same as above.
\\Asking for proof only "lame babbling" to a liar like Qtard.
Proof of what? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))
That youy are idiot? Byt you proving it with each and ever of your blurts. :-))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Frankness and eloquence = 0%
Wasted on such an idiot. I know. :-))))))))))))))))
That was rethorical question. ;-P
\\Qtard: Or... you will think that what I'm saying.. it's some kind of trick?
\\Always.
Hah... you confirmed it!!! :-)))))))))) Itself.
That you are idiot, who sees logic and facts as some kind of "blac_k magic". :-))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: \\...Qtard does not know what a fact is\\Then. Give the definition. But... you can't. You freakingly CANNOT do even that.
\\I can go to a dictionary website and cut and paste a definition. WITH understanding. Unlike Qtard. He obviously cuts and pastes definitions without understanding.
Empty babbling.
So... WHAT that "with understanding" mean??? If you SO wise and understanding -- you should be able to EXPLAIN it.
But... you can't.
All you can -- repeat MY words. In shallow try. To sound smart.
What a loser.
Same as above.
\\Even though it comments on a blog where American politics are discussed?
ReplyDeleteIs it?
And what could be evidances of it? ;-P
\\Only in the eyes of an idiot.
Yup.
In an eye of an idiot... its dislogic looks like somewthing logical.
What demonstrate all of the time. While ignoring chance to google for definition and exmaples of what Logic is.
Well, it would not be helpful for... IT, anyway. As it's impossible for idiot to groke logic. :-)))))))))))0
Even though it damn simple.
\\I doubt you are aware of this deficiency in yourself.
Well... to know that one have "blind spot" one must learn it from other people...
That's correct.
But, hardly what IT tryed to say.
IT... thinks that it do not have blind spots.
Well, IT babbled about it many times. :-))))))))))))))
\\I have never demonstrated "religious bonkery". Not once. Qtard only imagines I do.
Yep.
Like this one.
See above.
\\No. Why would you? Qtard hates facts. He disbelieves them. And imagines non-facts to take the place of facts.
Hmm... and who declared "I believe in facts" here???
\\Qtard imagines that Joe Biden's true motives are not doing what is best for America?
Hah... and WHO will be defining what "best for America"??? Bi-den again? :-)))))
\\Qtard: \\Qtard describes what he does\\And you can quote me? Naaah!
\\Yes. "dRump collusion with Rasha FAKE". One example of many.
But that... not MY words. ;-P
Well... as this excerpt shows, that was question about PARTICULAR quote. Related to discussed.
But, idiot tryed to gaslight here too. :-))))))) Idioticly.
\\ All Qtard can cite from me is that I believe in facts.
Or... that you do not like to be compared to Chinese.
Or... that you *DO* deny people their Human Rights.
And etc, and etc, and etc...
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
ReplyDelete\\ Then the liar ADDS bullplop about me not believing facts I don't like. Just like it added "em their rights" to another of my quotes. When I never wrote that.
That is... logical conclusions.
If one declare believing into something -- it same time concludes his inclination to NOT believe...
If one declare denying people to do something -- even though it is among theit freedoms, it simultaneuosly is denyal of ALL freedoms.
And etc, and etc, and etc...
Like.
Is Socrates a human? Yes, of course.
Do humans are mortals? Sure.
So... is Socraes mortal... well, actually dead already?
Maybe, No??? In accordance to idiot-Derpy, who do not know what Logic is. There CANNOT be, and SHOULD NOT be... such conclusions, anybody who know Logic could do.
ONLY something-something said by somebody-somebody -- "experts" it says... must be revered as conclusions.
Am I correct with my observations?
\\Prove it. Go away. Why stick around when things you CLAIM not to care about are the main topics of discussion?
Totalitarian Wannabe Derpy AGAIN trying to decide in my stead how to use my freedom? ;-P
Well... I do not see it -- where here is "main topics of discussion" is political brawls of USA???
Can you point to it? ;-P
For me to comprehend what you mean. :-)))))))))))))))
Well... anyway, WHY a cannot observe something... EVEN, if I am not interested in it?
Like... I am not interested in commercal advertisment... but, still happen to watch it -- as it everywhere.
\\Qtard: And I am very wise, and masterful. It seems\\No f*cking way\\Envious? Don't be. You'd not be able to change your idiotic nature. So, it would ne only bitter hopeless envy.
\\Not envious. In the least.
I'm glad that you able to listen to my wise advice. ;-P
\\Qtard is desperate to know what a hyperlink is? Google for it.
Homericly desperate. :-))))))))))))))))
\\To agree with logic Qtard quoted (but didn't understand)? Why would that make me an idiot?
Like you can distinguish. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0
\\"Demn religious nuttery" card played. Yet again. As if that automatically disproves facts. Qtard doesn't remember that donald tRump claimed that Obama spied on him? Because the FBI was watching Russians in the US and found they were in communication with tRump campaign people. And the Russians were offering help which the tRump campaign was eagerly accepting.
NOW!
I will properly demonstrate that I am NOT involved in your inner political brawls. And don't care about such things.
And will ignore it. ;-P Happy? :-))))))))))))))))))))))
LOL! LOTS of qtarded gibberish and babbling above. I am NOT going to reply to it all.
ReplyDeleteQtard: \\The first lie was that Durham said "dRump collusion with Rasha FAKE"\\I never claimed that\\LOL! That is a quote. ... Retract that claim if you want, but you can't say "I never claimed that"\\ Dumb ass... HOW???? Quoting something CAN mean "claiming it"???
You CLAIMED Durham said it. You also claim that there was no collusion. Qtard wrote (on this page, so easy to find)... That is called "proof by contradiction". Go, Google for it.
Enlighten yourself.
Qtard: Whoi do not understand difference between claiming anf refering. OMG!!! I didn't know SUCH idiocy possible!!!
Qtard referred AND claimed. *I* didn't know such idiocy was possible. Idiot claims something, then says, "no, I was just referring". If only referring, then Qtard thinks maybe tRump did collude? Even though it says collusion was disproved via "proof by contradiction"? Also because there has been no trial. Which he brings up over and over.
Qtard: DO I responsible for what any "somebody-somebody who saying something-somthing" babbling???
Babbling that Qtard said. Why I asked for the name of the reporter Qtard claims said it. But Qtard refuses. "proof by contradiction"... Qtard refuses to give name proves Qtard said it.
Qtard: And you can give logical and factual explanation -- how it possible??? That magical transmogrification of "false and stupid" words -- while *I* say it. INTO "wise and truthful", when IT says it. IT... do not know that ONE AND THE SAME thing CANNOT be True and False SAME TIME.
Depends on WHO it is said about. CAN be false about me and true about you. THAT is how it is possible. It isn't "True and False SAME TIME". Qtard doesn't understand because it is an idiot.
Qtard: ...do not provide that excerpts where that "experts" would provide any facts... more then that, even their opinion.
I have. Many times. Your comment doesn't even make sense. If I quote neither facts given by experts nor opinions given by experts -- that is nothing. A quote is something. I have never
written, I have proof from an expert, which is that the expert said nothing.
Qtard: Accidental gem. I'm a Scientist, and I Don't Believe in Facts - Scientific American Blogs
Bullshit. You didn't even read the article beyond the title. Proven by the fact that the author does not agree with you. That facts are a reflection of reality. Point to reality. The author says "facts don't actually exist". If you did read the article? Then Qtard lied. Didn't think I'd check.
Qtard: \\Asking for proof only "lame babbling" to a liar like Qtard\\Proof of what?
That some reporter (initially claimed to be John Durham) said "dRump collusion Rasha FAKE". Pay attention! Idiot can NOT follow along.
Qtard: As it's impossible for idiot to groke logic.
LOL! How does one "groke" logic? Urban dictionary says Groke is "Someone who stares at you while you are eating, in hopes that you will share your meal".
Qtard: Hah... and WHO will be defining what "best for America"??? Bi-den again?
Nope. "Bi-den" will not. Joe Biden will. Because that is how democracy works. The People voted for him to make such decisions. The democracy-hating Qtard obviously is clueless.
Qtard: \\"dRump collusion with Rasha FAKE". One example of many\\But that... not MY words.
ReplyDeleteQtard given MANY chances to give the name of who those words are. First he said John Durham said it. Then he said an unspecified reporter said it. Now he refuses to say. Logical conclusion is because Qtard lies. Qtard made up the fake quote. Qtard has been caught faking quotes several times already.
Qtard: ...that you do not like to be compared to Chinese. Or... that you *DO* deny people their Human Rights.
More fake quotes. Faked by the proven liar, Qtard. Link to where I supposedly said something along the lines of "I don't like being comparred to a Chinese person"?? Or "That", as you originally (falsely) claimed I said.
Qtard: \\ Then the liar ADDS bullplop about me not believing facts I don't like. Just like it added "em their rights" to another of my quotes. When I never wrote that\\ That is... logical conclusions.
It is not. I quoted John Locke to you, remember? He said "right of revolution" is conditional. Locke said there must be "a long train of abuses over an extended period". Qtard claimed it wasn't up to Locke to decide. Said he was "Locked brain".
John Locke "was an English philosopher and physician, widely regarded as one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers". While Qtard is some idiot on the internet. Who do I believe? John Locke. NOT the proven idiot, Qtard.
Qtard: If one declare believing into something -- it same time concludes his inclination to NOT believe.
"inclination to NOT believe" never stated by me.
Qtard: Is Socrates a human? Yes, of course. Do humans are mortals? Sure. So... is Socraes mortal... well, actually dead already? Maybe, No??? In accordance to idiot-Derpy ... Am I correct with my observations?
Stupidly incorrect. Every human is mortal. Answer couldn't possibly be "Maybe, no".
Qtard: Well... I do not see it -- where here is "main topics of discussion" is political brawls of USA??? Can you point to it? For me to comprehend what you mean.
Comprehension is clearly something you are incapable of. Look at Minus FJ's blog tagline (at the top of every page). It says "Politics from within a Conservative Bastion inside the People's Republic of Maryland". Maryland is a state in the United States. Joe Biden is an American politician. Marjorie Taylor Greene (mentioned in many posts) is a brawling US politician. She attacks Joe Biden and her son often. Minus FJ likes and posts about this. Yet Qtard CAN'T see that this is the main topic of discussion? Why? Serious brain damage?
Qtard: I will properly demonstrate that I am NOT involved in your inner political brawls. And don't care about such things. And will ignore it. Happy?
Qtard is involved in a discussion (many comments in) and NOW he says he will ignore my response? Proves that he doesn't care? No way. Proves that the "escape" Qtard mentioned previously is "Qtard's escape".
\\You CLAIMED Durham said it.
ReplyDeleteWTF????
Can you give a proper quote?
Naaah. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\You also claim that there was no collusion.
That there is NO proofs of collusion. Like: no dRump in jail, no cort trial verdict, no court trial EVEN... or some smoking gun evidances for at least...
Just Demn propaganda and infected by that Demn propaganda idiot ravings...
WHY I should admit being factual... something so stupid and apparently FALSE????
Am I an isiot? No, of course not. As rational and logical and smart being -- I must not fall for such a stupid trickery.
Especially, as that all doesn't touch me much. I do not live among that idiots. And do not need to play along with their idiotic and erratic behavior. :-))))))))))))))))))))
Am I frank and eloquent enough,here? ;-P
\\Qtard wrote (on this page, so easy to find)... That is called "proof by contradiction". Go, Google for it.
Enlighten yourself.
Gibberish.
\\Qtard referred AND claimed.
B.S. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
\\If only referring, then Qtard thinks maybe tRump did collude? Even though it says collusion was disproved via "proof by contradiction"? Also because there has been no trial. Which he brings up over and over.
Gibberish again.
Well... that is natural result of lbourous idiotic brain... which cannot do thinking in accordance with Logic.
All kinds of gibberish nonsense it only produceing. ;-P
\\Why I asked for the name of the reporter Qtard claims said it.
Do YOU paying much attention to the names of reporters?
Well... in a news feeds they do not show em anyway.
And that is just a idiotic try of Derpy to incriminate to me something.
I didn't tracked and did not remembered name of some semi-anonimous dude on the internet -- OMG, what a heinous crime I commited!!!! :-))))))))))))))))
Yes, De-Ru-Pi??? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: And you can give logical and factual explanation -- how it possible??? That magical transmogrification of "false and stupid" words -- while *I* say it. INTO "wise and truthful", when IT says it. IT... do not know that ONE AND THE SAME thing CANNOT be True and False SAME TIME.
\\Depends on WHO it is said about.
Naaaah, it not.
You only YET ONE time showed... that you TOTALLY OBLIVIOUS of what Logic is about. ;-P
\\CAN be false about me and true about you.
Not... "false about me and true about you"... but about FACTS.
If there is that fact that you are idiot (because, demionstrating idiotic behavior: lack of logic, idiotic stubborness, lack of metaphor understanding and imagination, and etc...) -- then calling you idiot whould be TRUTHFUL and factual.
If there is that screaching of an idiot (with gaslighting, false pretence, faked quotes and all kinds of lame idiotic tricks altogether) that somebosy else is idiot -- that is apparently FALSE claim.
But... FACTS first.
And facts... tell no lies. ;-) (if it not some idiot which "(dis)believes in facts")
ReplyDelete\\THAT is how it is possible. It isn't "True and False SAME TIME". Qtard doesn't understand because it is an idiot.
Yap.
Idiot do not know what Transitivity Rule is about.
Cause... it's I-D-I-O-T.
\\I have. Many times. Your comment doesn't even make sense. If I quote neither facts given by experts nor opinions given by experts -- that is nothing. A quote is something. I have never
written, I have proof from an expert, which is that the expert said nothing.
Gibberish.
Yawn.
\\Bullshit. You didn't even read the article beyond the title. Proven by the fact that the author does not agree with you. That facts are a reflection of reality. Point to reality. The author says "facts don't actually exist". If you did read the article? Then Qtard lied. Didn't think I'd check.
As I thought... idiot would not understand what OTHER smart person would write. ;-P
Now your idiocy confirmed even more.
Even past your lame pretence -- that it's ONLY between you and me.
YOU, do not understand other smart people too.
Cause... you are idiot. ;-P
\\Qtard: \\Asking for proof only "lame babbling" to a liar like Qtard\\Proof of what?
\\That some reporter (initially claimed to be John Durham) said "dRump collusion Rasha FAKE". Pay attention! Idiot can NOT follow along.
Here.
I'll give attyention to it. ;-P
That is lame idiot's trick to gaslight that something "(initially claimed to be John Durham) said" really happend.
But... it cannot provide a proper quote where and how it happened.
What an idiot.
Which thinks that if it CANNOT follow conversation and remember what and where and in what context was said... it can freely try to gaslight opponent. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
What a moron. ;-P
\\Qtard: As it's impossible for idiot to groke logic.
\\LOL! How does one "groke" logic? Urban dictionary says Groke is "Someone who stares at you while you are eating, in hopes that you will share your meal".
THANKS for helping bettering my English. ;-P
Grok Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › grok
The meaning of GROK is to understand profoundly and intuitively. Did you know?
\\Qtard: Hah... and WHO will be defining what "best for America"??? Bi-den again?
\\Nope. "Bi-den" will not. Joe Biden will. Because that is how democracy works.
YOU said it. ;-P
My little totalitarian wannabe... who want to thrug off burden of responsibility of deciding... for itself.
At somebody else.
\\Qtard given MANY chances to give the name of who those words are.
Whatever.
It's not important.
Or... you are free to EXPLAIN. With facts amd logic -- WHY that is SO DAMN important. (apart from your idiotic desperation to find at least something to "sting" me with) :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0
\\First he said John Durham said it.
And IT can confirm that with QUOTES???
Naaah. :-)))))))))))))))))
\\Then he said an unspecified reporter said it. Now he refuses to say. Logical conclusion is because Qtard lies.
ReplyDeleteELABORATE please.
HOW you came to that "logical conclusion"? ;-P
IT should be able... if that REALLY was logical conclusion.
But, naaaah... IT... do not get it, what "logical conclusion" mean.
IT... just uses such a words in shallow and idiotic pretence to "sound smarter". :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
While in reality... IT UNABLE even to use Google to find definition of what logical conclusion is... CAUSE, I-D-I-O-T would not be able to grok and use it anyway. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
\\More fake quotes. Faked by the proven liar, Qtard. Link to where I supposedly said something along the lines of "I don't like being comparred to a Chinese person"?? Or "That", as you originally (falsely) claimed I said.
We both know. That you'll IGNORE that lonks and quotes.
Will claim "that is not my words". Or "that words mean something else".
\\I quoted John Locke to you, remember? He said "right of revolution" is conditional.
That is... just his opinion.
While FACTS talking for itself.
\\Qtard claimed it wasn't up to Locke to decide.
Yep.
And that is obvious.
That Locke CANNOT know what other people, separated from him in thousand iles and hundreds of years would deem as "a long train of abuses over an extended period".
Like Yellow Jackets in France today. Or BLM rioter. Or... who ever.
That is UP TO THAT people to decide -- what they feel, and deem as grave matters... deserving rioting, and even uprising. Or Revolution.
Not up to some long as dead "Locke". Or some idiot, with totalitarian wannabe streaks...
\\John Locke "was an English philosopher and physician, widely regarded as one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers".
In China? Or in deeps of Africa? Maybe, they revere him in Russia?
Naaah, naaah and naaaaaaaaaaaah. ;-P
ReplyDelete\\While Qtard is some idiot on the internet. Who do I believe? John Locke. NOT the proven idiot, Qtard.
Like I asked to believe me... even once. ;-P
I just talk with facts and logic.
And that is up to opponents... to "believe" into em, ot not.
\\"inclination to NOT believe" never stated by me.
But... demonstrated. ;-P
\\Qtard: Is Socrates a human? Yes, of course. Do humans are mortals? Sure. So... is Socraes mortal... well, actually dead already? Maybe, No??? In accordance to idiot-Derpy ... Am I correct with my observations?
\\Stupidly incorrect. Every human is mortal. Answer couldn't possibly be "Maybe, no".
YAP!
Maybe you still able to grok some Logic... :-))))
Naaah.
\\Comprehension is clearly something you are incapable of. Look at Minus FJ's blog tagline (at the top of every page). It says "Politics from within a Conservative Bastion inside the People's Republic of Maryland". Maryland is a state in the United States. Joe Biden is an American politician. Marjorie Taylor Greene (mentioned in many posts) is a brawling US politician. She attacks Joe Biden and her son often. Minus FJ likes and posts about this. Yet Qtard CAN'T see that this is the main topic of discussion? Why? Serious brain damage?
Easy-peasy.
Does anybody who posts fotos of a food is a cook?
Or one who posts canvas prints -- painter?
He disclosed to me that he just like to see lively discussions in his blog.
That is... not enough to decide that goal is to talk about politics exactly.
And well... I am foreigner... and that's not easy for me to decide -- is any(?) of that topics have any relation to USA politics...
Quite opposite, from what I know about politics. I looks like some stupid noise. And... there is no proper discussion, naturally.
\\Qtard is involved in a discussion (many comments in) and NOW he says he will ignore my response? Proves that he doesn't care? No way. Proves that the "escape" Qtard mentioned previously is "Qtard's escape".
Call it whatever you like.
Yawn.
Derpy's Escape? ;-P
ReplyDelete