Total posts: 5,875
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Thanks for sharing. But that was an "epiphany" for you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Hey Dee Dee, You keep bleating that I'm running away when I come and burn you. Are you confused?
Your lame schtick is old, silly, and boring. I mean, you're actually blathering about Del Shannon, a 1960's b-level pop star! How ancient are you?
Dee Dee, can you say anything with sense in it? Anything at all? Could I be mistaking you? Could it be you are trying to convince people that atheists are idiots? You're pretty good if that is your goal.
No matter. I will help you convince people of your vacuousness if that is what you want. I have no problem with it. Now, make another loony post where you blab about 1960' has beens and drone about chickens, using your loser template of course. And I will burn you again. Don't forget the caps and bolding! The schtick must go on!
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
The problem I think everyone is overlooking is that Twitter is not just banning Parler for term violations on their(Twitter/Apple) platforms, but banning Parler for what they see as "violations" on Parler's own platform.
..b.parlor's platform is on Apple's platform.
In Apple's case, but this is not true for Google or Twitter.
Parlor had to agree to Apple's terms of service in order to be on their app store. they violated those terms of service and got kicked out. It is very simple.
It's very hypocritical. Apple did not sanction others doing the same thing or worse.
Not by you. You didn't think it was incitement to violence. Why?
I didn't even know this happened until I looked it up a few minutes ago. I agree what she did was wrong. But she didn't spend months convincing millions of people that trump had stolen an election and was literally going to destroy the country.
She spent years convincing millions of people that trump was an illigetimate president
Then organized a riot in the capitol where people actually tried to carry out a murder of the president.
What do you think coming out with the bloody severed head of the president was supposed to mean? If Trump had done that, you'd now be calling it incitement to murder.
Trump did spend months convincing people of delusional conspiracies.
This is your opinion, not fact. And the MSM is guilty of this every day. Remember Russia, Russia, Russia? Or quid pro quo? Or collusion? Delusional conspiracies all.
He did organize a riot,...
Lie. He did not.
then get them riled up then they did attack democracy where they tried to murder government officials.
Ridiculous accusations. Do you listen to yourself?
Let's not pretend 1 tweet from a comedian and
Let's not pretend 1 tweet from a comedian and months of lies and conspiracy theories from the sitting president of the united states are the same thing.
Your spin is not what happened. Griffin was on SNL, she was not alone, and she was a constant abuser of Trump, from the day he announced his run for the presidency. 78 million American citizens disagree with your opinion of lies and conspiracy theories.
The ones pretending here are you and the Democrats. Pretending all this huhbub is anything more than a ludacrous partisan attempt at cancelling Trump. I still cannot tell if hypocrisy is required to be Democrat, or if that party just draws hypocrites.
Created:
-->
@drafterman
230, not free speech.
And Twitter has banned Parler's account on Twitter. (And Parker's CEO)
Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Twitter have taken steps to sanction Parler. For stuff on Parler's platform! That is certainly not correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
- Trump's admitted trait of lying (see the "I didn't say anything as to not create panic" tapes and those things)
Untrue. He admitted a trait of concern for public safety. "Trait of lying" is your spin.
- Trump's several instances of criminal behavior and pardoning of those who are also criminal (and in a lot of cases not a little criminal, but a lotta criminal)
You would be more credible if you didn't call everything Trump did "criminal". Are you against the President's ability to pardon, or are you against whom he pardoned? Only people who have run afoul of the law need pardons. Trump, and indeed any President, can only pardon criminals. Your condemnation here is not only illogical, but it shows how deeply you have been brainwashed.
- The actual phrasing of his request; "I just want to find 11,780 votes,"
Trump meant that the entire vote did not need to be verified, just 11,780. He was not asking for illegal votes, but for verification of legal votes.
- The seeing, threat of blackmail if he refuses; ""You know what they did and you're not reporting it. That's a criminal offence. You can't let that happen. That's a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer,"
This is clearly true. If the vote was rigged and he knows it, validating the results would be criminal, and he and lawyer would suffer penalties. How can the truth about our legal system be a threat? Trump is NOT saying, there will be penalties if you don't fake the vote in my favor, he's saying there will be penalties if you know the vote is fake and you validate it. This is true and there was nothing threatening about it.
It is not a case of reading his mind, but finding what is most likely.
You bias is not what is most likely. It isn't even what is likely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Trump tried to use the office of the president to get a foreign power to intervene in a US election.
Both the US Senate and reality disagreed.
that is absolutely impeachable.
No Republican said it wasn't impeachable. What they said was that is not what Trump did. And the President of that foreign power, who happened to be the other party on that phone call, disagrees with you and the hypo-demo-crites.
And he was impeached for it.
Completely partisan. A single party attempt at a coup. But our founding fathers were smart enough to make sure that a single party could not remove a president.
Actually, this is sort of just an extension of it I suppose. His dirty tricks (like extorting foreign powers) couldn't steal the election, so now he tried to use a violent insurrection to steal it.
Would you like me to send you actual video of Biden boasting of his extorting a foreign power? Your claims now of a "violent insurrection" would not be so laughable if you hadn't spent the last summer congratulating and endorsing an, actual violent insurrection. Do you not know you're being hypocritical or do you just not care?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
What is QAnon?
The diversion bait he wants you to take so you don't press him on his non answers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Many of my "epiphanies" have been from remembering things I was told or read many years prior that finally "clicked".
Can you share one with us?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
@FLRW
Don't forget Trump's republican values of increasing unemployment from 4.3 percent when he tookoffice to 6.7 percent when he will leave. A
Disingenuous. Trump decreased unemployment until covid caused the economy to slow. You have basically told a lie.
he increased the National Debt by $7.8 trillion.
Congress controls spending, not the President, and Congress was democratic. Another lie.
But then what else would a low intellect con-man do?
You aren't a con man. Your intellect is too low.
Dismissing the Associated Press as fake news discredits your argument more than any counter from me possibly could.
Lol. Right. What's the difference in what is reported and how it's reported between MSNBC, CNN, and the AP? Nothing. The AP is basically just another arm of the DNC.
Since by that claim alone you demonstrate ignorance of what is real and what is not, why should anybody give your opinion any weight?
Cancelling again? Think about it Einstein. We say the election was rigged, and you post the rigged election results as "proof" that it wasn't rigged! Is that a logical response?
I don't need you to give me any "weight". I'd rather you answer questions instead of dodging and running away.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Hi Dee Dee!
Sorry, but you post is again just a bunch of inane gibberish. How old are you? Calling people "chicken" is pretty childish.
Your drone of runaway is not getting any traction. The only person you're making look like a fool is you.
You might want to look up the word "template" before you try to use it in a sentence again. Just sayin'. The guys at Landover aren't big on grammar are they.
Will they sanction you if you drop the schtick?
Created:
-->
@drafterman
@3RU7AL
@HistoryBuff
@fauxlaw
Twitter can be a platform or a publisher and they have to be consistent. If they want to be a platform, they have to allow ANYBODY to post what they want to post on the site. If they wish to be a publisher, they can be sued for inaccurate claims. Twitter can’t be both. DART can’t be both. Both sites have to pick.
Thank you U-dog.
The problem I think everyone is overlooking is that Twitter is not just banning Parler for term violations on their(Twitter/Apple) platforms, but banning Parler for what they see as "violations" on Parler's own platform. An analogy would be like Saudi Arabia trying to incarcerate an American for doing something IN AMERICA that Saudi Arabia thinks is a crime in Saudi Arabia.
So your example is of another person who did something inappropriate and who was also punished for it.
Not by you. You didn't think it was incitement to violence. Why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It is impossible to quantify what a person "sincerely believed at the time".
Liberals seem to have no problem reading Trump's mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Try making slightly fewer personal attacks.
I made no personal attack on any Dart member. If you feel attacked you shouldn't have. But if you can make personal attacks on people who are not members of Dart, say, like our President, I can also claim the right. Ethan has a big no hypocrisy zone around him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Again you simply post a verse as if it is an argument. Let me do the same thing to highlight your error.
James 2:3 - And ye have respect to him that wears gay clothing, and say to him, You sit here in a good place; and say to the poor, you stand stand there, or sit here under my footstoolr
Jas 2:4 - Are you not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
Are these verses talking about people in homosexual clothing?
Those verses do not say slaves would not be paid.
Those verses use the word "slave" in the ancient Hebrew context.
Debt is what is owned, inherited and passed on, not the person.
Stop lying. For 2,000 years people have tried lies, they have never worked.
Created:
Posted in:
And every one of those qualities is vital for a good president? The sheer pettiness of the derangement is astounding. I, and millions of American citizens, love Trump because he....
1. Kept his promises to us
2. Improved the economy
3. Respected our religious rights
4. Attended to America first
5. Did not tolerate loony leftist ideas
6. Started no wars
7. Kept our military strong
8. Placed sane judges on the courts
9. Did not care for political correctness
10. Was transparent, saying to us exactly what he thought
All of these assertions are counterfactual except number 6- no wars.
Lol. All are cold facts. Only #6 you can't spin. But remember Democrats predicted Trump would get us in a war, and tried to restrict the traditional power of the president. Blazing hypocrites all.
Presidential results From The Associated Press...
Why are you reposting the same bogus results from a fake news site?
Not every vote for Trump should be misinterpreted as love for Trump
I said nothing about love. And love matters not concerning votes. Every vote for Trump is a vote for Trump,
Most Americans who voted for Trump nevertheless recognize that Biden won the election (including Donald Trump)
Quite untrue. Trump acquiesced when he realized that Biden had successfully stolen the election and that continued resistance would likely spark off a civil war.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has voiced his support for impeachment, although he has not yet decided to vote for conviction.
The rush to kiss the ring of the new king will be hectic. It happens every changeover.
One cannot claim to be an American citizen but also seek the violent rejection of the main instrument of democracy. You must choose one or the other.
So says the total hypocrite who rejected the main instrument of democracy the entire 4 years Trump was in office. Get away from me before I puke.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I predict a mass Las Vegas style shooting for sure.
At the inauguration??
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Do you then think is weird that the mass media praised the people looting and burning down small businesses all over the country and re condemning the people who were let in to the capitol and broke only a couple of windows?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Amazon is backtracking a little now because they know they would lose in court.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wagyu
A few months ago I was challenged by Willows to an online debate on a DDO board regarding whether using the N-word was a sign of racism. It soon became clear that he was just an immature racist trying to create opportunities to use the n-word and escape sanction and charges of racism.
He started posting racist jokes, sanctimoniously asking, "are these racist?" Soon he graduated to insulting Africans though the convo had nothing to do with Africans. When he followed me here to Dart, he was terrified to have his old racist remarks posted here. That is one of the reasons he changed his name.
I say all this because banning words misses the point. It's silly. It isn't words that harm, but racists. Racists are toxic no matter what words they use. Their is rancid feces is not in their words but I their hearts. Banning the words and leaving the racist leaves their poo untouched. Willows tried to hide his racism, but his putrid heart found other ways to pour out his toxic poo anyway.
So while Dart still has free speech, the free racist was banned and the problem ceased to exist. (Until the compulsive dweeb started making fake accounts.) For some reason, this thread (and it's title) by Wagyu reminds me of Willows and his disingenuous racist threads.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
ONLY ISRAELITE "INDENTURED SERVANTS" WERE "PAID"FOREIGN BORN SLAVES WERE OWNED FOR LIFE AND INHERITED BY HEIRS.
Untrue. And as you've been corrected several times, I can only conclude now that your religious hatred is causing you to willfully lie. FLRW only thinks what others tell him, but you really should be a better thinker.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
In burning down small businesses or burning down the capitol, which do you think would be more harmful to the country?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Any logic, no matter how sound, that vindicates Trump, will be rejected by the Democrats and their liberal hordes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Atheist forget that small fact when they try to argue that the Bible condones slavery.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
It's rather questionable as to whether or not Trump or Guiliani could even be convicted in court because of the 1st amendment free speech standards. The big thing may have to do with the 2 mile walk from the white house to the capitol and that, under 1st amendment jurisprudence, there is the requirement of "imminent" unlawful violence, or something like that. I haven't read much in to it. This issue's not going to protect him from conviction in the senate, and there's also the whole self pardon stuff.Nonsense.
You do realize I was presenting an argument that would probably used as a defense in Trump's favor - Right?
Only if we first accept your fake charge that Trump is guilty. And this is a common liberal trick. Present an argument "that would probably used as a defense in Trump's favor" and validate that Trump needs a defense, thus validating your original bogus charge. It is nonsense Death. All of it is.
You are a hypocrite. But I did not list that as the reason why your argument is in error. You aren't wrong because you are a hypocrite. That would be the Tu quoque fallacy. You are wrong about Trump because your case against him is illogical. I show the illogic by forcing you to apply your criteria to other cases.
You dodged at first, but when pushed, you had to answer. The question had no satisfactory answer for you because agreeing BLM/Antifa were similar would instantly highlight your inconstancy, but saying that the BLM/Antifa case was different would require you to state that difference. So you again hedged and said you don't know. That my friend is hypocrisy. Hypocrisy isn't what makes you wrong, being wrong is what makes you need to be a hypocrite.
BLM has a website. They stated their purpose. They directly called for insurrection and violence. And in many cities, over many months, there was violence and forceful takeovers of governmental institutions. Yet you stand here telling us that you don't know specific cases with BLM/Antifa, implying that there is more "evidence of incitement" for Trump. I call you a hypocrite only because I don't want to call you a liar.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
If this isn't impeachable, literally nothing is.
Remember the Democrats said the same thing about the phone call. Where they lose credibility is when we see that for them, literally anything Trump does is "impeachable".
This is a bald play to get the Senate to bar Trump from running in 2024.
They know in the next 4 years, the truth about the election rigging will see sunlight. The MSM cares only about money, not truth. So when it becomes profitable to disseminate the truth, the stories they are suppressing now will come out. Trump GAINED popularity after both impeachments. By 2024, after the truth about the rigged election and the Democrats cover-up, Trump will be electable. They know this, so they are being pro-active now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
You were being duplicitous.
This is false. You made this up.
You dodged answering the question because your answer for similar scenarios were different. You know this, so you dodged answering. That is textbook duplicity.
You are assigning motive.
No, I did not assign motive. This was also made up.
You said it was insurrection. You did assign motive.
You have picked "inserrection" and are pretending your spin is reality.
Brutal argued, implicitly, that what Trump did was not actual crime. Brutal did not seem to understand that inciting an insurrection is an actual crime.
You are pretending that inciting an insurrection is what Trump did. That is just your biased opinion based on your feelings. We know this because you do not (and did not) call similar and/or worse situations, insurrections.
The question required a simple yes or no, your fake "answer" rode in-between the two.
What you don't understand is that I was responding to the statement beneath the question more than the question itself.
Lol. Yeah. In the non-TDS world, that is called hypocrisy.
You actually dodged 3RU7AL's questions. No surprise there. Hypocrisy abounds.
OK. Here was his question -Are the people who organized other protests that ended in burning buildings and broken windows also "culpable"?The answer is "I don't know."
We know you don't know Death! We're the ones telling you that you don't know. Yet you have already convicted Trump of inciting an insurrection. You don't know.
The reality is that I don't have enough information about their conduct to answer that question. How the hell am I supposed to form an opinion about the guilt or innocence of someone with this limited information.
Yet you've done exactly that with Trump! TDS accounts for the difference in your answers for BLM/Antifa and Trump, and your hypocrisy helps you maintain that bias.
It's rather questionable as to whether or not Trump or Guiliani could even be convicted in court because of the 1st amendment free speech standards. The big thing may have to do with the 2 mile walk from the white house to the capitol and that, under 1st amendment jurisprudence, there is the requirement of "imminent" unlawful violence, or something like that. I haven't read much in to it. This issue's not going to protect him from conviction in the senate, and there's also the whole self pardon stuff.
Nonsense. The whole thing is bogus, from the original silly hysterical charge of "inciting insurrection". Those routers could have killed every lawmaker in the Capitol building and burned it to the ground, and the US govt. would not have collapsed. The democrat's and mass media charge of insurrection is just stupidity, as has been every other hysterical charged flung at him over the last 4 years. You dodge because your charges cannot stand scrutiny.
Facts are proven with evidence. There are only degrees of certainty. There is evidence of intent.
No sir. That is just your bogus spin. There is evidence of your hypocrisy though.
Is it beyond a reasonable doubt? Not that I'm aware of.
You've assigned to Trump a particular motive, you're blaming him for the actions of others, and you admit your bogus standard cannot convict BLM/Antifa in a similar case more clear and more violent, yet you have convicted Trump.
I call gross hypocrisy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
But if all you are going to do is hurl slander, I have more important things to do.
If you want to speak like a grown adult, we can do that.
Lol! Apparently, you have nothing more important to do.
Have a good day Draft. Hope your huffy goodbye sticks this time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Not in function. Twitter and the MSM are arms of the Democratic party.
No they aren't.
Sure they are. Same with FB and Google and Amazon.
Which ones?
If you don't lie, you won't have to remember when and where you did.
Exactly, there are no such posts.
Your denials will not affect the sites server.
Uhm, every political party opposites the other political party's candidate prior to their election. That's what campaigning is all about.
TDS is still TDS
So when Trump opposed Clinton before the election, that was TDS? You're not making any sense.
You lack logic. I said nothing about opposites. You did. You are suffering from TDS. It is clear and obvious, but not to you.
The ability of Twitter to block whoever it wishes it protected by the First Amendment.
Where did I say "First Amendment" hypocrite?
Nowhere.
Thank you hypocrite.
The "special privilege" here is the first amendment.
No sir. I said it, I know what it is. Keep your hypocrisy to yourself please.
Right, restrictions on the government apply to actions taken by the government and its officials. Thus Twitter can ban the president because Twitter isn't the government, but the President can't block people because the President is a government official.
Lol!! Thanks for proving my point. You said, "There is no due process with respect to Twitter." Yes, but when you're a dweeb getting blocked by Trump there IS.
Right, because you have due processes to actions taken against you by Trump...
On Twitter. So "There IS due process with respect to Twitter."
Not, on Twitter, anywhere.
You said, "...wrespect to Twitter" Did you forget?
No, I'm asking you if you are accusing me of a crime. Are you?
You are confused. You are accusing Trump of a crime. I am accusing you of hypocrisy.
What was the point of mentioning that Antifa where masks when I responded that I have not engaged in criminal activities as them, except to imply I did engage in said criminal activities but was disguised?
Or to show your denials could not be validated.
I have supported none of those things. You are correct that my old posts remain up for all to see. So cite one. Cite one hypocritical post. Cite one post where I supported violence. Cite one post where I supported burning down cities. Cite one post where I supported attacking security officers and peaceful citizens.
One. Just one post, ethang. You brought it up, my posts are there for all to see. CITE ONE you coward.
You are a deluded leftie Draft. You are convinced that all your motives and behaviors are righteous. You would simply insist that your post was not hypocritical.
What post?
A single post. Cite one. Coward.
Grade school taunts will not move me. Debating deranged people about whether they are deranged would be silly. I was brave enough to point out your hypocrisy.
Where did you point it out?
Pointing out hypocrisy to hypocritical people would be silly. Hopefully, after enough time has passed, you will recover from TDS and regain your sanity.
Created:
Posted in:
You are correct so often!
Thanks Jane. You are truthful so often.
To Zed - I don't need any more "proof" than I already have.
Neither do I.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
If there is lawful authority to be in a restricted area then it is not a violation just being there. Brutal didn't ask about that.
Then why did you bring it up? You were being duplicitous. You are assigning motive. A person who enters a restricted area can have a varied motives. You have picked "inserrection" and are pretending your spin is reality. The question required a simple yes or no, your fake "answer" rode in-between the two.
You actually dodged 3RU7AL's questions. No surprise there. Hypocrisy abounds.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
We're not talking about the Democratic party, we're talking about Twitter.
Is there a difference?
Yes
Not in function. Twitter and the MSM are arms of the Democratic party.
I have never done this.
Your past posts say you lie.
Which ones?
If you don't lie, you won't have to remember when and where you did.
So?
TDS.
Uhm, every political party opposites the other political party's candidate prior to their election. That's what campaigning is all about.
TDS is still TDS
The hypocrites were afraid the Senate would take away their special privileges.
I would hardly call the First Amendment a "special privilege"...
Where did I say "First Amendment"?
The ability of Twitter to block whoever it wishes it protected by the First Amendment.
Where did I say "First Amendment" hypocrite?
Right, restrictions on the government apply to actions taken by the government and its officials. Thus Twitter can ban the president because Twitter isn't the government, but the President can't block people because the President is a government official.
Lol!! Thanks for proving my point. You said, "There is no due process with respect to Twitter." Yes, but when you're a dweeb getting blocked by Trump there IS.
Right, because you have due processes to actions taken against you by Trump...
On Twitter. So "There IS due process with respect to Twitter."
Are you accusing me of a crime?
I'm accusing you of hypocrisy. Are you confused?
No, I'm asking you if you are accusing me of a crime. Are you?
You are confused. You are accusing Trump of a crime. I am accusing you of hypocrisy.
I have supported none of those things. You are correct that my old posts remain up for all to see. So cite one. Cite one hypocritical post. Cite one post where I supported violence. Cite one post where I supported burning down cities. Cite one post where I supported attacking security officers and peaceful citizens.
One. Just one post, ethang. You brought it up, my posts are there for all to see. CITE ONE you coward.
You are a deluded leftie Draft. You are convinced that all your motives and behaviors are righteous. You would simply insist that your post was not hypocritical. Like Congress saying their 1st impeachment of Trump was not partisan.
Like I said to you, I don't need your agreement. I'm not asking for your approval. You are a hypocrite, of course you will not admit to it publicly. Take heart in that you are not alone. The entire democratic Congress is right there with you.
Adam Schiff has evidence of Russia collusion remember?
A single post. Cite one. Coward.
Grade school taunts will not move me. Debating deranged people about whether they are deranged would be silly. I was brave enough to point out your hypocrisy.
Sorry, it stinks in here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
@Tradesecret
That is just about as clear a statement of bigotry and intentional ignorance that you will find.Imagine if President Trump made such a statement about the elections. The media would be all over him like a rash using it to confirm their position about him.
Not just the media, but FLRW himself would be among them.
Einstein's views on religion hold no more weight than anyone elses. Not sure why he makes it into arguments on theism
Some people use him to do their thinking for them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So, do you think wandering aimlessly through the Capital Building qualifies?
Mere bodily presence isn't sufficient. The person must have actual knowledge that the area is restricted.
See the fakery?
First, perchance the person is there to steal, not overthrow the govt. It is Democrats assigning motive. A person who enters a restricted area can have a veriaty of motives.
2nd, they were let in by legitimate authority, the capitol police. So how is it "restricted"?
We have had several people illegally enter the capitol and the White House, how many of them were charged with "insurrection"? None. When BLM/Antifa entered and took over police stations by force, was that insurrection?
The hypocrisy is so thick here, I need a cutlass.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Trump wasn't blocked based on his political affiliation...
Of course he was. And now Democrats are talking about cancelling those who affiliated with Trump. Virtually everything done to Trump in the last 4 years by the Democrats was politically motivated.
We're not talking about the Democratic party, we're talking about Twitter.
Is there a difference?
Since I am neither a liberal nor a hypocrite, I can't answer this.
You won't answer because you are a hypocrite
I won't answer because it's not a question about me.
At least now you admit you won't answer, not that you can't answer. No worries, the fact that liberals are hypocrites is lost only on liberals.
I'm not asking you to convince me. I'm asking you to identify it.
I've pointed it out. You don't like it. Eh.
You've made accusations, sure, but you've yet to point out or identify anything I've specifically done. You've made broad accusations about "liberals" and "Democrats" but nothing about me.
I wonder how much longer your anal posts would be if you thought it was about you?
How has my opinion about discrimination changed?
When it's Trump being discriminated against, your opinion goes to, "it's ok and legal!"
And how is that a change?
When it's one of your loony liberals you up in arms about discrimination.
I have never done this.
Your past posts say you lie.
I support the banning of Trump because he is a loatheseome person that spreads misinformation and incites violence.
You and your loony Democrats opposed Trump before he even had a presidential record.
So?
TDS.
If Twitter wanted to ban him for political reasons, they would have done so long ago.
They could not, though they wanted to. Now they have, and it was purely political.
Why couldn't they before?
The hypocrites were afraid the Senate would take away their special privileges.
I would hardly call the First Amendment a "special privilege" but it's nice of you to admit that the Republicans would try to take it away from people to protect their own.
Where did I say "First Amendment" hypocrite?
No, if it was political, they would have banned both.
Nope. Because Biden is about to take over the account, and their hypocrisy would be harder to deny and hide if they had to reactivate it for him.
It wouldn't be hypocritical at all. I'm beginning to suspect you don't think you know what the word means.
You are a fine definition of the word.
His due process rights only apply to government actions. Twitter is not the government. There is no due process with respect to Twitter.
Yet a renegade judge found that Trump could not block people from his Twitter account!
Right, restrictions on the government apply to actions taken by the government and its officials. Thus Twitter can ban the president because Twitter isn't the government, but the President can't block people because the President is a government official.
Lol!! Thanks for proving my point. You said, "There is no due process with respect to Twitter." Yes, but when you're a dweeb getting blocked by Trump there IS.
I haven't done any of those things, ethang.
Antifa scum wore masks exactly for this reason. It's called "derangement" for a reason Draft.
Are you accusing me of a crime?
I'm accusing you of hypocrisy. Are you confused?
Can you show how I have done any of those things? No, you cannot.
You supported all of those things. Remember your old posts remain up for all to see. I didn't make you a hypocrite Draft. It just seems to come with your particular political bent.
I have supported none of those things. You are correct that my old posts remain up for all to see. So cite one. Cite one hypocritical post. Cite one post where I supported violence. Cite one post where I supported burning down cities. Cite one post where I supported attacking security officers and peaceful citizens.
One. Just one post, ethang. You brought it up, my posts are there for all to see. CITE ONE you coward.
You are a deluded leftie Draft. You are convinced that all your motives and behaviors are righteous. You would simply insist that your post was not hypocritical. Like Congress saying their 1st impeachment of Trump was not partisan.
Like I said to you, I don't need your agreement. I'm not asking for your approval. You are a hypocrite, of course you will not admit to it publicly. Take heart in that you are not alone. The entire democratic Congress is right there with you.
Adam Schiff has evidence of Russia collusion remember?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
This position is not supported by the evidence. Everything else you said is off topic.
Abject nonsense.
No.
Sure it is. Meuller found none of your "evidence". The Senate found none of your "evidence". If Trump sneezes, you deranged never trumpers see it as "evidence".
Trump caused an angry mob to attack the capitol.
Trump encouraged protesters to march to the Capital Building.This is hardly the first time protesters marched to the Capital Building.Capital police let protesters into the building.Do you think anti-Trump protesters would have acted any differently if they had been let into the building? - 3RU7AL
Thank you 3RU7AL. TDS leaves no room for common sense.
It's more probable than not that Trump knowingly and willfully caused the attack on the capitol
And liberals are willing to convict Trump on a "probability". Yet they say he's the fascist.
Asked by 3RU7AL - Are the people who organized other protests that ended in burning buildings and broken windows also "culpable"?
Neither Death23 or Drafterman will answer that. Their hypocrisy and TDS doesn't allow them to.
I'm pretty sure only the individuals who actually committed actual crimes are "culpable".
Not if you're a loony leftist Democrat with TDS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
For example "winning the battleground states" means...
Right. You tell us what it means. And in the case of Trump, it always " means" something negative. As I said, your liberal hysteria will not be entertained here.
Do you think violence is warranted here, ethang?
Do you think Kavenaugh was treated fairly Draft?
Trump was involved in no violence hypocrite. But democratic senators and Congress people openly called for rabble to confront Republicans and get in their faces. I have video of them calling for violence, using the actual word "violence". The sheer hypocrasy of a BLM/antifa liberal asking me about violence is surreal.
What am I being dishonest or hypocritical about? And why do you keep calling me a liberal?
There is a hilarious verse in the Bible that goes, "evil people do evil and then afterwards wipe their mouthes and go, " what?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Trump wasn't blocked based on his political affiliation...
Of course he was. And now Democrats are talking about cancelling those who affiliated with Trump. Virtually everything done to Trump in the last 4 years by the Democrats was politically motivated.
Why are you liberals such hypocrites? Does it come with liberalism, or are hypocrites drawn to liberalism?
Since I am neither a liberal nor a hypocrite, I can't answer this.
You won't answer because you are a hypocrite
I'm not asking you to convince me. I'm asking you to identify it.
I've pointed it out. You don't like it. Eh.
You're talking out of your ass ethang. You just made this up (or are repeating something someone else made up) but you it's simply not backed up by reality and you can't back it up because there is nothing to back it up with. It's empty, hot air.
Lol. Ok slick. You're still a hypocrite though.
How has my opinion about discrimination changed?
When it's Trump being discriminated against, your opinion goes to, "it's ok and legal!"
And how is that a change?
When it's one of your loony liberals you up in arms about discrimination.
You support the banning of Trump because you are a hypocrite.
I support the banning of Trump because he is a loatheseome person that spreads misinformation and incites violence.
You and your loony Democrats opposed Trump before he even had a presidential record. You support the banning of Trump because you are a hypocrite.
If Twitter wanted to ban him for political reasons, they would have done so long ago.
They could not, though they wanted to. Now they have, and it was purely political.
Why couldn't they before?
The hypocrites were afraid the Senate would take away their special privileges.
No, if it was political, they would have banned both.
Nope. Because Biden is about to take over the account, and their hypocrisy would be harder to deny and hide if they had to reactivate it for him.
Most of what Congress does is a non-story.
Yet the fake news MSM blares it from the rooftops when it is negative for Trump.
His due process rights only apply to government actions. Twitter is not the government. There is no due process with respect to Twitter.
Yet a renegade judge found that Trump could not block people from his Twitter account! That sound you hear is coming out your ass.
Your liberal hysteria will simply not be taken for granted anymore. Trump is not a racist, a fascist, or calling for violence.
He is all of those things.
To a SJW Karen high on TDS, sure. Hypocrites are the loathsome people.
Trump is most certainly a racist and he was most certainly fanning the flames of insurrection.
No he is not. Your liberal hysteria has joined your TDS. Thank God we had sane people in the Senate to keep the TDS loons at Bay.
His comments are not "insurrection". It is you liberals who have been violent. It is you burning down cities. Attacking security officers and peaceful citizens. It is you employing cancel culture, identity politics, and fake news.
I haven't done any of those things, ethang.
Antifa scum wore masks exactly for this reason. It's called "derangement" for a reason Draft.
Can you show how I have done any of those things? No, you cannot.
You supported all of those things. Remember your old posts remain up for all to see. I didn't make you a hypocrite Draft. It just seems to come with your particular political bent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
No, political affiliation isn't a protected class,.
That must be how you liberals justify your discrimination.
Why are you liberals such hypocrites? Does it come with liberalism, or are hypocrites drawn to liberalism?
What hypocrisy have I displayed, ethang?
Hypocrites usually do not see their hypocrisy. And I'm not trying to convince you of your hypocrisy.
What the fuck are you talking about, ethang?
You are a hypocrite. You know full well a restaurant that barred Republicans would be unconstitutional.
No it wouldn't.
That must be how you liberals rationalize your discrimination.
So should an online platform that bars conservatives.
No it shouldn't.
That must be how you liberals explain your discrimination.
Your opinion about discrimination changes if it is Trump and conservatives being discriminated against. Like all liberals, you are a hypocrite.
How has my opinion about discrimination changed?
When it's Trump being discriminated against, your opinion goes to, "it's ok and legal!"
I've never in my life railed against men only or women only private clubs.
No, you just call a common phrase "violence" and support the banning of Trump on a web platform for political reasons.
I support the banning of Trump for inciting violence.
Liar. You did not want any Democrats banned when they called for actual violence. You did not want BLM banned when they were burning down cities and assaulting tpeople. You support the banning of Trump because you are a hypocrite.
If Twitter wanted to ban him for political reasons, they would have done so long ago.
They could not, though they wanted to. Now they have, and it was purely political.
Note that the official POTUS account isn't banned, just Trump's personal account.
Like I said, political reasons.
Also note the hundreds and thousands of conservatives not calling for violence that are also not banned.
Right, the Senate taking up the case of conservatives being unfairly treated on Twitter and FB is just a non-story.
Political discrimination is not illegal.
Discrimination based on gender, race, religion, or political affiliation is illegal. It is your hypocrisy causing to to flip-flop now.
Discrimination based on political affiliation isn't illegal, ethang. Race, color, national origina, religion, and gender are covered by the Civil Rights Act. Political affiliation is not.
That must be how you liberals conceptualize your discrimination.
There is no due process to discard here. We aren't talking about governmental entities.
Trump is a person. A citizen. So was Kavenaugh.
I'm not disputing Trumps personhood.
No, you are opposing his due process rights.
Your liberal hysteria will simply not be taken for granted anymore. Trump is not a racist, a fascist, or calling for violence.
Trump is most certainly a racist and he was most certainly fanning the flames of insurrection.
No he is not. Your liberal hysteria has joined your TDS. Thank God we had sane people in the Senate to keep the TDS loons at Bay.
His comments are not "insurrection". It is you liberals who have been violent. It is you burning down cities. Attacking security officers and peaceful citizens. It is you employing cancel culture, identity politics, and fake news.
I haven't done any of those things, ethang.
It's called "derangement" for a reason Draft.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
If I create a restaurant, can I be able to say who uses it?
Barring specific protected classes of people, yes.
Is one of those "classes" the political class?
Why are you liberals such hypocrites? Does it come with liberalism, or are hypocrites drawn to liberalism?
What the fuck are you talking about, ethang?
You are a hypocrite. You know full well a restaurant that barred Republicans would be unconstitutional. So should an online platform that bars conservatives. Your opinion about discrimination changes if it is Trump and conservatives being discriminated against. Like all liberals, you are a hypocrite.
You will rail against a men only or women only private club, but if Trump is the party banned, your liberalism suddenly takes a back seat to ownership rights.
I've never in my life railed against men only or women only private clubs.
No, you just call a common phrase "violence" and support the banning of Trump on a web platform for political reasons.
The question is not about whether big tech has the right to limit or restrict who use their platforms, but whether it is constitutional to limit or restrict based on gender, race, and religious or political criteria. The supreme Court has ruled over and over that this kind of discrimination is illegal.
Political discrimination is not illegal.
Discrimination based on gender, race, religion, or political affiliation is illegal. It is your hypocrisy causing to to flip-flop now.
As you are currently showing, when it comes to Trump, liberals will discard due process and fairness.
There is no due process to discard here. We aren't talking about governmental entities.
Trump is a person. A citizen. So was Kavenaugh. Your liberal hysteria will simply not be taken for granted anymore. Trump is not a racist, a fascist, or calling for violence. His comments are not "insurrection". It is you liberals who have been violent. It is you burning down cities. Attacking security officers and peaceful citizens. It is you employing cancel culture, identity politics, and fake news.
I don't need you to grow integrity and admit it.
Created:
Posted in:
Yeah. It's never liberals who should "address" things. The phrase "trial by combat" is not illegal.
So you think it's fine to suggest the outcome of the election should be decided by violence?
I'm too old and educated to fall for this liberal trickery. First thing is, election discussion has included war and sport jargon for as long as there have been elections. It is dumb, disingenuous liberal hysteria that call it "violence". Second, if one party uses fraud in an election, then violence may be warranted sometimes. The U.S. became independent through violence.
There is nothing to "address". But if there was, your putrid hypocrisy would have prevented me.
There was something for you to address, the phrase you conspicuously left out.
It was too stupid to include.
And you have addressed it, so nothing about me prevented you from doing so. Good job!
Lol. You're still dodging your hypocrisy. Not surprising. You said I had not addressed it, then you said I had. All in the space of of a single post. Did you go back and re-read my post?
This position is not supported by the evidence. Everything else you said is off topic.
Abject nonsense. Liberals have made every single charge they're making now since Trump took his oath. You would have some credibility if you didn't claim that everything Trump does is a high crime and that there is "evidence" for it. TDS is not evidence.
I haven't claimed that everything Trump does is a high crime.
I haven't claimed that everything Trump does is a high crime.
You are a hypocrite. You know you are. I will not banter with you about it, especially as your dishonesty will cause you to avoid questions. You are intelligent, and liberal people like you think intelligence means you can't be morally reprobate. Your hypocrisy is toxic, and it pollutes every virtue you may have.
As I said, when you can face your hypocrisy, let me know. Right now, I have to go puke.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well I'm taking the definition of subjective and applying it to the definition of objective,...
So not encumbered by any requirement to be logical eh? Thanks for saving me some time.
Good day sir.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
If I create a restaurant, can I be able to say who uses it? Why are you liberals such hypocrites? Does it come with liberalism, or are hypocrites drawn to liberalism?
You will rail against a men only or women only private club, but if Trump is the party banned, your liberalism suddenly takes a back seat to ownership rights.
The question is not about whether big tech has the right to limit or restrict who use their platforms, but whether it is constitutional to limit or restrict based on gender, race, and religious or political criteria. The supreme Court has ruled over and over that this kind of discrimination is illegal.
But we already know that when it comes to Trump, liberals will discard due process and fairness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I would suggest that: Objective is a subjective assumption.
And some other bloke would suggest that the moon is made of green cheese. The point on a debate board is to show the logic supporting your suggestions. Now, your suggestion tells us you must be using private definitions of objective and subjective, or you must not be encumbered by any requirement to be logical.
Which is it?
Created:
I think Trump makes people feel more alive, whether they love or hate him, and that energy will be gone - or at least will begin to die down. And I am just fine with that.
Headline:
Castin in favor of people feeling less alive!!
Lulz. Some drama has too high a price.
Aw, comon. See what I did? I only did the MSM shuffle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
@Death23
You still didn’t address it.
Yeah. It's never liberals who should "address" things. The phrase "trial by combat" is not illegal. There is nothing to "address". But if there was, your putrid hypocrisy would have prevented me.
This position is not supported by the evidence. Everything else you said is off topic.
Abject nonsense. Liberals have made every single charge they're making now since Trump took his oath. You would have some credibility if you didn't claim that everything Trump does is a high crime and that there is "evidence" for it. TDS is not evidence.
Trump is not going to jail. It is idiots who think he should, and deranged idiots who think he will.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
You sound like you're reading the back of a book.
That was posted to an atheist website. FLRW has to check a link to able to tell you what he thinks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
My doubts about what he did constituting treason have to do with whether or not causing an angry mob to attack a federal building constitutes an act of war.
Does causing an angry mob to burn cities, loot businesses, and attack peaceful citizens also constitutes an act of war?
It doesn't seem to be a very warlike thing to me. If they had lots of bombs and guns and had used them, then maybe it would be.
If they wore masks and carried weapons like antifa, would it be?
If you read my prior posts here I made it pretty clear that I don't think arresting and prosecuting Trump is in our national interests because healing and unity is required.
Please. Arresting and prosecuting Trump is NOT in our national interests because Trump has done nothing to be prosecuted for. TDS doesn't serve our interests.
Dispassionate factualism is important to that too. People get lost in echo chambers and are dealing with completely different sets of facts. The truth is the common ground, and if we deny ourselves that then we're never going to be agreeing on much. Look at what you're doing. You're focusing on two statements, ignoring the third, and not considering the whole context.
Like you who are ignoring weeks of antifa burning down cities? A phrase is supposed to be insurrection, but thousands of hoodlums assaulting citizens is what, peaceful?
Trump knew they were angry. Trump knew they believed the election was stolen. Trump sent them to the capitol. What happened was easily foreseeable and Trump didn't seem to take any steps to prevent it. In fact, according to a report from a GoP senator, Trump was "delighted" by what was happening.
When you can face your hypocricy at the left being silent on the BLM/Antifa riots, talk to me. For 4 years Nothing but war words have come from the left, but now you're suddenly aghast at violence? Your hypocrisy makes me sick. Literally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
You ignored the "trial by combat" part. Address that one.
What I ignored were the countless democratic officials and journalists calling for chaos in the streets, non-peacful demonstrations, and the assassination of President Trump. Would you like a YouTube link of video proof? Go find someone else to dump your hypocrisy on you deranged hack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
If this were true, several top Democrats would be in jail.
Only in Nazi state run by people besotted with TDS would innocuous phrases like, "show strength" and "be strong" be equated with treason. Americans just will not take the left's hysteria anymore. What Trump did was show 78 million Americans that they didn't have to take it anymore.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Parler can be slowed, not banned. The internet is way past that.
But liberals are being contradictory. If Twitter is a private company and can do what they want why can't Parler?
For the people who are now "worried" about insurrection, where were you when BLM and antifa were burning down American cities?
Big tech sees Parler as a business threat, the nonsense about violence is a cover. But it's too late. The rise of sites like OANN, Gab, Parler, and Newsmax is the future. Twitter, FB, and Google have already lost the battle, they just don't know it yet. And they were exposed by Trump.
The NFL and NBA are tanking. So are the traditional news broadcasters. The demand for alternatives is growing, and this being America, someone will supply that demand.
The young brilliant tech savvy history ignorant liberals who started these now big tech companies and are now drunk with power will face the same path as the brilliant industrialization savvy brilliant history ignorant liberals before them. Ten years from now, Twitter will be today's AOL. The internet functioned just fine before the apple and google stores. Parler can no more be blocked than can porn.
Created: