heckuva speech, Trumpy
- Thread starter huisache
- Start date
We'll leave them in jail for a year with no trial being set.
Sentencing guidelines for liberal shitheads:
Anybody using #resist = 1 month in jail
Anybody wearing a pink ***** hat = 1 year in jail plus additional time for crimes against good taste and fashion sense
Other guidelines are welcome from any of the sensible people who post here.
Anybody using #resist = 1 month in jail
Anybody wearing a pink ***** hat = 1 year in jail plus additional time for crimes against good taste and fashion sense
Other guidelines are welcome from any of the sensible people who post here.
Non-natural hair colors (ie. blue, green, purple, pink) is internment camp for an undefined period of time. If and when they permit their hair to return to its natural state, they may be released (presuming no other agency wants them for something).
Interesting. What are your thoughts on non-natural body parts? Wymxn who have undergone addadicktome surgeries for example.
It is interesting how few of those you see clamoring for the right to compete with men or have space to male sex-segregated spaces...might be because so few of them HAVE surgery AND they know they are still female and would be at risk of real harm.
Conversely, the unnatural hair colors tend to correlate with the liberal shithead on almost a 1:1 basis when seen in the community. You rarely see some green-hair with enough piercings to wonder if they got the accompanying shower curtain making appearances at a conservative rally...
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
The governments first trial case for a Jan 6. insurrectionist reached it's verdict.
Texas militia-man found guilty on all 5 charges from his activity associated 1/6. It should be noted that he had a holstered firearm which speaks directly to the documented fallacious claims that none of the rioters were armed. This is the dude whose son reported him. He was a member of the Texas 3%ers.
Texas man found guilty on five federal charges in first Jan. 6 trial
Texas militia-man found guilty on all 5 charges from his activity associated 1/6. It should be noted that he had a holstered firearm which speaks directly to the documented fallacious claims that none of the rioters were armed. This is the dude whose son reported him. He was a member of the Texas 3%ers.
Texas man found guilty on five federal charges in first Jan. 6 trial
Last edited:
How do you pronounce *
Took more than three hours. This was not the "slam dunk" that you and the other libs claimed it would be. A slam dunk has a jury in and out inside of a half-hour, and that is if there is a smoker or five in the group.
Bathroom break, coffee/cigarette, vote on foreman, vote...bailiff gets the slip and everyone goes home.
And no, a 'holstered firearm' is NOT a big deal to most people. You still have yet to demonstrate a single instance where anyone used a firearm. Never mind that the liberals wet themselves and look for safe spaces at the mere sight of a weapon, even one in a display case.
I believe it would be something Husker.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Your fantasy land statements are becoming a bit much. Please prove you aren't a compulsive liar and show where I called this trial a "slam dunk".
Someone on this board claimed that there were no weapons at the 1/6 insurrection. Are you sure that wasn't you?
Last edited:
YOU were the ones convicting people even before they had been arrested. YOU are the one that posts repeatedly about J6 with an inference that they were all guilty merely by being in DC. YOU are the one who keeps maintaining it was 'an insurrection."
Post-Trump GOP
Post-Trump GOP
Oh, and to date, the ONLY person who USED a firearm in the Capitol remains Michael Byrd who fired upon and killed Ashlii Babbitt. This was pointed out by many, including myself, and has YET to be refuted by ANYONE.
[aggressive message removed]
Last edited by a moderator:
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
I'm just going to assume you couldn't find any corroborating statements that I said any of the government cases charging these individuals would be a "slam dunk". So, the accusation I made may be appropriate. At the very least, it demonstrated that you too argue against a strawman not what anyone actually says on this board. It's bad form for any argument...for a lawyer it's malpractice.
Evidently citing articles with supporting pictures describing the reported events is "convicting people even before they had been arrested." Are you sure you are in law or do you simply play act being a lawyer because the evidence you provide here wouldn't get you a passing grade in an undergrad political science class.
Yes, I did call it an "insurrection" and the government has charged 10 individuals with "seditious conspiracy". What's a synonym for insurrection?
I simply asked if you were one who claimed that no weapons were present in the rioters even though clubs, mace, flag poles, etc were all used as weapons and in the correct context under the law can be classified as weapons. Now we have evidence of guns being present with the rioters and an actual jury finding the defendant guilty.
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
Put down the phone, log off, relax. Clearly defending your own statements is too stressful leading you towards emotional responses.
Evidently citing articles with supporting pictures describing the reported events is "convicting people even before they had been arrested." Are you sure you are in law or do you simply play act being a lawyer because the evidence you provide here wouldn't get you a passing grade in an undergrad political science class.
Yes, I did call it an "insurrection" and the government has charged 10 individuals with "seditious conspiracy". What's a synonym for insurrection?
I simply asked if you were one who claimed that no weapons were present in the rioters even though clubs, mace, flag poles, etc were all used as weapons and in the correct context under the law can be classified as weapons. Now we have evidence of guns being present with the rioters and an actual jury finding the defendant guilty.
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
Put down the phone, log off, relax. Clearly defending your own statements is too stressful leading you towards emotional responses.
Last edited:
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
An interesting case. I want to see what happens.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Aa opposed to they always lie and cheat?
The after action report on Jan. 6th concluded that the guy in the bison hat would have been a better President than let's go Brandon.
humahuma
1,000+ Posts
OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 9:41 AM PT – Thursday, March 10, 2022
A New York Times reporter was caught admitting the coverage of the January 6 protest was over exaggerated. During an undercover Project Veritas video released on Wednesday, New York Times reporter Matthew Rosenberg was captured criticizing the left’s reaction to the Capitol Hill protests and even mocking some of his colleagues who were “emotionally scarred.”
In the video, Rosenberg is seen privately ranting about the news establishment’s continuous coverage of the event while calling it “overblown in its reliance on fear and trauma.” He commented that he “was so over it at this point.” Rosenberg witnessed the protests first hand, admitting there were FBI informants among the people who attacked the capitol.
The undercover conversation covered how journalists pitched January 6 pieces for the New York Times, revealing they were obligated to keep up the polarizing narrative between left and right wing politics. The reporter confessed the capitol protests was not an organized event despite what he and left wing media outlets led the public to believe.
“The left’s reaction to it (January 6), in some places, was so over the top,” he stated. “It was like me and two other colleagues who were there, who were outside, and we were just having fun…we were not in any danger.”
As the conversation progressed, Rosenberg spoke on the divide between reporters at the left leaning paper, saying he’s not impressed with the writing quality of his some of colleagues. He also elaborated how ivy league schools and liberal ideas have seeped into the work of journalists, acknowledging the woke generation is getting worse.
UPDATED 9:41 AM PT – Thursday, March 10, 2022
A New York Times reporter was caught admitting the coverage of the January 6 protest was over exaggerated. During an undercover Project Veritas video released on Wednesday, New York Times reporter Matthew Rosenberg was captured criticizing the left’s reaction to the Capitol Hill protests and even mocking some of his colleagues who were “emotionally scarred.”
In the video, Rosenberg is seen privately ranting about the news establishment’s continuous coverage of the event while calling it “overblown in its reliance on fear and trauma.” He commented that he “was so over it at this point.” Rosenberg witnessed the protests first hand, admitting there were FBI informants among the people who attacked the capitol.
The undercover conversation covered how journalists pitched January 6 pieces for the New York Times, revealing they were obligated to keep up the polarizing narrative between left and right wing politics. The reporter confessed the capitol protests was not an organized event despite what he and left wing media outlets led the public to believe.
“The left’s reaction to it (January 6), in some places, was so over the top,” he stated. “It was like me and two other colleagues who were there, who were outside, and we were just having fun…we were not in any danger.”
As the conversation progressed, Rosenberg spoke on the divide between reporters at the left leaning paper, saying he’s not impressed with the writing quality of his some of colleagues. He also elaborated how ivy league schools and liberal ideas have seeped into the work of journalists, acknowledging the woke generation is getting worse.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
bump
I’ve been called plenty of bad things here if we set the bar at “dumb”. I’ve never reported anyone and I don’t think I’ve ever reported anyone. That’s for snowflakes.
You're acting like this is the first time he's done this ****.
He was a LARGE net negative around here. Liberal points of view will be tolerated though mocked. He didn't espouse a point of view. He said insanely stupid **** and then spent pages worth of replies dodging and deflecting, moving the goalposts and spinning, and attempting to claim superiority over meaningless trivial minutia.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Snowflake said what?
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Being the only one left, I’d say the facts don’t back you up. You guys cajole and poke until they self select. Kind of a constructive discharge. This is an echo chamber that is migrating to a qanon conduit.
I'm not the one crying.
Weekly Prediction Contest
CFP Round 2 • Peach Bowl
Wed, Jan 1 • 12:00 PM on ESPN
AZ State game and preview thread
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
-
Trump Administration Accomplishments
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 51
- West Mall
-
Post Right Wing looniness here
- Started by Seattle Husker
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
