Good Riddance To The Orange Piece Of Shit

[CryptKicker]

The ignorance of the left combined with the ignorance of the right brings forth an entertaining diatribe of sheer stupidity. Unfortunately it also helped to make the last 12 months hell for most people.

[Willie Wanker]

Originally Posted by CryptKicker

The ignorance of the left combined with the ignorance of the right brings forth an entertaining diatribe of sheer stupidity. Unfortunately it also helped to make the last 12 months hell for most people.

Perhaps, but it's entertaining on Eccie.
In the real world, I can discuss these issues civilly with liberal friends. But here it generally starts out with insults. Completely unnecessary, but when that tone is set, those are the rules we play by.

[Willie Wanker]

Originally Posted by Doove

Your inability to grasp the obvious is making it awfully difficult for me to not get myself pointed.

"I know your pain. Go home. We love you, you’re very special.”

I was going to suggest that you go for it. But I don't want to be held responsible for your eccie insurrection. 😉

[Doove]

Originally Posted by Willie Wanker

Not agreeing with you is inability to grasp the obvious? Get over yourself.

No, an inability to grasp the obvious is an inability to grasp the obvious.

You simply cannot blame Trump's existince, language, demeanor any personal trait for violence caused by another person. There has to be direct call for violence, period.

6 Republican Senators found him guilty. A number of others admitted he was responsible, but acquitted him based on an imagined technicality. A good number of others, i would posit, considered him guilty but were too gutless to convict him because his supporters are known to be prone to violence. That, or they're afraid of losing their safe Republican seat to a Republican who's even more whacked than they are who will have greater appeal to people like you.

No court would convict for someone else's crime thatt was based on misnterpretation, or unstable mental state of the perpetrator.

How many people have to "misinterpret" something before we're to believe it's what the speaker intended?

The verdict would be "not guilty"

If your defense for what a politician says and does is dependent on what your technical interpretation of a law is, you're probably losing.

If the insurrection does not happen if not for Donald Trump
Than Senator Scalise suffering a gunshot does not happen if not for Bernie Sanders.
Neither Trump, nor Bernie called for violence. Neither are responsible.

One of the legal requirements for incitement is for the speaker to believe the words would lead to an imminent acts of violence. Trump was speaking about stopping an action by Congress that was occurring in a few hours. That seems pretty imminent to me.

By the way, according to your logic, you'll need to provide a quote by Kamala Harris where she stated - very specifically, your rules not mine - that the marchers should loot, burn buildings, and kill people. Otherwise, you're absolving her of all blame, correct? Again, your rules, not mine.

[Willie Wanker]

"6 Republican Senators found him guilty."
- How many Republicans didn't?

"One of the legal requirements for incitement is for the speaker to believe the words would lead to an imminent acts of violence. Trump was speaking about stopping an action by Congress that was ocring in a few hours. That seems pretty imminent to me."
- A legal requirememt for incitement for Nancy to believe it still doesn't prove that incitement occurred.

- On the Harris thing, I need to go back and see it, I'll update.

" Implicate Trump for what he didn't say, yet ignore Harris raising bail money and cheering on rioters while they're looting, murderering business owners, and burning down cities across the country.
Lol, sure."

- I don't see where I quoted her, but let me clean up my statement with the actual Harris quote.
While BLM animals were looting, destroying property, burning down small businesses, and murdering innocent people. This is what Harris said about the BLM protests:
" They’re not gonna stop. And that’s – they’re not – this is a movement, I’m telling you. They’re not gonna stop.”

In an apparent warning, she continued:

“And everyone beware, because they’re not gonna stop….

“They’re not gonna stop before election day in November, and they’re not gonna stop after election day.

“And that should be – everyone should take note of that.”

“They’re not gonna let up. And they should not. And we should not.”

[bf0082]

BLM is a terrorist group, you can replace BLM with ISIL and the words wouldn't be any different, you literally have an elected offical telling a story of what is going on, not showing support or encouragement. I could twist the words of any R who talked about ISIL or the Taliban or any other terrorist organization, in describing whats going on, what their plans are or their objectives.

Why keep trying to associate BLM with the Democratic party, I highly doubt any of them are actual voters, I just don't get this fascination that they are somehow connected at the hip due to the color of their skin.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by Willie Wanker

"6 Republican Senators found him guilty."
- How many Republicans didn't?

I touched on that. Pay attention.

This is what Harris said about the BLM protests:
" They’re not gonna stop. And that’s – they’re not – this is a movement, I’m telling you. They’re not gonna stop.”

In an apparent warning, she continued:

“And everyone beware, because they’re not gonna stop….

“They’re not gonna stop before election day in November, and they’re not gonna stop after election day.

“And that should be – everyone should take note of that.”

“They’re not gonna let up. And they should not. And we should not.”

Show me where she was speaking about the violence and looting, rather than simply the social movement that was pushing for social justice - because that very clearly exists, from Colin Kaepernick on down. Take your time, i can wait.



I'll say one thing though, you're making the OJ jury look brilliant by comparison.

[Guest072323]

That quote above from Harris.... Did ocd teach her how to speak?

[Willie Wanker]

Originally Posted by Doove

I touched on that. Pay attention.



Show me where she was speaking about the violence and looting, rather than simply the social movement that was pushing for social justice - because that very clearly exists, from Colin Kaepernick on down. Take your time, i can wait.



I'll say one thing though, you're making the OJ jury look brilliant by comparison.

I know you touched on that. I was highlighting the insignificance of the six to the majority of Republicans senators that voted to acquit.

Harris made that statement while blm supporters were destroying. citoes. She never addressed the violence. Back to the point of why I posted it. You condemned Trump for his statement to the DC protesters (I feel your pain, go in peace, etc.) yet don't have a problem when Harris does the same.

I think we've played this out. We're never going to see eye to eye on any of this. We're in a back and. forth. "your missing the point" loop on the granular details. I don't see any point in continuing to debate this subject.
I'll hang in longer if you want to keep going, your choice.

[keeponrisin]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-...vid-pandemic/?

[Doove]

Originally Posted by Willie Wanker

Harris made that statement while blm supporters were destroying. citoes. She never addressed the violence.

From the link above:



"Justice: let's talk about that because the reality is that the life of a black person in America has never been treated as fully human, and we have yet to fulfill that promise of equal justice under law," Harris said standing in front of American flags and gesturing to accent her points.
The California senator also condemned the pockets of violence that ensued after Blake's shooting. "We must always defend peaceful protest and peaceful protesters. We should not confuse them with those looting and committing acts of violence, including the shooter, who was arrested for murder. And make no mistake we will not let these vigilantes and extremists derail the path to justice. "

[Willie Wanker]

[Doove]

Originally Posted by Willie Wanker

Just gave ya what you spent the better part of 2 weeks claiming didn't exist and this is your reaction?

[bf0082]

Pelosi, Harris and Biden need to be impeached, cause of BLM riots !! They insurrected the erection on Americans, Tucker Carlson said so.

Without Bill O'Reily's no spinzone, I can no longer cross check my fox news opinion shows.

[Willie Wanker]

Originally Posted by Doove

Just gave ya what you spent the better part of 2 weeks claiming didn't exist and this is your reaction?

I noticed the virtual shouting with the jumbo bolded font in your previous post.. Can ya' pleeze keep it down over there!

I also have the Trump quotes denouncing the violence at the capital. It's another parallel. The statements made on both sides contain similar rhetoric, then additional statements clarify the intention. Some of. the. statements for both contain innuendo at best. Neither Trump, nor Harris whipped people into a frenzy. Angry people made their own decision to break the law. To my original point. If you're gonna blame Trump for inciting, then so was Harris. Both could have used better language in earlier statements, but neither are guilty of incitement
There was no direct call to violence. Acquitted and not guilty, justice served.