Election Watch 2020 - Trump/Pence vs Biden/Harris

[Neveragain]

You'd think if these liberal superhackers had the ability to rig an election they'd do a better job of it.

The thing is..the coding for tallying votes is pretty fucking simple shit. I think writing the script I use for the locksmith pool is far more complicated.

[Tgo01]

Whoops! A "mistake" was caught by a monitor during the Georgia recount after 2 official counters signed off on the batch of ballots. (https://www.theepochtimes.com/georgia-monitor-catches-9626-vote-error-in-hand-recount_3584168.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2020-11-18-2)


One of our monitors discovered a 9,626-vote error in the DeKalb County hand count. One batch was labeled 10,707 for Biden and 13 for Trump—an improbable margin even by DeKalb standards. The actual count for the batch was 1,081 for Biden and 13 for Trump.

Yes that's right! This "small error" would have given Biden an extra 9,626 votes if not caught by the monitor. No wonder the cheating Democrats wanted all poll watchers to either be not in the building at all when they were "counting" the ballots or be 100+ feet away.

[Ashliana]

Whoops! A "mistake" was caught by a monitor during the Georgia recount after 2 official counters signed off on the batch of ballots. (https://www.theepochtimes.com/georgia-monitor-catches-9626-vote-error-in-hand-recount_3584168.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2020-11-18-2)

Yes that's right! This "small error" would have given Biden an extra 9,626 votes if not caught by the monitor. No wonder the cheating Democrats wanted all poll watchers to either be not in the building at all when they were "counting" the ballots or be 100+ feet away.

Draven's retarded claim: "Malfeasance caused Biden to get 9,000 votes that didn't exist! TRUMP WAS BEING ROBBED! CHEATED! VOTER FRAUD!"

Reality:


"During the audit, one batch of ballots was labeled as containing more than 10,000 votes when the total was more than 1,000, and an affidavit submitted by a Republican audit monitor said the final tally showed a difference of two votes [from the original count] instead.

"This is why we don't give out interim audit results, because it can be misleading to look at them because there will be human errors on this," Sterling said. "This was discovered on Sunday, the secretary's office was made aware of it since then and we all knew what had happened here.""

Sterling also addressed a statement from Georgia Republican Party Chairman David Shafer about an error during the hand-count audit that would have shown Biden with slightly more than 9,000 votes compared to the actual total, saying that the error was a "non-issue" and would have been discovered in the required quality control counties have to do after the hand count is done.

Source: https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/more-uncounted-votes-found-in-2-georgia-counties-as-election-audit-nears-deadline

"Yes that's right!" It's almost like you don't know what you're talking about, and you're relying on intentional bullshit in order to reach a predetermined, evidence-free conclusion.

Idiot.

[Tgo01]

Draven's retarded claim: "Malfeasance caused Biden to get 9,000 votes that didn't exist! TRUMP WAS BEING ROBBED! CHEATED! VOTER FRAUD!"

Except I didn’t say anything even remotely close to that. Stick to bolding and underlining every word, you’re clearly out of your element here.

[Ashliana]

Except I didn’t say anything even remotely close to that. Stick to bolding and underlining every word, you’re clearly out of your element here.

Nobody missed how you didn't "clarify" yourself, or do anything besides a wordier version of going "NUH-UH!"

You most certainly claimed "cheating Democrats" were caught giving Biden extra votes. Your claim was incorrect, the result of your wishful thinking, lack of critical reasoning skills, and lack of intellectual curiosity. Two seconds of Googling would've shown you that you fell, yet again, for fake news.

Stick to making shit up. You couldn't argue your way out of a wet bag, Draven.

[Tgo01]

You most certainly claimed "cheating Democrats" were caught giving Biden extra votes.

I actually didn’t say that. At this point you are literally just reading what you want to read since you don’t have much in the way of logic or morals.

[Ashliana]

I actually didn’t say that. At this point you are literally just reading what you want to read since you don’t have much in the way of logic or morals.

Insisting that the sky is purple doesn't make it so. Your unilateral declarations lack the power to twist and warp reality to suit your delusions. Try again.

[Blazar]

Insisting that the sky is purple doesn't make it so.

I think that all depends on the quality of acid you take... or smoked some really good weed if you're Hendrix!

[Seran]

WOW, so the President contacted both Republicans on the Wayne County MI Board of Canvassers after they certified the elections results and the next day both attempted to withdraw their vote. Pretty blatant elections interference

[Alfster]

Well that would be election fraud, not voter fraud. So it's not what he's screaming about...right guys? Election fraud is cool

[Methais]

https://i.imgur.com/Z25r8GG.png

https://media4.giphy.com/media/HB03yGK1u1aYo/200.gif

[Parkbandit]

Dear Rudy;

If you are using hair dye.. make sure you don't use one that runs... I fear you've ruined your new white shirt.

Thank you.

[Taernath]

Dear Rudy;

If you are using hair dye.. make sure you don't use one that runs... I fear you've ruined your new white shirt.

Thank you.

I'm pretty sure he's just in musth.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbBSUrAwfRM

[Neveragain]

I'm pretty sure he's just in musth.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbBSUrAwfRM

https://i.stack.imgur.com/IxJES.jpg

[Seran]

Biden's started releasing information for his cabinet and other appointments today, pretty much a yawn fest so far. I guess we're going to see experience over first name recognition from his Presidency.

Tony Blinken as Secretary of State
Alejandro Mayorkas as Secretary of Homeland Security
Avril Haines as Director of National Intelligence
Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
Jake Sullivan as National Security Advisor
Secretary John Kerry as Special Presidential Envoy for Climate

[Parkbandit]

Secretary John Kerry as Special Presidential Envoy for Climate

https://images.gr-assets.com/hostedimages/1525871163ra/25510116.gif

[Ardwen]

Janet Yellen as Secretary of the Treasury

[Methais]

Secretary John Kerry as Special Presidential Envoy for Climate

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/AbandonedAggravatingBoilweevil-size_restricted.gif

At least it's not Al Gore. I guess.

[Methais]

https://i.imgur.com/3VPXeFx.png

[Methais]

https://i.imgur.com/MuBy8gO.png

Trump is going to keep the left in a state of chronic meltdown for another 4 years it seems. :lol:

[Back]

Trump is going to be in a state of chronic meltdown for another 4 years it seems. :lol:

True.

[Methais]

True.

Both can be true.

[Seran]

Yeah, it's Trump tweeting day in and day out how democrats stole his election and sending out half a dozen emails to supporters each day, but somehow it's democrats having a meltdown. Lol, scrub

[Wrathbringer]

Yeah, it's Trump tweeting day in and day out how democrats stole his election and sending out half a dozen emails to supporters each day, but somehow it's democrats having a meltdown. Lol, scrub

TR;DR

[Wrathbringer]

I'm a massive tard.

True.

[Methais]

Yeah, it's Trump tweeting day in and day out how democrats stole his election and sending out half a dozen emails to supporters each day, but somehow it's democrats having a meltdown. Lol, scrub

You’ve been having chronic meltdowns on here for years stfu :lol:

[Parkbandit]

You’ve been having chronic meltdowns on here for years stfu :lol:

https://media3.giphy.com/media/5wWf7GR2nhgamhRnEuA/giphy.gif

[Taernath]

Completed Wisconsin recount confirms Biden’s win over Trump (https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-madison-wisconsin-7aef88488e4a801545a13cf4319591b0)


... Dane County was the second and last county to finish its recount, reporting a 45-vote gain for Trump. Milwaukee County, the state’s other big and overwhelmingly liberal county targeted in a recount that Trump paid $3 million for, reported its results Friday, a 132-vote gain for Biden.

Taken together, the two counties barely budged Biden’s winning margin of about 20,600 votes, giving the winner a net gain of 87 votes.

https://i.imgur.com/VQ5TxRx.png

[Shaps]

Yeah, it's Trump tweeting day in and day out how democrats stole his election and sending out half a dozen emails to supporters each day, but somehow it's democrats having a meltdown. Lol, scrub

Three years of Russia collusion allegations.. disproven.

Three weeks of voter fraud allegations.. not proven or disproven.

You seem to have a solid argument.

[Ashliana]

Three years of Russia collusion allegations.. disproven.

Someone didn't read the Mueller report, or follow how various people connected to Trump went to jail over their actions relating to the collusion (specifically: lying to the FBI and Congress about those dealings with Russians). How embarrassing for you.


Three weeks of voter fraud allegations.. not proven or disproven.

You seem to have a solid argument.

The 29 courts that have rejected the Trump campaign's legal "arguments" don't seem to believe Trump has a solid argument, and they certainly haven't presented evidence in the court of public opinion. Care to try again?

[Seran]

Three years of Russia collusion allegations.. disproven.

Three weeks of voter fraud allegations.. not proven or disproven.

You seem to have a solid argument.

The Mueller investigation and Trump's frivolous lawsuits meant to draw out his removal from office have absolutely no correlation beyond involving Trump conducting shady business.

Its quite funny seeing Trump trying to cash in on his failed reelection campaign by paying off previously undisclosed campaign debt at high double digit interest rates, to himself I might add. Truly I'm looking forward to the day Republicans realize that painting this conman as the new Ronald Reagan destroyed their party.

[Methais]

The Mueller investigation and Trump's frivolous lawsuits meant to draw out his removal from office have absolutely no correlation beyond involving Trump conducting shady business.

Its quite funny seeing Trump trying to cash in on his failed reelection campaign by paying off previously undisclosed campaign debt at high double digit interest rates, to himself I might add. Truly I'm looking forward to the day Republicans realize that painting this conman as the new Ronald Reagan destroyed their party.

Lack of denial of you having meltdowns for the past 4 years noted.

[Seran]

Lack of denial of you having meltdowns for the past 4 years noted.

Seconded. Going anywhere with that? No, didn't think so.

[Parkbandit]

Seconded. Going anywhere with that? No, didn't think so.

So, you agree you've had a 4 year meltdown.

Glad we are all on the same page.

[Methais]

Seconded. Going anywhere with that? No, didn't think so.

I'm glad to see you at least acknowledge your unstable mental state for the past 4 years. Baby steps.

Dumbass.

[Shaps]

Someone didn't read the Mueller report, or follow how various people connected to Trump went to jail over their actions relating to the collusion (specifically: lying to the FBI and Congress about those dealings with Russians). How embarrassing for you.



The 29 courts that have rejected the Trump campaign's legal "arguments" don't seem to believe Trump has a solid argument, and they certainly haven't presented evidence in the court of public opinion. Care to try again?

This is chess, not checkers.

Edit: And if you don't understand what I'm saying, keep on playing checkers.

[Parkbandit]

This is chess, not checkers.

Edit: And if you don't understand what I'm saying, keep on playing checkers.

Ashliana is probably better off playing single player Chutes and Ladders. Checkers requires a strategy.

[Methais]

Ashliana is probably better off playing single player Poop Chutes and Ladders. Checkers requires a strategy.

Fixed.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QsdiOdvrvg

[Ashliana]

This is chess, not checkers.

Edit: And if you don't understand what I'm saying, keep on playing checkers.

You do realize that a substance-free response is an intellectual concession, right? Or were you going to pretend that that constituted one? Very impressive.

[Parkbandit]

Fixed.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QsdiOdvrvg

In It's defense.. that's not a game, that's a lifestyle choice.

[Neveragain]

The Mueller investigation and Trump's frivolous lawsuits meant to draw out his removal from office have absolutely no correlation beyond involving Trump conducting shady business.

Its quite funny seeing Trump trying to cash in on his failed reelection campaign by paying off previously undisclosed campaign debt at high double digit interest rates, to himself I might add. Truly I'm looking forward to the day Republicans realize that painting this conman as the new Ronald Reagan destroyed their party.


Contribute to the Biden-Harris Transition

https://secure.ngpvan.com/Yt9nXzDphkOSEaUTT_GtVQ2

The epitome of grifters: "We need your money because the orange man is making it hard to transition.................."

What in the actual fuck?

[Methais]

Why would they need donations for that?

[Shaps]

You do realize that a substance-free response is an intellectual concession, right? Or were you going to pretend that that constituted one? Very impressive.

As I said, keep playing checkers. The manner of your response only supports my analogy.

So you understand, the analogy is a substantive response, if you understand the analogy. It would seem you do not.

[Neveragain]

Why would they need donations for that?

They don't. In my 30+ years of following politics there has never been donations needed for a transition.....because the tax payer already pays for that.

But it's going to be a long dark winter...and stuff.

[caelric]

They don't. In my 30+ years of following politics there has never been donations needed for a transition.....because the tax payer already pays for that.

But it's going to be a long dark winter...and stuff.

Because the big meany Trump is interfering with the transition, and they need money to fix it....or some sort of BS like that.

[Wrathbringer]

Someone didn't read the Mueller report, or follow how various people connected to Trump went to jail over their actions relating to the collusion (specifically: lying to the FBI and Congress about those dealings with Russians). How embarrassing for you.



The 29 courts that have rejected the Trump campaign's legal "arguments" don't seem to believe Trump has a solid argument, and they certainly haven't presented evidence in the court of public opinion. Care to try again?

Hi, Assliana. How have you been?

[Wrathbringer]

https://secure.ngpvan.com/Yt9nXzDphkOSEaUTT_GtVQ2

The epitome of grifters: "We need your money because the orange man is making it hard to transition.................."

What in the actual fuck?

Hey, retards have money, too. They like things like this.

[Ashliana]

As I said, keep playing checkers. The manner of your response only supports my analogy.

So you understand, the analogy is a substantive response, if you understand the analogy. It would seem you do not.

Two times zero substance still equals zero substance. Embarrassing, even for a Trump supporter.

Let me know when you manage to scrounge up a coherent argument, though.

[Shaps]

Two times zero substance still equals zero substance. Embarrassing, even for a Trump supporter.

Let me know when you manage to scrounge up a coherent argument, though.

Why would I take the time to present ideas to someone whose own arguments are grounded in close-mindedness? Seems like a waste of time.

I find it amusing you don't realize your own vitriolic nature and narrow view on things. I've never said I was or wasn't a Trump supporter, but for some reason you assume that and think that is somehow an insult?

Ready? That's "embarrassing, even for a Biden supporter". Though much isn't expected from one that demonstrates such a perspective as yours, so not surprising. There, now we're both insulting one another. I have presented my "coherent argument" in a manner which you understand.

[Methais]

Why would I take the time to present ideas to someone whose own arguments are grounded in close-mindedness? Seems like a waste of time.

I find it amusing you don't realize your own vitriolic nature and narrow view on things. I've never said I was or wasn't a Trump supporter, but for some reason you assume that and think that is somehow an insult?

Ready? That's "embarrassing, even for a Biden supporter". Though much isn't expected from one that demonstrates such a perspective as yours, so not surprising. There, now we're both insulting one another. I have presented my "coherent argument" in a manner which you understand.

"How embarrassing" is Ashliana's go to in every argument. It's how he thinks he "wins."

[Bhaalizmo]

"How embarrassing" is Ashliana's go to in every argument. It's how he thinks he "wins."

At least it's a little more of a response than "1/10"

[Methais]

At least it's a little more of a response than "1/10"

It's an honest rating.

And no.

[caelric]

At least it's a little more of a response than "1/10"

Better than spamming threads with crappy youtube links.

[Neveragain]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKSi3wYfVa8

[Bhaalizmo]

Better than spamming threads with crappy youtube links.

Agree to disagree. Any random youtube link is more entertaining than someone posting "1/10" on a thread.

[Methais]

Agree to disagree. Any random youtube link is more entertaining than someone posting "1/10" on a thread.

0/10

[RichardCranium]

0/10

Goatse/9000

[Methais]

Goatse/9000

9001/9000

[Seran]

They don't. In my 30+ years of following politics there has never been donations needed for a transition.....because the tax payer already pays for that.

But it's going to be a long dark winter...and stuff.

Trump has raised 130m following losing the election, what exactly does he need that for, other than curing his insolvency

[Methais]

Trump has raised 130m following losing the election, what exactly does he need that for, other than curing his insolvency

He probably doesn't.

Now tell us why Biden needs transition money.

[caelric]

Trump has raised 130m following losing the election, what exactly does he need that for, other than curing his insolvency

Nice whataboutism.

[Ashliana]

Why would I take the time to present ideas to someone whose own arguments are grounded in close-mindedness? Seems like a waste of time.

I find it amusing you don't realize your own vitriolic nature and narrow view on things. I've never said I was or wasn't a Trump supporter, but for some reason you assume that and think that is somehow an insult?

Ready? That's "embarrassing, even for a Biden supporter". Though much isn't expected from one that demonstrates such a perspective as yours, so not surprising. There, now we're both insulting one another. I have presented my "coherent argument" in a manner which you understand.

You made an easily disprovable claim, I responded with facts that you have no ability to contest, then you responded with "this is chess, not checkers." It shouldn't have to be explained to you that responding like that is an intellectual concession -- failure -- on your part. As are your two subsequent attempts to double down.

You still haven't made a coherent argument. And no, my calling you a Trump supporter doesn't erase the failure on your part to respond to your assertion being disproved, nor does it excuse your clueless hypocrisy in claiming other people are "vitriolic." Try again.

[Wrathbringer]

You made an easily disprovable claim, I responded with facts that you have no ability to contest, then you responded with "this is chess, not checkers." It shouldn't have to be explained to you that responding like that is an intellectual concession -- failure -- on your part. As are your two subsequent attempts to double down.

You still haven't made a coherent argument. And no, my calling you a Trump supporter doesn't erase the failure on your part to respond to your assertion being disproved, nor does it excuse your clueless hypocrisy in claiming other people are "vitriolic." Try again.

lol @ your rep

[Neveragain]

Everyone that doesn't agree with me Is TrumpHitlerMussoliniSatan.

We know.

[Neveragain]

You made an easily disprovable claim, I responded with facts that you have no ability to contest, then you responded with "this is chess, not checkers." It shouldn't have to be explained to you that responding like that is an intellectual concession -- failure -- on your part. As are your two subsequent attempts to double down.

You still haven't made a coherent argument. And no, my calling you a Trump supporter doesn't erase the failure on your part to respond to your assertion being disproved, nor does it excuse your clueless hypocrisy in claiming other people are "vitriolic." Try again.

Here is just a small taste of what your TDS has delivered in this "election":

https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2015/11/tanden2-540x360.png?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90

Are you proud of that e-mail? Because that's what you idiots elected in your fight or flight TDS 4 year breakdown.

https://media4.giphy.com/media/YRuFixSNWFVcXaxpmX/source.gif

[Methais]

Here is just a small taste of what your TDS has delivered in this "election":

https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2015/11/tanden2-540x360.png?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90

Are you proud of that e-mail? Because that's what you idiots elected in your fight or flight TDS 4 year breakdown.

https://media4.giphy.com/media/YRuFixSNWFVcXaxpmX/source.gif

As if they give a shit about anything other than Orange Man Bad.

[Neveragain]

As if they give a shit about anything other than Orange Man Bad.

I guess killing thousands of brown people for their oil is far less evil than Donald Trump.

https://media4.giphy.com/media/9xgCMjSM56TFm/source.gif

[Methais]

I guess killing thousands of brown people for their oil is far less evil than Donald Trump.

https://media4.giphy.com/media/9xgCMjSM56TFm/source.gif

Some of the extra unhinged have literally tweeted stuff like they'd kill their first born if it meant getting rid of Trump. :lol:

But they totally aren't suffering from mental illness.

[Ashliana]

Here is just a small taste of what your TDS has delivered in this "election":

https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2015/11/tanden2-540x360.png?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90

Are you proud of that e-mail? Because that's what you idiots elected in your fight or flight TDS 4 year breakdown.

https://media4.giphy.com/media/YRuFixSNWFVcXaxpmX/source.gif

That's a very interesting non-sequitur. FYI, progressive groups don't like Neera Tanden and are already speaking out. Or are you collectively still pretending super-centrist Biden is Bernie 2.0?

These concerns are funny, though, coming from people who blindly supported a person who keeps literally stating, verbatim, "take the oil (https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2016/09/16/trumps-take-the-oil-madness/)." "Take the oil (https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/11/05/trump-keeps-talking-about-keeping-middle-east-oil-that-would-be-illegal/)."

[Back]

Its hilarious to think republicans are now trying to claim being against bombing brown people for oil. I mean, its a good thing, don't get me wrong. But it sure is a round about way to finally come to terms with what democrats have been saying for years. Kind of like strapping masks to your car vents to protect yourself from an airborne virus. Its comical, but it just might work.

[Parkbandit]

Its hilarious to think republicans are now trying to claim being against bombing brown people for oil. I mean, its a good thing, don't get me wrong. But it sure is a round about way to finally come to terms with what democrats have been saying for years. Kind of like strapping masks to your car vents to protect yourself from an airborne virus. Its comical, but it just might work.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/93/16/2e/93162e948babaac59cee98f20b5d3c38.gif

[Neveragain]

That's a very interesting non-sequitur. FYI, progressive groups don't like Neera Tanden and are already speaking out. Or are you collectively still pretending super-centrist Biden is Bernie 2.0?

These concerns are funny, though, coming from people who blindly supported a person who keeps literally stating, verbatim, "take the oil (https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2016/09/16/trumps-take-the-oil-madness/)." "Take the oil (https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/11/05/trump-keeps-talking-about-keeping-middle-east-oil-that-would-be-illegal/)."

I didn't vote for Trump, I have repeatedly stated that progressives are the biggest losers in this election, I told everyone back in January that Biden would win if he moved to the center (if you want to take the time to look it up, enjoy)

You have been duped, mostly because you're fucking politically ignorant and emotionally unbalanced.

[Ashliana]

I didn't vote for Trump, I have repeatedly stated that progressives are the biggest losers in this election, I told everyone back in January that Biden would win if he moved to the center (if you want to take the time to look it up, enjoy)

You have been duped, mostly because you're fucking politically ignorant and emotionally unbalanced.

Does someone need to point out how your position here is both inconsistent and based on fantasy -- or can you figure it out yourself?

Progressives supported Bernie and Warren, not Biden; they knew Biden was a centrist, regardless of his platitudes and overtures. No one was "duped" by Biden nominating Tanden, who shares Trump's neocon philosophy about having the countries we invade pay us back for the trouble. Biden never promised a left-wing revolution; he ran on the centrist campaign you just asserted you predicted would mean his win.

[Seran]

I guess killing thousands of brown people for their oil is far less evil than Donald Trump.

https://media4.giphy.com/media/9xgCMjSM56TFm/source.gif

You should ask Bush Jr and Bush Sr if they feel any guilt for invading Iraq twice for its oil.

[Neveragain]

You should ask Bush Jr and Bush Sr if they feel any guilt for invading Iraq twice for its oil.

I never supported or voted for Bush. Even the conservatives on here know that. Maybe you should ask yourself why you're still voting for people that approved the invasion and want to keep troops there?

Remember when we pulled out of Syria and the Democrats were like "No, your abandoning our allies!" and then the main stream media ran footage of "our allies under attack" but really it was footage from a night time gun shoot in Kentucky and you drank every last drop of the koolaid?

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/412/134/a47.jpg

[Neveragain]

Does someone need to point out how your position here is both inconsistent and based on fantasy -- or can you figure it out yourself?

Progressives supported Bernie and Warren, not Biden; they knew Biden was a centrist, regardless of his platitudes and overtures. No one was "duped" by Biden nominating Tanden, who shares Trump's neocon philosophy about having the countries we invade pay us back for the trouble. Biden never promised a left-wing revolution; he ran on the centrist campaign you just asserted you predicted would mean his win.

Did you vote for Biden?

[caelric]

You should ask Bush Jr and Bush Sr if they feel any guilt for invading Iraq twice for its oil.

When exactly did Bush Sr invade Iraq? Or do you mean when he sent troops to Kuwait (check a map, Kuwait is not Iraq), and kicked the invading Iraqi army out of Kuuwait, and stopped at the borders without invading Iraq.

Or are too fucking stupid to understand what happened?

[Seran]

When exactly did Bush Sr invade Iraq? Or do you mean when he sent troops to Kuwait (check a map, Kuwait is not Iraq), and kicked the invading Iraqi army out of Kuuwait, and stopped at the borders without invading Iraq.

Or are too fucking stupid to understand what happened?

Operation Desert Saber. I'm quite shocked you didn't know that. Coalition forces were within a few hours of Baghdad. You /said/ you were deployed in the middle east, right?

[caelric]

Ok, you're right, they didn't stop at the border. They destroyed more Iraqi forces, and then turned around, and left Iraq, in a UN sanctioned operation, leaving the sovereignty of Iraq intact. Not occupying Iraq, just ensuring that the forces used by Iraq to actually invade and occupy another country were not able to do so again.

Please explain to me how that was invading Iraq?

[~Rocktar~]

You should ask Bush Jr and Bush Sr if they feel any guilt for invading Iraq twice for its oil.

Funny and ignorant at the same time. Zero new oil leases/contracts for US companies since we invade Iraq and kicked out Hussein.

[Seran]

Ok, you're right, they didn't stop at the border. They destroyed more Iraqi forces, and then turned around, and left Iraq, in a UN sanctioned operation, leaving the sovereignty of Iraq intact. Not occupying Iraq, just ensuring that the forces used by Iraq to actually invade and occupy another country were not able to do so again.

Please explain to me how that was invading Iraq?

invasion
noun
an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.

[caelric]

No, it was kicking out Iraqi forces from Kuwait, and making sure they couldn't come back. If you can't see that, then I don't know what to tell you, as it's crystal clear to everyone.

[Taernath]

First time I ever heard someone say Gulf War 1 wasn't an invasion, lol


Funny and ignorant at the same time. Zero new oil leases/contracts for US companies since we invade Iraq and kicked out Hussein.

It was also about stabilizing and maintaining oil prices. Same reason we have a presence in the Strait of Hormuz. When people say these things are about oil, that's what they're referring to. We're not literally building new American-only oil wells.

[caelric]

First time I ever heard someone say Gulf War 1 wasn't an invasion, lol



It was also about stabilizing and maintaining oil prices. Same reason we have a presence in the Strait of Hormuz. When people say these things are about oil, that's what they're referring to. We're not literally building new American-only oil wells.

It certainly was an invasion. Iraq invaded Kuwait. The US, with UN approval, kicked them out and then left.

[Seran]

No, it was kicking out Iraqi forces from Kuwait, and making sure they couldn't come back. If you can't see that, then I don't know what to tell you, as it's crystal clear to everyone.

When people make the argument it's clear "to everyone" or "everyone else knows" it's usually a pretty good sign that despite being shown they were wrong, the person's willing to enter bizzaro world to prove their feeble and nonetheless false premise. Welcome to the Republican Party.

[caelric]

Sure, lil buddy, whatever you say, pal, of course you're right, friend.

Thank you for your service, amigo.

[Parkbandit]

When people make the argument it's clear "to everyone" or "everyone else knows" it's usually a pretty good sign that despite being shown they were wrong, the person's willing to enter bizzaro world to prove their feeble and nonetheless false premise. Welcome to the Republican Party.

Exactly. You need to put a disclaimer on it for people like you. I always add "with an IQ over 12" so you know I'm not referring to someone like you.

[Seran]

Sure, lil buddy, whatever you say, pal, of course you're right, friend.

Thank you for your service, amigo.

Gasp, hiz r disingenuous. Unfortunately I never served, but I have respect for the sacrifices most gave up for their country. My thanks was legitimate at least. Don't have to disagree or like someone to respect them. C'est le vie.

[Tgo01]

It was also about stabilizing and maintaining oil prices.

If that were the case then how come we didn't invade every oil producing country on the planet back when gas prices were nearing 5 dollars a gallon with no signs of slowing down? I don't think we even invaded anybody new during this time.

[Seran]

First time I ever heard someone say Gulf War 1 wasn't an invasion, lol



It was also about stabilizing and maintaining oil prices. Same reason we have a presence in the Strait of Hormuz. When people say these things are about oil, that's what they're referring to. We're not literally building new American-only oil wells.

More and more electrical vehicles and renewable energy will make policing the Middle East a thing of the past. Honestly getting involved with Saudi Arabia's religious conflict was one of the biggest mistakes of the turn of the century there.

[Parkbandit]

More and more electrical vehicles and renewable energy will make policing the Middle East a thing of the past. Honestly getting involved with Saudi Arabia's religious conflict was one of the biggest mistakes of the turn of the century there.

Yea... then instead of oil, we need to do rare and precious metals.

Hey China.. how you doin?

[Seran]

Yea... then instead of oil, we need to do rare and precious metals.

Hey China.. how you doin?

Makes you wonder why then the sitting president was so eager to antagonize such a major trade partner. Take a look at how much of the import figures from China that are due to US Manufacturers sending materials to China for assembly. Curse their cheap labor helping US companies!

[Parkbandit]

Makes you wonder why then the sitting president was so eager to antagonize such a major trade partner. Take a look at how much of the import figures from China that are due to US Manufacturers sending materials to China for assembly. Curse their cheap labor helping US companies!

Don't worry... in 45 days or so, we'll be back on our knees asking for forgiveness.

[Neveragain]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vjy3rCnmgE

@ 7:50 is pretty fucking weird..

[Methais]

Makes you wonder why then the sitting president was so eager to antagonize such a major trade partner. Take a look at how much of the import figures from China that are due to US Manufacturers sending materials to China for assembly. Curse their cheap labor helping US companies!

Why are you pro sweatshop though?

Dumbass.

[Methais]

Georgia governor calls for signature audit (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/georgia-governor-calls-for-signature-audit)

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp said he wants a signature audit from his secretary of state.

The Republican, who has been criticized by President Trump for his handling of the election, told host Laura Ingraham in a Fox News town hall that he was troubled after hearings before Georgia Senate panels on Thursday in which attorneys working with the president's legal team revealed surveillance video that they claim shows ballot-counting irregularities at State Farm Arena in Atlanta.

"I called early on for a signature audit. Obviously, the secretary of state, per the laws in the Constitution, would have to order that. He has not done that. I think it should be done," Kemp said of Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

"I think especially what we saw today, it raises more questions. There needs to be transparency on that. I would again call for that. I think in the next 24 hours, hopefully, we will see a lot more from the hearings that the legislature had today, and we will be able to look and see what the next steps are," he added.

https://i.imgur.com/AEi5krI.png (https://twitter.com/CongressmanHice/status/1334618112868675585)


More... (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/georgia-governor-calls-for-signature-audit)

[Tgo01]

Makes you wonder why then the sitting president was so eager to antagonize such a major trade partner. Take a look at how much of the import figures from China that are due to US Manufacturers sending materials to China for assembly. Curse their cheap labor helping US companies!

Imagine actually being the person who defends slave labor and slave wages because it helps US companies at the expense of US workers.

[Seran]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vjy3rCnmgE

@ 7:50 is pretty fucking weird..

I mean, between the sassy drunk blond throwing out zingers as testimony and Giuliani's farting, the GOP has never looked more credible.

[~Rocktar~]

Imagine actually being the person who defends slave labor and slave wages because it helps US companies at the expense of US workers.

Kinda like the NBA

[Methais]

I mean, between the sassy drunk blond throwing out zingers as testimony and Giuliani's farting, the GOP has never looked more credible.

Gosh, well you sure convinced me to ignore all this new information coming out with a stellar argument like that.

[Seran]

Gosh, well you sure convinced me to ignore all this new information coming out with a stellar argument like that.

You mean all the dismissals of all the merit less legal filings, the possibility of Powell being labeled a vexatious litigant, or that Giuliani's got the coronavirus and is likely a superspreader?

[Parkbandit]

You mean all the dismissals of all the merit less legal filings, the possibility of Powell being labeled a vexatious litigant, or that Giuliani's got the coronavirus and is likely a superspreader?

OMG GIULIANI IS A SUPERSPREADER! THAT PROVES THERE IS NO VOTER FRAUD!!!

You've always been an idiot.

[Seran]

OMG GIULIANI IS A SUPERSPREADER! THAT PROVES THERE IS NO VOTER FRAUD!!!


I mean, I don't think there's any correlation from Giuliani passing the coronavirus on to the Arizona and Michigan legislatures and his frivolous efforts to overturn the election on behalf of Trump. But if you want to make that connection, rock on. You do you man.

[Methais]

You mean all the dismissals of all the merit less legal filings, the possibility of Powell being labeled a vexatious litigant, or that Giuliani's got the coronavirus and is likely a superspreader?

I really haven't kept up with most of this, because I don't give too many shits about the details, since there isn't shit I can do to affect any of it. That whole surveillance thing is the last I've heard about anything election related and that the GA governor ordered a signature audit or something like that.

What do you think about that surveillance video though where people were pulling crates of votes out from places after kicking everyone else out for 2+ hours? Nothing to see here? Don't bother investigating it because reasons?

[caelric]

Don't bother investigating it because their guy won, obviously.

[Seran]

I really haven't kept up with most of this, because I don't give too many shits about the details, since there isn't shit I can do to affect any of it. That whole surveillance thing is the last I've heard about anything election related and that the GA governor ordered a signature audit or something like that.

What do you think about that surveillance video though where people were pulling crates of votes out from places after kicking everyone else out for 2+ hours? Nothing to see here? Don't bother investigating it because reasons?

Had it have been legitimate, I'd have been just as orange man angry as you are, but it was disproven. The fact no evidence exists to back up any of these lawsuits is the operable point. That the Trump campaign is relying on affidavits and witness statements is ironic considering the amount of grief landed on Trump administration officials testifying against the boss during the impeachment hearings

[Blazar]

I really haven't kept up with most of this, because I don't give too many shits about the details, since there isn't shit I can do to affect any of it. That whole surveillance thing is the last I've heard about anything election related and that the GA governor ordered a signature audit or something like that.

What do you think about that surveillance video though where people were pulling crates of votes out from places after kicking everyone else out for 2+ hours? Nothing to see here? Don't bother investigating it because reasons?

I mean, the Republican secretary of state for Georgia, says it's bullshit, so believe what you must....


“What you saw - the secret suitcase with magic ballots - were actually ballots that had been packed into those absentee ballot carriers by the workers in the plain view of the monitors and the press,” he said.

The reason the workers packed the ballots is they thought they were stopping for the day, Sterling said.

“They were under the misbegotten impression that they were getting to go home,” he said. “They had been there all day long. They were tired and they thought they could go home.”

Learning the Fulton workers were planning to leave, Raffensperger made certain they did not, Sterling said.

Sterling blasted U.S. Rep. Jody Hice, whose district includes part of metro Augusta, for spreading the misinformation.

“A U.S. Congressman sent this disinformation out of his Twitter. He wrote it himself, again. It’s irresponsible,” Sterling said.

https://www.augustachronicle.com/story/news/politics/elections/presidential/2020/12/07/secret-suitcase-magic-ballots-actually-bag-ballots-packed/3858322001/

[Blazar]

Don't bother investigating it because their guy won, obviously.

Sorry, could you cry a little more and a little louder? I think we need a few more tears from you, loser.

[caelric]

Don't bother investigating it because their guy won, obviously.



Sorry, could you cry a little more and a little louder? I think we need a few more tears from you, loser.



And thanks for making my point.

[Methais]

Had it have been legitimate, I'd have been just as orange man angry as you are, but it was disproven. The fact no evidence exists to back up any of these lawsuits is the operable point. That the Trump campaign is relying on affidavits and witness statements is ironic considering the amount of grief landed on Trump administration officials testifying against the boss during the impeachment hearings

So sworn affidavits under the penalty of purgery aren't good enough to investigate, but anonymous sources are good enough to trigger an impeachment. Ok then.

I'm curious to see an article about the whole surveillance thing being disproven. Have a link? I'd hate to get my news from the "wrong" sources. And also because I'm lazy.

EDIT: Nevermind, Blazar posted one already

[Seran]

So sworn affidavits under the penalty of purgery aren't good enough to investigate, but anonymous sources are good enough to trigger an impeachment. Ok then.

I'm curious to see an article about the whole surveillance thing being disproven. Have a link? I'd hate to get my news from the "wrong" sources. And also because I'm lazy.

Pretty dickish, disputing facts while admitting you couldn't be bothered to put together an informed argument. Here's a link for you to inform yourself, or not. In it are quotes from the Georgia elections authorities debunking Giuliani's claims.

https://www.gpb.org/news/2020/12/04/fact-checking-rudy-giulianis-grandiose-georgia-election-fraud-claim

https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-reporter-debunks-georgia-election-fraud-claims-made-tucker-carlson-sean-hannity-1552397

[Seran]

Another important milestone reached to affirm what everyone should already know.. The 46th President is Joe Biden



Safe harbor law locks Congress into accepting Biden’s win

Safe Harbor Day, America.

Other than Wisconsin, every state appears to have met a deadline in federal law that essentially means Congress has to accept the electoral votes that will be cast next week and sent to the Capitol for counting on Jan. 6. Those votes will elect Joe Biden as the country’s next president.

It’s called a safe harbor provision because it’s a kind of insurance policy by which a state can lock in its electoral votes by finishing up certification of the results and any state court legal challenges by a congressionally imposed deadline, which this year is Tuesday.

https://apnews.com/article/safe-harbor-law-locks-congress-joe-biden-119b6e1570f33af0baee1493cbbe012b

[Methais]

Pretty dickish, disputing facts while admitting you couldn't be bothered to put together an informed argument. Here's a link for you to inform yourself, or not. In it are quotes from the Georgia elections authorities debunking Giuliani's claims.

https://www.gpb.org/news/2020/12/04/fact-checking-rudy-giulianis-grandiose-georgia-election-fraud-claim

https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-reporter-debunks-georgia-election-fraud-claims-made-tucker-carlson-sean-hannity-1552397

I'm not disputing anything, and I wasn't looking to put together an argument in the first place. Pointing out the hypocrisy of anonymous sources only being valid when it's for something the left wants is nothing more than that...pointing out hypocrisy.

I intentionally haven't kept up with this shit, because I'm for the most part just more interested in the results and not every little detail of what's happening leading up to it, 99% of which is a waste of time. You seem to be keeping up with all of it though, so sure, why wouldn't I ask for a link? Because what usually happens otherwise is this:

Person A: This happened

Person B: According to this article, that's bullshit

Person A: LOL U GET UR NEWS FROM XYZ WEBSITE WHAT A NOOB

Thread: [10 more pages of arguing about which sources are good and bad]

So I'd rather just skip that part and use your source to get the info that you're referring to.

That said...if the GA thing is a nothingburger, then it's a nothingburger. Big deal. You and Latrin are on a roll with making arguments for people that aren't actually being made though.

But feel free to explain what and how I'm disputing anything by asking for a link. Sorry if I'm at work and don't have time to search google look for a Seran approved link, even if I felt like it, which I don't, since any source not approved of by PC leftists immediately changes the subject to the source and not the subject matter.

My first statement still stands though...


So sworn affidavits under the penalty of purgery aren't good enough to investigate, but anonymous sources are good enough to trigger an impeachment. Ok then.

[Seran]

I'm not disputing anything, and I wasn't looking to put together an argument in the first place. Pointing out the hypocrisy of anonymous sources only being valid when it's for something the left wants is nothing more than that...pointing out hypocrisy.

I intentionally haven't kept up with this shit, because I'm for the most part just more interested in the results and not every little detail of what's happening leading up to it, 99% of which is a waste of time. You seem to be keeping up with all of it though, so sure, why wouldn't I ask for a link? Because what usually happens otherwise is this:

Person A: This happened

Person B: According to this article, that's bullshit

Person A: LOL U GET UR NEWS FROM XYZ WEBSITE WHAT A NOOB

Thread: [10 more pages of arguing about which sources are good and bad]

So I'd rather just skip that part and use your source to get the info that you're referring to.

That said...if the GA thing is a nothingburger, then it's a nothingburger. Big deal. You and Latrin are on a roll with making arguments for people that aren't actually being made though.

But feel free to explain what and how I'm disputing anything by asking for a link. Sorry if I'm at work and don't have time to search google look for a Seran approved link, even if I felt like it, which I don't, since any source not approved of by PC leftists immediately changes the subject to the source and not the subject matter.

My first statement still stands though...

Not sure what Latrin's thing is, but I don't get off on spreading information or misinformation. But our realities are pretty subjective. You feel you made an honest request for info, I feel you imply your time is more valuable than mine by asking for sources when admitting you'd not researched the subject. Either you're a dick or I'm butthurt, but thanks for the feedback and my apologies if I assumed incorrectly.

[~Rocktar~]

So sworn affidavits under the penalty of purgery aren't good enough to investigate, but anonymous sources are good enough to trigger an impeachment. Ok then.

I'm curious to see an article about the whole surveillance thing being disproven. Have a link? I'd hate to get my news from the "wrong" sources. And also because I'm lazy.

EDIT: Nevermind, Blazar posted one already

This.

[Blazar]

So sworn affidavits under the penalty of purgery aren't good enough to investigate, but anonymous sources are good enough to trigger an impeachment. Ok then.

I mean, can't perjury be pardoned? You don't think people would be willing to sign false affidavits if promised a pardon? Have you noticed how zealous some of this asshat's supporters are?


https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/608/998/544.jpg

And also, LOL at sworn affidavits:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8938507/Donald-Trumps-234-pages-fraud-affidavits-include-unusual-claims.html


Suit filed by Trump campaign in Michigan contains claim after claim from GOP poll watchers
One said military ballots going to Joe Biden 'stuck out' to them because they believed military 'tended to be more conservative
The person could not 'provide specific numbers or names'
Another claimed independent poll watchers seemed 'ideologically far-left' and supported the proclaimed autonomous zone in Seattle
They also 'condoned' crime and wanted to work in Brooklyn
A witness in a Trump campaign Pennsylvania suit recanted his statement, and another brought forward turned out to be a convicted child sex offender
Suits come as President Trump is refusing to concede the election to President-elect Joe Biden, who leads by more than 200,000 votes in MI, WI, and PA

hahahahahahahahahahaha

Soooooo much evidence there, am I right?

[Methais]

Not sure what Latrin's thing is,

It's just Latrin being Latrin, which is the result of an incredibly sheltered upbringing.



But our realities are pretty subjective. You feel you made an honest request for info, I feel you imply your time is more valuable than mine by asking for sources when admitting you'd not researched the subject. Either you're a dick or I'm butthurt, but thanks for the feedback and my apologies if I assumed incorrectly.

Basically it's like this...I don't care to keep up with every little detail of what's happening here, especially since a lot of it, whether it's coming from the left or the right, is just a bunch of overhyped bullshit and/or nothing at all.

The Georgia thing seemed interesting, and you were the first I heard say that it turned out to be nothing. I could have checked around myself, and probably would have found plenty of links indicating the opposite of what you said in the process. Which is why I asked for a link instead of looking up some random one.

If one wasn't provided and I was told to fuck off or whatever, I would simply just forget about the whole thing 2 minutes later and go on about my day, because it's not super important to me, and because I'll hear the final results eventually anyway, but some parts of that event did sound pretty interesting.

You and people like you should be 100% behind this election being investigated. Because since you're so sure of the results, then why pass up an opportunity to be able to rub it in the right's face in it even more after it's looked into and then nothing becomes of it? I'm not saying I have the first idea if any shady shit changed the results or not, but leftists love to act like petulant children and gloat, so why throw away the opportunity for the ultimate petulant gloating?

[Methais]

I mean, can't perjury be pardoned? You don't think people would be willing to sign false affidavits if promised a pardon? Have you noticed how zealous some of this asshat's supporters are?


https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/608/998/544.jpg

And also, LOL at sworn affidavits:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8938507/Donald-Trumps-234-pages-fraud-affidavits-include-unusual-claims.html



hahahahahahahahahahaha

Soooooo much evidence there, am I right?

I'm really just pointing out the insane hypocrisy from the left and how they went through an entire impeachment process, literally over some anonymous source telling someone who told someone who told someone that he might have heard Trump say something. Kavanaugh wasn't much different either.

Have you noticed how zealous so many leftists are?

Regardless of the accuracy of the affidavits, the fact that leftists are 100% okay with anonymous sources that have no basis in anything as long as it's over something they agree with, while those same leftists will take sworn testimony under the penalty of purgery and instantly dismiss it as nothing because it's something they don't like, is retarded and anyone who isn't completely in the tank should be able to admit to at least that.

I really didn't expect to have to spell this out, but if you still aren't getting it, there's nothing more I can do to help you understand.

TLDR:

Anonymous sources are legit if leftists agree with it.

Sworn affidavits are fake news if leftists disagree with it and shouldn't even be looked into because reasons.

[Parkbandit]

I really didn't expect to have to spell this out, but if you still aren't getting it, there's nothing more I can do to help you understand.

What, in his posting history, made you think he was capable of presenting a reasoned, logical and well thought out argument?

https://media1.giphy.com/media/SWoRKslHVtqEasqYCJ/giphy.gif

[Blazar]

I'm really just pointing out the insane hypocrisy from the left and how they went through an entire impeachment process, literally over some anonymous source telling someone who told someone who told someone that he might have heard Trump say something. Kavanaugh wasn't much different either.

Have you noticed how zealous so many leftists are?

Regardless of the accuracy of the affidavits, the fact that leftists are 100% okay with anonymous sources that have no basis in anything as long as it's over something they agree with, while those same leftists will take sworn testimony under the penalty of purgery and instantly dismiss it as nothing because it's something they don't like, is retarded and anyone who isn't completely in the tank should be able to admit to at least that.

I really didn't expect to have to spell this out, but if you still aren't getting it, there's nothing more I can do to help you understand.

TLDR:

Anonymous sources are legit if leftists agree with it.

Sworn affidavits are fake news if leftists disagree with it and shouldn't even be looked into because reasons.

Literally, everything you are saying about 'leftists' also applies to 'rightists'. Seriously, do you really think hypocrisy is a one way street?

And yes, hypocrisy is dumb no matter where it shines through. But you have to look at the situation, and not just whether the source was anonymous. I don't know specifically to what you guys allude to when you state 'anonymous' sources as I wasn't posting here much during that time (and I'm much too lazy to go back and read through that shit), but from what I saw, the anonymous sources in the Russia investigation were supposedly government insiders and had knowledge of the situation.

In regards to the current situation, of course sworn affidavits should be investigated and again as I've seen so many state, if there is ANY evidence found, it should be actioned on. I'm pretty sure though that these crackpots giving affidavits are simply zealous Trump fanatics, spewing more bullshit without evidence (which has been the trend ever since the election), and don't actually have any inside information but have some he said she said bullshit they have no way of backing up.

This whole thing has felt more like a fishing expedition where Team Trump is trying to find any way to hold on to something he lost, even if it means opening a window to do something completely underhanded. There is no evidence of election fraud, and any supposed evidence/statements have been easily disproven. So, you want an investigation into something of which there is absolutely no evidence... isn't this the same thing you all cry about regarding the Russia investigation? You can't cry about people being hypocrites, then turn around and be a hypocrite. It's.... um.... hypocritical.... or something.

Now ask yourself, which is more likely:
1. Trump is a shady businessman and has made underhanded deals with foreign leaders, like Russia, to further his personal and commercial agenda.
2. There was a massive, bipartisan, and coordinated effort across multiple states that are independently run, to commit election fraud.

I mean seriously... you guys talk about common sense, and constantly call people retarded but just look at those two statements, and tell me which one seems more plausible? One is tin foil hat worthy and something that has never happened, and the other is something that happens regularly. Seriously... use your god damn common sense and get some perspective please.

TLDR: LOL hypocrisy

[caelric]

Tl;dr. LOL Blazar.

[Blazar]

Tl;dr. LOL Blazar.


I think you have some more crying to do, laughter is a little out of character for you.

[Methais]

Literally, everything you are saying about 'leftists' also applies to 'rightists'. Seriously, do you really think hypocrisy is a one way street?

I'm sure both sides are guilty of this at some points in time. But as of right now, democrats are the only party to impeach a sitting president over false information given from anonymous sources that nobody gave a shit about the legitimacy of, so there's that. Kavanaugh hearings were pretty similar too. These also just happens to be the exact same democrats who are calling for sworn affidavits to just be completely ignored. I'm all ears if you can think of anything in recent times that republicans have pulled on that level. And that's ignoring the 483720423 other scandals democrats and the media created over literally nothing since Trump first announced he was running for office in 2015. There have been shitloads of other scandals fueled by anonymous sources that few people if any on the left even tried to question. Even after a lot of it was debunked, some are still doubling down on it, usually super megatards like Back4fun.


And yes, hypocrisy is dumb no matter where it shines through. But you have to look at the situation, and not just whether the source was anonymous. I don't know specifically to what you guys allude to when you state 'anonymous' sources as I wasn't posting here much during that time (and I'm much too lazy to go back and read through that shit), but from what I saw, the anonymous sources in the Russia investigation were supposedly government insiders and had knowledge of the situation.

I was talking about the impeachment over a phone call to Ukraine, which ironically Trump got impeached over something Biden got caught doing, but I'm sure there were plenty of anonymous sources with the Russia thing too that nobody questioned the legitimacy of because Orange Man Bad.


In regards to the current situation, of course sworn affidavits should be investigated and again as I've seen so many state, if there is ANY evidence found, it should be actioned on. I'm pretty sure though that these crackpots giving affidavits are simply zealous Trump fanatics, spewing more bullshit without evidence (which has been the trend ever since the election), and don't actually have any inside information but have some he said she said bullshit they have no way of backing up.

And if they're making shit up out of thin air, they should be hit with perjury charges too. Though if it's all bullshit, they probably worded it in ways to where the end result would be they were "mistaken" instead of just lying. And fuck those people too if they did that.


This whole thing has felt more like a fishing expedition where Team Trump is trying to find any way to hold on to something he lost, even if it means opening a window to do something completely underhanded. There is no evidence of election fraud, and any supposed evidence/statements have been easily disproven. So, you want an investigation into something of which there is absolutely no evidence... isn't this the same thing you all cry about regarding the Russia investigation? You can't cry about people being hypocrites, then turn around and be a hypocrite. It's.... um.... hypocritical.... or something.

Kind of like how the past 4 years have literally been one fishing expedition after another put on by democrats and the MSM. The only difference is there was no sworn testimony involved in any of it to my knowledge.

I don't know what specifically was said in the affidavits or if they could be pardoned if they lied and got charged, and I doubt that 99% of the people saying it's all bullshit know what was said either, because even if there did somehow turn out to be massive amounts of election fraud and all that, most democrats still wouldn't care because Orange Man Bad. But I would think if someone sticks their neck out to put out a statement under oath, that should still be treated as more credible than some anonymous slob who thought he might have heard something on half of a phone call that he couldn't hear the other person on, no?


Now ask yourself, which is more likely:
1. Trump is a shady businessman and has made underhanded deals with foreign leaders, like Russia, to further his personal and commercial agenda.
2. There was a massive, bipartisan, and coordinated effort across multiple states that are independently run, to commit election fraud.

I mean seriously... you guys talk about common sense, and constantly call people retarded but just look at those two statements, and tell me which one seems more plausible? One is tin foil hat worthy and something that has never happened, and the other is something that happens regularly. Seriously... use your god damn common sense and get some perspective please.

Both actually seem pretty plausible. They only had to push Biden over the finish line in a few swing states, and whether there was fraud or whatever or not, a lot of shit does look shady, even if it turns out to be nothing.

Anyway back to the original point....Trump was impeached literally over hearsay from an anonymous source. What are your thoughts about that? Should that have happened?

[Methais]

CBS: @DNI_Ratcliffesays China, Russia and Iran interfered in our elections

https://twitter.com/CRRJA5/status/1339387796386164737 (https://twitter.com/CRRJA5/status/1339387796386164737)

[Back]

CBS: @DNI_Ratcliffesays China, Russia and Iran interfered in our elections

https://twitter.com/CRRJA5/status/1339387796386164737 (https://twitter.com/CRRJA5/status/1339387796386164737)

No shit dumbass. Thats what everyone was saying about Russia, and others, back in 2016 but republicans were like "EVERYONE MEDDLES IN ELECTIONS".

[Methais]

No shit dumbass. Thats what everyone was saying about Russia, and others, back in 2016 but republicans were like "EVERYONE MEDDLES IN ELECTIONS".

So when the public report (likely) comes out next month is that going to be your response?

Also lol @ your existence.

[Back]

So when the public report (likely) comes out next month is that going to be your response?

Also lol @ your existence.

Depends on the report.

Remember, in 2016 our own intelligence agencies said Russia conducted a massive misinformation campaign via internet platforms in an attempt to influence the election in Trump's favor. Later, Trump defied our own intelligence agencies by saying he believed Putin. The Mueller investigation netted 199 criminal charges, 37 indictments or guilty pleas, and 5 prison sentences related to Russian interference. Trump was impeached for trying to bribe a foreign leader with Congressionally approved tax-payer funded military aid against Russia in return for saying something bad about the last living son of his biggest political opponent at the time.

Unless the report you linked to provides some bombshell evidence of widespread voter fraud it will not overturn the 2020 election.

[Ashliana]

It's amazing you care enough to have an opinion about something, Methais... but unsurprising that basically every single thing you said is incorrect.


But as of right now, democrats are the only party to impeach a sitting president over false information given from anonymous sources that nobody gave a shit about the legitimacy of, so there's that.

Did you even watch the impeachment proceedings? Lt. Col. Vindman was a first-hand witness to the events, and testified. So no, that information wasn't "false," nor was it given by an anonymous source. The anonymous source came forward to the various Inspectors General, who forwarded it appropriately, only to have Republican lawmakers violate their duty -- encouraging future Snowdens who will take disclosure into their own hands -- rather than follow the law.


Kavanaugh hearings were pretty similar too. Perhaps, if you only consider the similarity to be the similar Republican lack of interest in the truth.


These also just happens to be the exact same democrats who are calling for sworn affidavits to just be completely ignored. I'm all ears if you can think of anything in recent times that republicans have pulled on that level.

Notably, you provided no context to what "sworn affidavits" you're referencing, not that it would matter. Amusing, though, in that you think Trump's actions were undeserving of impeachment (which they absolutely were), but not, say, Clinton, who was impeached for events that hadn't even occurred when Kenneth Starr was appointed as independent counsel and his endless "investigations" began.


And that's ignoring the 483720423 other scandals democrats and the media created over literally nothing since Trump first announced he was running for office in 2015. There have been shitloads of other scandals fueled by anonymous sources that few people if any on the left even tried to question. Even after a lot of it was debunked, some are still doubling down on it, usually super megatards like Back4fun.

Trump has been plagued by scandal and unforced failures, none of which are the fault of the people reporting on them. Virtually every denial that's come out of the White House has been followed by eventual (sometimes immediate) admission, and a shifting of the goalposts. You not caring about what an administration you support does is your prerogative, but also makes you an idiot. And no, Trump denying something doesn't constitute a "debunking" to anyone that's outside of your cult. It's like you have no idea why Trump has gone through a dozen hired, then quickly fired cabinet secretaries in a 4-year term, and his cabinet is full of "acting" appointees in violation of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. Just yet another random coincidence for you to ignore.



And yes, hypocrisy is dumb no matter where it shines through. But you have to look at the situation, and not just whether the source was anonymous. I don't know specifically to what you guys allude to when you state 'anonymous' sources as I wasn't posting here much during that time (and I'm much too lazy to go back and read through that shit), but from what I saw, the anonymous sources in the Russia investigation were supposedly government insiders and had knowledge of the situation.I was talking about the impeachment over a phone call to Ukraine, which ironically Trump got impeached over something Biden got caught doing, but I'm sure there were plenty of anonymous sources with the Russia thing too that nobody questioned the legitimacy of because Orange Man Bad.

Your false equivocation here seems to be the linchpin of your mental gymnastics and apologetics for Trump, but luckily for everyone who hasn't drunk the Trump cult Kool-Aid, you enjoy the luxury of being demonstrably full of shit. Trump got impeached over using the power of his office and the United States for personal, political gain, in secret, whereas Biden was executing the official position of the United States government, his president, and the body of our international allies, in furtherance of a US policy goal, and in public, not secret. There's a reason you have video footage of Biden talking about the United States leaning on Ukraine to further that goal... and Trump released a misleading summary, not even a transcript, much less a recording, of his call in question.


And if they're making shit up out of thin air, they should be hit with perjury charges too. Though if it's all bullshit, they probably worded it in ways to where the end result would be they were "mistaken" instead of just lying. And fuck those people too if they did that.

Ah, these must be the "affidavits" you were referring to -- the batshit insane crowd of idiots the right-wing shat out, before those cases got laughed out of court. I'd wish you best of luck with that, but seeing as how you've already failed, there's not much else to say. Sorry you got duped by a con-man for the 50th consecutive time into believing literally anything his campaign said?


Kind of like how the past 4 years have literally been one fishing expedition after another put on by democrats and the MSM. The only difference is there was no sworn testimony involved in any of it to my knowledge.

Your lack of self-awareness here is hilarious, and exemplifies Republican hypocrisy. Countless people, like Lt. Col. Vindman, testified under penalty of perjury to the corruption the Trump administration pursued, and when given the chance to testify, Trump's advisers declined to testify, Trump's cabinet members declined to testify, and Trump himself chose not to testify in person, despite having one of the -- excuse the laughter -- "greatest memories of all time."


I don't know what specifically was said in the affidavits or if they could be pardoned if they lied and got charged, and I doubt that 99% of the people saying it's all bullshit know what was said either, because even if there did somehow turn out to be massive amounts of election fraud and all that, most democrats still wouldn't care because Orange Man Bad. But I would think if someone sticks their neck out to put out a statement under oath, that should still be treated as more credible than some anonymous slob who thought he might have heard something on half of a phone call that he couldn't hear the other person on, no?

Perhaps you should've turned on the news at some point in the past month, because the lawsuits referencing the affidavits you're referring to spectacularly failed.


Both actually seem pretty plausible. They only had to push Biden over the finish line in a few swing states, and whether there was fraud or whatever or not, a lot of shit does look shady, even if it turns out to be nothing.

Anyway back to the original point....Trump was impeached literally over hearsay from an anonymous source. What are your thoughts about that? Should that have happened?


Again, back to the original point... where you're incorrect on pretty much every single claim you've made. What are your thoughts on that? Should that have happened?

[Methais]

It's amazing you care enough to have an opinion about something, Methais... but unsurprising that basically every single thing you said is incorrect.



Did you even watch the impeachment proceedings? Lt. Col. Vindman was a first-hand witness to the events, and testified. So no, that information wasn't "false," nor was it given by an anonymous source. The anonymous source came forward to the various Inspectors General, who forwarded it appropriately, only to have Republican lawmakers violate their duty -- encouraging future Snowdens who will take disclosure into their own hands -- rather than follow the law.

Perhaps, if you only consider the similarity to be the similar Republican lack of interest in the truth.



Notably, you provided no context to what "sworn affidavits" you're referencing, not that it would matter. Amusing, though, in that you think Trump's actions were undeserving of impeachment (which they absolutely were), but not, say, Clinton, who was impeached for events that hadn't even occurred when Kenneth Starr was appointed as independent counsel and his endless "investigations" began.



Trump has been plagued by scandal and unforced failures, none of which are the fault of the people reporting on them. Virtually every denial that's come out of the White House has been followed by eventual (sometimes immediate) admission, and a shifting of the goalposts. You not caring about what an administration you support does is your prerogative, but also makes you an idiot. And no, Trump denying something doesn't constitute a "debunking" to anyone that's outside of your cult. It's like you have no idea why Trump has gone through a dozen hired, then quickly fired cabinet secretaries in a 4-year term, and his cabinet is full of "acting" appointees in violation of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. Just yet another random coincidence for you to ignore.



Your false equivocation here seems to be the linchpin of your mental gymnastics and apologetics for Trump, but luckily for everyone who hasn't drunk the Trump cult Kool-Aid, you enjoy the luxury of being demonstrably full of shit. Trump got impeached over using the power of his office and the United States for personal, political gain, in secret, whereas Biden was executing the official position of the United States government, his president, and the body of our international allies, in furtherance of a US policy goal, and in public, not secret. There's a reason you have video footage of Biden talking about the United States leaning on Ukraine to further that goal... and Trump released a misleading summary, not even a transcript, much less a recording, of his call in question.



Ah, these must be the "affidavits" you were referring to -- the batshit insane crowd of idiots the right-wing shat out, before those cases got laughed out of court. I'd wish you best of luck with that, but seeing as how you've already failed, there's not much else to say. Sorry you got duped by a con-man for the 50th consecutive time into believing literally anything his campaign said?



Your lack of self-awareness here is hilarious, and exemplifies Republican hypocrisy. Countless people, like Lt. Col. Vindman, testified under penalty of perjury to the corruption the Trump administration pursued, and when given the chance to testify, Trump's advisers declined to testify, Trump's cabinet members declined to testify, and Trump himself chose not to testify in person, despite having one of the -- excuse the laughter -- "greatest memories of all time."



Perhaps you should've turned on the news at some point in the past month, because the lawsuits referencing the affidavits you're referring to spectacularly failed.



Again, back to the original point... where you're incorrect on pretty much every single claim you've made. What are your thoughts on that? Should that have happened?

I can't tell what you're saying without random bolds italics and underlines scattered throughout your post.

Please clean this up and try again. Thank you in advance.

[Ashliana]

I can't tell what you're saying without random bolds italics and underlines scattered throughout your post.

Please clean this up and try again. Thank you in advance.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_asNhzXq72w

[Methais]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_asNhzXq72w

So you're not going to clean it up?

This is disappointing. I don't even know who you are anymore. :(

[Seran]

So you're not going to clean it up?

This is disappointing. I don't even know who you are anymore. :(

That's funny. Ashliana destroyed your arguments, made you look like an idiot and now you're trying to goad them into dumbing down their response for your consumption? I'm sure that'll happen.

[~Rocktar~]

That's funny. Ashliana destroyed your arguments, made you look like an idiot and now you're trying to goad them into dumbing down their response for your consumption? I'm sure that'll happen.

LOL, the only thing Assliana ever destroyed is some therapists career when they got done with it and had to retire/change careers due to PTSD.

OH, and likely a load of tacos and teeth from meth.

[Parkbandit]

That's funny. Ashliana destroyed your arguments.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/1295b475b1df44fe8e73492f78890f41/tenor.gif?itemid=4797223

[Methais]

That's funny. Ashliana destroyed your arguments, made you look like an idiot and now you're trying to goad them into dumbing down their response for your consumption? I'm sure that'll happen.

I didn't even read it because TR;DR.

The fact that you're saying he destroyed my arguments verifies that I was correct in not wasting my time reading it.

Tell us more about how there are term limits in Congress.

[Back]

Nah. Your whole argument was handily dismantled. Trying to be cool and saying tl;dr is such an obvious attempt to duck out of the conversation instead of addressing it head on. What a wuss.

[Methais]

Nah. Your whole argument was handily dismantled. Trying to be cool and saying tl;dr is such an obvious attempt to duck out of the conversation instead of addressing it head on. What a wuss.

I never read Ashliana's long ass posts. But if Backlash said I read it then by golly it must be undeniable truth.

Anyway the fact remains though...

Anonymous source: Gospel as long as the left agrees with it and must investigate immediately.

Sworn testimony under the penalty of perjury: Automatically ignore and discard if the left disagrees with it. Don't even bother investigating it despite the fact that you're convinced you'd still have the last laugh in the end anyway.

I gave no opinion as to whether I think what's in the affidavits is true or false. My point was literally what I just said above, and tards like you and Ashliana will always look for ways to try and excuse it, because you're either full of shit and/or so retarded that you're just that gullible. You're for sure both.



What a wuss.

Dude even Webster would beat your ass all over the room and choke you out with your scarf. You're in no position to talk about anyone else being a wuss. Self awareness is your friend.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/95/Webster_Season_1.jpg


This is what I don't get...if democrats are so sure they won the election fairly, they should be drooling over an investigation happening. Most of these tards love acting like toddlers, so it for real blows my mind that they'd pass up such an opportunity to rub shit in Trump's face after he loses the same election twice for at least another 4 years.

Why would you pass up such a fantastic opportunity and give him something to campaign on for the next 4 years that whether true or not, a huge amount of his supporters are going to buy into?

[Ashliana]

Anyway the fact remains though...


Except it doesn't "remain," since you were wrong. Your lack of interest in reality (and refusal to read) reflect on you, Methais. It states, in neon letters: "Methais loses."

And FYI, the lawsuits involving those "sworn affidavits" failed, spectacularly, just like you have in this thread. Better luck next time.

[Back]

I've heard it stated numerous times from from everyone on both sides to investigate fraud if there is any and fix it. For fuck sake. Some people can be told something over and over and over and over and still keep spouting off the same bullshit. Just like everyone condemning violence at peaceful protests then Methais or some other moron comes along and tries to say "THE LEFT WANT TO BURN THE SUBURBS" or some stupid shit like that.

PS. I wouldn't fuck with Webster. He's the man.

[Seran]

Republican's in Congress are losing their drive for supporting the President's dubious claims about elections fraud. Without a doubt the Electoral College results will be certified. Meanwhile, PC Conservatives and Giuliani/Sidney Powell seen to be the only ones carrying the torch that the court's and most of the country want no part of.

[Back]

Wow. Trump is going down in flames.

Every court up to SCOTUS has thrown out his cases. Barr has turned on him. Newsmax and others are recanting their bullshit coverage of Hugo Chavez running the voting machines and every other made up lie about those machines flipping votes. Meanwhile daily COVID cases and deaths continue to climb and a new mutation is starting to spread. Thankfully Congress finally passed the aid package and vaccines are going out.

[Fierna]

Wow. Trump is going down in flames.

Every court up to SCOTUS has thrown out his cases. Barr has turned on him. Newsmax and others are recanting their bullshit coverage of Hugo Chavez running the voting machines and every other made up lie about those machines flipping votes. Meanwhile daily COVID cases and deaths continue to climb and a new mutation is starting to spread. Thankfully Congress finally passed the aid package and vaccines are going out.

The question is, is he going to jail?!

[Methais]

Except it doesn't "remain," since you were wrong. Your lack of interest in reality (and refusal to read) reflect on you, Methais.

It more reflects on you, because you and time4fun's long winded retarded posts are really the only things I generally skip reading on here. That includes Backlash posts. I'll read his posts before yours or time4fun's. That should tell you something.

But I'll make an exception here, since it's holiday season and all, and then go back to skipping your long winded retardedness.


It's amazing you care enough to have an opinion about something, Methais...

I have an opinion on most things. I tend to just not insist that the whole world has to know about all of them all the time.


Did you even watch the impeachment proceedings?

Small bits and pieces, but overall not really, because I'm at work during the day, and I'm busy doing normal shit in the evening.


Lt. Col. Vindman was a first-hand witness to the events, and testified. So no, that information wasn't "false," nor was it given by an anonymous source. The anonymous source came forward to the various Inspectors General, who forwarded it appropriately, only to have Republican lawmakers violate their duty -- encouraging future Snowdens who will take disclosure into their own hands -- rather than follow the law.

Did Vindman trigger the impeachment? Obviously not, since he's not an anonymous source, which makes this irrelevant to the point I was originally making.


Perhaps, if you only consider the similarity to be the similar Republican lack of interest in the truth.

Irony.


Notably, you provided no context to what "sworn affidavits" you're referencing, not that it would matter.

You're right, it doesn't matter. Because if someone is going to make a sworn statement under the penalty of perjury, regardless of what it's about, it should be looked into, both to see if there's any truth to it, and to impose consequences on them if they lied. Wouldn't you agree?


Amusing, though, in that you think Trump's actions were undeserving of impeachment (which they absolutely were), but not, say, Clinton, who was impeached for events that hadn't even occurred when Kenneth Starr was appointed as independent counsel and his endless "investigations" began.

Feel free to quote any post of mine saying anything like this about Clinton's impeachment. I don't really know much of anything about the details of Clinton's impeachment other than he got a BJ and apparently lied under oath about it after, but with the little bit I do know about it, it seemed like just as much of a retarded waste of time as Trump's impeachment was and shouldn't have happened.

But thanks for informing me that I'm an expert on Clinton's impeachment and how I felt about it. You're a pro at telling other people about what they know and how they think and feel about something when in reality, like most things in your life, you're clueless as fuck.

This is another reason why I usually skip most of your posts.


Trump has been plagued by scandal and unforced failures, none of which are the fault of the people reporting on them.

That must be why every one of them failed then, right? Because they were such rock solid cases and Trump was definitely on his way out this time, 72809423 times, like twice a week, every week, over 4 years? Surely something would have had to stick otherwise, no?


Virtually every denial that's come out of the White House has been followed by eventual (sometimes immediate) admission, and a shifting of the goalposts.

Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn't really doubt that too much though, but the fact that you're acting like this is something new to the presidency is disingenuous at best.

You seem to think I'm one of those people that thinks Trump can do no wrong. It's not that at all. It really just boils down to your side is that much worse on just about everything. Getting rid of the 2 party system would rule, but that's not going to happen, so until dems stop sucking, I'll still vote against them.


You not caring about what an administration you support does is your prerogative, but also makes you an idiot.

It would be a lot easier to not vote for republicans if the alternative wasn't 9897432739844x worse, you know. I'm not crazy about republicans, but democrats really are just that much worse in more ways than they're not.


And no, Trump denying something doesn't constitute a "debunking" to anyone that's outside of your cult.

I never said it did. But since you're implying that I think it does, because you like to make up beliefs and opinions for other people, so provide an example, since you seem to be implying that Trump was like "I didn't do XYZ" and then I came here posting NO THAT WAS DEBUNKED BECAUSE TRUMP SAID SO! And apparently I'm part of the Trump cult now :lol:

This is another reason why your posts usually gets skipped.


It's like you have no idea why Trump has gone through a dozen hired, then quickly fired cabinet secretaries in a 4-year term, and his cabinet is full of "acting" appointees in violation of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. Just yet another random coincidence for you to ignore.

I'm pretty sure nobody here, not even Rocktar, is trying to dispute that Trump is an arrogant asshole. If only the fringe leftists that took over your party weren't so much worse...


Your false equivocation here seems to be the linchpin of your mental gymnastics and apologetics for Trump, but luckily for everyone who hasn't drunk the Trump cult Kool-Aid, you enjoy the luxury of being demonstrably full of shit.

You don't even know my stance on most things. So you just make up whatever sounds good for your retarded argument at the time and declare it as fact. You're really no different than time4fun. I'm just not sure which one of you smells worse or has more armpit hair.


Trump got impeached over using the power of his office and the United States for personal, political gain, in secret, whereas Biden was executing the official position of the United States government, his president, and the body of our international allies, in furtherance of a US policy goal, and in public, not secret. There's a reason you have video footage of Biden talking about the United States leaning on Ukraine to further that goal... and Trump released a misleading summary, not even a transcript, much less a recording, of his call in question.

I bet you also believe that it's just a total coincidence how dems were saying since day 1 that that they were going to impeach him, way way way before any of that Ukraine garbage, right?

It's as if you think everyone is as dumb and gullible as you are because you've had hurt feelings for the past few years.


Ah, these must be the "affidavits" you were referring to -- the batshit insane crowd of idiots the right-wing shat out, before those cases got laughed out of court. I'd wish you best of luck with that, but seeing as how you've already failed, there's not much else to say. Sorry you got duped by a con-man for the 50th consecutive time into believing literally anything his campaign said?

Remember when I said this, you fucking retard?


And if they're making shit up out of thin air, they should be hit with perjury charges too.

Other than knowing that affidavits were happening, I didn't keep up with the details of it, mainly because I didn't expect it to go anywhere, and I'm really only interested to hear the end result anyway, as everything leading up to it is just noise, which people with miserable existences who stay glued to politics all day thrive on said noise.

See how you just ignored all that and you decided what my opinion was anyway though?

This is also part of why your posts typically get skipped.


Your lack of self-awareness here is hilarious, and exemplifies Republican hypocrisy. Countless people, like Lt. Col. Vindman, testified under penalty of perjury to the corruption the Trump administration pursued, and when given the chance to testify, Trump's advisers declined to testify, Trump's cabinet members declined to testify, and Trump himself chose not to testify in person, despite having one of the -- excuse the laughter -- "greatest memories of all time."

The irony of you talking about someone else's lack of self-awareness is almost as funny as time4fun saying PB is jealous of her pretend graduate degree.


Perhaps you should've turned on the news at some point in the past month, because the lawsuits referencing the affidavits you're referring to spectacularly failed.

Other than saying that sworn testimony should be looked into and hold more weight than an anonymous source in regards to determining if something should be looked into or not, what opinion have I ever given about the lawsuits and affidavits?


Again, back to the original point... where you're incorrect on pretty much every single claim you've made. What are your thoughts on that? Should that have happened?

There you go again with the irony and lack of self-awareness.

Merry Christmas to you anyway though. I'm gong to assume that that doesn't trigger you yet.

[Alfster]

TLDR

[Methais]

I've heard it stated numerous times from from everyone on both sides to investigate fraud if there is any and fix it. For fuck sake. Some people can be told something over and over and over and over and still keep spouting off the same bullshit. Just like everyone condemning violence at peaceful protests then Methais or some other moron comes along and tries to say "THE LEFT WANT TO BURN THE SUBURBS" or some stupid shit like that.

Weren't there people literally saying that they were coming for the suburbs next? Whether they followed through or not is a different story. But which part were you confused about?


Just like everyone condemning violence at peaceful protests

^ If you weren't already the retard champion, you would definitely be the #1 contender now.

What is the maximum amount of violence that can happen at a "peaceful protest" before it's no longer considered peaceful? Be specific.


PS. I wouldn't fuck with Webster. He's the man.

I'm glad to see you still have some brain activity going on up there.


Republican's in Congress are losing their drive for supporting the President's dubious claims about elections fraud. Without a doubt the Electoral College results will be certified. Meanwhile, PC Conservatives and Giuliani/Sidney Powell seen to be the only ones carrying the torch that the court's and most of the country want no part of.

I seriously doubt anyone on the PC thinks anything is going to be overturned.

[Parkbandit]

Jesus fuck... is anyone watching the Biden "press conference"?

Like who are these "journalists"?

Even Biden is laughing at some of these retards.

[Ashliana]

It more reflects on you, because you and time4fun's long winded retarded posts are really the only things I generally skip reading on here. That includes Backlash posts. I'll read his posts before yours or time4fun's. That should tell you something.

But I'll make an exception here, since it's holiday season and all, and then go back to skipping your long winded retardedness.

When your bullshit gets debunked, then you say "TL;DR," that's an unambiguous concession -- a loss -- on your part. You can be fine with losing -- it's your prerogative to prove your inability to muster up your half-baked response.


I have an opinion on most things. I tend to just not insist that the whole world has to know about all of them all the time. Your 41,746 posts on the PC seem to disprove your assertion. But sure, Jan.


Small bits and pieces, but overall not really, because I'm at work during the day, and I'm busy doing normal shit in the evening.

You not having watched the impeachment hearings explains why you don't think there was a first-hand witness to the events Trump was impeached over. Perhaps you should consult YouTube... or C-SPAN. Or read the news from a source that isn't a glorified blog by some conspiracy crackpot.


Did Vindman trigger the impeachment? Obviously not, since he's not an anonymous source, which makes this irrelevant to the point I was originally making.

Various people (including Vindman) came forward through the legal, appropriate channels -- first to the CIA Office of the Inspector General, then the Intelligence Community Inspector General, then to Congress directly. Those sources are anonymous by law, given the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 (sponsored by a Republican, passed by a Republican senate). You had no point, other than to smear someone who followed the law by insinuating that people just "made the information up" despite the person's claims being found credible the CIA IG and the IC IG, and the rest of the DOJ. Guess who nominated that IC IG (Atkinson)? Donald Trump. You're not guaranteed anonymnity during the whole process, especially if it comes to the point of having to testify (though Vindman wasn't the original "whistleblower" the right-wing hypocritically tried to reveal -- but that person's information led, appropriately, to the impeachment).


Irony.

You've demonstrated a lack of interest in the truth, so no, there's no "irony" here except in your profound lack of self-awareness.


You're right, it doesn't matter. Because if someone is going to make a sworn statement under the penalty of perjury, regardless of what it's about, it should be looked into, both to see if there's any truth to it, and to impose consequences on them if they lied. Wouldn't you agree?

Isn't it funny how you just got finished accusing someone of "irony" for not caring about the truth, then you shat out this sentence? Have you considered looking into the reason why the lawsuit involving the affidavits you're referencing was tossed out of court? It's because an "affidavit" is meaningless if the person making it has no corroborating evidence, no insight into the voting or election process, etc. "Consequences" are only a threat if the government can prove a person acted with ill-intent -- the justice system can't punish some batshit insane kook (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/12/03/melissa-carone-michigan-trump-giuliani-election/) from making wild claims if the person is deluded enough to think they were right when they made the affidavit -- even if the person is wrong.


I guess you'll just have to remain mystified why the Trump campaign lost FIFTY different lawsuits, even ones posed to courts made up of Trump appointees, even ones that went to the 6-3 conservative controlled Supreme Court. Let's play a game, Methais.

Did the Trump campaign lose 50 cases because:

1) The campaign had no evidence for their batshit insane claims
2) The campaign had evidence, but bad lawyers
3) The campaign had no evidence AND bad lawyers
4) Every single judge (including every Trump appointee and all 6 conservative Supreme Court justices) were partisan hacks who just gosh-darned hate Trump?

I'm sure we'll all hear a very satisfying response from you on this question.


Feel free to quote any post of mine saying anything like this about Clinton's impeachment. I don't really know much of anything about the details of Clinton's impeachment other than he got a BJ and apparently lied under oath about it after, but with the little bit I do know about it, it seemed like just as much of a retarded waste of time as Trump's impeachment was and shouldn't have happened.

But thanks for informing me that I'm an expert on Clinton's impeachment and how I felt about it. You're a pro at telling other people about what they know and how they think and feel about something when in reality, like most things in your life, you're clueless as fuck.

Yeah, I'll be sure to quote you from almost a decade before you joined the PC. But I'm sure that your attitude back then was, very much unlike it is today, TOTALLY informed, rational and objective, and anyone who reads your contemporary screeds is totally unfair in using them to make any kind of informed inference about your behavior.


This is another reason why I usually skip most of your posts.

Right. It has nothing to do with you being demonstrably incorrect on the merits, or your position being based in the most basic misunderstandings, and you having absolutely nothing to say when that's pointed out.


That must be why every one of them failed then, right? Because they were such rock solid cases and Trump was definitely on his way out this time, 72809423 times, like twice a week, every week, over 4 years? Surely something would have had to stick otherwise, no?

Yep, it's just a random coincidence that hand-picked Trump appointees have found the scandals that plagued the administration credible enough to, say, move the whistleblower complaint forward, and to nominate a Special Counsel to investigate his actions, which results in a dozen people surrounding the Trump campaign to have been indicted, prosecuted, found guilty and sentenced -- Manafort, Flynn, Stone, etc., over their actions (or their lies to the FBI involving Trump's actions) and that Trump himself ended up the third president in history to be impeached, including the first to have a member of their own party vote to convict them.

Not to mention Trump's inquiries of his aids about pardoning himself, his children, etc. That's all business as usual, right? Every president talks about pardons for himself and his family! And when he does, they'll totally hold up in court and (either way) not be prosecuted at all once he's out of office.


Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn't really doubt that too much though, but the fact that you're acting like this is something new to the presidency is disingenuous at best.

You seem to think I'm one of those people that thinks Trump can do no wrong. It's not that at all. It really just boils down to your side is that much worse on just about everything. Getting rid of the 2 party system would rule, but that's not going to happen, so until dems stop sucking, I'll still vote against them.

Uh, no. There's never been an administration that has so consistently undermined itself, initially denied something only to have the executive subsequently confirm it hours (sometimes minutes) later. It's not just the fault of an incompetent press secretary -- it's that Trump often blurts out the truth only moments after denying something. Pretending to not be aware of it (or being legitimately ignorant of it) both comically reflect on you. I'd be very interested to hear how "dems suck" in any way that comes close to the hilarious incompetence of this administration. Dazzle us.


It would be a lot easier to not vote for republicans if the alternative wasn't 9897432739844x worse, you know. I'm not crazy about republicans, but democrats really are just that much worse in more ways than they're not.

So you just said, without laying out how that's the case. Still waiting.


I never said it did. But since you're implying that I think it does, because you like to make up beliefs and opinions for other people, so provide an example, since you seem to be implying that Trump was like "I didn't do XYZ" and then I came here posting NO THAT WAS DEBUNKED BECAUSE TRUMP SAID SO! And apparently I'm part of the Trump cult now

This is another reason why your posts usually gets skipped.

Okay. So instead of using weasel words like "shitloads of scandals ... even after a lot of it was debunked.." What was debunked? Be specific. But of course you won't, because the devil's in the details, and you don't care about details.


I'm pretty sure nobody here, not even Rocktar, is trying to dispute that Trump is an arrogant asshole. If only the fringe leftists that took over your party weren't so much worse...

So much worse! Because of [insert unstated quality here]. It's so nice when we agree based on your incomplete positions.


You don't even know my stance on most things. So you just make up whatever sounds good for your retarded argument at the time and declare it as fact. You're really no different than time4fun. I'm just not sure which one of you smells worse or has more armpit hair.

This exchange was about the impeachment, and it's quite clear what your stance is. So instead of dodging the issue on the merits (for the billionth time), perhaps you should try to come up with a response.


I bet you also believe that it's just a total coincidence how dems were saying since day 1 that that they were going to impeach him, way way way before any of that Ukraine garbage, right?

It's as if you think everyone is as dumb and gullible as you are because you've had hurt feelings for the past few years.

Unspecific weasel words to Methais' rescue once again! Which dems? How odd that, having "wanted to impeach him since day 1," they instead waited 1,062 days out of his 1,460 day term to impeach him. It's almost as if every position you take falls apart the instant you make it, because you're full of shit.


Remember when I said this, you fucking retard? (And if they're making shit up out of thin air, they should be hit with perjury charges too.)

Other than knowing that affidavits were happening, I didn't keep up with the details of it, mainly because I didn't expect it to go anywhere, and I'm really only interested to hear the end result anyway, as everything leading up to it is just noise, which people with miserable existences who stay glued to politics all day thrive on said noise.

See how you just ignored all that and you decided what my opinion was anyway though?

This is also part of why your posts typically get skipped.

:rofl: We addressed this above. An affidavit isn't a magic indictment that a person makes, under penalty of perjury, that requires the government to assume it's true and take action (only to find out that the person lied, and then end up prosecuting them for perjury). An affidavit might be used to obtain further evidence, via a search warrant, etc., but it's not evidence in and of itself, and it poses no risk to the person who signs it if they (wrongly, incorrectly) believe it to be the case. But the "affidavits" in that case were signed by laypersons with no experience, credibility, insider knowledge, etc. It's almost as if this lawsuit -- super important in your eyes -- was important enough to know the existence of, but not important enough for you to follow in court and know the reasons why it was dismissed.

That lack of intellectual curiosity is the death knell of your argument here, Methais. It's what's humiliated you here.


The irony of you talking about someone else's lack of self-awareness is almost as funny as time4fun saying PB is jealous of her pretend graduate degree.

You've demonstrated, consistently, your lack of interest in the ongoings which you feign such concern for. That reflects on you, Methais. You speaking of how "anonymous" the sources of Trump's impeachment were (while being incorrect about it), when people testified openly, reflects on you. You speaking of how bravely the random kooks who signed those election-related affidavits were -- while ignoring the numerous Trump administration officials who refused to openly testify during the impeachment, including Trump himself -- reflects on you.


Other than saying that sworn testimony should be looked into and hold more weight than an anonymous source in regards to determining if something should be looked into or not, what opinion have I ever given about the lawsuits and affidavits?

You've pretended that the affidavits by people with no credibility or insight in a now-dismissed lawsuit hold such gravitas (when they don't) while simultaneously ignoring the credible servicemen who imperiled (and in at least one case, ended) careers of decades-long public service by testifying against Trump. It's almost as if your position is inconsistent, and one is justified in pointing it out.


There you go again with the irony and lack of self-awareness.

That might bite if you'd actually demonstrated, in even a single way, where you were correct and I wasn't.. But you didn't. It's okay, though. I'm sure you thought, in the moment, that would be really satisfying to say.


Merry Christmas to you anyway though. I'm gong to assume that that doesn't trigger you yet.

Merry Christmas!

[Parkbandit]

IhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeen oughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkinga boutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIh avenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenou ghwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabo utIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhav enoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenough wordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabout IjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhaven oideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwo rdsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIj ustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoi deawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughword snoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjus tfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoide awhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsn oonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustf igureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideaw hatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoo newillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfig ureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawha tI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoone willnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigur eifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI 'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewi llnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigurei fItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'm talkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewill noticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifI typeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mta lkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillno ticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifIty peenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalk ingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoti ceIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItype enoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkin gaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnotice IhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeen oughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkinga boutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIh avenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenou ghwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabo utIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhav enoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenough wordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabout IjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhaven oideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwo rdsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIj ustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoi deawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughword snoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjus tfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoide awhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsn oonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustf igureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideaw hatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoo newillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfig ureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawha tI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoone willnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigur eifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI 'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewi llnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigurei fItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'm talkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewill noticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifI typeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mta lkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillno ticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifIty peenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalk ingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoti ceIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItype enoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkin gaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnotice IhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeen oughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkinga boutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIh avenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenou ghwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabo utIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhav enoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenough wordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabout IjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhaven oideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwo rdsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIj ustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoi deawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughword snoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjus tfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoide awhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsn oonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustf igureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideaw hatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoo newillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfig ureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawha tI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoone willnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigur eifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI 'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewi llnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigurei fItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'm talkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewill noticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifI typeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mta lkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillno ticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifIty peenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalk ingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoti ceIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItype enoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkin gaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnotice IhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeen oughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkinga boutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIh avenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenou ghwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabo utIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhav enoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenough wordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabout IjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhaven oideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwo rdsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIj ustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoi deawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughword snoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjus tfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoide awhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsn oonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustf igureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideaw hatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoo newillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfig ureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawha tI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoone willnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigur eifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI 'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewi llnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigurei fItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'm talkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewill noticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifI typeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mta lkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillno ticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifIty peenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalk ingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoti ceIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItype enoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkin gaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnotice IhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeen oughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkinga boutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIh avenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenou ghwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabo utIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhav enoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenough wordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabout IjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhaven oideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwo rdsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIj ustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoi deawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughword snoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjus tfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoide awhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsn oonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustf igureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideaw hatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoo newillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfig ureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawha tI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoone willnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigur eifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI 'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewi llnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigurei fItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'm talkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewill noticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifI typeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mta lkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillno ticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifIty peenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalk ingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoti ceIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItype enoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkin gaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnotice IhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeen oughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkinga boutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIh avenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenou ghwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabo utIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhav enoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenough wordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabout IjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhaven oideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwo rdsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIj ustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoi deawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughword snoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjus tfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoide awhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsn oonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustf igureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideaw hatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoo newillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfig ureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawha tI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoone willnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigur eifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI 'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewi llnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigurei fItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'm talkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewill noticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifI typeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mta lkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillno ticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifIty peenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalk ingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoti ceIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItype enoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkin gaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnotice IhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeen oughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkinga boutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIh avenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenou ghwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabo utIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhav enoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenough wordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabout IjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhaven oideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwo rdsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIj ustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoi deawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughword snoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjus tfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoide awhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsn oonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustf igureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideaw hatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoo newillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfig ureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawha tI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoone willnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigur eifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI 'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewi llnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigurei fItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'm talkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewill noticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifI typeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mta lkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillno ticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifIty peenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalk ingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoti ceIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItype enoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkin gaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnotice IhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeen oughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkinga boutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIh avenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenou ghwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabo utIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhav enoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenough wordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabout IjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhaven oideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwo rdsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIj ustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoi deawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughword snoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjus tfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoide awhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsn oonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustf igureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideaw hatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoo newillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfig ureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawha tI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoone willnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigur eifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI 'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewi llnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigurei fItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'm talkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewill noticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifI typeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mta lkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillno ticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifIty peenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalk ingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoti ceIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItype enoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkin gaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnotice IhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeen oughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkinga boutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIh avenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenou ghwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabo utIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhav enoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenough wordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabout IjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhaven oideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwo rdsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIj ustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoi deawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughword snoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjus tfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoide awhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsn oonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustf igureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideaw hatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoo newillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfig ureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawha tI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoone willnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigur eifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI 'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewi llnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigurei fItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'm talkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewill noticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifI typeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mta lkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillno ticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifIty peenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalk ingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoti ceIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItype enoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkin gaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnotice IhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeen oughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkinga boutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIh avenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenou ghwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabo utIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhav enoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenough wordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabout IjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhaven oideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwo rdsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIj ustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoi deawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughword snoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjus tfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoide awhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsn oonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustf igureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideaw hatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoo newillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfig ureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawha tI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoone willnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigur eifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI 'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewi llnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigurei fItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'm talkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewill noticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifI typeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mta lkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillno ticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifIty peenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalk ingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoti ceIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItype enoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkin gaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnotice IhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeen oughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkinga boutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIh avenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenou ghwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabo utIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhav enoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenough wordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabout IjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhaven oideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwo rdsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIj ustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoi deawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughword snoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjus tfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoide awhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsn oonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustf igureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideaw hatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoo newillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfig ureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawha tI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoone willnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigur eifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI 'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewi llnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigurei fItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'm talkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewill noticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifI typeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mta lkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillno ticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifIty peenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalk ingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoti ceIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItype enoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkin gaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnotice IhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeen oughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkinga boutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIh avenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenou ghwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabo utIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhav enoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenough wordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabout IjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhaven oideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwo rdsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIj ustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoi deawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughword snoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjus tfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoide awhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsn oonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustf igureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideaw hatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoo newillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfig ureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawha tI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoone willnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigur eifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI 'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewi llnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigurei fItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'm talkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewill noticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifI typeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mta lkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillno ticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifIty peenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalk ingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoti ceIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItype enoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkin gaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnotice IhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeen oughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkinga boutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIh avenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenou ghwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabo utIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhav enoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenough wordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabout IjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhaven oideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwo rdsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIj ustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoi deawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughword snoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjus tfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoide awhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsn oonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustf igureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideaw hatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoo newillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfig ureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawha tI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoone willnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigur eifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI 'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewi llnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigurei fItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'm talkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewill noticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifI typeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mta lkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillno ticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifIty peenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalk ingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoti ceIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItype enoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkin gaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnotice IhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeen oughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkinga boutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIh avenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenou ghwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabo utIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhav enoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenough wordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabout IjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhaven oideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwo rdsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIj ustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoi deawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughword snoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjus tfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoide awhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsn oonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustf igureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideaw hatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoo newillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfig ureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawha tI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoone willnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigur eifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI 'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewi llnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigurei fItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'm talkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewill noticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifI typeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mta lkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillno ticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifIty peenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalk ingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoti ceIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItype enoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkin gaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnotice IhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeen oughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkinga boutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIh avenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenou ghwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabo utIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhav enoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenough wordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabout IjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhaven oideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwo rdsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIj ustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoi deawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughword snoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjus tfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoide awhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsn oonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustf igureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideaw hatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoo newillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfig ureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawha tI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoone willnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigur eifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI 'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewi llnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigurei fItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'm talkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewill noticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifI typeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mta lkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillno ticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifIty peenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalk ingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoti ceIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItype enoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkin gaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnotice IhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeen oughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkinga boutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIh avenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenou ghwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabo utIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhav enoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenough wordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabout IjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhaven oideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwo rdsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIj ustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoi deawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughword snoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjus tfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoide awhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsn oonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustf igureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideaw hatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoo newillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfig ureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawha tI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoone willnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigur eifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI 'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewi llnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigurei fItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'm talkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewill noticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifI typeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mta lkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillno ticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifIty peenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalk ingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoti ceIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItype enoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkin gaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnotice IhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeen oughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkinga boutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIh avenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenou ghwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabo utIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhav enoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenough wordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabout IjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhaven oideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwo rdsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIj ustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoi deawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughword snoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjus tfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoide awhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsn oonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustf igureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideaw hatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoo newillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfig ureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawha tI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoone willnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigur eifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI 'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewi llnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigurei fItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'm talkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewill noticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifI typeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mta lkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillno ticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifIty peenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalk ingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoti ceIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItype enoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkin gaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnotice IhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeen oughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkinga boutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIh avenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenou ghwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabo utIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhav enoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenough wordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabout IjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhaven oideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwo rdsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIj ustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoi deawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughword snoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjus tfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoide awhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsn oonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustf igureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideaw hatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoo newillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfig ureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawha tI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoone willnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigur eifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI 'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewi llnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigurei fItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'm talkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewill noticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifI typeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mta lkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillno ticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifIty peenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalk ingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoti ceIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItype enoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkin gaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnotice IhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeen oughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkinga boutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIh avenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenou ghwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabo utIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhav enoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenough wordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabout IjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhaven oideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwo rdsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIj ustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoi deawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughword snoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjus tfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoide awhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsn oonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustf igureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideaw hatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoo newillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfig ureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawha tI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoone willnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigur eifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI 'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewi llnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigurei fItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'm talkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewill noticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifI typeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mta lkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillno ticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifIty peenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalk ingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoti ceIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItype enoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkin gaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnotice IhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeen oughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkinga boutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIh avenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenou ghwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabo utIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhav enoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenough wordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabout IjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhaven oideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwo rdsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIj ustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoi deawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughword snoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjus tfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoide awhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsn oonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustf igureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideaw hatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoo newillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfig ureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawha tI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoone willnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigur eifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI 'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewi llnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigurei fItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'm talkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewill noticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifI typeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mta lkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillno ticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifIty peenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalk ingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoti ceIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItype enoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkin gaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnotice IhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeen oughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkinga boutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIh avenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenou ghwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabo utIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhav enoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenough wordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabout IjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhaven oideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwo rdsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIj ustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoi deawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughword snoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjus tfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoide awhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsn oonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustf igureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideaw hatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoo newillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfig ureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawha tI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoone willnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigur eifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI 'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewi llnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigurei fItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'm talkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewill noticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifI typeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mta lkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillno ticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifIty peenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalk ingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoti ceIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItype enoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkin gaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnotice IhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeen oughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkinga boutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIh avenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenou ghwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabo utIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhav enoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenough wordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabout IjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhaven oideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwo rdsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIj ustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoi deawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughword snoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjus tfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoide awhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsn oonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustf igureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideaw hatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoo newillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfig ureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawha tI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoone willnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigur eifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI 'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewi llnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigurei fItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'm talkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewill noticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifI typeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mta lkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillno ticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifIty peenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalk ingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoti ceIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItype enoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkin gaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnotice IhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeen oughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkinga boutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIh avenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenou ghwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabo utIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhav enoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenough wordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabout IjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhaven oideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwo rdsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIj ustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoi deawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughword snoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjus tfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoide awhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsn oonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustf igureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideaw hatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoo newillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfig ureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawha tI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoone willnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigur eifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI 'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewi llnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigurei fItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'm talkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewill noticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifI typeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mta lkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillno ticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifIty peenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalk ingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoti ceIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItype enoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkin gaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnotice IhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeen oughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkinga boutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIh avenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenou ghwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabo utIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhav enoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenough wordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabout IjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhaven oideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwo rdsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIj ustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoi deawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughword snoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjus tfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoide awhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsn oonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustf igureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideaw hatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoo newillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfig ureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawha tI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoone willnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigur eifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI 'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewi llnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigurei fItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'm talkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewill noticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifI typeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mta lkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillno ticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifIty peenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalk ingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoti ceIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItype enoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkin gaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnotice IhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeen oughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkinga boutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIh avenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenou ghwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabo utIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhav enoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenough wordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabout IjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhaven oideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwo rdsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIj ustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoi deawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughword snoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjus tfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoide awhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsn oonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustf igureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideaw hatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoo newillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfig ureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawha tI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoone willnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigur eifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI 'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewi llnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigurei fItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'm talkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewill noticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifI typeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mta lkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillno ticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifIty peenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalk ingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoti ceIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItype enoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkin gaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnotice IhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeen oughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkinga boutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIh avenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenou ghwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabo utIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhav enoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenough wordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabout IjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhaven oideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwo rdsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIj ustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoi deawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughword snoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjus tfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoide awhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsn oonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustf igureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideaw hatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoo newillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfig ureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawha tI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoone willnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigur eifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI 'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewi llnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigurei fItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'm talkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewill noticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifI typeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mta lkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillno ticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifIty peenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalk ingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoti ceIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItype enoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkin gaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnotice IhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeen oughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkinga boutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIh avenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenou ghwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabo utIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhav enoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenough wordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabout IjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhaven oideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwo rdsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIj ustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoi deawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughword snoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjus tfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoide awhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsn oonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustf igureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideaw hatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoo newillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfig ureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawha tI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoone willnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigur eifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI 'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewi llnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigurei fItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'm talkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewill noticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifI typeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mta lkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillno ticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifIty peenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalk ingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoti ceIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItype enoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkin gaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnotice IhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeen oughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkinga boutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIh avenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenou ghwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabo utIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhav enoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenough wordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabout IjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhaven oideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwo rdsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIj ustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoi deawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughword snoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjus tfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoide awhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsn oonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustf igureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideaw hatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoo newillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfig ureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawha tI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoone willnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigur eifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI 'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewi llnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigurei fItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'm talkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewill noticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifI typeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mta lkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillno ticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifIty peenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalk ingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoti ceIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItype enoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkin gaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnotice IhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeen oughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkinga boutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIh avenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenou ghwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabo utIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhav enoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenough wordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabout IjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhaven oideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwo rdsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIj ustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoi deawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughword snoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjus tfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoide awhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsn oonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustf igureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideaw hatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoo newillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfig ureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawha tI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoone willnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigur eifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI 'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewi llnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigurei fItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'm talkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewill noticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifI typeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mta lkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillno ticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifIty peenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalk ingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoti ceIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItype enoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkin gaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnotice IhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeen oughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkinga boutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIh avenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenou ghwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabo utIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhav enoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenough wordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingabout IjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhaven oideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwo rdsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIj ustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoi deawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughword snoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjus tfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoide awhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsn oonewillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustf igureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideaw hatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoo newillnoticeIhavenoideawhatI'mtalkingaboutIjustfig ureifItypeenoughwordsnoonewillnoticeIhavenoideawha tI'mtalkingaboutIjustfigureifItypeenoughwordsnoone willnotice

https://media4.giphy.com/media/kcfiK948yUHSqoNzwi/giphy.gif

[Methais]

When your bullshit gets debunked, then you say "TL;DR," that's an unambiguous concession -- a loss -- on your part. You can be fine with losing -- it's your prerogative to prove your inability to muster up your half-baked response.

It literally means it's not worth my time to read and respond to an 876 paragraph post that I already know is going to be mostly you masturbating and deciding how other people feel about things. Turns out I was right.


Your 41,746 posts on the PC seem to disprove your assertion. But sure, Jan.

Oh no I have a lot of posts on a forum I've been posting on for 17 years!

https://media4.giphy.com/media/l0HU8V1CHKTUFtuFO/200.gif


You not having watched the impeachment hearings explains why you don't think there was a first-hand witness to the events Trump was impeached over. Perhaps you should consult YouTube... or C-SPAN. Or read the news from a source that isn't a glorified blog by some conspiracy crackpot.

Let's play a quick game: What sources do you believe I get things from? Name 3. That should be a small enough number for you to handle.


Various people (including Vindman) came forward through the legal, appropriate channels -- first to the CIA Office of the Inspector General, then the Intelligence Community Inspector General, then to Congress directly. Those sources are anonymous by law, given the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 (sponsored by a Republican, passed by a Republican senate). You had no point, other than to smear someone who followed the law by insinuating that people just "made the information up" despite the person's claims being found credible the CIA IG and the IC IG, and the rest of the DOJ. Guess who nominated that IC IG (Atkinson)? Donald Trump. You're not guaranteed anonymnity during the whole process, especially if it comes to the point of having to testify (though Vindman wasn't the original "whistleblower" the right-wing hypocritically tried to reveal -- but that person's information led, appropriately, to the impeachment).

That's a lot of words just to try and avoid saying "No."


You've demonstrated a lack of interest in the truth, so no, there's no "irony" here except in your profound lack of self-awareness.

Your entire existence is literally based around both a lack of interest in the truth, and a complete lack of self-awareness.


Isn't it funny how you just got finished accusing someone of "irony" for not caring about the truth, then you shat out this sentence? Have you considered looking into the reason why the lawsuit involving the affidavits you're referencing was tossed out of court? It's because an "affidavit" is meaningless if the person making it has no corroborating evidence, no insight into the voting or election process, etc. "Consequences" are only a threat if the government can prove a person acted with ill-intent -- the justice system can't punish some batshit insane kook (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/12/03/melissa-carone-michigan-trump-giuliani-election/) from making wild claims if the person is deluded enough to think they were right when they made the affidavit -- even if the person is wrong.

Isn't it funny how I said people who lie under oath should be prosecuted, and this is your reply? Stop being Backlash level stupid. I even mentioned in my first post that those people probably worded it in some way that would still make it seem like they believed they were telling the truth to avoid a perjury charge. I never said anything indicating I believed what was being said. You just keep squirming because you don't want to acknowledge that tards like you don't care if any sort of evidence is legitimate or not as long as it lines up with what you want.

Know what's even more meaningless though? A statement made while not under oath, but also with no corraborating evidence. Remember how that was still good enough for people like you during Kavanaugh though? And you legit believe that people can't see how full of shit you are.


I guess you'll just have to remain mystified why the Trump campaign lost FIFTY different lawsuits, even ones posed to courts made up of Trump appointees, even ones that went to the 6-3 conservative controlled Supreme Court. Let's play a game, Methais.

Did the Trump campaign lose 50 cases because:

1) The campaign had no evidence for their batshit insane claims
2) The campaign had evidence, but bad lawyers
3) The campaign had no evidence AND bad lawyers
4) Every single judge (including every Trump appointee and all 6 conservative Supreme Court justices) were partisan hacks who just gosh-darned hate Trump?

I'm sure we'll all hear a very satisfying response from you on this question.

Why would I be mystified about that? I never expected anything to be overturned after the election. There you go making up thoughts and beliefs for me again like a mentally ill twat.

It's amazing how you can keep being wrong over and over with how you decide someone else feels and all that, yet your arrogance never lets up. A true side effect of having no self awareness.


Yeah, I'll be sure to quote you from almost a decade before you joined the PC. But I'm sure that your attitude back then was, very much unlike it is today, TOTALLY informed, rational and objective, and anyone who reads your contemporary screeds is totally unfair in using them to make any kind of informed inference about your behavior.

I'll do the work for you: I never had anything to say about Clinton's impeachment at any point in time. I thought it was stupid for happening then and I still think it was stupid today.

Once again, you just keep making shit up that you want me to believe so badly so that it will help out your weak fantasy based arguments. hOw hUmIlIaTiNg tHiS mUsT bE fOr YoU


Right. It has nothing to do with you being demonstrably incorrect on the merits, or your position being based in the most basic misunderstandings, and you having absolutely nothing to say when that's pointed out.

It's literally the shit you do that I pointed out in that post, and have pointed out in this post. You spend half of your posts making up thoughts, opinions, beliefs, emotions, etc. for the other person that don't exist, and then you double down on how right you are about it. Like you literally did just now. This quote right here that I'm responding to is literally an example of you doing it.


Yep, it's just a random coincidence that hand-picked Trump appointees have found the scandals that plagued the administration credible enough to, say, move the whistleblower complaint forward, and to nominate a Special Counsel to investigate his actions, which results in a dozen people surrounding the Trump campaign to have been indicted, prosecuted, found guilty and sentenced -- Manafort, Flynn, Stone, etc., over their actions (or their lies to the FBI involving Trump's actions) and that Trump himself ended up the third president in history to be impeached, including the first to have a member of their own party vote to convict them.

And then nothing happened in 100% of those cases. Do a better job next time I guess.

Not to mention Trump's inquiries of his aids about pardoning himself, his children, etc. That's all business as usual, right? Every president talks about pardons for himself and his family! And when he does, they'll totally hold up in court and (either way) not be prosecuted at all once he's out of office.



Uh, no. There's never been an administration that has so consistently undermined itself, initially denied something only to have the executive subsequently confirm it hours (sometimes minutes) later. It's not just the fault of an incompetent press secretary -- it's that Trump often blurts out the truth only moments after denying something. Pretending to not be aware of it (or being legitimately ignorant of it) both comically reflect on you. I'd be very interested to hear how "dems suck" in any way that comes close to the hilarious incompetence of this administration. Dazzle us.

So you just said, without laying out how that's the case. Still waiting.

Yeah ok, as if I'm gonna spend all day breaking that down just because some confused wannabe Nancy on the internet demanded it just so (s)he can ignore it and decide for me what I really meant and what I really believe.

I don't think everything democrats stand for is bad. I don't think everything republicans stand for is good either. I'm sure in your eyes that makes me a huge Nazi.

Tell you what though. Since you're so keen on making huge posts today, how about you tell me what makes democrats so great? If you really want to go the extra mile, pretend you work for a living and pay bills regularly when you're telling me about it.


Okay. So instead of using weasel words like "shitloads of scandals ... even after a lot of it was debunked.." What was debunked? Be specific. But of course you won't, because the devil's in the details, and you don't care about details.

Most of you idiots even still cling onto the "Trump mocked a disabled reporter" story, and that "story" doesn't even matter for shit, but you still can't get over it. You really gonna tell me that hasn't been debunked? If you can't get over that hurdle, you won't get over any other ones either.



This exchange was about the impeachment, and it's quite clear what your stance is. So instead of dodging the issue on the merits (for the billionth time), perhaps you should try to come up with a response.

Sure. Much like Clinton's impeachment, Trump's impeachment was nothing more than a huge waste of time and taxpayer money due to the opposing party being butthurt cunts.


Unspecific weasel words to Methais' rescue once again! Which dems? How odd that, having "wanted to impeach him since day 1," they instead waited 1,062 days out of his 1,460 day term to impeach him. It's almost as if every position you take falls apart the instant you make it, because you're full of shit.

That's the first time they pulled it off successfully, yes. It wasn't the first time they tried though. If you're really gonna deny that democrats haven't been screaming impeachment since day 1 while telling me I'm full of shit, then well.... lol. Just off the top of my head, which means I'm not going to bother looking shit up, Waters was screaming it years ago, Tlaib was screaming it as soon as she got elected in the midterms in 2018, a bunch of other dumb fucks like you who don't matter have been screaming it since 11/9/16, etc.


:rofl: We addressed this above. An affidavit isn't a magic indictment that a person makes, under penalty of perjury, that requires the government to assume it's true and take action (only to find out that the person lied, and then end up prosecuting them for perjury). An affidavit might be used to obtain further evidence, via a search warrant, etc., but it's not evidence in and of itself, and it poses no risk to the person who signs it if they (wrongly, incorrectly) believe it to be the case. But the "affidavits" in that case were signed by laypersons with no experience, credibility, insider knowledge, etc. It's almost as if this lawsuit -- super important in your eyes -- was important enough to know the existence of, but not important enough for you to follow in court and know the reasons why it was dismissed.

Still better than an anonymous source though.


That lack of intellectual curiosity is the death knell of your argument here, Methais. It's what's humiliated you here.

You say this to everyone in almost every post you make. "Waah waah how embarrassing for you" or "Waah waah you're so humiliated."

Quit projecting already.


You've demonstrated, consistently, your lack of interest in the ongoings which you feign such concern for.

Feigned concern? Who said I was concerned? My life is going to be fine no matter who's president. I'm just telling you that you're full of shit.


That reflects on you, Methais. You speaking of how "anonymous" the sources of Trump's impeachment were (while being incorrect about it), when people testified openly, reflects on you. You speaking of how bravely the random kooks who signed those election-related affidavits were -- while ignoring the numerous Trump administration officials who refused to openly testify during the impeachment, including Trump himself -- reflects on you.

There you go again making up how I feel about something. Quote anything from me saying those people are being brave or whatever. If they stuck their neck out under oath and lied, that doesn't make them brave, it just makes them stupid.


You've pretended that the affidavits by people with no credibility or insight in a now-dismissed lawsuit hold such gravitas (when they don't) while simultaneously ignoring the credible servicemen who imperiled (and in at least one case, ended) careers of decades-long public service by testifying against Trump. It's almost as if your position is inconsistent, and one is justified in pointing it out.

Literally all I'm saying is that to people like you, anonymous sources are gospel as long as you agree with it, and anything that you disagree with should be ignored. You could remove the whole affidavit part from the equation and nothing would change. It's very simple. I'm not pretending to be some legal expert on affidavits. But lying under oath is stupid no matter who you are, whether it's some election scrub, Bill Clinton, etc. Still stupid either way, and I had no opinion on the contents or legitimacy of said affidavits, no matter how many times you try to make up my opinions for me.


That might bite if you'd actually demonstrated, in even a single way, where you were correct and I wasn't.. But you didn't. It's okay, though. I'm sure you thought, in the moment, that would be really satisfying to say.

I've pointed out your lack of self awareness several times both in this post and the previous one. Unshockingly enough, your lack of self awareness prevents you from getting it.

I look forward to another long winded reply full of nonsense.



Merry Christmas!

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/26/19/7d/26197dba221533ceb186cd08472afb73.gif

[Ashliana]

It literally means it's not worth my time to read and respond to an 876 paragraph post that I already know is going to be mostly you masturbating and deciding how other people feel about things. Turns out I was right.

Intellectual dishonesty doesn't constitute a response. Anything else?


Oh no I have a lot of posts on a forum I've been posting on for 17 years!

https://media4.giphy.com/media/l0HU8V1CHKTUFtuFO/200.gif

You sure do. So much for your statement I responded to, though, right? Which your post count clearly demonstrates you were full of it yet again? Oh.


Let's play a quick game: What sources do you believe I get things from? Name 3. That should be a small enough number for you to handle.

I don't need to know which sources you read (if any), but the end result is the same: you came away from the impeachment with zero understanding of what happened or how any of the applicable laws that were involved work. That may or may not be the source's fault. It could also be your continued lack of intellectual curiosity, despite your extremely opinionated (and fact-free) positions.


That's a lot of words just to try and avoid saying "No."

What an interesting way to say "I couldn't be bothered to engage with what you said, thus conceding once again."


Your entire existence is literally based around both a lack of interest in the truth, and a complete lack of self-awareness.

You've made a meaningless insult; I made an observation about your behavior in this very thread, which everyone can observe freely. Which do you imagine holds more weight?


Isn't it funny how I said people who lie under oath should be prosecuted, and this is your reply? Stop being Backlash level stupid. I even mentioned in my first post that those people probably worded it in some way that would still make it seem like they believed they were telling the truth to avoid a perjury charge. I never said anything indicating I believed what was being said. You just keep squirming because you don't want to acknowledge that tards like you don't care if any sort of evidence is legitimate or not as long as it lines up with what you want.

Your refusal to engage with what I said is acknowledged. The point is, which you couldn't bring yourself to address, is that a kook's willingness to sign an affidavit doesn't mean anything -- a single thing -- by itself. An affidavit isn't evidence, especially when made by someone who has no credibility, no corroborating evidence, etc. There's a reason those lawsuits failed, which continues to perplex you, because you can't bear to face reality.


Know what's even more meaningless though? A statement made while not under oath, but also with no corraborating evidence. Remember how that was still good enough for people like you during Kavanaugh though? And you legit believe that people can't see how full of shit you are.

What an interesting non-sequitur. And who are these people whose statements were made "while not under oath"? Dr. Ford, testifying to Congress (where lying is always a crime, even if you're not "under oath")? As always, you're wrong about everything.


Why would I be mystified about that? I never expected anything to be overturned after the election. There you go making up thoughts and beliefs for me again like a mentally ill twat.

You're pretending the lawsuit has gravitas, except you can't be bothered to look into the reasons why none of them succeeded. Thus you remain mystified -- whether or not you "expected anything to be overturned" is irrelevant, as you continue to think those affidavits somehow meant something in and of themselves. Which they don't, except they make you remain an insufferably ignorant twat.


It's amazing how you can keep being wrong over and over with how you decide someone else feels and all that, yet your arrogance never lets up. A true side effect of having no self awareness.

It's amazing how you can pretend that anyone needs to "decide how you feel" in order to read the plain meaning of what you've written. One can only imagine who you think you're fooling.



I'll do the work for you: I never had anything to say about Clinton's impeachment at any point in time. I thought it was stupid for happening then and I still think it was stupid today.

Once again, you just keep making shit up that you want me to believe so badly so that it will help out your weak fantasy based arguments. hOw hUmIlIaTiNg tHiS mUsT bE fOr YoU

Well, I guess we'll just have to take your word for it here, since the forum didn't exist then. But I'm sure you weren't the totally deranged right-wing apologist with no interest in reality that you are in 2020.


It's literally the shit you do that I pointed out in that post, and have pointed out in this post. You spend half of your posts making up thoughts, opinions, beliefs, emotions, etc. for the other person that don't exist, and then you double down on how right you are about it. Like you literally did just now. This quote right here that I'm responding to is literally an example of you doing it.

Again, I'm sure it felt super satisfying to randomly say this, again, with absolutely no meaning behind it. When you don't really say anything substantive -- because yet again you can't engage on the merits -- it's just you recycling an expression of your antipathy. How novel.



Yep, it's just a random coincidence that hand-picked Trump appointees have found the scandals that plagued the administration credible enough to, say, move the whistleblower complaint forward, and to nominate a Special Counsel to investigate his actions, which results in a dozen people surrounding the Trump campaign to have been indicted, prosecuted, found guilty and sentenced -- Manafort, Flynn, Stone, etc., over their actions (or their lies to the FBI involving Trump's actions) and that Trump himself ended up the third president in history to be impeached, including the first to have a member of their own party vote to convict them.And then nothing happened in 100% of those cases. Do a better job next time I guess.


You're so right. All those convictions? "Nothing happened." Do you even read what you write?


Yeah ok, as if I'm gonna spend all day breaking that down just because some confused wannabe Nancy on the internet demanded it just so (s)he can ignore it and decide for me what I really meant and what I really believe.

I don't think everything democrats stand for is bad. I don't think everything republicans stand for is good either. I'm sure in your eyes that makes me a huge Nazi.

Tell you what though. Since you're so keen on making huge posts today, how about you tell me what makes democrats so great? If you really want to go the extra mile, pretend you work for a living and pay bills regularly when you're telling me about it.

That's a whole lot of words to say "No, Ashliana, I couldn't come up with anything to substantiate my earlier assertion. How about I flip the onus onto you?"


Most of you idiots even still cling onto the "Trump mocked a disabled reporter" story, and that "story" doesn't even matter for shit, but you still can't get over it. You really gonna tell me that hasn't been debunked? If you can't get over that hurdle, you won't get over any other ones either.


That's your example of one of the scandals that's plagued Trump? Well, for starters, kudos to you for actually trying-- in your mind -- to come up with an example, unlike the rest of your meaningless responses here. An example that the Twitterati may have heed and hawed about, and perhaps a handful of politicans -- hardly one of the administration's dozens of scandals.


Sure. Much like Clinton's impeachment, Trump's impeachment was nothing more than a huge waste of time and taxpayer money due to the opposing party being butthurt cunts.

A waste of time and money, perhaps, only insofar that Republicans in the modern day don't care about facts, just like you, and are willing to excuse literally anything done by Trump. Not useless, however, in that it demonstrates for the historical record the craven depravity of the administration, and of contemporary Republicans, in their willingness to overlook a commander-in-chief using the power of his office to extort domestic political aid for his own personal ends from another nation in exchange for official acts. You've already admitted to not having paid attention, though, so there's no surprise there that you don't know anything.


That's the first time they pulled it off successfully, yes. It wasn't the first time they tried though. If you're really gonna deny that democrats haven't been screaming impeachment since day 1 while telling me I'm full of shit, then well.... lol. Just off the top of my head, which means I'm not going to bother looking shit up, Waters was screaming it years ago, Tlaib was screaming it as soon as she got elected in the midterms in 2018, a bunch of other dumb fucks like you who don't matter have been screaming it since 11/9/16, etc.

So let me get this straight -- despite your post after post whining about how I'm inventing your positions (despite commenting on what you've directly written here) you've invented my position out of thin air. How convincing, and totally not your trademark hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness. It'll just have to remain a mystery why, despite your insinuation that the impeachment must have surely been trumped up nonsense (despite you not having read anything about it), your evidence that they couldn't have judged him based on his actions.. despite the democrats with the power to impeach Trump randomly decided to wait until the final quarter of his presidency to impeach him ... is that a handful of the most liberal politicians said, in general terms, that he should be impeached? I'm sure you hold right-wing politicians to these same exacting standards, and aren't totally full of shit.


Still better than an anonymous source though.

Translation: "Methais doesn't understand why the source was anonymous, but really likes how saying this as if it has meaning somehow implies that the powers that be -- Trump-appointed powers that be -- must have somehow erred in finding the source credible. And that witnesses testified publicly, and weren't anonymous in any way."

Very interesting, Methais. You don't come off as an ill-informed buffoon in any way, I assure you.


You say this to everyone in almost every post you make. "Waah waah how embarrassing for you" or "Waah waah you're so humiliated." Quit projecting already.

Whatever you say, Methais. Perhaps you'd better send your 800th reputation message containing something about sharding, while we're on the topic of being repetitive. But on the other hand, perhaps I pick my opponents -- easy right-wing targets with no interest in facts -- and it succinctly applies. Mind blown.


Feigned concern? Who said I was concerned? My life is going to be fine no matter who's president. I'm just telling you that you're full of shit.

Intellectual dishonesty still doesn't constitute a reasoned argument. You've brought up those affidavits several times now, as if they somehow prove evidence of malfeasance -- which they don't -- and as if the case concerning them hasn't already been dismissed due to a comical lack of evidence. Speaking of being full of shit.


There you go again making up how I feel about something. Quote anything from me saying those people are being brave or whatever. If they stuck their neck out under oath and lied, that doesn't make them brave, it just makes them stupid.

Nope, it's just you ignoring the substance of what I said to seize upon some mistakenly perceived rhetorical weakness. Your continued failure to understand the distinction between "the Trump campaign willing to lie" and "finding some right-wing moron who doesn't know anything about elections, who went down to a public office on election day to insist 'I saw something wrong'!" reflects on you, Methais. Someone doesn't have to be deliberately lying to lack credibility, for a lawsuit to fail. I can insist along with the best right-wingers that someone's running a secret pedophile ring in a pizza shop in DC, but certain or not, deliberately lying or not, it doesn't mean anything. You can remain mystified about why those lawsuits were dismissed until the cows come home, but all it does is reveal willful ignorance on your part. It doesn't convey gravitas onto the failed lawsuits.



Literally all I'm saying is that to people like you, anonymous sources are gospel as long as you agree with it, and anything that you disagree with should be ignored. You could remove the whole affidavit part from the equation and nothing would change. It's very simple. I'm not pretending to be some legal expert on affidavits. But lying under oath is stupid no matter who you are, whether it's some election scrub, Bill Clinton, etc. Still stupid either way, and I had no opinion on the contents or legitimacy of said affidavits, no matter how many times you try to make up my opinions for me.

Saying "anonymous" as if it's a code word for "made up" doesn't make it so. That "anonymous source" that started the investigation that led to Trump's impeachment was anonymous by Republican design, their claims were evaluated by numerous hand-picked Trump appointees, and then testimony to the events was given by in-person, first-hand witnesses. Not "anonymous sources." A source itself doesn't mean anything; corroborating evidence, witness credibility, etc., all factor into it. You don't care about facts. You demonstrate it in every post. Nobody has to make up anything to point out your continued lack of good faith argumentation, your continued lack of interest in reality, etc.


I've pointed out your lack of self awareness several times both in this post and the previous one. Unshockingly enough, your lack of self awareness prevents you from getting it.

You've continued to fail to substantiate a single one of your positions, and chose not to respond on the merits of basically anything said. Declaring the sky is purple doesn't make it so; but you've written your hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness into each of these posts for the world to see. Spectacular job.


I look forward to another long winded reply full of nonsense.

I look forward to another low-effort shitpost that serves as another stone cementing the 41,000 post monument to your willful ignorance and stupidity.

[beldannon5]

Breaking news in a tweet Trump tells congress to stop being bitches and give 2k to people and 4k to couples. (i say take away the billions to egypt israel etc and do that) not that i necissarily want the stimulus but if they are doing it, $600 is really a kick in the balls

[beldannon5]

Someone told me nah red rep nah what I said wasn't said. Nah there shouldn't be more. Nah they aren't bitches? Nah what?

[Bhaalizmo]

Someone told me nah red rep nah what I said wasn't said. Nah there shouldn't be more. Nah they aren't bitches? Nah what?

Nah to anything coming out of that shit stains pouty bitch lips amounting to "Breaking news"

[Tgo01]

https://media4.giphy.com/media/kcfiK948yUHSqoNzwi/giphy.gif

I laughed.

[Tgo01]

Someone told me nah red rep nah what I said wasn't said. Nah there shouldn't be more. Nah they aren't bitches? Nah what?

That’s just Bhaalizmo, the eternally butthurt.

[caelric]

That’s just Bhaalizmo, the eternally butthurt.

Yep, it's time4bhaalizimo. He (she?) just randomly red reps random comments with 'nah'

[Alfster]

Breaking news in a tweet Trump tells congress to stop being bitches and give 2k to people and 4k to couples. (i say take away the billions to egypt israel etc and do that) not that i necissarily want the stimulus but if they are doing it, $600 is really a kick in the balls

There's so much in there that's bullshit. They didn't even have time to read what was in there, and it's packed full of bullshit.

[beldannon5]

There's so much in there that's bullshit. They didn't even have time to read what was in there, and it's packed full of bullshit.

it really is ridiculous just some of the stuff to other countries. even like millions of dollars to former presidents etc

[Parkbandit]

There's so much in there that's bullshit. They didn't even have time to read what was in there, and it's packed full of bullshit.

Yup. This was the result of 5 months of negotiation... and it doesn't matter how well you are doing in 2020... it's all based upon how you did back in 2019 when the economy was roaring...

What a colossal waste of taxpayer money..

[~Rocktar~]

Yep, it's time4bhaalizimo. He (she?) just randomly red reps random comments with 'nah'

Or other witty repartee.

[Skeletor]

Trump sends back bill says $600 is too little for the American people asks for 2 grand...

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ed/e5/0a/ede50acbf6f584d8404ea8523df05da1.gif

[Tgo01]

Trump sends back bill says $600 is too little for the American people asks for 2 grand...

I can't wait for the headlines.

"Trump vetoes relief for struggling American families hurt by his incompetence."

[Taernath]

Link to him vetoing it? As far as I can tell he's just threatening to.

[Tgo01]

I can't wait for the headlines.

"Trump vetoes relief for struggling American families hurt by his incompetence."

Trump throws Covid relief bill in doubt by asking Congress to amend it (https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/22/politics/trump-coronavirus-relief-bill/index.html)

Trump takes aim at Covid stimulus bill, raising specter of veto (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/22/trump-covid-stimulus-bill-450204)

Trump Makes Vague Threat Not to Pass Second COVID Stimulus (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/12/trump-makes-vague-threat-not-to-pass-covid-second-stimulus.html)

Never change, media.

[Parkbandit]

Here's what will happen..

They will just increase the $600 per person to $2000 per person.. because fake money is indeed fake.

And nothing else will change in the Omnibus spending spree... like the 10 million dollars earmarked for "Gender programs" in Pakistan... or the 500 million to Israel... or the 500 million to Belize...

[Skeletor]

Mcconell politically has no choice but to jack it up. Pelosi countered almost immediately stating she’ll agree to the 2k which puts the republicans in a massive bind. If they say no, prepare for pain in the next general.

I’m voting for Trump....... oh wait that was last month. Dude needs better advisors, how many votes would have been swayed (mostly poor Democrat leaning votes as well) for him if he just gave out those juicy checks a week prior to Nov 4th.

[caelric]

if he just gave out those juicy checks a week prior to Nov 4th.

There is absolutely no way the Democrat led House would have let a bill like that pass before the elections.

[Parkbandit]

Mcconell politically has no choice but to jack it up. Pelosi countered almost immediately stating she’ll agree to the 2k which puts the republicans in a massive bind. If they say no, prepare for pain in the next general.

I’m voting for Trump....... oh wait that was last month. Dude needs better advisors, how many votes would have been swayed (mostly poor Democrat leaning votes as well) for him if he just gave out those juicy checks a week prior to Nov 4th.

And that right there is why the Dems didn't want them released... but the braindead liberals still want to blame someone else...

[Ashliana]

Ah, yes, more arguments rooted in right-wing ignorance, where Caelric and Parkbandit live in an alternate reality where Democrats weren't negotiating with the White House directly, before the election, and where it wasn't McConnell (https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/10/20/trump-economic-stimulus-pelosi/) who put an end to it. PB's alternate reality, where it wasn't Mnuchin's inability to get Republicans to drop (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-23/pelosi-white-house-point-fingers-as-stimulus-negotiations-stall) their requirement for lawsuit immunity for reckless corporations, etc.

An alternate reality where it wasn't Republican senator Ron Johnson unilaterally blocking (https://money.yahoo.com/gop-lawmaker-vetoes-vote-on-stimulus-check-181850053.html) an up-or-down vote on a bipartisan bill sponsored by Bernie Sanders and Republican Josh Hawley with ONLY the direct stimulus money.

Republicans are the ones who want the benefits limited to pennies, and want those pennies means tested/limited (which makes even less sense, since they were conditioned on tax returns from a pre-COVID income, negating the point of helping those newly suffering during the pandemic). Democrats have championed greater benefits and, true to form, embraced Trump's comments immediately. If Republicans aren't to blame for the low direct stimulus.. Where's their chorus of agreement with Trump?

https://i.gifer.com/7O1E.gif

[Parkbandit]

And that right there is why the Dems didn't want them released... but the braindead liberals still want to blame someone else...

And right on queue....


Ah, yes, more arguments rooted in right-wing ignorance, where Caelric and Parkbandit live in an alternate reality where Democrats weren't negotiating with the White House directly, before the election, and where it wasn't McConnell (https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/10/20/trump-economic-stimulus-pelosi/) who put an end to it. PB's alternate reality, where it wasn't Mnuchin's inability to get Republicans to drop (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-23/pelosi-white-house-point-fingers-as-stimulus-negotiations-stall) their requirement for lawsuit immunity for reckless corporations, etc.

An alternate reality where it wasn't Republican senator Ron Johnson unilaterally blocking (https://money.yahoo.com/gop-lawmaker-vetoes-vote-on-stimulus-check-181850053.html) an up-or-down vote on a bipartisan bill sponsored by Bernie Sanders and Republican Josh Hawley with ONLY the direct stimulus money.

Republicans are the ones who want the benefits limited to pennies, and want those pennies means tested/limited (which makes even less sense, since they were conditioned on tax returns from a pre-COVID income, negating the point of helping those newly suffering during the pandemic). Democrats have championed greater benefits and, true to form, embraced Trump's comments immediately. If Republicans aren't to blame for the low direct stimulus.. Where's their chorus of agreement with Trump?

https://i.gifer.com/7O1E.gif

[Back]

Is this Trump's last little "fuck you" to the republicans who would not get on board with his coup scheme? I think so!

[beldannon5]

hey i am all for 1billion dollars to egypt oh wait, no i am not

[Ashliana]

And right on queue....

And to no one's surprise, yet another entry to stack up on the "Parkbandit pretended to respond, staying comfortably in his alternate reality" pile.

[Back]

Breakdown of the spending in a visual format. From: https://digg.com/2020/covid-relief-stimulus-bill-breakdown

Numbers broken down by Politico: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/20/details-stimulus-package-omnibus-bill-449499

https://i-cdn.embed.ly/1/display?key=fd92ebbc52fc43fb98f69e50e7893c13&url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ff1q7c9xbcv661.png

[Alfster]

So, news is apparently just a reddit post. Got it

[Seran]

Breakdown of the spending in a visual format. From: https://digg.com/2020/covid-relief-stimulus-bill-breakdown

Numbers broken down by Politico: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/20/details-stimulus-package-omnibus-bill-449499

https://i-cdn.embed.ly/1/display?key=fd92ebbc52fc43fb98f69e50e7893c13&url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ff1q7c9xbcv661.png

Border wall again. Nice

[Gelston]

rofl, attack submarine.

[Tgo01]

how many votes would have been swayed (mostly poor Democrat leaning votes as well) for him if he just gave out those juicy checks a week prior to Nov 4th.

He asked for exactly this months before the election. He asked Congress to just send everyone a check and stop with this spending spree for shit not related to Covid, but Pelosi openly admitted she let Americans suffer because she wanted to give Biden a boost at the polls and Democrats such as Back and Seran fell for it like they always do.

[Parkbandit]

Is this Trump's last little "fuck you" to the republicans who would not get on board with his coup scheme? I think so!

I've highlighted the part where you went off the rails...

[Parkbandit]

And to no one's surprise, yet another entry to stack up on the "Parkbandit pretended to respond, staying comfortably in his alternate reality" pile.

Dance, my puppet, dance...

I knew someone stupid would respond to my post.. I had the odds favorite as Backlash.. but you filled in perfectly for a brain dead liberal.

Notice that I didn't once speak about the specifics of the bill.. only the Democrat motivation.

No, you didn't...

[Ashliana]

Dance, my puppet, dance...

I knew someone stupid would respond to my post.. I had the odds favorite as Backlash.. but you filled in perfectly for a brain dead liberal.

Notice that I didn't once speak about the specifics of the bill.. only the Democrat motivation.

No, you didn't...

You didn't have to "speak about specifics of the bill," it was about your baseless assertion that "Democrats didn't want (checks) released." To no one's surprise, though, you failed yet again to respond substantively. Nothing else in the bag of tricks today? Didn't think so.

[beldannon5]

you were right tgo

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/new-signs-of-economic-distress-emerge-as-trump-imperils-aid-deal/ar-BB1cbxsP?ocid=msedgdhp

[Tgo01]

you were right tgo

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/new-signs-of-economic-distress-emerge-as-trump-imperils-aid-deal/ar-BB1cbxsP?ocid=msedgdhp

If there is one thing you can safely bet on it is that the media will always be absolute dogshit in this country.

[Parkbandit]

You didn't have to "speak about specifics of the bill," it was about your baseless assertion that "Democrats didn't want (checks) released." To no one's surprise, though, you failed yet again to respond substantively. Nothing else in the bag of tricks today? Didn't think so.

I said only a brain dead liberal would believe that it wasn't the Democrats that didn't want to have the covid relief checks released prior to the election. You immediately responded (as I knew a brain dead liberal would) and said it was the Republicans that only wanted to have $600 checks per person.

You're so easy to manipulate.. it's not a wonder you have to be a liberal.

[Ashliana]

I said only a brain dead liberal would believe that it wasn't the Democrats that didn't want to have the covid relief checks released prior to the election. You immediately responded (as I knew a brain dead liberal would) and said it was the Republicans that only wanted to have $600 checks per person.

You're so easy to manipulate.. it's not a wonder you have to be a liberal.

Predicting "someone will disagree with my obviously incorrect point!" doesn't make you a genius. You were (and continue to be) retarded for thinking it's the fault of anyone but Republicans for COVID assistance not being passed sooner. Guess that bag of tricks was empty after all.

[Stolis]

Predicting "someone will disagree with my obviously incorrect point!" doesn't make you a genius. You were (and continue to be) retarded for thinking it's the fault of anyone but Republicans for COVID assistance not being passed sooner. Guess that bag of tricks was empty after all.

So you say it's the Republicans fault for not letting this get passed sooner. Nevermind that in negotiations, they got within a few hundred million of each other and Pelosi and Schumer still wouldn't let it happen. Nevermind that the Democrat ran House filled this bill with bullshit that is completely unnecessary. Who the fuck cares about Egypt right now? Why are we spending money on attack submarines? Those are cool and all, but maybe we fucking spend that few billion on small businesses who need it? Upper education? Ya'll can go straight to the bottom of the list. Literally fuck them.

[Parkbandit]

Predicting "someone will disagree with my obviously incorrect point!" doesn't make you a genius. You were (and continue to be) retarded for thinking it's the fault of anyone but Republicans for COVID assistance not being passed sooner. Guess that bag of tricks was empty after all.

Now I know this will require some critical thinking on your part and most likely you will fail miserably... but what would the Republican motivation, not to get the covid stimulus checks out prior to the election, be?

[~Rocktar~]

House GOP blocks $2,000 checks. Fucking cocksuckers blocked it. To all you tards not making more than 75k a year or $150,000 as a household, this is what happens if you vote GOP.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/house-gop-block-democratic-attempt-2000-stimulus-checks-2020-12%3famp

Ummm, the House GOP can't block anything, they don't have the votes. If Dems wanted it, it would pass so no, they didn't block anything, Pelosi did.

[beldannon5]

That part is on the republicans, however it was still the same bill, I am okay with it not passing. We don't need to give multiple billions to other countries when we have so many issues here. To me the bill should be giving Americans a stimulus, helping small business, some sort of unemployment help DONE!

[beldannon5]

but it was giving billions to other countries still as well as millions to former presidents and millions to other things that didn't need it. i believe. so it would have been a partial win but not near good enough

[Parkbandit]

but it was giving billions to other countries still as well as millions to former presidents and millions to other things that didn't need it. i believe. so it would have been a partial win but not near good enough

2 different bills.

[Parkbandit]

House GOP blocks $2,000 checks. Fucking cocksuckers blocked it. To all you tards not making more than 75k a year or $150,000 as a household, this is what happens if you vote GOP.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/house-gop-block-democratic-attempt-2000-stimulus-checks-2020-12%3famp

Sorry MacGuyver... I know you were really counting on that money too :(

[Ashliana]

So you say it's the Republicans fault for not letting this get passed sooner. Nevermind that in negotiations, they got within a few hundred million of each other and Pelosi and Schumer still wouldn't let it happen*. Nevermind that the Democrat ran House* filled this bill with bullshit that is completely unnecessary. Who the fuck cares about Egypt right now? Why are we spending money on attack submarines? Those are cool and all, but maybe we fucking spend that few billion on small businesses who need it? Upper education? Ya'll can go straight to the bottom of the list. Literally fuck them.

* Citations required.


Now I know this will require some critical thinking on your part and most likely you will fail miserably... but what would the Republican motivation, not to get the covid stimulus checks out prior to the election, be?

You can ask that question of Mitch McConnell, Parkbandit, and why he torpedoed House/WH negotiations (https://www.businessinsider.com/mcconnell-stimulus-package-coronavirus-relief-compromise-white-house-democrats-2020-10), and why he didn't allow votes on anything for almost a year. It's already a matter of public record why McConnell didn't allow anything: his priority was passing total legal immunity for corporations reckessly endangering their workforces (https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-mcconnell-workers-corporate-immunity-covid-19-bill-aid-pandemic-2020-12), which was a deal-breaker. Your inability to respond substantively, yet again, wasn't lost on anyone. Your usual strategy -- "simultaneously educate me as I argue for its own sake, please" hasn't worked before, and certainly won't work now.

[Parkbandit]

* Citations required.



You can ask that question of Mitch McConnell, Parkbandit, and why he torpedoed House/WH negotiations (https://www.businessinsider.com/mcconnell-stimulus-package-coronavirus-relief-compromise-white-house-democrats-2020-10), and why he didn't allow votes on anything for almost a year. It's already a matter of public record why McConnell didn't allow anything: his priority was passing total legal immunity for corporations reckessly endangering their workforces (https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-mcconnell-workers-corporate-immunity-covid-19-bill-aid-pandemic-2020-12), which was a deal-breaker. Your inability to respond substantively, yet again, wasn't lost on anyone. Your usual strategy -- "simultaneously educate me as I argue for its own sake, please" hasn't worked before, and certainly won't work now.

So... you failed miserably again...

No one is surprised.

Don't take my word for it.. take Nancy Pelosi's:

During a press conference at the beginning of December, she was asked about why she didn't accept the covid deal months ago:

“Was it a mistake not to accept half of a loaf months ago? When you said I’m not going to accept half a loaf –?”

She responded:


“I’m going to tell you something, don’t characterize what we did before as a mistake, as a preface to your question if you want an answer. That was not a mistake. It was a decision, and it has taken us to a place where we can do the right thing without other, shall we say, considerations in the legislation that we don’t want. Now, that is it. Now, the fact is, I’m very proud of where we are.”

I used bold, italics and underline to the important part... it was a decision. She made this decision.

There was nothing additional in the new covid stimulus bill that wasn't there months ago. She could have easily had this bill passed July/August, but instead stuck to her guns regarding the total amount.. which started around 3 trillion and got down to 1.5 trillion. She settled on 900 billion? What changed?

Oh.. Biden won the election.......

[Ashliana]

So... you failed miserably again...

No one is surprised.

What's that? PB's trademark hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness, completely failing to engage with McConnell's actions? No surprise there.


During a press conference at the beginning of December, she was asked about why she didn't accept the covid deal months ago:

“Was it a mistake not to accept half of a loaf months ago? When you said I’m not going to accept half a loaf –?”

She responded:


“I’m going to tell you something, don’t characterize what we did before as a mistake, as a preface to your question if you want an answer. That was not a mistake. It was a decision, and it has taken us to a place where we can do the right thing without other, shall we say, considerations in the legislation that we don’t want. Now, that is it. Now, the fact is, I’m very proud of where we are.”

I used bold, italics and underline to the important part... it was a decision. She made this decision.



Don't take my word for it.. take Nancy Pelosi's:

During a press conference at the beginning of December, she was asked about why she didn't accept the covid deal months ago:

“Was it a mistake not to accept half of a loaf months ago? When you said I’m not going to accept half a loaf –?”

She responded:


“I’m going to tell you something, don’t characterize what we did before as a mistake, as a preface to your question if you want an answer. That was not a mistake. It was a decision, and it has taken us to a place where we can do the right thing without other, shall we say, considerations in the legislation that we don’t want. Now, that is it. Now, the fact is, I’m very proud of where we are.”

I used bold, italics and underline to the important part... it was a decision. She made this decision.

Except Pelosi's actions (and subsequent, after-the-fact spin) don't exist in a vacuum, and you pretending that McConnell wasn't the roadblock stopping House and WH negotiations from proceeding doesn't make them not exist. Couldn't muster up a response to that, could you?


There was nothing additional in the new covid stimulus bill that wasn't there months ago. She could have easily had this bill passed July/August, but instead stuck to her guns regarding the total amount.. which started around 3 trillion and got down to 1.5 trillion. She settled on 900 billion? What changed?

Not only are you factually incorrect -- there's plenty that the right-wing snuck in there, like the three martini lunch giveaway to corporations (https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/12/20/meal-tax-deduction/) -- it's about what McConnell was forced to remove, the immunity for corporations endangering their own workforce, which you're just pretending wasn't holding up the deal.


Oh.. Biden won the election.......

Yes, he did. And perhaps he wouldn't have if McConnell hadn't been so eager to put big business before regular Americans. How unfortunate for you.

[Parkbandit]

What's that? PB's trademark hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness, completely failing to engage with McConnell's actions? No surprise there.

Except Pelosi's actions (and subsequent, after-the-fact spin) don't exist in a vacuum, and you pretending that McConnell wasn't the roadblock stopping House and WH negotiations from proceeding doesn't make them not exist. Couldn't muster up a response to that, could you?

Not only are you factually incorrect -- there's plenty that the right-wing snuck in there, like the three martini lunch giveaway to corporations (https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/12/20/meal-tax-deduction/) -- it's about what McConnell was forced to remove, the immunity for corporations endangering their own workforce, which you're just pretending wasn't holding up the deal.

Yes, he did. And perhaps he wouldn't have if McConnell hadn't been so eager to put big business before regular Americans. How unfortunate for you.

So, your "critical thought process" came to the conclusion that it was McConnell that stopped the covid relief.. because he was beholden to big business?

So, when Pelosi herself stated that it was a decision they made.. she's lying? She's just trying to look more important in this than she actually was? Or do you think she's beholden to McConnell?

Yikes.... you're fucking retarded...

https://media2.giphy.com/media/ORT8ZWCQf9mhSOUgny/200.gif

[Parkbandit]

Yeah she torpedoed that deal because it would probably would have led to an actual Trump win. It was strategic political ploy. I agree with you on that part.

Anyone who has an IQ above 12 would come to that conclusion.


But then, now that the tables have turned the Repubs are doing the exact same thing with Trump himself coming out and saying this shit is way too stingy.

The Republicans and President Trump want to trim down the Omnibus spending bill and move the savings into the Covid Relief stimulus bill, instead of just increasing the money into Covid relief.

[Tgo01]

House GOP blocks $2,000 checks. Fucking cocksuckers blocked it. To all you tards not making more than 75k a year or $150,000 as a household, this is what happens if you vote GOP.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/house-gop-block-democratic-attempt-2000-stimulus-checks-2020-12%3famp

It would actually be cheaper to just send every American 2000 dollars than the cost of the original bill which only sent some Americans 600 dollars. All Democrats had to do was remove all of their giveaways to other countries and other stupid shit like Trump asked and give every American 2000 dollars and this bill would have already passed the House and Senate and been signed by Trump.

Fuck Democrats and their enablers.

[Ashliana]

So, your "critical thought process" came to the conclusion that it was McConnell that stopped the covid relief.. because he was beholden to big business?

So, when Pelosi herself stated that it was a decision they made.. she's lying? She's just trying to look more important in this than she actually was? Or do you think she's beholden to McConnell?

Yikes.... you're fucking retarded...

https://media2.giphy.com/media/ORT8ZWCQf9mhSOUgny/200.gif

Demonstrating your inability or unwillingness to read only reflects on you, PB. Try again, retard.

[Parkbandit]

Demonstrating your inability or unwillingness to read only reflects on you, PB. Try again, retard.

Demonstrating your inability to think critically (let alone think at all) only reflects on you, It. Try again, Retard.

[Parkbandit]

It would actually be cheaper to just send every American 2000 dollars than the cost of the original bill which only sent some Americans 600 dollars. All Democrats had to do was remove all of their giveaways to other countries and other stupid shit like Trump asked and give every American 2000 dollars and this bill would have already passed the House and Senate and been signed by Trump.

Fuck Democrats and their enablers.

Wait.. you don't believe us paying for "Gender Studies" in Pakistan is important??

You sound like you only believe in TWO GENDERS!?!?!? YOU MONSTER!!!!!!

[Ashliana]

Demonstrating your inability to think critically (let alone think at all) only reflects on you, It. Try again, Retard.

Sorry you've got a problem with responding substantively. Best of luck mustering one up next time, imbecile.

[Gelston]

It would actually be cheaper to just send every American 2000 dollars than the cost of the original bill which only sent some Americans 600 dollars. All Democrats had to do was remove all of their giveaways to other countries and other stupid shit like Trump asked and give every American 2000 dollars and this bill would have already passed the House and Senate and been signed by Trump.

Fuck Democrats and their enablers.

.... GOP passed the bill with flying colors when it was $600 with the exact same provisions. It is now $2000 and they have an issue. Their issue is the $1400 more to each American, because it wasn't the other stuff earlier.

Even Trump wants this shit passed.

[Tgo01]

.... GOP passed the bill with flying colors when it was $600 with the exact same provisions. It is now $2000 and they have an issue. Their issue is the $1400 more to each American, because it wasn't the other stuff earlier.

Their issue is the total cost. The only way Democrats were going to agree to even 600 dollars is if they got all of their giveaways. Like I said it would be cheaper to just give every American 2000 dollars than the cost of this package with only some Americans getting 600 dollars.

Trump also said he wants all of the pork taken out of the bill that doesn't have to do with Covid relief for Americans.

[Tgo01]

I think maybe, maybe a teeny tiny chance that Trump is beginning to realize how fucked up the Repub party is. Maybe.

The Democrats are the ones demanding most of these giveaways. You think Republicans fought for money to Pakistan for gender research or whatever that dumb shit was or a billion dollars to the Smithsonian? Get over yourself.

[Parkbandit]

Sorry you've got a problem with responding substantively. Best of luck mustering one up next time, imbecile.

Quoting stuff and making up your own "bi-lines" doesn't equate substance. You were wrong. Even Nancy Pelosi has admitted it... it's ok, you can too.

It's politics... it's not that big of a deal that Nancy and the Democrat party made a decision to withhold the relief in an effort to sway the election. It worked!

[Parkbandit]

.... GOP passed the bill with flying colors when it was $600 with the exact same provisions. It is now $2000 and they have an issue. Their issue is the $1400 more to each American, because it wasn't the other stuff earlier.

Even Trump wants this shit passed.

It wasn't the other stuff because most of them didn't know it was the other stuff... unless you believe someone can speed read 6000 pages in a few hours.

Now that it has come to light what they voted yes to, they've seen a constituent backlash.. and now they want to pretend to be fiscally responsible.........

[Parkbandit]

Their issue is the total cost. The only way Democrats were going to agree to even 600 dollars is if they got all of their giveaways. Like I said it would be cheaper to just give every American 2000 dollars than the cost of this package with only some Americans getting 600 dollars.

Trump also said he wants all of the pork taken out of the bill that doesn't have to do with Covid relief for Americans.

There's 2 bills that passed at the same time: Covid relief and Omnibus spending.

[Parkbandit]

The Democrats are the ones demanding most of these giveaways. You think Republicans fought for money to Pakistan for gender research or whatever that dumb shit was or a billion dollars to the Smithsonian? Get over yourself.

They might not have fought over it.. but they sure voted for it.

Can't go after the Republicans saying "Yes" to the bill along with the Democrats, and only vilifying the Democrats.

They are both at fault for it's passing.

[Tgo01]

They might not have fought over it.. but they sure voted for it.

Can't go after the Republicans saying "Yes" to the bill along with the Democrats, and only vilifying the Democrats.

They are both at fault for it's passing.

They are both at fault for passing this shit, but Democrats are the ones who won't give Americans more money unless their pet projects are funded.

[Alfster]

I mean. Republicans blocked the vote today. But yes. It's only the democrats.

The GOP and the Dems are equally at fault. Their platform is corporation first.

[Ardwen]

You mean those Dem pet projects like Trumps border wall, money for Israel and a 3 martini lunch tax break for corporations?

[Tgo01]

I mean. Republicans blocked the vote today. But yes. It's only the democrats.

Democrats are the ones on a spending spree yes. Time to stop pretending to be a conservative already and fully embrace Biden's wrinkly cock in your mouth.

[Ashliana]

Quoting stuff and making up your own "bi-lines" doesn't equate substance. You were wrong. Even Nancy Pelosi has admitted it... it's ok, you can too.

It's politics... it's not that big of a deal that Nancy and the Democrat party made a decision to withhold the relief in an effort to sway the election. It worked!

Your inability of unwillingness to read reflects on you, no matter how many times you pretend it doesn't. If you want someone to impotently blame, you can blame McConnell for valuing aiding big business over regular people. You'll learn how to deal with your impotent rage someday.


You mean those Dem pet projects like Trumps border wall, money for Israel and a 3 martini lunch tax break for corporations?

Sssh! They don't react well to reality.

[caelric]

Your inability of unwillingness to read reflects on you, no matter how many times you pretend it doesn't. If you want someone to impotently blame, you can blame McConnell for valuing aiding big business over regular people. You'll learn how to deal with your impotent rage someday.



Sssh! They don't react well to reality.


When your parents repeatedly dropped you on your head as a child, was it accidental, or malicious?

Have they ever apologized for it?

[Ashliana]

Impotent rage
Mocking PB's impotent rage

Aww. Did I hurt your feelings?

[Wrathbringer]

Aww. Did I hurt your feelings?

Not that I'm questioning your authority on impotence, but you don't hurt any feelings here. You see, us conservatives, we're adults. Our fee fees get checked by our brains. You do inspire a lot of laughter, though. :)

[Wrathbringer]

They are both at fault for passing this shit, but Democrats are the ones who won't give Americans more money unless their pet projects are funded.

And McConnell is the one who won't give more money, period, for any reason. I think these payments are an effort to solve a problem government caused with another, bigger, problem. Both sides are guilty here. For everything.

[Wrathbringer]

I mean. Republicans blocked the vote today. But yes. It's only the democrats.

The GOP and the Dems are equally at fault. Their platform is corporation first.

...I can't believe I'm saying this, but I completely agree with you on this post.

[Wrathbringer]

THREE POSTS IN A ROW OMGOMGOMGOMG RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111!!!

[Ashliana]

Not that I'm questioning your authority on impotence, but you don't hurt any feelings here. You see, us conservatives, we're adults. Our fee fees get checked by our brains. You do inspire a lot of laughter, though. :)

Right. Because "adults" leave send strangers on the Internet 100+ messages about "sharding" -- rather than respond in a discussion, because you couldn't argue your way out of a wet bag and your fee-fees got hurt. :rofl:

You and PB badly need psychiatric care.

[caelric]

Not that I'm questioning your authority on impotence, but you don't hurt any feelings here. You see, us conservatives, we're adults. Our fee fees get checked by our brains. You do inspire a lot of laughter, though. :)

Not really laughter. More like pity.

[Wrathbringer]

Right. Because "adults" leave send strangers on the Internet 100+ messages about "sharding" -- rather than respond in a discussion, because you couldn't argue your way out of a wet bag and your fee-fees got hurt. :rofl:

You and PB badly need psychiatric care.

"sharding" hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahaha.......AAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaa aaaaahhhahahahahahahahahahahahahah! oh god. Thanks for that :lol: :lol: :lol:

Edit: See? Toldja.

[Parkbandit]

You mean those Dem pet projects like Trumps border wall, money for Israel and a 3 martini lunch tax break for corporations?

Border protection has been in almost every Omnibus budget from as long as I've been alive.

We've also been giving money to Israel from as long as I've been alive.

And while the "3 martini lunch tax break" sounds salacious, instead of giving a tax break for 50% of your meals for entertaining, you can now deduct 100%. I know my employees will reap the benefit of that.

[Parkbandit]

Your inability of unwillingness to read reflects on you, no matter how many times you pretend it doesn't. If you want someone to impotently blame, you can blame McConnell for valuing aiding big business over regular people. You'll learn how to deal with your impotent rage someday.

I realize you are of the "mindset" that if you repeat it enough.. it'll somehow come true.

It won't. You're still as wrong as you are retarded.


Sssh! They don't react well to reality.

Zero Self Awareness for the plus sized, hairy guy pretending to be a cute little girl on the Internet....

[Parkbandit]

When your parents repeatedly dropped you on your head as a child, was it accidental, or malicious?

Have they ever apologized for it?

They probably claim they were all accidents.. but I'm sure they were just trying to knock some sense into It's head...

[Parkbandit]

The hilarious or possibly scary part about all this is that all those direct foreign payments were the exact amounts that Trump personally requested in his budget.

Which means he either never read his own budget or he doesn’t remember and he’s criticizing himself.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/0f78af841f453545a036b6cceb3620cc/tenor.gif?itemid=4780258

Hopefully, you do realize that the President doesn't actually make the budget... but I don't hold out for much hope with you.

[Parkbandit]

I mean. Republicans blocked the vote today. But yes. It's only the democrats.

The GOP and the Dems are equally at fault. Their platform is corporation first.

Who, specifically, is blaming "only the democrats" for the vote today?

Strawman much?

[Parkbandit]

Right. Because "adults" leave send strangers on the Internet 100+ messages about "sharding" -- rather than respond in a discussion, because you couldn't argue your way out of a wet bag and your fee-fees got hurt. :rofl:

You and PB badly need psychiatric care.

.... it's like you are purposely trolling at this point... by the one person whom I believe real psychiatric care could actually do the most good for...

[Ashliana]

I realize you are of the "mindset" that if you repeat it enough.. it'll somehow come true.

It won't. You're still as wrong as you are retarded.

Zero Self Awareness for the plus sized, hairy guy pretending to be a cute little girl on the Internet....

Six whining, hysterical posts in a row might be your new record. And yet, you still couldn't respond substantively.


.... it's like you are purposely trolling at this point... by the one person whom I believe real psychiatric care could actually do the most good for...

Ah, yes, the inevitable part in any thread where you pretend your ten-year plus history of severe mental illness and sexual obsession with strangers -- mostly men -- on the Internet somehow isn't a matter of forum record. Unfortunately for you, it is. You badly need psychiatric care.

[Parkbandit]

Six whining, hysterical posts in a row might be your new record. And yet, you still couldn't respond substantively.

I gave you the quote from the Democrat Speaker of the House, saying that was the decision they made. You just stuck your oversized fingers in your hairy ears and pretended it didn't happen.


Ah, yes, the inevitable part in any thread where you pretend your ten-year plus history of severe mental illness and sexual obsession with strangers -- mostly men -- on the Internet somehow isn't a matter of forum record. Unfortunately for you, it is. You badly need psychiatric care.

I know you wish it were true... hell, ANY attention from a guy would be a dream come true for you... but don't mistake me calling you a flaming faggot for some sexual obsession.

It's just stating fact. Don't worry.. someday you will find up an extremely hard up guy who won't look at you with disgust and distain. May I suggest hanging out at a gay bar next to a place where blind people get paired up with a seeing eye dog?

[Parkbandit]

The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 requires the President to submit the budget to Congress for each fiscal year, which is the 12-month period beginning on October 1 and ending on September 30 of the next calendar year. The current federal budget law (31 U.S.C. § 1105(a)) requires that the President submit the budget between the first Monday in January and the first Monday in February.

https://media4.giphy.com/media/1msK2aCNYvHiCUmaGz/200.gif

Wait.. so you read that and honestly believe that the President writes the entire budget himself.

Can you imagine Sleepy Joe's budget if that were true?? YIKES!

[Ashliana]

I gave you the quote from the Democrat Speaker of the House, saying that was the decision they made. You just stuck your oversized fingers in your hairy ears and pretended it didn't happen.

Nope. I responded to it, which apparently broke your brain even further, and you've been throwing one of your predictable tantrums ever since.



I know you wish it were true... hell, ANY attention from a guy would be a dream come true for you... but don't mistake me calling you a flaming faggot for some sexual obsession.

It's just stating fact. Don't worry.. someday you will find up an extremely hard up guy who won't look at you with disgust and distain. May I suggest hanging out at a gay bar next to a place where blind people get paired up with a seeing eye dog?

You can whine, and whine, and whine, and yet it remains: Your severe mental illness was exposed, and everyone knows about the 10 plus years you've spent sending people -- mostly men -- angry, sexualized messages -- not just "hurrr, flaming faggot" -- messages full of your trademark impotent rage. Absolutely nothing you whine about now changes that.

Try again.

[Neveragain]

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2020-12/22/19/enhanced/bb058491d00d/original-10700-1608665758-7.jpg?crop=1240:649;0,91

[Parkbandit]

Nope. I responded to it, which apparently broke your brain even further, and you've been throwing one of your predictable tantrums ever since.

You can whine, and whine, and whine, and yet it remains: Your severe mental illness was exposed, and everyone knows about the 10 plus years you've spent sending people -- mostly men -- angry, sexualized messages -- not just "hurrr, flaming faggot" -- messages full of your trademark impotent rage. Absolutely nothing you whine about now changes that.

Try again.

Now I remember why I don't bother with most of your posts... being retarded is one thing.. but being retarded with zero self awareness is tiresome.

From now on, I'll just respond to each one of your posts like I used to:

https://media4.giphy.com/media/LuQi2S1JFkQM0/giphy.gif

Haha.. just noticed the signature on the gif... very fitting...

[Ashliana]

Now I remember why I don't bother with most of your posts... being retarded is one thing.. but being retarded with zero self awareness is tiresome.

More accurate: you prove to yourself, each time, that you're completely incapable of laying out a coherent argument, get flustered, forced to personally insult the other person, get nastier and nastier, and then you're reminded that the entire forum knows about your severe mental illness that caused you to spend 10+ years sending as many angry, sexualized messages to strangers (mostly men) on the Internet as you could.


From now on, I'll just respond to each one of your posts like I used to:

https://media4.giphy.com/media/LuQi2S1JFkQM0/giphy.gif

Haha.. just noticed the signature on the gif... very fitting...

And it just wouldn't be Parkbandit if it wasn't full of will ignorance. Best of luck figuring out what "catfishing" means. I know you find looking up those new-fangled used by mIllEnIaLs are scary, but you'll adapt someday. Then again, an uneducated 65-year old Florida man being ignorant is hardly a surprise.

[Parkbandit]

More accurate: you prove to yourself, each time, that you're completely incapable of laying out a coherent argument, get flustered, forced to personally insult the other person, get nastier and nastier, and then you're reminded that the entire forum knows about your severe mental illness that caused you to spend 10+ years sending as many angry, sexualized messages to strangers (mostly men) on the Internet as you could.

And it just wouldn't be Parkbandit if it wasn't full of will ignorance. Best of luck figuring out what "catfishing" means. I know you find looking up those new-fangled used by mIllEnIaLs are scary, but you'll adapt someday. Then again, an uneducated 65-year old Florida man being ignorant is hardly a surprise.

https://media4.giphy.com/media/LuQi2S1JFkQM0/giphy.gif

https://media4.giphy.com/media/LuQi2S1JFkQM0/giphy.gif

https://media4.giphy.com/media/LuQi2S1JFkQM0/giphy.gif

[Ashliana]

https://media4.giphy.com/media/LuQi2S1JFkQM0/giphy.gif

https://media4.giphy.com/media/LuQi2S1JFkQM0/giphy.gif

https://media4.giphy.com/media/LuQi2S1JFkQM0/giphy.gif

https://i.kym-cdn.com/news_feeds/icons/mobile/000/019/234/3ad.jpg

[Parkbandit]

https://i.kym-cdn.com/news_feeds/icons/mobile/000/019/234/3ad.jpg

https://media4.giphy.com/media/LuQi2S1JFkQM0/giphy.gifhttps://media4.giphy.com/media/LuQi2S1JFkQM0/giphy.gifhttps://media4.giphy.com/media/LuQi2S1JFkQM0/giphy.gif

[Ashliana]

https://media4.giphy.com/media/LuQi2S1JFkQM0/giphy.gifhttps://media4.giphy.com/media/LuQi2S1JFkQM0/giphy.gifhttps://media4.giphy.com/media/LuQi2S1JFkQM0/giphy.gif

https://i.kym-cdn.com/news_feeds/icons/mobile/000/019/234/3ad.jpg

[Wrathbringer]

Just chiming in to state that this thread is gold right now. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[~Rocktar~]

Just chiming in to state that this thread is gold right now. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Gold catfish

[Tgo01]

Funny how all anyone is crying about is how the Republicans "blocked" the additional 1400 dollars, but no one is even mentioning how Republicans wanted to cut foreign aid from the bill (something else Trump has asked for) and the Democrats shot that one down.

How are y'all gonna sit there and blame this all on Republicans when Democrats want all or nothing? Democrats want millions to Pakistan for gender study or Americans get nothing at all.

Oh that's right, because y'all are sheep.

Alfster: Sheep
Ashliana: Sheep
Veggies/Mcguvyer: Sheep

The party of sheep.

[HOUSE]

I want to believe.

Q-Anon, give me a sign.

[Neveragain]

Six whining, hysterical posts in a row might be your new record. And yet, you still couldn't respond substantively.



Ah, yes, the inevitable part in any thread where you pretend your ten-year plus history of severe mental illness and sexual obsession with strangers -- mostly men -- on the Internet somehow isn't a matter of forum record. Unfortunately for you, it is. You badly need psychiatric care.

It's also inevitable that you try to leverage an argument using mental health and homosexuality as negative labels.

Carry on, I just thought it was important to point out your bigotry and hate.

[Parkbandit]

https://i.kym-cdn.com/news_feeds/icons/mobile/000/019/234/3ad.jpg

https://media4.giphy.com/media/LuQi2S1JFkQM0/giphy.gifhttps://media4.giphy.com/media/LuQi2S1JFkQM0/giphy.gifhttps://media4.giphy.com/media/LuQi2S1JFkQM0/giphy.gif

[Ashliana]

It's also inevitable that you try to leverage an argument using mental health and homosexuality as negative labels.

Carry on, I just thought it was important to point out your bigotry and hate.

Erm, no. Pointing out his 10-year plus history of leaving anonymous messages full of impotent, sexualized rage at strangers on the Internet might reflect badly on him, but says nothing about "homosexuality being negative" or those suffering from mental illness in general. Being a hateful 65-year old uneducated man from Florida who can't deal with his problems and has spent his adult life taking it out on strangers would be the negative aspect. Carry on, I just thought it was important to point out your bad faith and lack of reasoning.


https://media4.giphy.com/media/LuQi2S1JFkQM0/giphy.gifhttps://media4.giphy.com/media/LuQi2S1JFkQM0/giphy.gifhttps://media4.giphy.com/media/LuQi2S1JFkQM0/giphy.gif

https://i.kym-cdn.com/news_feeds/icons/mobile/000/019/234/3ad.jpg

[Parkbandit]

Erm, no. Pointing out his 10-year plus history of leaving anonymous messages full of impotent, sexualized rage at strangers on the Internet might reflect badly on him, but says nothing about "homosexuality being negative" or those suffering from mental illness in general. Being a hateful 65-year old uneducated man from Florida who can't deal with his problems and has spent his adult life taking it out on strangers would be the negative aspect. Carry on, I just thought it was important to point out your bad faith and lack of reasoning.



https://i.kym-cdn.com/news_feeds/icons/mobile/000/019/234/3ad.jpg

https://media4.giphy.com/media/LuQi2S1JFkQM0/giphy.gifhttps://media4.giphy.com/media/LuQi2S1JFkQM0/giphy.gifhttps://media4.giphy.com/media/LuQi2S1JFkQM0/giphy.gif

[Parkbandit]

It's also inevitable that you try to leverage an argument using mental health and homosexuality as negative labels.

Carry on, I just thought it was important to point out your bigotry and hate.

He has a storied history of reading into something that isn't there. I blame myself though.. I have all this masculine sexuality and sometimes don't realize how powerful it is.. and he reads "god, stop being such a flaming faggot" as a come on.. that somehow I want to be with him.. and there's where the disconnect comes from. In his head, he is still that pretty, cute girl he pretends to be online... and thinks normal men are trying to get with him...

Reality finally comes crashing in when he stands in front of a mirror...

[Ashliana]

https://media4.giphy.com/media/LuQi2S1JFkQM0/giphy.gifhttps://media4.giphy.com/media/LuQi2S1JFkQM0/giphy.gif

https://i.kym-cdn.com/news_feeds/icons/mobile/000/019/234/3ad.jpg


He has a storied history of reading into something that isn't there. I blame myself though.. I have all this masculine sexuality and sometimes don't realize how powerful it is.. and he reads "god, stop being such a flaming faggot" as a come on.. that somehow I want to be with him.. and there's where the disconnect comes from. In his head, he is still that pretty, cute girl he pretends to be online... and thinks normal men are trying to get with him...

Reality finally comes crashing in when he stands in front of a mirror...

Speaking of reality -- do you think people on here don't know what kind of a bizarre -- and sad -- 65-year old weirdo you are? Most men don't spend a decade of their lives -- starting in their 50s -- anonymously sending other men furious, sexualized imagery they spent untold hours of their lives dreaming up (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?100746-REP-AGEDDON!!!!-THE-REP-TURE!-Post-your-worst-rep-comments!). And it certainly didn't consist (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?100746-REP-AGEDDON!!!!-THE-REP-TURE!-Post-your-worst-rep-comments!/page44) of things like "god, stop being such a flaming faggot." What drove you to do so is your own issue, but it certainly isn't because of your "masculine sexuality." :rofl:

You have badly needed psychiatric care for years.