January 6th 2021 FEDSURRECTION: The Corrupt Biden Regime: White House, FBI, DOJ, media, committee

[BillStime]

🎯

 

 

[BillStime]

On 7/8/2022 at 10:08 AM, B-Man said:

 

 

January 6 Committee Has Convinced Most Republicans That They Are Not Investigating an 'Insurrection'

 

 

As many have noted, the sole purpose of the bizarre clown show that is the January 6 Committee is political warfare.

 

It was designed by the Democrats to try to keep Donald Trump on the ballot for 2022 and 2024. It was a tool the Democrats thought could slander GOP politicians who wouldn’t “condemn” President Trump and his supporters and help them win elections.

 

The corrupt political agenda of this committee was telegraphed from its inception when Nancy Pelosi vetoed House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s appointments to the committee because they were not the stump-broke Republicans Pelosi needed. 

 

Things are not working out all that well.

 

A new Monmouth University poll carries some stark lessons for the work that lies ahead for the House Jan. 6 committee, to the extent that the panel seeks to convince conservative Americans that Trump committed a crime that day. That’s because they increasingly don’t even believe what happened that day — and what they formerly accepted as reality — actually happened.

 

The poll shows significant reductions in the percentages of Republicans who characterize Jan. 6 not just as an “insurrection” but also a “riot.” And it’s not the first to point in that direction.

 

The poll asked people in June 2021 and June 2022 whether each of those labels were appropriate descriptors for what transpired on Jan. 6, 2021. And the GOP shifts are pretty uniform:

 

While 33 percent of Republicans said in June 2021 that Jan. 6 was an insurrection, that number is now just 13 percent.

 

While 62 percent of Republicans called it a “riot” back then, that’s down to 45 percent.

 

While 47 percent said it was a “legitimate protest,” that’s now up to 61 percent.

 

So whereas more Republicans once said it was a “riot” than a “legitimate protest,” by a 15-point margin, that has been flipped, with Republicans favoring the “legitimate protest” label by 16 points. A majority of Republicans no longer even regard Jan. 6 as a “riot.”

 

 

https://redstate.com/streiff/2022/07/08/january-6-committee-has-convinced-most-republicans-that-they-are-not-investigating-an-insurrection-n591022

 

 

R

E

D

S

T

A
T

E

 

lolz

 

idiots 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

16 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

 

I’m uncertain why any dem, r or citizen would be against transparent, public testimony in this case.  That’s not to say many will be completely and irrevocably disinterested, but that’s a different issue. 
 

 

[Doc]

3 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I’m uncertain why any dem, r or citizen would be against transparent, public testimony in this case.  That’s not to say many will be completely and irrevocably disinterested, but that’s a different issue. 

 

I'm assuming this is sarcasm.  

[All_Pro_Bills]

7 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

I'm assuming this is sarcasm.  

Sarcasm is no longer a legal form of communication per the ministry of truth!  And it is very hurtful form of verbal violence.  

 

But yes, every single person regardless of party affiliation or personal beliefs should embrace an opportunity to hear firsthand, without editing, or limit the complete testimony of the witness.  Who could possibly be afraid of that? 

 

Given the witness will be testifying under oath, as emphasized by the news person on the national news broadcast I saw last night, getting the truth and nothing but the truth should be the number one priority of everyone.  

 

My guess is some member of "the committee", perhaps sleaze ball misinformation generator and leaker extraordinaire Adam Schiff, will cite some national security issues, real or imagined, that an open and public forum might endanger.  

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

But testifying under oath is the sole benchmark to guide us to the truth!

 

...but not if it's public testimony under oath....

 

...and not if the testimony can't be selectively edited for release by the committee...

 

 

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

The key to our legal system is NOT that people testify “under oath”. The key is the right to cross examination and a proper defense. 
Done! 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, Doc said:

 

I'm assuming this is sarcasm.  

Not this time.  I’m no fan of the 1/6 miscreants who tried to smash barriers, assault officers, and engaged in other than peaceful protest.  
 

Let’s go with transparency and clarity here. 
 

 

[ChiGoose]

2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I’m uncertain why any dem, r or citizen would be against transparent, public testimony in this case.  That’s not to say many will be completely and irrevocably disinterested, but that’s a different issue. 
 

 

 

If you were running a serious investigation, you would not want their first testimony to be done publicly. You would want it behind closed doors. That way, you can fact check their statements and compare them to statements made by other witnesses to assess their credibility. Not doing this would allow a disingenuous witness to lie to the public and have that lie spread before it could be questioned or debunked by other testimony.

 

Additionally, you want to limit what is included in public testimony if the investigation is ongoing. Having someone publicly testify to a situation that you are going to ask someone else about later allows the latter person to coordinate their story to what they heard in the public testimony. It's like the old joke about the flat tire.

 

So, while we should want all of the testimony to be made public once the investigation is concluded, there are legitimate reasons why not every witness should testify publicly right away.

[BillsFanNC]

3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

If you were running a serious investigation, you would not want their first testimony to be done publicly. You would want it behind closed doors. That way, you can fact check their statements and compare them to statements made by other witnesses to assess their credibility. Not doing this would allow a disingenuous witness to lie to the public and have that lie spread before it could be questioned or debunked by other testimony.

 

One sided narrative building committee with no cross examination doing the "fact checking" always leads to the truth!

 

 

3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Additionally, you want to limit what is included in public testimony if the investigation is ongoing. Having someone publicly testify to a situation that you are going to ask someone else about later allows the latter person to coordinate their story to what they heard in the public testimony. It's like the old joke about the flat tire.

 

Unless you have an aide with tall tales of hearsay testify publicly in an emergency hearing that receives instant push back from the USSS agents who were actually present during the events in question

 

In that case her testimony is not to be questioned!

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

So, while we should want all of the testimony to be made public once the investigation is concluded, there are legitimate reasons why not every witness should testify publicly right away.

 

September right? 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

55 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

If you were running a serious investigation, you would not want their first testimony to be done publicly. You would want it behind closed doors. That way, you can fact check their statements and compare them to statements made by other witnesses to assess their credibility. Not doing this would allow a disingenuous witness to lie to the public and have that lie spread before it could be questioned or debunked by other testimony.

 

Additionally, you want to limit what is included in public testimony if the investigation is ongoing. Having someone publicly testify to a situation that you are going to ask someone else about later allows the latter person to coordinate their story to what they heard in the public testimony. It's like the old joke about the flat tire.

 

So, while we should want all of the testimony to be made public once the investigation is concluded, there are legitimate reasons why not every witness should testify publicly right away.

If one was running a serious investigation, there would be discipline with respect to what was said, who said it, and casual allegations would be discouraged pending the completion of the investigation.  
 

If one was running a serious investigation, one would not run trailers on breaking testimony purportedly showing causal connections between a subject and a coordinated assault on the Capitol that includes preposterous allegations quickly refuted by of all parties, the Secret Service.  
 

If one was running a serious investigation of this nature, with declarations of guilt preceding the conclusion of the investigation, one should have no concerns whatsoever about testimony being coordinated moving forward, any more than one would worry about the subject revealing questions posed and answers provided after a secret deposition. 
 

The reality is congress is widely viewed as less than truthful, less than reliable, less than honorable, and as you have suggested multiplied times, less than competent. 
 

By leaving criminal investigations of wrongdoing to the pros guided by specific sets of discipline, the 1/6 junior cop clan can afford to be transparent in a matter of this magnitude. 
 

I do agree the committee is desirous of protecting the narrative and completing such inquires in carefully choreographed settings of their choosing.  
 

 

Edited July 11, 2022 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[BillsFanNC]

Oh.

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

Oh.

 

 

As Chi indicated, the committee members want to “…limit was is included in public testimony….”. 
 

I’m all for transparency and I’m completely behind the Free the Nipple campaign! 

[All_Pro_Bills]

3 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

If one was running a serious investigation, there would be discipline with respect to what was said, who said it, and casual allegations would be discouraged pending the completion of the investigation.  
 

If one was running a serious investigation, one would not run trailers on breaking testimony purportedly showing causal connections between a subject and a coordinated assault on the Capitol that includes preposterous allegations quickly refuted by of all parties, the Secret Service.  
 

If one was running a serious investigation of this nature, with declarations of guilt preceding the conclusion of the investigation, one should have no concerns whatsoever about testimony being coordinated moving forward, any more than one would worry about the subject revealing questions posed and answers provided after a secret deposition. 
 

The reality is congress is widely viewed as less than truthful, less than reliable, less than honorable, and as you have suggested multiplied times, less than competent. 
 

By leaving criminal investigations of wrongdoing to the pros guided by specific sets of discipline, the 1/6 junior cop clan can afford to be transparent in a matter of this magnitude. 
 

I do agree the committee is desirous of protecting the narrative and completing such inquires in carefully choreographed settings of their choosing.  
 

 

Everyone knows that all great investigations and discoveries in history have resulted from coming into the process with a theory along with preconceived conclusions that only considers and accepts evidence that supports and confirms the theory while rejecting and ignoring potential evidence that may invalidate the theory.  And then proclaim the theory is now proven fact.  The antithesis of the scientific method.  Or in layman terms a clown show in progress.  Like the statement from one of the great legal minds of the republic that "we never call in witnesses to collaborate other witnesses."  Then your investigation is a sham suck job and your conclusions are crap bucko and you should go back and watch a couple seasons of CSI to get some pointers on running an investigation.

Edited July 11, 2022 by All_Pro_Bills

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

6 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Everyone knows that all great investigations and discoveries in history have resulted from coming into the process with a theory along with preconceived conclusions that only considers and accepts evidence that supports and confirms the theory while rejecting and ignoring potential evidence that may invalidate the theory.  And then proclaim the theory is now proven fact.  The antithesis of the scientific method.  Or in layman terms a clown show in progress.  Like the statement from one of the great legal minds of the republic that "we never call in witnesses to collaborate other witnesses."  Then your investigation is a sham suck job and your conclusions are crap bucko and you should go back and watch a couple seasons of CSI to get some pointers on running an investigation.

I may not have said this in a while, or maybe ever, but I enjoy reading your posts.  

 

Well done here. 

[BillsFanNC]

51 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Everyone knows that all great investigations and discoveries in history have resulted from coming into the process with a theory along with preconceived conclusions that only considers and accepts evidence that supports and confirms the theory while rejecting and ignoring potential evidence that may invalidate the theory.  And then proclaim the theory is now proven fact.  The antithesis of the scientific method.  Or in layman terms a clown show in progress.  Like the statement from one of the great legal minds of the republic that "we never call in witnesses to collaborate other witnesses."  Then your investigation is a sham suck job and your conclusions are crap bucko and you should go back and watch a couple seasons of CSI to get some pointers on running an investigation.

 

Bingo. And yet you have some of my colleagues in the scientific community cheerleading a process that goes against everything they strive to follow in their professional endeavors.

 

Partisanship is a powerful drug.

[BillStime]

🎯

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

[Doc]

44 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

The irony is that it's ensuring that she's not elected again.

[B-Man]

 

 

As he (and everyone) should.

 

 

Breaking: Jan. 6 Committee Cancels Thursday Hearing After Steve Bannon Says He Will Only Testify Live and In Person — And After Release of Explosive TGP Report

 

The sham House January 6 Committee changed its anticipated schedule of “high-impact hearings” amid a series of maneuvers by potential witnesses and Steve Bannon’s indication he is willing to testify on his own terms.

 

The panel had planned to hold a Thursday hearing in prime time that would be its second televised evening event. But that all changed when Steve Bannon announced over the weekend that he would testify live and in person before the committee.

 

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/breaking-jan-6-committee-cancels-thursday-hearing-steve-bannon-says-will-testify-live-person-release-explosive-tgp-report/

 

 

[Doc]

Should have cancelled that disastrous "hearsaying" with Vindwoman...

 

[BillStime]

Oh... 

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

@ChiGoose et al. can continue to believe the real big lie....but the rest of us living in reality never will.

 

 

[Doc]

It was the least secure election in modern times.  The Dems just like to say it was "the most secure election in history" so that they can gaslight people into believing it was.  

[ChiGoose]

3 minutes ago, Doc said:

It was the least secure election in modern times.  The Dems just like to say it was "the most secure election in history" so that they can gaslight people into believing it was.  

 

That line actual came from a Trump appointee.

[716er]

7 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

That line actual came from a Trump appointee.

 

Anyone who is not beholden to Donald Trump is a Dem according to Doc.

[Jackalope89]

10 minutes ago, Doc said:

It was the least secure election in modern times.  The Dems just like to say it was "the most secure election in history" so that they can gaslight people into believing it was.  

Er, a lot of Republicans (not Trumplicans, so of course you'll deny it) also called it secure.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Breaking news!! ABC news has got him.

 

 

finally! He can be impeached ! 
 

 

third time is the charm!!!

[ChiGoose]

35 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Breaking news!! ABC news has got him.

 

 

finally! He can be impeached ! 
 

 

third time is the charm!!!

 

It's hard for me to imagine seeing unending evidence of corruption and a disgusting disregard for the average American and the rule of law, to only judge those on a political institution and not in my own conscience.

 

Maybe it's easy for you. But for me, I will not judge right or wrong by what is politically popular.

[Logic]

Not sure what topic to add this leaked audio of Steve Bannon to, but since it’s related to Trump’s overall corruption and his attempt to subvert democracy, I’ll put it here.

 

I look forward to seeing the Trumpkins here continue to ignore stuff like this, laugh it all off, and pretend the rest of us are overreacting. 
 

And you all say the media, DOJ, and committee are the corrupt ones.

 

Incoming laugh emojis and “let me distract from this latest piece of damning evidence of Trump’s corruption by trying to sidetrack you with an unrelated question” in 3,2,1…

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

To Liz Cheney: You Knew FBI Assets Confirmed Proud Boys Did Not Commit Sedition Yet You Suppressed the Information

by Jim Hoft

 

On Monday morning TGP contributor Cara Castronuova released whistleblower documents, text messages, and audio transcripts of FBI informant James Knowles’s communications with his FBI handlers on January 6. The evidence exonerates Trump supporters and the Proud Boys of any conspiracy or planning to storm the US Capitol, to enter the US Capitol, or to overthrow official proceedings. 

 

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/gateway-pundit-sends-official-letter-liz-cheney-knew-fbi-assets-confirmed-proud-boys-not-commit-sedition-yet-suppressed-information/

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[The Frankish Reich]

11 hours ago, Logic said:

Not sure what topic to add this leaked audio of Steve Bannon to, but since it’s related to Trump’s overall corruption and his attempt to subvert democracy, I’ll put it here.

 

I look forward to seeing the Trumpkins here continue to ignore stuff like this, laugh it all off, and pretend the rest of us are overreacting. 
 

And you all say the media, DOJ, and committee are the corrupt ones.

 

Incoming laugh emojis and “let me distract from this latest piece of damning evidence of Trump’s corruption by trying to sidetrack you with an unrelated question” in 3,2,1…

 

 

 

Wow. There you have it. Loudmouth Bannon unsurprisingly saying the quiet part out loud. 
For Trump it was always “win the electoral vote count or claim fraud.” He started setting it up months in advance - “rigged election.” I was stupid enough to believe that it was just typical Trump face-saving crap, the little boy who can’t admit he lost. But then the people I thought were way out on a limb like Bill Maher (who was harping on his theory that Trump will refuse to leave the White House) were shown to be right. 

[Buftex]

On 7/11/2022 at 4:13 PM, B-Man said:

 

 

 

No *****!  He is the ultimate "cancer" on the presidency...anyone who cared about this country would see that.  Even you should be rooting for that.  As unpopular as Biden may be, he still beats that pile of ***** you call Trump in a head to head election...assuming your Supreme Court doesn't take the election into their own hands.

Edited July 13, 2022 by Buftex

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

12 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

It's hard for me to imagine seeing unending evidence of corruption and a disgusting disregard for the average American and the rule of law, to only judge those on a political institution and not in my own conscience.

 

Maybe it's easy for you. But for me, I will not judge right or wrong by what is politically popular.

What’s easy for me is that I’ve long ago concluded the ENTIRE political class is corrupt and has a disgusting disregard for the average American. 
 

The difference between what you suggest above and my perspective, is unlike party disciples I’m not deluded in the belief that this is isolated to one person or party. 

 

Trump did all sorts of unethical, corrupt and politically devisive things, but so is this entire Jan 6 committee process. 
 

if anyone really cared about the country, the best thing to do would be to move on and put this behind us. 

 

Trump is never going to jail, and he’s never going to win presidential election again. 
 

[The Frankish Reich]

5 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Trump is never going to jail,

Agreed

6 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

and he’s never going to win presidential election again. 

If only. Actually, if Trump were to disavow any intent of running again (assuming we could trust him, which we can’t) I’d be happy to put this whole unfortunate episode behind us. But that’s not where we are. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

12 hours ago, Logic said:

Not sure what topic to add this leaked audio of Steve Bannon to, but since it’s related to Trump’s overall corruption and his attempt to subvert democracy, I’ll put it here.

 

I look forward to seeing the Trumpkins here continue to ignore stuff like this, laugh it all off, and pretend the rest of us are overreacting. 
 

And you all say the media, DOJ, and committee are the corrupt ones.

 

Incoming laugh emojis and “let me distract from this latest piece of damning evidence of Trump’s corruption by trying to sidetrack you with an unrelated question” in 3,2,1…

 

 

 

It's not a matter of ignoring this sort of thing, Logic, at least to me.   I'm willing to listen to just about anything brought to the table, but I'm not willing to trust a political committee blindly.  That would be dumb af, though  that suits some folks. 

 

At the same time, recent history suggests that political figures make wide-ranging, unfounded and spurious claims against political opponents virtually every single day.  It's a national pastime, and very few people bat an eye at it so long as their preferred party is leading the charge.  

 

Bannon sounds a bit like Joe Biden did back in the day, blustering, impressed with his own importance, holding court in front of admirers.  What he suggests is unseemly and ugly, but is the allegation that he was acting as an adviser to the president and directing him to conduct illegal operations? 

 

Going back just a short time ago, democrat leadership was all over the place claiming treason, treasonous behavior, collusion, a coup, and that the 2016 election was illegitimate.    That's not a fantasy created by a Trumpkin, as you derisively call folks who point it out, that's a matter of historical fact, inconvenient though it might be to your point of view.  This theory was widely reported and disseminated by major news outlets, with perpetual 'oh, it's coming' circular reporting that effectively died the day Mueller embarrassed himself in front of a national audience is spite of exceptionally broad powers to kick in doors and knock some heads.  

 

Move to 2020.  Suddenly, not a year removed from grave concerns about election security expressed by leading Democrat presidential candidates Warren and Klobuchar, such claims of illegitimacy, and integrity of elections  were an alleged to be an assault on our very way of life.  Never mind proving it, the outrage started at suggesting it was an issue, as if 2015-2019 never occurred. 

 

The way I see it, some of the loudest lamenters of civility were 100% comfortable with claims of illegitimate elections, treason and the like until the spotlight shone their way.  It's ugly and unfortunate that politics plays out like this, but you probably should have had the sense to look into the future when you bought into Russiagate that it was not an if, just a when it would happen.  

 

At this point, Trump's claims of a stolen election are no more, no less of an issue than Russiagate was to me.  That you lack the ability to understand why some of us view things that way is really of no consequence, especially since I can't for the life of me understand how people could be dumb enough to buy into the entire Russia premise to begin with.  

 

Personally, I wish Trump had not held the rally on 1/6.  I think the people who acted criminally should be charged appropriately.  I understand why the officer shot and killed an unarmed woman, and bet he feels horrible that he killed her.  I support the police officers assaulted (I feel that way generally, even when they're out in America with liberals trashing them).  I wish Stop the Steal wasn't a thing.  I wish the dems had not launched an all-out assault on the legitimacy of the 2016 election and it's impact on my vote.  I wish we were all smart enough to know that if political party A found success with a concept, Political Party B was soon to follow, and probably supersize it.   But, here we are. 

 

Come November, if there's a red wave, we can most def look forward to impeachment, unfounded and usually unproven allegations against a Dem, and more than a few eggs cracked along the way.   Look for an attempt to destroy Biden for his China connections, Hunter as collateral damage, and Merrick Garland.  All will ultimately probably be ok.  

 

By the way, when serious claims of criminal behavior against DJT are brought through the appropriate channels, I'm happy to revisit this with you in detail.  

[Nineforty]

11 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

It's not a matter of ignoring this sort of thing, Logic, at least to me.   I'm willing to listen to just about anything brought to the table, but I'm not willing to trust a political committee blindly.  That would be dumb af, though  that suits some folks. 

 

At the same time, recent history suggests that political figures make wide-ranging, unfounded and spurious claims against political opponents virtually every single day.  It's a national pastime, and very few people bat an eye at it so long as their preferred party is leading the charge.  

 

Bannon sounds a bit like Joe Biden did back in the day, blustering, impressed with his own importance, holding court in front of admirers.  What he suggests is unseemly and ugly, but is the allegation that he was acting as an adviser to the president and directing him to conduct illegal operations? 

 

Going back just a short time ago, democrat leadership was all over the place claiming treason, treasonous behavior, collusion, a coup, and that the 2016 election was illegitimate.    That's not a fantasy created by a Trumpkin, as you derisively call folks who point it out, that's a matter of historical fact, inconvenient though it might be to your point of view.  This theory was widely reported and disseminated by major news outlets, with perpetual 'oh, it's coming' circular reporting that effectively died the day Mueller embarrassed himself in front of a national audience is spite of exceptionally broad powers to kick in doors and knock some heads.  

 

Move to 2020.  Suddenly, not a year removed from grave concerns about election security expressed by leading Democrat presidential candidates Warren and Klobuchar, such claims of illegitimacy, and integrity of elections  were an alleged to be an assault on our very way of life.  Never mind proving it, the outrage started at suggesting it was an issue, as if 2015-2019 never occurred. 

 

The way I see it, some of the loudest lamenters of civility were 100% comfortable with claims of illegitimate elections, treason and the like until the spotlight shone their way.  It's ugly and unfortunate that politics plays out like this, but you probably should have had the sense to look into the future when you bought into Russiagate that it was not an if, just a when it would happen.  

 

At this point, Trump's claims of a stolen election are no more, no less of an issue than Russiagate was to me.  That you lack the ability to understand why some of us view things that way is really of no consequence, especially since I can't for the life of me understand how people could be dumb enough to buy into the entire Russia premise to begin with.  

 

Personally, I wish Trump had not held the rally on 1/6.  I think the people who acted criminally should be charged appropriately.  I understand why the officer shot and killed an unarmed woman, and bet he feels horrible that he killed her.  I support the police officers assaulted (I feel that way generally, even when they're out in America with liberals trashing them).  I wish Stop the Steal wasn't a thing.  I wish the dems had not launched an all-out assault on the legitimacy of the 2016 election and it's impact on my vote.  I wish we were all smart enough to know that if political party A found success with a concept, Political Party B was soon to follow, and probably supersize it.   But, here we are. 

 

Come November, if there's a red wave, we can most def look forward to impeachment, unfounded and usually unproven allegations against a Dem, and more than a few eggs cracked along the way.   Look for an attempt to destroy Biden for his China connections, Hunter as collateral damage, and Merrick Garland.  All will ultimately probably be ok.  

 

By the way, when serious claims of criminal behavior against DJT are brought through the appropriate channels, I'm happy to revisit this with you in detail.  

 

the bold outs you as an idiot. i mean to be fair, most of your post does. 

 

but just keep saying it over and over and over and over, and its fact, amirite??

 

We don't try to understand people like yourself anymore, because you are IRREDEEMABLE. you are not the target audience. you clearly can't think for yourself. you are dead to me as an American and a human being. 

 

I'll acknowledge asshats like yourself when you spew garbage. other than that, dead. to. me.

 

 

Edited July 13, 2022 by Nineforty

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

17 minutes ago, Nineforty said:

 

the bold outs you as an idiot. i mean to be fair, most of your post does. 

 

but just keep saying it over and over and over and over, and its fact, amirite??

 

We don't try to understand people like yourself anymore, because you are IRREDEEMABLE. you are not the target audience. you clearly can't think for yourself. you are dead to me as an American and a human being. 

 

I'll acknowledge asshats like yourself when you spew garbage. other than that, dead. to. me.

 

 

It’s crazy talk like this that lands people like you on a Red Flag list, Skip. 
 

Congrats on finding the bold font thingy though.