Jump to content

Are Republicans pro-terror?


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

 

So you admit he was found to have perjured himself. Now we're getting somewhere.  Glad we can agree on something. Now, should he face consequences for his perjury?

 

Hoax.  I admitted no such thing.  I noted that some people at the FBI concluded there was perjury.  The problem, for them and for you, is that it was never proven.  Instead, the DOJ concluded McCabe was wrongfully terminated.   So, it looks like we didn’t get anywhere.  Sorry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Hoax.  I admitted no such thing.  I noted that some people at the FBI concluded there was perjury.  The problem, for them and for you, is that it was never proven.  Instead, the DOJ concluded McCabe was wrongfully terminated.   So, it looks like we didn’t get anywhere.  Sorry. 

 

Merrick Garland your guy says he lied. https://denvergazette.com/news/merrick-garland-says-doj-stands-by-conclusion-andrew-mccabe-lied-despite-reversing-his-firing/article_47357d01-455a-5284-b9e2-3a75ec6e7bf5.html

 

So is Garland lying there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

 

Hoax.  Merrick Garland did not reject a report with respect to the matter prepared, to my recollection, during a prior adminsitration.  Different kettle of fish.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Hoax.  Merrick Garland did not reject a report with respect to the matter prepared, to my recollection, during a prior adminsitration.  Different kettle of fish.  

Attorney General Merrick Garland said the Justice Department continues to stand by the findings of the DOJ watchdog that fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe lied under oath to investigators during a leak investigation despite the Biden DOJ reversing his firing and settling his lawsuit against it with a big payout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

Attorney General Merrick Garland said the Justice Department continues to stand by the findings of the DOJ watchdog that fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe lied under oath to investigators during a leak investigation despite the Biden DOJ reversing his firing and settling his lawsuit against it with a big payout.

I don’t see a quote there.  Looks like another one of your hoaxes. 

 

Anyhow, you’re arguing over a small point.  Or maybe it’s that you want to defund the FBI because of what Andrew McCabe allegedly said (or didn’t say).  I think protecting Americans from international terror is more important than feeding a spiteful MAGA agenda.  You don’t.  Looks like we disagree.  

 

And, I’ll add, by your logic, any time a cop lies (assuming McCabe did here), we necessary should destroy the institution. If that’s the rule of thumb, get ready for anarchy.  If a judge suppresses evidence based on a cop’s bogus story (it happens with some frequency), then Aristocrat would destroy that law enforcement institution.  That seems like a good plan.  Hoax.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

I don’t see a quote there.  Looks like another one of your hoaxes. 

 

Anyhow, you’re arguing over a small point.  Or maybe it’s that you want to defund the FBI because of what Andrew McCabe allegedly said (or didn’t say).  I think protecting Americans from international terror is more important than feeding a spiteful MAGA agenda.  You don’t.  Looks like we disagree.  

 

And, I’ll add, by your logic, any time a cop lies (assuming McCabe did here), we necessary should destroy the institution. If that’s the rule of thumb, get ready for anarchy.  If a judge suppresses evidence based on a cop’s bogus story (it happens with some frequency), then Aristocrat would destroy that law enforcement institution.  That seems like a good plan.  Hoax.  

 

So your hoax is that I want the FBI closed?  I've only said they should do their job better. If it means an agent gets fired fine. They have thousands more. Get rid of the one's taking away the credibility of the FBI.  Seems pretty reasonable right?  Get rid of bad cops as well. Don't get rid of all of them.  Why do you want to keep defending a guy who clearly lied under oath?  BTW you ignored all the other large ***** ups the FBI has had and instead defend this guy to the death for some odd reason despite all the evidence in the world he was lying under oath. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

 

So your hoax is that I want the FBI closed?  I've only said they should do their job better. If it means an agent gets fired fine. They have thousands more. Get rid of the one's taking away the credibility of the FBI.  Seems pretty reasonable right?  Get rid of bad cops as well. Don't get rid of all of them.  Why do you want to keep defending a guy who clearly lied under oath?  BTW you ignored all the other large ***** ups the FBI has had and instead defend this guy to the death for some odd reason despite all the evidence in the world he was lying under oath. 

It’s not a hoax.  Your first post in this thread suggests that you wish to defund the FBI.  If you’re simply attacking the FBI, that’s fine.  (I guess.  I actually think it’s kind of screwed up but, then again, a lot of MAGA positions are shifty and incomprehensible.)  But you should clarify your position so that there’s no confusion.  We need to know whether you wish only to attack, rather than back, the blue, or if you wish to defund (that is, in this context, shutter) the FBI.  

7 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

 

So your hoax is that I want the FBI closed?  I've only said they should do their job better. If it means an agent gets fired fine. They have thousands more. Get rid of the one's taking away the credibility of the FBI.  Seems pretty reasonable right?  Get rid of bad cops as well. Don't get rid of all of them.  Why do you want to keep defending a guy who clearly lied under oath?  BTW you ignored all the other large ***** ups the FBI has had and instead defend this guy to the death for some odd reason despite all the evidence in the world he was lying under oath. 

 

It’s nice that you want to be like me.  Imitation is the best form of flattery.  Thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

It’s not a hoax.  Your first post in this thread suggests that you wish to defund the FBI.  If you’re simply attacking the FBI, that’s fine.  (I guess.  I actually think it’s kind of screwed up but, then again, a lot of MAGA positions are shifty and incomprehensible.)  But you should clarify your position so that there’s no confusion.  We need to know whether you wish only to attack, rather than back, the blue, or if you wish to defund (that is, in this context, shutter) the FBI.  

 

It’s nice that you want to be like me.  Imitation is the best form of flattery.  Thank you!

 

My first post in no way whatsoever suggested such a thing.  You want it to so that you can just be argumentative. Since then I've said a bunch of times they simply need to do their job better. Is this how you have conversations with people in real life?  Cause it's a very odd way to have a conversation with a person. Just avoid reality. Accuse them of things they clearly haven't said etc. It's strange. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

 

My first post in no way whatsoever suggested such a thing.  You want it to so that you can just be argumentative. Since then I've said a bunch of times they simply need to do their job better. Is this how you have conversations with people in real life?  Cause it's a very odd way to have a conversation with a person. Just avoid reality. Accuse them of things they clearly haven't said etc. It's strange. 

 

Hoax.  You brought up Waco, right?  That occurred, I don’t know, 29 years ago.  Seems like you’re taking on the agency as a whole when there’s a strong possibility that the vast majority of the agents involved in that mess have retired.  

 

Now, later, you’re all twisted up in knots trying to say that your focus is just on McCabe and the removal of bad agents.  Which, I note, was not an articulated concern prior to the FBI’s execution of a search warrant at the Mar a Lago compound.  So it seems that your concern with respect to the efficacy of the FBI is driven by fealty, rather than objectivity.  That is troubling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Hoax.  You brought up Waco, right?  That occurred, I don’t know, 29 years ago.  Seems like you’re taking on the agency as a whole when there’s a strong possibility that the vast majority of the agents involved in that mess have retired.  

 

Now, later, you’re all twisted up in knots trying to say that your focus is just on McCabe and the removal of bad agents.  Which, I note, was not an articulated concern prior to the FBI’s execution of a search warrant at the Mar a Lago compound.  So it seems that your concern with respect to the efficacy of the FBI is driven by fealty, rather than objectivity.  That is troubling. 

 

what other events did I bring up? Wasn't just Waco and it wasn't just McCabe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Give it up. When the gestappo raids HIS home he’ll be singing a completely different tune. 

Ahh the gestapo.  Nice reference.  Analogizing the FBI to Nazis.  A bit hyperbolic, and a bit of a tip of the cap to some OG fascists.
 

 Maybe, just maybe, the FBI did the right thing here and we should all just *gasp* shut up and let it play out.  (I’d note that Trump also should shut up because he’s in it deep and it would be a good plan for him to shut his cheeseburger hole.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Ahh the gestapo.  Nice reference.  Analogizing the FBI to Nazis.  A bit hyperbolic, and a bit of a tip of the cap to some OG fascists.
 

 Maybe, just maybe, the FBI did the right thing here and we should all just *gasp* shut up and let it play out.  (I’d note that Trump also should shut up because he’s in it deep and it would be a good plan for him to shut his cheeseburger hole.) 

I know you don’t like it, or refuse to accept it, but that man you hate so much was the actual President of the United States. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I know you don’t like it, or refuse to accept it, but that man you hate so much was the actual President of the United States. 

I don’t like the term, but it does seem like you’re gaslighting a bit there.  I don’t think anyone is challenging the validity of his election in 2016.  Unless it’s a Freudian thing on your part, which would be weird.

 

So again, I return to the point that, in the olden days (per-2015), when we all worked from iPhone 4 models and Razor phones, we as a society would let this kind of thing play out, assess the facts, and take it from there.  Instead, now, the MAGA crowd basically tries to destroy any institution that doesn’t give it its way (e.g., the Constitution, the Electoral College, numerous Boards of Election, and now the FBI).   This is not a good approach to preserving the republic. 

Edited by SectionC3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

Sigh.  Hoax.  

 

A few violent actions do not support your characterization of the whole of the protests.  It would be like saying that everyone who wears a red hat is a traitor because of what a few hundred or thousand people did on January 6.  Are the Capitol invaders traitors?  Damn straight they are.  But not everyone who supports MAGA or who wears a MAGA hat is a traitor.  

 

I hope that you also have a pleasant day. 

 

A few ?? There were months dam near a year of the same stuff going on and as you said to which i agree not all that were protesting were doing so to insight violence just some were the cause & more than likely those few could have flew all over the country to insight that violence & so much was in fact said to be true .

 

Then there were those in power such as many mayors of certain large cities that would not intervene even when some were being shot or worse of course until the protesters showed up at their door step which just goes to show their privileged/bias way of thinking . Which that's a politician for you !! 

 

Also the fact that during that time the amount of people that were screaming from the hill tops defund the police while those that were under the guise of racial injustice went out & looted businesses as shown in the links i provided . Even as the one women said that they supported the cause yet became a victim .

 

So what i am getting at is basically the same thing you have said not all folks involved in this had the intentions of doing bad things but the few that used this as a avenue to do bad things under those conditions were the ones that got the most publicity & the actual reasons for the protest seemed to be secondary .

 

There were those too in some way to advantage of the situation to make things look other than the original intentions of the actions to invoke yet a different reaction from others to serve a agenda, which in all could in your opinion be considered a hoax but was more than likely a intentional action to invoke the reaction that they wanted .

 

Just some food for thought .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, T master said:

 

A few ?? There were months dam near a year of the same stuff going on and as you said to which i agree not all that were protesting were doing so to insight violence just some were the cause & more than likely those few could have flew all over the country to insight that violence & so much was in fact said to be true .

 

Then there were those in power such as many mayors of certain large cities that would not intervene even when some were being shot or worse of course until the protesters showed up at their door step which just goes to show their privileged/bias way of thinking . Which that's a politician for you !! 

 

Also the fact that during that time the amount of people that were screaming from the hill tops defund the police while those that were under the guise of racial injustice went out & looted businesses as shown in the links i provided . Even as the one women said that they supported the cause yet became a victim .

 

So what i am getting at is basically the same thing you have said not all folks involved in this had the intentions of doing bad things but the few that used this as a avenue to do bad things under those conditions were the ones that got the most publicity & the actual reasons for the protest seemed to be secondary .

 

There were those too in some way to advantage of the situation to make things look other than the original intentions of the actions to invoke yet a different reaction from others to serve a agenda, which in all could in your opinion be considered a hoax but was more than likely a intentional action to invoke the reaction that they wanted .

 

Just some food for thought .

This seems like a hoax but I have a hard time understanding what you’re saying.  So I’ll call this a suspected hoax and leave it at that. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2022 at 3:20 PM, SectionC3 said:

Thank you for the compliment.  Also, I’m the one who asks the questions here.  I don’t believe you answered the question whether Republicans are pro-terror.  You also didn’t deny the point, so readers can take from that what they wish.  

To answer your question the Republicans would like an organization that actually stops terrorism, not misses all of the people about to shoot up a school so they can create a political advantage by pretending there is a kidnapping plot. Clearly you are pro terrorism because you want to keep things the way they are 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2022 at 2:06 PM, SectionC3 said:

I wish this was a hoax.  I wish I didn’t have to leave retirement from these parts to make this point.  But my hand has been forced.  

 

To defund the FBI is to dilute, or maybe even destroy, an organization charged with preventing terrorist attacks on our country.  It is disgusting that the cultists who believe that, because its mission of enforcing the law and protecting our country inconvenienced Donald Trump, that agency should be dismantled.  I thought it was bad to rush to judgment.  I thought it was bad to attack the “blue.”  Apparently Republicans feel differently.  How sad that it has come to this.  

Didn’t the FBI also try to kidnap the Michigan governor, just to try and blame it on other people? 🤔

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...