BillsFanNC Posted November 5, 2022 Share Posted November 5, 2022 (edited) 12 hours ago, SoCal Deek said: Never mind Goose You’re clearly not in the mood for some harmless banter on a Friday. Have a great weekend. It's almost as if the guy doesn't hold himself to the same lofty standards that he keeps asking others to adhere to. 6 hours ago, ChiGoose said: Are you arguing that a US Attorney will jeopardize their career to cover up a secret gay relationship between the husband of the Speaker of the House and some random guy because, like, vibes or something? Sure. That Kevin Clinesmith dude who fabricated evidence in order to lie to a FiSC judge? Career in shambles. Edited November 5, 2022 by BillsFanNC 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 5, 2022 Share Posted November 5, 2022 8 hours ago, ChiGoose said: Was that a document submitted to a court under the penalty of perjury? Were there all the details of the incident in that document or just enough to bring charges against DePape? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted November 5, 2022 Share Posted November 5, 2022 I'm sure glad that @ChiGoose has this whole thing nailed down. What would we do without him and his reading? It's not like we've had conflicting reports and now retracted reporting from minute one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted November 5, 2022 Share Posted November 5, 2022 (edited) 10 hours ago, Chef Jim said: Then why, at this point, do lots of people care? Lots of people care for lots of different reasons. Dateline NBC is a pretty popular show, and an hour show could certainly be shortened to about a minute with “Frank was shot in his home” and “The chef did it because Frank said his Mac n cheese was not cheesey enough”. Where is the fun in that? Some people love a good mystery, some love the rumor mill, some are interested in the political aspects of it all. Some don’t trust the official story because they feel some information is inconsistent. 10 hours ago, Chef Jim said: Well you have to admit no one really seems to know what the ***** was going on inside that house. Personally I could give a rats ass. I’m more concerned about him driving drunk and trying to talk his way out of his DUI. My perspective is it’s a relevant story if Pelosi or the WH requested that information be withheld or suppressed. The NBC story raises a question in that regard. It was a week in the making. I would assume that a story involving one of the most powerful people in the world was researched, interviews completed and sources from inside the investigation questioned. I’d think the story was vetted to the highest level of the organization and they were comfortable with the reporting. It certainly could be that NBC recognized the error in reporting and professional incompetence only after publishing the report. There could be more to the story, and in spite of Chi’s passionate appeal to disregard all but the official narrative, it’s an interesting twist. Edited November 5, 2022 by leh-nerd skin-erd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 5, 2022 Share Posted November 5, 2022 10 hours ago, ChiGoose said: Are you arguing that a US Attorney will jeopardize their career to cover up a secret gay relationship between the husband of the Speaker of the House and some random guy because, like, vibes or something? If no consequences would be forthcoming, why not if you can influence an election in the way you want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundancer Posted November 5, 2022 Share Posted November 5, 2022 20 hours ago, Orlando Tim said: Stating facts about the situation make me not have credibility? Interesting take. Your speculation is though the only one I have heard that is impossible. I also praise you for sticking by your guns that the media does not lie, it is a bold stance. Straw man approach. Second only to whataboutism in argumentation logic failures on here. Still no back up for the hit mic claim you made? Third request. 21 hours ago, Brueggs said: I think you are confusing me with someone else. I didn't say that, but I did hear a clip of someone saying Pelosi referred to the person as a friend. Anyhow... My point being, how do you explain some random nut job getting past that level of securtiy? Same way I’m surprised people could break into the Capitol and almost get to the Speaker. Same way Saudi guys could take flying but not landing lessons and raise no red flags. Same way cops could hang out outside a school while kids are being shot up inside…you get the point. Incompetence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brueggs Posted November 5, 2022 Share Posted November 5, 2022 1 hour ago, Sundancer said: Straw man approach. Second only to whataboutism in argumentation logic failures on here. Still no back up for the hit mic claim you made? Third request. Same way I’m surprised people could break into the Capitol and almost get to the Speaker. Same way Saudi guys could take flying but not landing lessons and raise no red flags. Same way cops could hang out outside a school while kids are being shot up inside…you get the point. Incompetence. I wonder if that state of the art security system was incompetent as well? I am surprised that people could break into the Capitol too. Who was responsible for that security, especially knowing a large event was close by? Why did they take down the barricades? Almost seems incompetent on purpose? Hey, maybe that should be their next campaign slogan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlando Tim Posted November 6, 2022 Share Posted November 6, 2022 6 hours ago, Sundancer said: Straw man approach. Second only to whataboutism in argumentation logic failures on here. Still no back up for the hit mic claim you made? Third request. https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4104614/posts Seriously you could not find this? Or is the fact that MSNBC not reporting it causing you to question it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brueggs Posted November 6, 2022 Share Posted November 6, 2022 21 hours ago, ChiGoose said: Are you arguing that a US Attorney will jeopardize their career to cover up a secret gay relationship between the husband of the Speaker of the House and some random guy because, like, vibes or something? I mean, there was that DA in Chicago that did her best to keep Jussie Smolet out of jail. Lets not act like people in powerful positions, especially those that are being leveraged, don't do things like this. We all know that if someone as high up as Pelosi needs a cover up, she's going to get it. Am I saying that is what happened here? Not really, but at the same time, there is something fishy in Denmark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 6, 2022 Share Posted November 6, 2022 Just now, Brueggs said: I mean, there was that DA in Chicago that did her best to keep Jussie Smolet out of jail. Lets not act like people in powerful positions, especially those that are being leveraged, don't do things like this. We all know that if someone as high up as Pelosi needs a cover up, she's going to get it. Am I saying that is what happened here? Not really, but at the same time, there is something fishy in Denmark. Over a week later and no one has been fired over the "incompetence" for not watching the security cameras. Especially odd since it's DC and they always need someone else to blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brueggs Posted November 6, 2022 Share Posted November 6, 2022 On 11/4/2022 at 6:09 PM, SoCal Deek said: Goose wants to say that the facts are determined by what the victim told the police. Okie dokie. Sure…nobody EVER makes up a story when they’re pulled over by a policeman or when explaining a domestic dispute. Never! 😉 The odd part is I think Goose is a lawyer. If he is, I’m not sure why he would ever go to court. Nobody ever changes their story upon cross examination….never! 😉 He is using the FBI document as the gospel, which is plausible to a degree, but when it doesn't jive with what the San Fran police department said in their press conference, something just doesn't smell right. Given all of the smoke this has generated, you would think that if it was as clear cut as they say it is, they would provide transparency in the form of body cams and 911 tapes. Why not put it to rest? 3 minutes ago, Doc said: Over a week later and no one has been fired over the "incompetence" for not watching the security cameras. Especially odd since it's DC and they always need someone else to blame. Maybe the two new guards fell asleep at the same time, and the security cameras also malfunctioned at the same time too.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlando Tim Posted November 6, 2022 Share Posted November 6, 2022 21 hours ago, ChiGoose said: Are you arguing that a US Attorney will jeopardize their career to cover up a secret gay relationship between the husband of the Speaker of the House and some random guy because, like, vibes or something? I am arguing that Intel officials will destroy there own names for political purposes. Are you arguing politicians won't lie to protect their party? Because that is all I can take from so many of your comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted November 6, 2022 Share Posted November 6, 2022 At this point, with the known facts and authorities, the absolutely most likely scenario is that a crazy person broke into the Pelosi’s house looking for Nancy Pelosi and ended up assaulting her husband. If you think there is some other scenario that is more likely than that, you are just telling on yourself. You are announcing to the world that you are a gullible and unserious person who will throw facts to the wind in the service of emotions and vibes. You can claim that you’re just being skeptical, but you’re not. True skepticism requires grounding in reality. You’re just taking feelings over facts and pretending it makes you superior. You’re not a skeptic, you are a mark and a fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SydneyBillsFan Posted November 6, 2022 Share Posted November 6, 2022 Feel sorry for Mr Pelosi here....I mean, who would you rather have sexual relations with - 'wrinkle-face' Nancy or a homeless headcase bum? Decisions, decisions.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundancer Posted November 6, 2022 Share Posted November 6, 2022 9 hours ago, Orlando Tim said: https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4104614/posts Seriously you could not find this? Or is the fact that MSNBC not reporting it causing you to question it? Good try. You said, “Police caught on hot mic stating that they will not correct the perception he is a right winger by stating fact that he is an illegal alien nudist activist. " And yet the ONLY thing on that tape is (maybe) a guy getting instructions about the name of the attacker and confirming that he’s not yet got confirmation to report that he was a nudist. So, you lied. 5 hours ago, ChiGoose said: At this point, with the known facts and authorities, the absolutely most likely scenario is that a crazy person broke into the Pelosi’s house looking for Nancy Pelosi and ended up assaulting her husband. If you think there is some other scenario that is more likely than that, you are just telling on yourself. You are announcing to the world that you are a gullible and unserious person who will throw facts to the wind in the service of emotions and vibes. You can claim that you’re just being skeptical, but you’re not. True skepticism requires grounding in reality. You’re just taking feelings over facts and pretending it makes you superior. You’re not a skeptic, you are a mark and a fool. They think their ability to conjure stories is a sign of intelligence. This is the conspiracy mindset that is about to end democracy. On the left, it takes the form of endless victimization. The fiction that everyone in every case is a victim due a compensation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDHillFan Posted November 6, 2022 Share Posted November 6, 2022 (edited) 8 hours ago, ChiGoose said: At this point, with the known facts and authorities, the absolutely most likely scenario is that a crazy person broke into the Pelosi’s house looking for Nancy Pelosi and ended up assaulting her husband. If you think there is some other scenario that is more likely than that, you are just telling on yourself. You are announcing to the world that you are a gullible and unserious person who will throw facts to the wind in the service of emotions and vibes. You can claim that you’re just being skeptical, but you’re not. True skepticism requires grounding in reality. You’re just taking feelings over facts and pretending it makes you superior. You’re not a skeptic, you are a mark and a fool. Who were the marks and fools that ran with the Smollett, Sandmann, Bubba Wallace, and pee-tape stories? Clearly you see yourself as an elite mind. Please try to have some patience for those of who might raise an eyebrow at things that seem a touch unusual. You know, us wish-casters. Edited November 6, 2022 by JDHillFan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlando Tim Posted November 6, 2022 Share Posted November 6, 2022 2 hours ago, Sundancer said: Good try. You said, “Police caught on hot mic stating that they will not correct the perception he is a right winger by stating fact that he is an illegal alien nudist activist. " And yet the ONLY thing on that tape is (maybe) a guy getting instructions about the name of the attacker and confirming that he’s not yet got confirmation to report that he was a nudist. So, you lied. So you believe it is coincidence that the police spokesman just happened to hit on the fact that he was nudist? You act like they don't have a working knowledge of who the guys is when the spokesperson speaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brueggs Posted November 6, 2022 Share Posted November 6, 2022 For those of you who don't believe that conspiracies happen, try and remember this: First rule of underwear hammer fight club.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted November 6, 2022 Share Posted November 6, 2022 12 minutes ago, Brueggs said: For those of you who don't believe that conspiracies happen, try and remember this: First rule of underwear hammer fight club.... Is to wear shorts with pockets full of stuff the cops confiscate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brueggs Posted November 6, 2022 Share Posted November 6, 2022 10 hours ago, ChiGoose said: You can claim that you’re just being skeptical, but you’re not. True skepticism requires grounding in reality. You’re just taking feelings over facts and pretending it makes you superior. You’re not a skeptic, you are a mark and a fool. Its going to be difficult to maintain that liberal mindset if you apply this to all situations.... Did you feel the same way when Jussie and the DA committed their crimes? 12 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Is to wear shorts with pockets full of stuff the cops confiscate? Take it easy councilor, I didn't think I would have to explain an obvious joke... Do you believe that conspiracies have actually happened in the past? There is something called "your gut" that tells you when something doesn't seem right, it probably isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts