Infidel Dog

I heard an interesting one on the radio today. Not sure how pertinent it is to this conversation. This guy was claiming that every time Putin attacks somebody it happens after oil has gone up to $100 a barrel. Interesting if true.

There you go R&R. Aristides was generous enough to offer you up an illustration of how a Prog can be racist and think he's being clever. Get it, yet? I'll give you another hint. When you're thinking of a starving Ethiopian, you're not thinking of a white one. I'm sure they exist. So what is it about a black man in Ethiopia starving to death that makes you want to chuckle? What about even the black Ethiopians that aren't starving? Do they make you laugh? Why not, do you think? Maybe because in the Prog mind all a black Ethiopian is capable of doing is starving. Think that might be it? Think that might be a little racist?

What a racist whoever wrote that title is.

Tom or whoever he's copy and pasting seems to be worried about the emphasis on culture. That moved to the forefront with the next gen Republicans during the Breitbart days and I say good on em'.

It's opinion hero. We heard Tom's in his copy and paste. We know yours? And seeing as you're so desperate to hear mine here it is. All these little tiny factoids lassoed out of an ocean of context by Tom's proxy that you want to jump and down waving your pompoms in support of only matter in the fevered, needy, night panic dreams of Progressives. The only people influenced by Tom's find are the far left wishful thinkers that already believe it.

See Tom, this is the problem Conservatives have with recognizing you as one of us. See who's on board with you.

Blah, blah, blah. More misinformed insults. Again, so what?

Maybe, but so what? I'll change the "million or so" to millions. Will that burn your britches even more? I hope so.

If you're looking for Big Corporate today Mike, look left. You probably haven't noticed because it's too close. On another thing though, pardon me all to Hell. The uniparty talk was on this thread. Stuff like this: Tom has mixed up the terms New and Old. Bush Republicans are old. Breitbart, "politics downstream from culture" Republicans are newer.

I don't know if I'm ready to jump on the Tom = Mike wagon based on this post. He was dead-on with the equity is Commie talk point. But somebody was talking McConnellesque uniparty talk on another thread. Was that Tom? In any case, WCM, I'm on board with you on what's above that and I would like to head off the first dummy that's learned a new term without considering what it means and tell them that's not "whataboutism." That's saying when an offense is so aggressive it demands a reaction the gloves come off. The phrase "equal and opposite reaction" comes to mind.

You need to get your hypocrisy in check there, herb. You lose your right to outrage when you or yours want to pose on a pedestal of "it's OK when me or mine do it." If you or anyone else doesn't want anyone to joke about the blatant hypocrisy of the posture that allows special words to be spoken only by some but not others or the ridiculous notion of cultural appropriation then it's you who doesn't understand what free speech is or why we need it. Because noticing blatant, illogical, contradictory favoritism like that, out loud, is exactly the kind of thing free speech is for. Don't like it? I hear Venezuela is nice this time of year.

Not to mention Progressive presidents like say, Woodrow Wilson and LBJ.

Last I heard they were either afraid to offer an official estimate or there was too many to make one. So all that's left is you believe your liars and I'll believe mine. What can be confirmed is there was at least this many: Why? Did you want to start another of those strawman arguments about an incidental hyperbole that doesn't actually matter? Why do you guys like those so much? Just shows you're getting desperate, if you ask me.

Specifically, are you talking about peoples' belief the elections were rigged. Perhaps I need to define what I mean by rigged. So it would begin with what was mentioned before. Trump was comfortably ahead. They told everybody the counting was closed. In the morning everything had flipped Trump's comfortable lead in the states that mattered had flipped. They'd been counting something all night. That could have been excused but one might say, turn on Steven Crowder and see video of a steady progression of street looking people parading into the Philadelphia counting station dragging wagons or carrying containers full of ballots at 2 or 3 in the morning. And then the video evidence started turning up of election monitors being chased out of the counting centers with bogus excuses and blocked from even viewing what was going on by particle board hastily hammered in to block viewing windows. Bogus stories about a water main explosion to chase monitors and media out of the center that turned out to be a plugged toilet. Later we watched as hidden containers of ballots were pulled out from under shelves and were told to be satisfied with an excuse from a fake Republican that they investigated and there was nothing to see there. Check out the Arizona midterms to see why nobody who matters believes fake uniparty Republicans anymore. And it went on and on with media of all sorts covering for Democrats' sleaze like the story of the "Big Guy" on Hunter Biden's laptop. Further video of more ballots turning up after the polls were supposedly closed. Just being asked to believe that a dementia patient who didn't campaign and couldn't fill a school auditorium got the most votes in American history even burying the record of the Obama phenomena was enough to get people to start scratching their heads and saying, "Hey. Wait a minute..." And there's much more evidence of things that might get people believing the 2020 election was rigged and jump in the truck to drive across the country to express their displeasure at a stop the steal rally. Would you like to see more? I haven't even checked my bookmarks yet and trust me, I have them.

Wait...now you're talking about a different "they." Do you want to change you answer. Are you asking now about the tiny segment of the million or so attendees of the Washington "Stop the Steal" rally that went into the capitol building. More specifically the segment of them who would identify as what you call "MAGA." Is that who you mean when you ask why were they there? And by there I assume you mean inside the capitol building. Define you terms man, and I'll answer your question. Getting really hard to Whatabout your way out of this one isn't it?

No. It's based on page 4 where I foolishly decided to address your foolish Jan. 6 strawman. I even knew some silly prog was eventually going to make strawman accusations. I try to ignore that nonsense but it gets irritating.

Opinions - and these were based on valid arguments - legitimize a willingness to express those "feelings" under the first amendment.

BTW, little proggies, if you don't think we notice how you create strawman arguments then accuse anybody who addresses them of starting them you're wrong. We notice.

And if we follow your strawman argument, you wanted to know why "They" were there. Getting kind of silly but I'll do my best to answer. The segment of the million or so attendees of the "Stop the Steal" rally in Washington that identified as "MAGA" were there out of a legitimate feeling the 2020 election was rigged. Again, notice I said rigged. The fraud thing is possible to address as well but it's a nitpicky thing where we have to go even farther afield and first address why the legal system wouldn't take any of the issues to trial. It would just be strawmen diverting from strawmen. However why a large segment of the population felt cheated is easy and pertinent to the question why the "MAGA" segment of the population was in Washington on January 6th. I can probably do that in a paragraph or 2. Go ahead ask for "evidence" on that one if you like. As I said, "I dare you."

Hang on. Before we go any further I need to know who you're calling "They." Why were "They" there? Is that what you're asking? By "They" do you mean the million or so patriots that were in Washington for the 'Stop the Steal' rally. Or do you mean the 880 dummies charged when they followed assorted agitators and instigators (No. Not Donald Trump) into the capitol building. Because the two groups were "there," wherever that is, for different reasons. The smaller group was there because they made mistakes. The much larger main group was there for legitimate reasons. But which one is "They?"

I think you mean why were they there. First of all it wasn't just them. There were hundreds, perhaps thousand who did not enter the capitol building. They were there because it was their legal right to be there to object to what they saw as a rigged election. Go ahead...do your show me evidence thing, if you like. In fact, I dare you. But this time remember I said "rigged." In fact I said an election they saw as rigged and had a right to express their displeasure. The ones in the crowd that did enter the capitol building who were not "The Instigators" followed the ones that were. I already gave parameters for the types I'm calling "The Instigators."

Mueller was a Republican the way others and their progeny coming out of that period like the McCains and the Cheneys were. In that...not really. Not so much. Like West said "Bush Republicans." For lack of a better term, but you get the drift.

You mean like, Ray Eps, the scaffold commander with other assorted swamp agents, professional trouble makers like John Earle Sullivan, Antifa and BLM, and assorted anarchists disguised to look like Trump followers etc. Together, let's just call them "The Instigators." They were there to instigate.

But back on the subject of this thread, it's worth hearing Trump's side. Here's what he wrote: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-fumes-after-jury-convicts-his-business-of-criminal-tax-fraud-new-york-city-is-a-hard-place-to-be-trump/ar-AA14ZaA0