Infidel Dog

If that's what it takes. Child to child, I mean. Stop picking fights then complaining when you get knocked on your ass.

So the left isn't continuing to make an issue of slavery in spite of all the obvious and well known problems with their misreading of history. Is that what you're saying? Because speaking for myself I'm going to keep hitting you over the head with the obvious and what should be well known but apparently is not to many of those you align with.

You don't think your snark is insulting? Congratulations on being so consistent yourself. By continuing to expect me to ignore the obvious, I mean.

And doesn't your Prog logic insist the sins of the father are passed down through their ideology. Very well. Pay your reparations Democrat sympathizer. And stop bothering the rest of us.

Hey, if facts are uncomfortable for you, too bad. They're still facts.

Reneged by the Democrat, Andrew Johnson, you mean? Again - your guy. Why do you keep insisting on making my point for me?

Prog logic, you mean. It is with great pride that I announce it's not for me:

Is still around today? In America? Show me.

I know the one you're talking about Barbie and I was responding to it. That should have been obvious. Problems with the obvious. Hmmm...looks I have you categorized in the right group then.

Already done. What else ya got?

If you buy stolen cigarettes are you required to reimburse the owner. A better analogy than that though would be is anybody sharing your skin color required to cough up the dough?

See what I mean, Barbie. Told ya so.

Why? Who said 'you?' I made it clear, I'm talking about the "dough heads on your side aisle." If you need a term I'll give you one - Progs. And yes, the croaking coming out of that swamp is saying "reparations." 'We're losing this one bad, Captain. Quick beam down some Straw Men.' Is that what you're saying? Sounds like it.

Gee, I hope you're not saying it was accomplished without military force, because if you are somebody needs to reopen a history book.

"Let my people go," for example, eh?

So you're saying you already understand how "infantile and moronic" say, asking for reparations is then? Good for you now try to introduce some of those dough heads on your side of the Progressive aisle to the concept.

Chicken or the egg man. Did the comparatively small amount of Eurocentric slavers go looking for slaves or were some encouraged to take advantage of an available source. BTW the percentage Eurocentric settlers to the new world who took advantage of the availability of a cheap African market was relative small. Only about 3% of Americans owned African slaves is what I heard. And the owners weren't all white.

Islamic slavery has lasted longer as a practice and at its peak the was so overwhelming the Atlantic slave trade was tiny by comparison. Also the practice mentioned in the article of overland travel was widely practiced on victims slated for Islamic destinations. Well over half died. Millions. Also many slaves of Islamic slavers were white. Millions. Whites should demand reparations.

The first time I saw the term "narcissist" used in a political context it was used to describe Obama. It was used often. I'm all the time noticing one of the key MO's identifying the Progressive Socialist (especially the type indoctrinated in university) is a need to re-use burns that were used to identify them but redirected towards the ones that hit them dead on with it. The thing is though, it never really fits when the Prog uses it. The definition as we know it doesn't really apply, so they simply behave as if it does and another term gets corrupted.

So that's your way of admitting you and yours don't have any actual evidence to your blather, is it? Ho hum...

Oh goody. More faux tech blather from another sudden expert as of this morning who found something somewhere but is not brave enough to link it to us. Very well Doctor Digital tech as of this morning. I have a few questions for you. The supreme court tells us this: What evidence do you have that is not the same tech True the Vote is using. Link please. True the Vote claims it is the same tech. They claim they bought data for specific areas in specific cities. How is that different from the data the FBI acquired for Washington to track down and charge Jan 6 attendees. Perhaps the political prisoners of Jan 6 need to acquire you as a technical expert to show the court how the tech is flawed? How would you do that? In a court, I mean. You couldn't just blather. You'd have to show the technical evidence for what you claim to know. I could go through your post point by point but let's start with this one: So use your newly found technical expertise on digital cell data spying and explain to us how you know True the Vote is lying when they tell us this:

FTFY ~ "Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel." ~ Ilhan Omar

Are you? I'm still waiting to see this superior information showing me how True the Vote used an inferior tech to the ones that are showing all these superior results including at court trials and to acquire the nabs of Jan 6 defendants. Because that's the tech True the Vote said they used. And you puff yourself and direct me to a site that uses nobodies to answer users' questions about pretty much anything, telling me there are different methods of digital identifying tech and some better than others Great find, Sherlock. Then you tell me to read and learn. Give it up. You're a joke.

What are you talking about? They say they used GeoFencing technology. You know? This: What are you talking about? If it's the same thing why are you claiming to know so much more than the research Supreme Court Justice Roberts was using. If you are talking about something different show how it differs and show me why you believe they were using that as opposed to what they claimed they were using. Don't just strut and posture. Give us a reason to believe you have a clue what you're talking about.

I love it when you guys won't watch the videos your given. Now, I can just quote it. " What President Trump said on January 6 was not problematic. This is the exact quote...again, most people don't know the exact quote because the mainstream media never repeats it which is an admission by omission that it wasn't problematic. Here's what he said: ' I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.' How could that possibly be misconstrued? Marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully make your voices heard. Truly? What part of that sparks and insurrection? Encourages violence? What? Well if you ask the left they ignore that part of President Trump's remark and instead point to this phrase which he said in the speech as well: 'We fight like Hell and if you don't fight like Hell you won't have a country anymore.' Well...first of all, he's right. If we don't fight against the radical left's agenda we are not going to have our country as we know it anymore. That's almost inarguable. Even the Democrats don't claim to want our country as it is anymore. They are trying to fundamentally change it. Listen - nobody on earth actually believes that the phrase "we fight like Hell and if you don't fight like Hell you're not going to have a country anymore' means, 'Hey, why don't you go fight an insurrection.' This is a colloquial term that anyone with a brain knows it's a phrase. It is just a phrase, we fight like Hell. It doesn't mean physically fighting. It's not an encouragement or an incitement to an insurrection. This is perhaps the lamest attempt from the Democrats that I've ever seen to accuse a Republican of something that they obviously didn't do. And the Democrats obviously do this all the time. They accuse us of being racist. They accuse us of being racist and sexist and misogynistic and homophobic and transphobic and all these other isms and ias that they falsely attribute to our policy positions. But this might be the dumbest one because no one...literally no one thinks 'we fight like Hell' means go violently attack someone else.