Infidel Dog

See, I read that and all I hear is you don't like Tucker Carlson. The easy response to that is, so what? It's nothing like a point that's relevant to the video proof Tucker presented we were told lies during the Democrat subcommittee television mini-series event they tried to manipulate. The fact you and yours don't like Tucker means nothing in the face of that. You want to believe the lies you were told and Tucker made that difficult. So what?

Here ya go, R&R. You did this so I thought I'd do it back at you. An article from a newspaper you'd consider partisan: Scalise calls on Democrats to apologize to Loudermilk for Jan. 6 scrutiny " House Majority Leader Steve Scalise called on Democratic lawmakers to publicly apologize to Rep. Barry Loudermilk for falsely accusing him of helping plan the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. “Transparency is an important thing, and so the public is going to be able to see a lot more information. But ultimately, and for my colleague Barry Loudermilk, I think he’s owed an apology by every Democrat who questioned him on the events prior to Jan. 6,” Mr. Scalise, Louisiana Republican, told reporters. “They implied things about him that weren’t true that those tapes revealed. And I’m waiting for those apologies to come because they owe it to him.” The Jan. 6 select committee accused Mr. Loudermilk, Georgia Republican, of leading a reconnaissance mission through the Capitol the day before the protest, implying he helped the insurrectionists attack the building. “The behavior of these individuals during the Jan. 5, 2021, tour raises concerns about their activity and intent while inside the Capitol complex,” stated committee Chairman Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi Democrat, wrote in a letter to Mr. Loudermilk, requesting his testimony. Mr. Thompson denied to The Washington Times that the committee deceptively edited any footage the panel released. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Democrat, told Politico last June she was “sickened” when she saw the initial video clip of Mr. Loudermilk. The Times contacted Ms. Jackson Lee’s office for comment but did not hear back. Among the new Jan. 6 Capitol security footage released by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, California Republican, to Fox News Channel’s Tucker Carlson was that of Mr. Loudermilk giving a tour to his Georgia constituents of a congressional building down the street from the Capitol. “The surveillance tape that we reviewed shows this story is a lie. And the Democrats on the committee knew it was a lie when they told it,” Mr. Carlson said of the footage. According to Mr. Loudermilk, the committee knew the FBI had already cleared him before the Democrats accused him, but wanted to create a story that would fit their narrative. Mr. Thompson refused to apologize. " https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/mar/8/steve-scalise-calls-democrats-apologize-barry-loud/

For the third time, watch the Tucker video. Stop embarrassing yourself. The Tucker footage reveals the tour as a family event. Your MSNBC video shows a mouthy guy who previously made some loudmouthed threats according to the MSNBC host. Loudmouth somehow attached himself to the family tour and was taking pictures of hallways and staircases. So what did lone wolf, selected, picture-taking guy actually do then? Supposedly he wanted to target Pelosi and Nadler according MSNBC host guy. They look fine to me. Well as good as one could expect from a stomach stabled clown and an old crone alcoholic anyway.

Oh yeah, the police chief. There's a superior medical authority to the chief medical examiner. They didn't charge the pepper sprayers with murder so we know that wouldn't fly. So now Chief Manger and you tell us Officer Sicknick was overly stressed by a hard day on the job. Apparently you and Chief Manger are what you called "everyone" now are you? You and Police chief manger want to believe something so it becomes true, does it? Is that the way it works? Maybe if Chief Manger was so worried about stressing his officers he should have made sure there was an adequate number of police on the job that day. And maybe if they thought Brian's health was such he couldn't handle the stress of dealing with a protest that day Chief Manger should have had him behind a desk that day. Being the superior expert on Officer Sicknick's medical condition and all, I mean. Added stress from that afternoon could maybe have tipped the scale on Officer Sicknick's heart condition. But you and Chief Manger are saying you both know for a fact that was the deciding factor. Where did you two study?

Strange use of the word, "Everyone." Any reasonable person watching the newly released video of Sicknick in perfect health running around doing his job in the rotunda after any confrontations he may have had in the courtyard doesn't know what you suggest. Not if they possess reason and common sense. As to your "death by pepper spray" hypothesis, do you know who doesn't believe that? The medical examiner who examined Sicknick's body and anybody who actually believes in following the science: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56810371

Sorry back at you. I might have accepted your apology at one time. But as I recall you're the guy who's always demanding evidence. So produce some or admit you're full of BS.

Link it or stop lying.

Or you could prove it, Evidence Boy. Show us how the footage of the Qanon shaman being escorted around by friendly officers was shown to the court. Show me in a court document where they quote the footage where he was speechifying, unironically thanking the capitol police for being so helpful. He's doing 4 years for simply being in the capitol building that day. He had access to none of that footage that may have helped his case.

Robo: this bit from your far left rag The Guardian is a lie: " That person’s activity was captured on security cameras and turned over to the House select committee investigating the insurrection at the Capitol. The panel made the footage publicly available on Wednesday in a letter demanding cooperation in its inquiry from Loudermilk." It's the kind of like you acolytes of Prog swallow up and try to replicate. It tells part of the truth without telling all of it. Once you see it all though you know it's a lie. They make all of the footage public. They made an edited clip public. Tucker showed us the other bit where it was just families milling about with their children. These were your supposed spies. As to the rest, Tucker contradicts those details. So who do we believe? Well since my 2 eyes showed me The Guardian is willing to lie about this I'm going to believe Tucker until you or your British rag can give us better details. And again watch the video. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Sure, I saw it. I even saw it on Tucker's coverage. But I also saw what you didn't see. People walking through doors opened by police. Walking in orderly fashion in lines or milling about a rotunda peacefully. These were your "deadly insurgents" and there were many of them. Peaceful rally goers labelled "deadly insurgents" by lying psychopaths. One had to see the fake news coverage of rioting at the one entrance where the instigators were waiting for the rally goers to arrive from the Trump speech. They played that selected footage on a loop on all your fake news networks for 2 years. What we're seeing right now is the video evidence they hid from us and from the political prisoners who weren't unable to mount a proper defense because Pelosi wouldn't allow them access to the full footage. That was criminal if you ask me.

Brian Sicknick was. He was also frisky and in perfect health, filmed in the building after he was supposed to be getting murdered outside in the riot. The "deadly insurrection" label was a lie and the subcommittee knew about it. He was giving tours, but to his constituents. The tours weren't in the building and you can see families milling around holding the hands of their children. "Tours to invaders" was another lie the subcommittee knew about. Watch the video, Dummy. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Sorry, denier. Your only excuse for not recognizing the Horseshit that should be burning in your nostrils now is refusing to recognize the evidence.

Like I said, I'm not even saying affirmative action hiring is a big problem. I'm saying there's a good possibility of varied problems and not just in America. Pretty sure our cops have unions here too, if that's what you're worried about.

Separate incident. Proves nor disproves nothing. That guy who shot Ashli Babbit had a record of carelessness. I wonder if he was a diversity hire. He didn't appear to be a very good cop. Again, proves nor disproves nothing. Just another thing to think about. The cops with Chauvin were black, oriental and 2 whites. Chauvin was hired pre-affirmative action push in 2001. These were the guys that beat Tyre Nichols to death: I don't want to harp on the affirmative action thing. I'm just saying a lot of things can go wrong in the cop business. If you want to focus on one and make it look like the only one you can do that. You shouldn't, but you can. BTW, Cops aren't all saints here in Canada either. I'm pretty sure police unions aren't just a problem in America.

Fair enough. In fact, it almost sounds like you're agreeing with me. I can think of another one. Speaking of specific ones do you remember the one where the Somalian cop shot that Australian woman in her pajamas? Apparently he'd done stupid things before. On my side of the aisle they were pointing at affirmative action hires. I'm not saying that's the only problem with policing in America. I'm saying in Minneapolis that may have been one problem at one time. But yeah, the union did it's best to protect the guy in that case, as I recall.

I see. So it's no longer a general issue with policing in America then. You've seen incidents in America where you see America specific problems with some policing and you would like "politicians and activists" to fix those. You're just talking about what you call "flaws." Specifically then, what flaws?

Well, actually that would be a misunderstanding not a strawman. So you're not saying "all cops are bad then?" Very well, answer the poll question again then, "What is the issue with policing in America?" The premise there appears to be there is a general issue specifically with policing in America. In America as opposed to any place else. It also appeared to me that you were falling in line with that premise and telling me that the fact you could find videos online of bad policing proved it. But now you say, 'no, that wasn't what you meant." I assume you're saying now you were only talking about the incidents of bad policing caught on video and those are the specific ones you want to fix. That's good. Because I've also seen many examples of good policing on video. Also police who were accused of bad policing but the police cam disproved any malfeasance. I'm hopeful you and the OP aren't wanting to fix those as well. There is an option in the poll for "There is no issue" But that would be disingenuous from your perspective because according to you now, you're just talking about the incidents of bad policing you saw on YouTube.

Lose the patronizing tone, Bud. You're better than nobody. If you have a better argument than mine, produce it. Justify it. Otherwise don't waste my time.

There are some videos of bad cops so all cops are bad. Is that your prog logic, hasty generalization of the day? But hey, off topic for a bit. I've been sick lately, getting up at strange hours. I notice that seems to be your MO. Prowling around late at night, early into the morning. How do you deal with it? Get back to sleep, I mean. Warm milk?

6. Candy-assed Progs and the dim-witted who fall for MSM BS won't let the police do their jobs.

One can almost see it as a Pyramid scheme.

The thing about ESG is it's not a money making enterprise. Don't misunderstand me. There are companies on the ESG checklist that are making out like bandits. (Mostly because that's what they are - bandits) But ultimately that's government and union money. Sooner or later the bubble has to burst.

OK, I'll just keep saying it until you hear me then. The trump rule disallowed ideological based investments over profit. Then the Biden regime came in with what you're calling the labor department rule. It allowed ideology based investments over profit prioritized ones. But, and I've said this at least 3 times now there are ways to either drip, drip, drip new government restrictions in or to allow an inevitable ESG monopoly to take over so there is no other place to go. And on the way there the working guys whose pension managers are on board with the globalist ideology over profit approach are screwed. Their only choice is to wait and see what's going to happen with their money.

You do know Vallas is also a Democrat, right?

Which Math? You mean this math? Mayor lightfoot finished third, behind: " former Chicago Public Schools CEO Paul Vallas, who won 33.95 % and Cook County Commissioner and Chicago Teachers Union organizer Brandon Johnson, who wound up with 20.32%." https://www.chicago.suntimes.com/live/chicago-election-day-2023-results-live-updates But then you have to add the far left and black vote Johnson should inherit from Lightfoot. But then add the law and order vote even leftists are swinging to after Chicago has become such a crime ridden cesspool. Sounds like the runoff might be pretty tight to me.