Jump to content

George Santos was a Brazilian Drag Queen


Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, sharkman said:

Again.  You are outraged over a politician lying.  90% of them lie.  You've got issues if you think anyone is going to be surprised about another lying politician.  Do you know who Big Mike is?

Still, don't you feel just a little bit aggrieved by the lies you and your friends on here were fed by Trump and the rest of the RINOs under his command?

You argued for Krakens, believed the rantings of pillow manufacturers and third rate lawyers and supported people who wore horns on their heads while trying to change a democratically arrived at vote in one of the freest countries in the world.

Now that all sane people know that was all at the behest of a crybaby who simply could not stand being seen for the loser he was, do you not feel, at least just a little bit, put upon?

I do understand how embarrassing it must be, succumbing to the lies of such an obvious con man.

Edited by bcsapper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Time Mag and ABC News (which you cited) BOTH corroborated Wapo's reporting.

YOU said it "drizzled" and "drizzle" means rain by definition.

They were THERE and YOU WERE NOT.

There you go. "Drizzle". 

Drizzle is 'precipitation', but at a time when accuracy matters, 'rain' is rain. If someone walked outside for 17 minutes, experience a brief drizzle that lasted a few seconds, and then said "It was raining while we were outside", that would be a gross exaggeration (lie). 

If WashPo wants to make a correction with any integrity at all, they need to say something like: "Trump said "it didn't rain" but it did drizzle for a brief period of time". What they did was atrocious. They made a mountain out of a molehill.

The reason for the high degree of accuracy is that a grand accusation like lying needs to be accurate and forthright in order to count. WashPo's ridiculous, exaggerated claims are a serious form of lying, and exaggerating something as serious as WashPo's claim to the extent they did it is actually a major lie.

When Biden pretended that the drone strike killed ISIS-K terrorists instead of an aid worker and a bunch of kids, WashPo made a molehill out of that mountain. "It was the US military!"

You know damned well that if Trump said that there would have instantly been accusations that he pressured them to lie, that he knew the target wasn't properly vetted and might just be a family, an anonymous source would have confirmed it all (aka it was deemed to be 100% true), and it would be called "RACISTMURDEROFCHILDRENGATE!". Bob Woodward would say: "This is bigger than Watergate!" End of story. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Still, don't you feel just a little bit aggrieved by the lies you and your friends on here were fed by Trump and the rest of the RINOs under his command?

You argued for Krakens, believed the rantings of pillow manufacturers and third rate lawyers and supported people who wore horns on their heads while trying to change a democratically arrived at vote in one of the freest countries in the world.

Now that all sane people know that was all at the behest of a crybaby who simply could not stand being seen for the loser he was, do you not feel, at least just a little bit, put upon?

I do understand how embarrassing it must be, succumbing to the lies of such an obvious con man.

Sounds like you are getting depressed over there in Alberta.  Serves you right, enjoy your retirement in flat land country.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sharkman said:

Sounds like you are getting depressed over there in Alberta.  Serves you right, enjoy your retirement in flat land country.

I thought you might be.  It's tough being wrong.  I've been wrong before, so I know.

I was going to say it's nothing to be ashamed of, but in the case of falling for Trump's lies, I really do think it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I thought you might be.  It's tough being wrong.  I've been wrong before, so I know.

I was going to say it's nothing to be ashamed of, but in the case of falling for Trump's lies, I really do think it is.

Trump, Biden, Obama, Bush, Trudeau.  Pick your poison of lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, sharkman said:

Trump, Biden, Obama, Bush, Trudeau.  Pick your poison of lies.

Ah, so I'm not wrong about you then.  You did fall for some pretty bald faced lies.

You attempt to make up for that by implying that lots of other people did too.

Maybe, but none were so obvious and self serving as the ones you fell for, and none were committed by so pathetic a human being.  It's one thing to compare Biden, Obama, Bush, Trudeau, etc, but none are in the same league as Trump.

And the tragedy is, even though we all know that, many people still profess to believe him.  I can never be sure whether they actually do believe him, or whether they just find it politically expedient to say they do.  Like evangelical Christians do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

I think it's kind of funny the way the Prog God has commanded its troops to beat their chests and feign outrage over this Santos thing.

No Republican seems want the guy around. They'd dump him if they could and they might find a way yet. He's not on any committees that I know of.

But that doesn't seem to matter to the same type that so easily ignore stuff like Ilhan Omar marrying her brother to scam him a green card then getting a seat on the House foreign affairs committee or Nancy continuing to seat Eric Swalwell on the House Intelligence Committee even after they discovered he'd been banging the Chinese spy, Fang Fang.

Democrat supporting types don't really care that this Santos weasel is a lying choad. If they did they'd get rid of the bug-eyed, Burbank, bolshevick, master of the bald faced lie, Adam Schiff.

They don't actually care that Santos is a liar. They care he's a republican.

He's on TWO committees ALREADY cause McCarthy NEEDS his vote to stay speaker. 

According to McCarthy's "innocent until proven guilty" standard of criminal law, he's fine with the unconvicted being in HIS caucus. I wonder if a conviction for check kiting in Brazil will change his mind. I'm betting not.

Thanks for demonstrating how behind the curve YOU ARE, AGAIN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

There you go. "Drizzle". 

Drizzle is 'precipitation', but at a time when accuracy matters, 'rain' is rain. If someone walked outside for 17 minutes, experience a brief drizzle that lasted a few seconds, and then said "It was raining while we were outside", that would be a gross exaggeration (lie). 

If WashPo wants to make a correction with any integrity at all, they need to say something like: "Trump said "it didn't rain" but it did drizzle for a brief period of time". What they did was atrocious. They made a mountain out of a molehill.

The reason for the high degree of accuracy is that a grand accusation like lying needs to be accurate and forthright in order to count. WashPo's ridiculous, exaggerated claims are a serious form of lying, and exaggerating something as serious as WashPo's claim to the extent they did it is actually a major lie.

When Biden pretended that the drone strike killed ISIS-K terrorists instead of an aid worker and a bunch of kids, WashPo made a molehill out of that mountain. "It was the US military!"

You know damned well that if Trump said that there would have instantly been accusations that he pressured them to lie, that he knew the target wasn't properly vetted and might just be a family, an anonymous source would have confirmed it all (aka it was deemed to be 100% true), and it would be called "RACISTMURDEROFCHILDRENGATE!". Bob Woodward would say: "This is bigger than Watergate!" End of story. 

I know damn well that the definition I posted says "drizzle" is (a kind of) RAIN, Trump LIED, YOU reached the ridiculous conclusion that dry APPEARING hair proves it didn't rain (which is laughable) and ONE statement that you pretend you proved true means ALL the other documented LIES were also true.

On top of that, you don't understand it is IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE A NEGATIVE. You not seeing the evidence YOU EXPECT TO SEE is NOT proof it didn't happen.

You've piled fake proof on top of logical fallacies, and are just too stubbornly proud to ever admit YOU'RE WRONG.

Numerous eyewitnesses said it rained and you weren't there, but just keep demonstrating how delusional you are.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, robosmith said:

He's on TWO committees ALREADY cause McCarthy NEEDS his vote to stay speaker. 

According to McCarthy's "innocent until proven guilty" standard of criminal law, he's fine with the unconvicted being in HIS caucus. I wonder if a conviction for check kiting in Brazil will change his mind. I'm betting not.

Thanks for demonstrating how behind the curve YOU ARE, AGAIN.

That is interesting. They are lower tier committees of the sort new members are generally assigned to. Not really comparable to the plum assignments given to a crook, a traitor, and an incurable liar like what was given to Omar, Swalwell, and Schiff by Pelosi.

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then there's this:

Quote

Some Republican committee leaders were reportedly lobbying against having Santos appointed on their panels. Science Committee chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) did not appear thrilled at the prospect of Santos joining his committee, telling Bloomberg on Tuesday, “Somebody’s going to win the prize.”

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.)—chairman of the House Oversight Committee—said Sunday that Santos faces a “strict ethics investigation” to determine whether he broke campaign finance laws. Comer said he will be ousted from Congress if campaign finance wrongdoing is found, but stopped short of calling for Santos to resign for lying about his resume.

 

KEY BACKGROUND

Six of the 10 New York Republicans in the House have called for Santos to resign, along with his local Republican Party chapter,

Did the dems do that? Like ever in their long history of sleazy (Maxine Waters) or just plain stupid (Hank Johnson) candidates? Nope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

That is interesting. They are lower tier committees of the sort new members are generally assigned to. Not really comparable to the plum assignments given to a crook, a traitor, and an incurable liar like what was given to Omar, Swalwell, and Schiff by Pelosi.

Don't know what Omar has done, but Schiff and Swalwell did a bang up job on BOTH impeachment committees.

AGAIN, you have NO EVIDENCE that EITHER is a "crook" or "traitor."

There is NOTHING illegal about presenting evidence at an impeachment hearing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Then there's this:

Did the dems do that? Like ever in their long history of sleazy (Maxine Waters) or just plain stupid (Hank Johnson) candidates? Nope.

AGAIN, NO EVIDENCE for your allegations. Why do you keep destroying your credibility by posting ONLY your OPINIONS?

Maybe cause you're LYING?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

And the tragedy is, even though we all know that, many people still profess to believe him.  I can never be sure whether they actually do believe him, or whether they just find it politically expedient to say they do.  Like evangelical Christians do.

I mean, does anyone seriously think that Trump is thinking about anything else here except how much money he can score from these rubes?

Most Americans don't see Donald Trump as religious | Pew Research Center

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

Ah, so I'm not wrong about you then.  You did fall for some pretty bald faced lies.

You attempt to make up for that by implying that lots of other people did too.

Maybe, but none were so obvious and self serving as the ones you fell for, and none were committed by so pathetic a human being.  It's one thing to compare Biden, Obama, Bush, Trudeau, etc, but none are in the same league as Trump.

And the tragedy is, even though we all know that, many people still profess to believe him.  I can never be sure whether they actually do believe him, or whether they just find it politically expedient to say they do.  Like evangelical Christians do.

You believe all that simply because of the media you’ve taken in over the last decade.  That same media told you how good Biden and Trudeau would be, but they’ve both been guilty of lies and having secrets in their past.  
 

People are pretty easy to manipulate.    Until a person really realizes this, they are just another useless sheep.  

Edited by sharkman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, robosmith said:

AGAIN, NO EVIDENCE for your allegations. Why do you keep destroying your credibility by posting ONLY your OPINIONS?

Maybe cause you're LYING?

Well I would expect a guy who brags about his superior knowledge of American politics to know about well known occurrences like the ethics complaints and investigations against Maxine Waters or Hank Johnson thinking the island of Guam would tip over if they sent too many soldiers over there.

Apparently you need a Canadian to tell you about basic stuff you missed. 

So do yourself a favor. Stop looking so ignorant (I was going to say stupid. ;)) Look it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

You're just moronic whataboutism stacked on moronic whataboutism. The consummate MAGA buffoon.

If noticing the obvious inequity of two tier justice or judgement is just 'whataboutism' then I'm fine with it as critique. But I get why you don't want to be judged by your own rules of what's acceptable. You don't look good. You look worse than what you're condemning.

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

If two tier justice or judgement is just 'whataboutism' then I'm fine with it as critique. But I get why you don't want to be judged by your own rules of what's acceptable. You don't look good. You look worse than what you're condemning.

You poor victimized buffoon. I recognize how stupid you sound with all your "poor me" grievance garbage. You want me to see you as a victim? Fine, prove your a f__king victim..... Until that day I'll just continue to call all you like minded dimwits out.... I think, as time goes by, you may realize that I'm doing y'all a favor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Well I would expect a guy who brags about his superior knowledge of American politics to know about well known occurrences like the ethics complaints and investigations against Maxine Waters or Hank Johnson thinking the island of Guam would tip over if they sent too many soldiers over there.

Apparently you need a Canadian to tell you about basic stuff you missed. 

So do yourself a favor. Stop looking so ignorant (I was going to say stupid. ;)) Look it up.

Why would I go on a fishing expedition looking for support for YOUR OPINIONS when YOU can't even post ANY evidence to back them up?

What you're talking about might be as ANCIENT as the "Summer of Love" (1967?) to which you keep cryptically referring. LMAO

I know Maxine has said some shit that CONS don't like, but she's just a House member and not at all influential. That's why I pay NO ATTENTION to what she says. Duh.

Edited by robosmith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

Why would I go on a fishing expedition looking for support for YOUR OPINIONS when YOU can't even post ANY evidence to back them up?

What you're talking about might be as ANCIENT as the "Summer of Love" (1967?) to which you keep cryptically referring. LMAO

I know Maxine has said some shit that CONS don't like, but she's just a House member and not at all influential.

I gave you evidence. It's stuff you should know. If you don't believe it, where's your evidence.

I find that interesting that a guy who's always asking for evidence has never actually produced any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

I think it's kind of funny the way the Prog God has commanded its troops to beat their chests and feign outrage over this Santos thing.

No Republican seems want the guy around. They'd dump him if they could and they might find a way yet. He's not on any committees that I know of.

But that doesn't seem to matter to the same type that so easily ignore stuff like Ilhan Omar marrying her brother to scam him a green card then getting a seat on the House foreign affairs committee or Nancy continuing to seat Eric Swalwell on the House Intelligence Committee even after they discovered he'd been banging the Chinese spy, Fang Fang.

Democrat supporting types don't really care that this Santos weasel is a lying choad. If they did they'd get rid of the bug-eyed, Burbank, bolshevick, master of the bald faced lie, Adam Schiff.

They don't actually care that Santos is a liar. They care he's a republican.

Santos was just assigned to two committees.  Disgrace. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Infidel Dog said:

I gave you evidence. It's stuff you should know. If you don't believe it, where's your evidence.

I find that interesting that a guy who's always asking for evidence has never actually produced any.

I've given you plenty of evidence and you just make EXCUSES for ignoring it.

Have you read ANY of the SWORN testimony by Republicans working in Trump's WH from the Jan 6th Final Report yet?

I didn't think so. Because you don't WANT to know the truth about what happened.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...