Nationalist Posted January 22 Report Posted January 22 4 hours ago, Hodad said: Everyone knows the best response to a murderous mob is to simply let them get you.🙄 He had no cause to draw his firearm.! 4 hours ago, Black Dog said: lol cops shoot unarmed people al the time and you lot cheer them on "oh they should have complied." I wonder what's different in this case? She had no firearm. 1 Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
robosmith Posted January 22 Author Report Posted January 22 3 hours ago, ironstone said: According to you guys, Jan 6 was without question, the worst day in American history. Worse than the Civil War, worse than Pearl Harbor, worse than 9/11...and yet...they didn't charge him for it. Who said that? Not I. It did have the POTENTIAL to be much worse, but Trump FAILED. He was charged with the functional equivalent of insurrection whether you deny that or not. 3 hours ago, ironstone said: Because even they knew it was all BS. Like the rest of the things he was charged with. So you STILL don't know the EVIDENCE AGAINST Trump. Until you do, your OPINIONS are worthless. Quote
robosmith Posted January 22 Author Report Posted January 22 1 hour ago, Nationalist said: Hey...your thin excuses don't fly. Nobody but you Libbies even bother trying. And that...robo-bot...is why you LOST! YOU-ARE-DELUSIONAL. You can't even attack my argument logically and are JUST FLAILING with BUPKIS. Quote
robosmith Posted January 22 Author Report Posted January 22 2 hours ago, West said: They abused the legal system, charging their political opponents on BS charges and ruining families through aggressive prosecutions that had they been from the correct political party with the correct views would've never been prosecuted. ^Unsubstantiated BULLSHIT claim. All the STANDARD justice procedures were followed and you have NOTHING to prove they weren't. 2 hours ago, West said: There's many examples. Just today Trump commuted a sentence of a libertarian man who was targeted and prosecuted for creating a website that others (not even him) used to sell drugs. IF he knew (probably) what it was used for, he is an accessory to the crime. 2 hours ago, West said: You seriously need to educate yourself. You know next to NOTHING about the US legal system, and therefore your amateur legal OPINIONS have NO BASIS IN FACT. 1 hour ago, West said: Disgusting Waving at friends is not disgusting. Duh Quote
robosmith Posted January 22 Author Report Posted January 22 1 hour ago, Nationalist said: He had no cause to draw his firearm.! Wrong. It was HIS JOB to protect the occupants of the House chamber. 1 hour ago, Nationalist said: She had no firearm. As said BEFORE, Byrd had no way of knowing whether she had a weapon. She was told to stop and paid the terrible deserved price. Quote
West Posted January 22 Report Posted January 22 (edited) 46 minutes ago, robosmith said: ^Unsubstantiated BULLSHIT claim. All the STANDARD justice procedures were followed and you have NOTHING to prove they weren't. IF he knew (probably) what it was used for, he is an accessory to the crime. You know next to NOTHING about the US legal system, and therefore your amateur legal OPINIONS have NO BASIS IN FACT. Waving at friends is not disgusting. Duh It's obvious these were political hit jobs just listening to your vile party speak. Edited January 22 by West 1 Quote
robosmith Posted January 22 Author Report Posted January 22 53 minutes ago, West said: It's obvious these were political hit jobs just listening to your vile party speak. Or you're just imagining that the dots are connected. Being "obvious" to you does NOT make it FACTUAL. You've proven over and over that your standard for evidence is VERY LOW when you WANT to believe something. Quote
West Posted January 22 Report Posted January 22 7 minutes ago, robosmith said: Or you're just imagining that the dots are connected. Being "obvious" to you does NOT make it FACTUAL. You've proven over and over that your standard for evidence is VERY LOW when you WANT to believe something. When you run a campaign on imprisoning Trump before ever seeing evidence any logical person could conclude its political. Only a Democrat hack would suggest it's not Quote
robosmith Posted January 22 Author Report Posted January 22 9 minutes ago, West said: When you run a campaign on imprisoning Trump before ever seeing evidence any logical person could conclude its political. WH insiders witnessed the evidence and testified about it right after it happened. Sure, they didn't tell you about that on FOS LIES. 🤮 9 minutes ago, West said: Only a Democrat hack would suggest it's not Only an IGNORANT FOS LIES viewer would suggest that it is. Quote
West Posted January 22 Report Posted January 22 9 minutes ago, robosmith said: WH insiders witnessed the evidence and testified about it right after it happened. Sure, they didn't tell you about that on FOS LIES. 🤮 Only an IGNORANT FOS LIES viewer would suggest that it is. The Supreme Court has already ruled against you on the J6 stuff but they still proceeded to prosecute against a court ruling. It's vile and they'll get what's coming to them. You can't just abuse rights in a western system. Quote
CdnFox Posted January 22 Report Posted January 22 13 hours ago, Nationalist said: Wetting your other pant leg I see. Good on ya robo. Consistency is so important 1 Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
robosmith Posted January 22 Author Report Posted January 22 47 minutes ago, West said: The Supreme Court has already ruled against you on the J6 stuff but they still proceeded to prosecute against a court ruling. It's vile and they'll get what's coming to them. You can't just abuse rights in a western system. You're very confused. The SCOTUS only ruled that Trump could not charged for OFFICIAL conduct and the Jan 6th speech was a CAMPAIGN EVENT. AKA, not part of the POTUS OFFICIAL duties. Here in America, there is a separation between campaign activities which are PRIVATE, aod OFFICIAL government duties, which you would know if you weren't a Canuck. No "abuse" whatsoever. Duh Quote
Nationalist Posted January 22 Report Posted January 22 6 hours ago, robosmith said: YOU-ARE-DELUSIONAL. You can't even attack my argument logically and are JUST FLAILING with BUPKIS. You have no argument. You lost and the lawfare and lying is over. Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
Nationalist Posted January 22 Report Posted January 22 6 hours ago, robosmith said: Wrong. It was HIS JOB to protect the occupants of the House chamber. As said BEFORE, Byrd had no way of knowing whether she had a weapon. She was told to stop and paid the terrible deserved price. He opened fire on an unarmed woman. Not only that but he could not even handle a much smaller woman. Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
West Posted January 22 Report Posted January 22 6 hours ago, robosmith said: You're very confused. The SCOTUS only ruled that Trump could not charged for OFFICIAL conduct and the Jan 6th speech was a CAMPAIGN EVENT. AKA, not part of the POTUS OFFICIAL duties. Here in America, there is a separation between campaign activities which are PRIVATE, aod OFFICIAL government duties, which you would know if you weren't a Canuck. No "abuse" whatsoever. Duh The SC ruled that the lower court judge severely overcharged hundreds of J6 hostages. Yet you support lawlessness provided they wear a robe and give you a story you can use to attack conservatives Quote
Black Dog Posted January 22 Report Posted January 22 12 hours ago, Nationalist said: She had no firearm. What do you get when you try and lead murderous mob into the Senate? You get what you f*cking deserve. 1 Quote
robosmith Posted January 22 Author Report Posted January 22 3 hours ago, West said: The SC ruled that the lower court judge severely overcharged hundreds of J6 hostages. Yet you support lawlessness provided they wear a robe and give you a story you can use to attack conservatives I'm sure there's a reason you HAVE POSTED NO EVIDENCE of ^THIS In ANY CASE being overruled by the SCOTUS is NOT "lawlessness," dummy. IF you're talking about this case: Supreme Court makes it harder to charge Capitol riot ... AP News https://apnews.com › article › supreme-court-capitol-rio... Jun 28, 2024 — The Supreme Court on Friday limited a federal obstruction law that has been used to charge hundreds of Capitol riot defendants as well as former President ... "severely" is NOT used to describe what happened. Probably FOS LIES LIED TO YOU. LMAO 6 hours ago, Nationalist said: He opened fire on an unarmed woman. Not only that but he could not even handle a much smaller woman. WRONG. He couldn't handle the MOB who would certainly follow her. Duh Quote
Aristides Posted January 22 Report Posted January 22 14 hours ago, User said: When you just make up shit I didn't say to argue against, that might be responding, but it certainly isn't honest. Should the rioters have been pardoned or not? You are accusing the authorities so which should have gone to jail? Quote
West Posted January 22 Report Posted January 22 29 minutes ago, robosmith said: I'm sure there's a reason you HAVE POSTED NO EVIDENCE of ^THIS In ANY CASE being overruled by the SCOTUS is NOT "lawlessness," dummy. IF you're talking about this case: Supreme Court makes it harder to charge Capitol riot ... AP News https://apnews.com › article › supreme-court-capitol-rio... Jun 28, 2024 — The Supreme Court on Friday limited a federal obstruction law that has been used to charge hundreds of Capitol riot defendants as well as former President ... "severely" is NOT used to describe what happened. Probably FOS LIES LIED TO YOU. LMAO WRONG. He couldn't handle the MOB who would certainly follow her. Duh Many legal experts who you continue to disparage accurately predicted the outcome of the J6 cases at the Supreme Court. Perhaps it is you who are being radicalized and brainwashed to accept radical persecutions of people of differing views? The left are clearly using the legal process as punishment even for people whove DONE NOTHING WRONG. Cases are inevitably tossed but not until they take away everything from the people who oppose them including jobs, housing, etc. This is EXACTLY WHAT THE NAZIS DID TO ENSURE PEOPLE DID NOT SPEAK UP AS THEY MISTREATED AND ULTIMATELY MURDERED THE JEWS Quote
Legato Posted January 22 Report Posted January 22 18 hours ago, Hodad said: 2 out of 5 points for deflection. Not true and not parallel. Well sir that being the case...you get 6 out of 5 for the same reason. Quote
User Posted January 22 Report Posted January 22 40 minutes ago, Aristides said: Should the rioters have been pardoned or not? You are accusing the authorities so which should have gone to jail? Most of them. The one involved in violence should not have been, except for the cases that the DOJ clearly abused the process to get them or stretched what "violence" was to some unjustly. There are some procedural issues with some of the other cases. But in general, pardon the vast majority of them. Quote
Nationalist Posted January 22 Report Posted January 22 1 hour ago, robosmith said: I'm sure there's a reason you HAVE POSTED NO EVIDENCE of ^THIS In ANY CASE being overruled by the SCOTUS is NOT "lawlessness," dummy. IF you're talking about this case: Supreme Court makes it harder to charge Capitol riot ... AP News https://apnews.com › article › supreme-court-capitol-rio... Jun 28, 2024 — The Supreme Court on Friday limited a federal obstruction law that has been used to charge hundreds of Capitol riot defendants as well as former President ... "severely" is NOT used to describe what happened. Probably FOS LIES LIED TO YOU. LMAO WRONG. He couldn't handle the MOB who would certainly follow her. Duh None of whom were armed. IMO that cop should be dismissed from duty at the very least. Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
User Posted January 22 Report Posted January 22 20 minutes ago, Nationalist said: None of whom were armed. IMO that cop should be dismissed from duty at the very least. You have never had to guard anything with deadly force in your life and it shows. It doesn't matter if they were armed or not. They were trying to breach a secure hallway and on the other side were the very people that Officer was there to protect. Quote
Nationalist Posted January 22 Report Posted January 22 3 minutes ago, User said: You have never had to guard anything with deadly force in your life and it shows. It doesn't matter if they were armed or not. They were trying to breach a secure hallway and on the other side were the very people that Officer was there to protect. Quote Deadly force should not be used against persons whose actions are a threat solely to themselves or property unless an individual poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others in close proximity. I do not believe the rioters would have injured anyone. At 30 seconds into the clip someone says "He's got a gun". At that point the rioters back off and THEN a shot is heard. No. I do not think shooting an unarmed woman was justified in that instance. Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
Recommended Posts
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.