|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Evidence? /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1622051932 Message started by Eegore on 05/26/21 at 10:58:52 |
|
Title: Evidence? Post by Eegore on 05/26/21 at 10:58:52 "I am not convinced about that, I think we should continue to investigate what went on in China until we continue to find out to the best of our ability what happened, certainly, the people who investigated it say it likely was the emergence from an animal reservoir that then infected individuals, but it could have been something else, and we need to find that out. So, you know, that's the reason why I said I'm perfectly in favor of any investigation that looks into the origin of the virus." - Fauci Idiot. You want evidence before making unverified claims and assumptions as fact? Since when is that a thing? |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by WebsterMark on 05/26/21 at 17:12:54 Idiot. You want evidence before making unverified claims and assumptions as fact? Since when is that a thing? Since Trump announced he was running for President. Actually since the majority of the news media sold their souls and teamed up with one political party, The Democrats. |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by T And T Garage on 05/26/21 at 19:05:20 I love your sense of humor Eegore!! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by WebsterMark on 05/27/21 at 04:22:38 312F20212C312A37450 wrote:
Tip of the day for young men starting to date: Find a woman who looks at you like TT looks at Eegore! |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by Eegore on 05/27/21 at 07:35:56 Second Tip of the day: Be an intelligent young man and not a presumptuous victim of perpetual confirmation bias so women actually like you! Then they find you, instead of you finding them. Maybe. |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by WebsterMark on 05/27/21 at 08:36:29 Nah..... |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by MnSpring on 05/28/21 at 10:43:49 Quote:
You mean 'THINK' for one's self ? And Not follow the UL, DFI, FDS Socialistic Pied Piper's ? Who are TELLING people, Exactly what to think ! |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by Serowbot on 05/28/21 at 11:07:01 You mean the grown-ups that are in charge now?... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/27/us/politics/coronavirus-origins-intelligence.html |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by Eegore on 05/28/21 at 11:10:49 You mean 'THINK' for one's self ? And Not follow the UL, DFI, FDS Socialistic Pied Piper's ? Who are TELLING people, Exactly what to think ! Yes. And to not regurgitate information from Red State, Newsmax, Judicial Watch or other non UL DFI FDS LMNOP sources, but to scrutinize Conservative information equally. As in exactly the same. Also not to follow medical misinformation telling people mRNA modifies DNA, Facebook posts claiming hydroxychloroquine cures C-19, that under voting is "proof" of voter fraud, or a single podcast where a guy claims he heard something, can not provide evidence but now is claiming proof of altering votes. Or anyone that says they "knew" something was true before any evidence was presented. Pick anything really. If you let anyone inform you the "facts" about any topic you take a risk. |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by MnSpring on 05/28/21 at 13:42:53 [quote] 5B7B79716C7B1E0 wrote: So People, ALL people. Not just young men looking for a partner, Should, NOT; “ … regurgitate information from Red State, Newsmax, Judicial Watch or other …” “… says they "knew" something was true before any evidence was presented … “ ( believe) “… a single podcast where a guy claims he heard something …” And SHOULD: “ … scrutinize Conservative information equally …” I totally agree ! Yet, why is it that, when, The W.H.O. says something, it is a absolute Fact ? When the C.D.C. says something, it is a absolute Fact ? When a State’s equivalent says something, it is a absolute Fact ? When Fauci says something, it is a absolute Fact ? When Someones Boss says something, it is a absolute Fact ? When a China Lab said it did not use any funds for any other kind of research, it is a absolute Fact ? When China said; ‘not my fault’, it is a absolute Fact ? Should that also, be investigated ? Why is it not the same ? So when, Dong-Dong/Ho-Ho, and cohorts say: “No Voter Fraud Here” Or others when they say: “Ya gotta pass it to see what is in it” “Will the Island Tip over” “I’ve been to 57 States” And; “Well ya know, and well, um, the thing, um, and well, Well ya know man” No One needs to look any further. And if they do, they are, Raciest…, …phobic, etc. etc. etc. |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by Eegore on 05/28/21 at 14:18:23 "Yet, why is it that, when, The W.H.O. says something, it is a absolute Fact ? When the C.D.C. says something, it is a absolute Fact ? When a State’s equivalent says something, it is a absolute Fact ? When Fauci says something, it is a absolute Fact ? When Someones Boss says something, it is a absolute Fact ? When a China Lab said it did not use any funds for any other kind of research, it is a absolute Fact ? When China said; ‘not my fault’, it is a absolute Fact ? Should that also, be investigated ? Yes. Why is it not the same ? It is. The difference is how much supporting information, that is verifiable, is presented. "Knowing" something from "Day 1" would be an example of presenting an absolute fact with zero evidence for instance. "Ya gotta pass it to see what is in it” “Will the Island Tip over” “I’ve been to 57 States” And; “Well ya know, and well, um, the thing, um, and well, Well ya know man” No One needs to look any further. And if they do, they are, Raciest…, …phobic, etc. etc. etc. Incorrect. Research does not make one racist or phobic. This is no different than any other topic. If you let anyone inform you the "facts" about any topic you take a risk. |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by MnSpring on 05/28/21 at 15:13:01 4161636B7661040 wrote:
Really ? You must be reading different posts ! |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by MnSpring on 05/30/21 at 12:20:43 Quote:
Ya talking about the DFI, Bumbling, 'Ding-Dong'. Who's his actions, SHOUT ! " Pedophile " |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by WebsterMark on 05/31/21 at 05:07:51 7E687F627A6F62790D0 wrote:
You do know this is Democratic Party propaganda right? How many times has The NY Times printed the old “according to senior White House officials” line only to find out later it was BS? But you keep on believing and posting, you be you. |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by WebsterMark on 05/31/21 at 05:22:27 Remember the Officer Sicknick from Jan 6 protest? The Times reported for weeks he was murdered by a swinging metal fire extinguisher. The Times reported he had gashes on his head. They had their sources. Truth- he died in the evening of the next day from a stroke which may or may not have had anything to do with the day before. Remember, two protestors died that day from natural causes. Your paper and probably you also said and perhaps you still say the officer was murdered. Remember the Russia bounty story? All BS. Point is, the Democrats, the media and entertainment industries have teamed up to put those in office that a relatively few people decide they want in office. Trump fooled them in 2016 so they did anything they had to do to install Biden in 2020. So keep posting articles that in six months will be proven false and a lie but the damage will already be done. |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by Eegore on 05/31/21 at 06:28:07 "Truth- he died in the evening of the next day from a stroke which may or may not have had anything to do with the day before. Remember, two protestors died that day from natural causes. Your paper and probably you also said and perhaps you still say the officer was murdered." This is why people should not let "the news" give them all of their information if they want to proclaim truth to others. "So keep posting articles that in six months will be proven false and a lie but the damage will already be done." You mean misinformation? I hardly think Democratic leaning "news" is more involved in this than any other group, including Republican. They may be better at doing it in a way that develops change, at this time, but they are far from being a majority culprit. The problem, to me, is that an entire generation of people were not exposed to this type of information pooling and didn't really get a fair shake at deciphering false information in modern media. |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/31/21 at 15:35:44 You understand that the media were lying.. Good for you. Insane lefties beating on the doors while the SCOTUS were meeting.. ?NO BIG DEAL But the people who walked around on the sixth Ohh, MOTHERFUKKER, it's an Armed Insurrection.. Except for the FACT NOBODY WAS ARMED.. Ohh, the lies go on and on.. You lefties may win, in the short run politically, and America will be damaged,, But the Normies will eventually rise up and crush you. I'm sure unhappy that I'm too old and crippled up to do more than cheer them on. |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by WebsterMark on 05/31/21 at 16:04:06 I hardly think Democratic leaning "news" is more involved in this than any other group, including Republican. They may be better at doing it in a way that develops change, at this time, but they are far from being a majority culprit. Wrong. |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by T And T Garage on 06/01/21 at 07:33:53 "Wrong." Wow Eegore, how can you rebut that? ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by MnSpring on 06/01/21 at 15:57:23 Quote:
Can't Because he KNOWS full well; Quote:
Is totally and absolutely WRONG. (Well, except if one believes the political view of a couple 'wanna-be' comedians) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by Eegore on 06/01/21 at 19:38:45 "Can't Because he KNOWS full well; Quote: "...I hardly think Democratic leaning "news" is more involved in this than any other group, ..." Is totally and absolutely WRONG." Actually I've offered, more than once, to go through each paragraph of any of these "news sources" and check them for accuracy with the person who posted them. That offer is ignored, or rejected, every time. Anyone that thinks Conservative websites are less manipulative than ANTIFA, or Facebook, or Good Morning America, or any source of information is purely wanting there side to be more correct. There is no moral high road. As long as you think there is, you will believe what you think is right before you believe what you think is wrong. Then the facts you demand of others you will not seek out yourself because you know what's right before you know the question. This leads to demanding "evidence" from others while not needing any for yourself. |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by T And T Garage on 06/02/21 at 07:13:05 Game. Set. Match. To Eegore |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by WebsterMark on 06/02/21 at 07:57:19 There is no moral high road. There is no absolute moral high road but there are roads with varying degrees of that travel upwards and roads that trend down. From my point of view, conservative ideology which includes a majority of The Republican Party are above center and generally trend upwards. The current Democratic Party along with the established media are on the down ramp. Their current path of inciting racial violence particularly appalling. |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by Serowbot on 06/02/21 at 08:22:27 "No reasonable person would believe"... This phrase has been used as a defense in court by Sydney Powell, Hannity, Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson, and probably others I can't recall. Fox has argued that they are not liable to be factual because they are entertainment not news. Tell me again how mainstream media lies more. Tell me where they have used this defense. A "No reasonable person would believe what I say" defense is calling their viewers ignorant at the least. |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by WebsterMark on 06/02/21 at 09:52:02 And that has what to do with this? What does a defense strategy used by a lawyer in a lawsuit involving an individual in a lawsuit that was dismissed have to do with the moral superiority of one political ideology vs another? Nothing, that’s what. |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by WebsterMark on 06/02/21 at 10:08:55 But since you like to bring up lawsuits, Sarah Palin‘s lawsuit against the New York Times last I heard is still set for trial. As you remember (because you repeated the lie yourself) the New York Times linked Gabby Giffords shooting to Sarah Palin‘s political ad. The difference between that and tucker Carlson situation is the New York Times did it with malice. Meaning they lied with malice ito damage Palin as much as possible because they hate her. And we could go on and on with the liberal lies about Russia gate and all the other Trump lies they made up. About the Covington high school kids. By the way, that kid is rich and getting richer because he keeps suing liberal news organizations that lied about him. I’d love to be his lawyer. So you probably don’t want to go there. Just saying. |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by Serowbot on 06/02/21 at 10:16:16 What kind of ideology or morality can you have when you deny facts or believe lies? We now have a Party that won't believe the FBI, the NSA, WHO, the AMA, global news sources, courts, or election officials. ... only QAnon and Trump... ::) |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by WebsterMark on 06/02/21 at 12:23:43 Seriously? The current president said he decided to run for office when he heard Trump say neo-Nazis are find people. That’s what he said. The problem is of course Trump never said that. So either Biden is too stupid to understand spoken word (which is a distinct possibility ) he flat out lied that’s when he decided to run, or he had no idea what Trump said that but someone told him to give a reason why he ran and that lie had been spread so completely by leftist media, that it was accepted as truth even though there’s clear video and audio tape of the opposite. Face it, the left wins the lying game by 10 runs. Ever play softball when there’s a mercy rule? One team gets ahead by 10 they called the game because there’s no chance for the other team to catch up. That’s how we are today. We may eek out or run or two here and there but you’re so far ahead in the lying department we have no hope of breaking even much less winning. As far as believing facts, you guys live in the world of denial of science. But I see you didn’t answer, if white supremacist are the biggest threat to society today why are we not seeing regular attacks? Why are the hundred or so killed in St. Louis this year not killed by white supremacist? Look at Chicago look at LA look at New York pick your favorite major city and tell us how many people were killed by proud boys? Go ahead, I’ll wait. |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by T And T Garage on 06/02/21 at 12:34:54 Well, mark's right about one thing. The proud boys are white supremacists. As to the violence, he misses the big picture. It's not about violence. It's about organizing terrorists. A great portion of the insurrectionists on January 6th were organized and ready to act. (Unless it's SOP to bring a hangman's noose and platform to a "protest", or zip ties for binding hands and tactical gear....). People like the proud boys aren't looking to rob anyone. They're not in the near west side of Chicago going up against the kings.... No, they're recruiting guys like mark into their fold to scare those without the capacity of rational thought to fight against democracy. That's the threat. That's the danger. That's the real problem. The GOP has become the party of ignorance, the party of non- science, the party of voter suppression and the party of hypocrisy. Not to fear though, we will indeed overcome. :) |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by WebsterMark on 06/03/21 at 04:51:52 637D72737E637865170 wrote:
Yet, once inside with little police presence, these organized terrorist took selfies, laughed, peed on Pelosi’s desk.... No one had guns, no one was prepared to murder, no one was prepared for anything. 20 could have gathered and hunted down a few Democrats but they didn’t. After the rush of what they did died down, it was over. Calling this an insurrection is ridiculous. Holding them without bail is how 3rd world nations treat political prisoners which is what they’ve become. And now? The ones still in jail, these most dangerous threats to the homeland, are pleading guilty to essentially hyped-up trespassing charges. Yep, sounds pretty dangerous to me. |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by T And T Garage on 06/03/21 at 06:14:33 Educate, because facts actually matter. https://www.factcheck.org/2021/03/capitol-protesters-were-armed-with-variety-of-weapons/ Asha Rangappa, an attorney and former FBI agent, told us in an email that she did “not see the logic” in the claim that firearms had to be present for the Capitol riot to have been deemed an armed insurrection. She also said we will never know how many rioters might have been armed with guns on Jan. 6, because only some were arrested that day. “Not only was law enforcement completely overwhelmed (and being assaulted), from what I saw people were basically allowed to leave unimpeded,” said Rangappa, a senior lecturer at Yale University’s Jackson Institute for Global Affairs. “So those arrested … are hardly representative of everyone who was there that day.” |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by WebsterMark on 06/03/21 at 07:26:22 Asha Rangappa, an attorney and former FBI agent, told us in an email that she did “not see the logic” in the claim that firearms had to be present for the Capitol riot to have been deemed an armed insurrection. As I said, the FBI is a political organization. And if you’re so f’ing stupid that you can’t see how firearms need to be present to deem something as serious as an armed insurrection it’s because political partisanship is blinding your logic. This is TDS manifesting itself. |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by T And T Garage on 06/03/21 at 08:05:45 Well, I guess it's appropriate that you side with the party of idiots that coined the phrase "alternative facts". You do you. Meanwhile, I'll live in the real world with real facts. Thanks. :) |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by Eegore on 06/03/21 at 08:51:44 As I said, the FBI is a political organization. And if you’re so f’ing stupid that you can’t see how firearms need to be present to deem something as serious as an armed insurrection it’s because political partisanship is blinding your logic. This is TDS manifesting itself. By this logic a group of ANTIFA thugs with bricks in backpacks and batons, breaking into The Capitol to stop an election process, would not be an armed insurrection. The term "insurrection" does not by itself change the definition of "armed". There is no "serious" level that must be met to be considered "armed". |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by Serowbot on 06/03/21 at 09:09:43 By this logic,.. the Battle of Agincourt was was fought by unarmed men. |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by WebsterMark on 06/03/21 at 09:53:32 Correct, it would not be an armed insurrection. It would not be an insurrection at all. But let me ask, a year ago, protestors lined up outside the White House fence but were held back by a heavy police force. Many were clad in protective gear and brought along various objects that were thrown at the police. The hours long event showed a extremely high level of hatred at the force keeping them at bay. Without the police, they would have surely attacked any member of the Trump administration had they been able to gain entry to The White House grounds. Was that an example of an armed insurrection? |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by Serowbot on 06/03/21 at 10:28:06 5 dead, 140 policemen injured, rooms barricaded against peaceful tourists. |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by Eegore on 06/03/21 at 10:31:53 Was that an example of an armed insurrection? Only for those that intended on taking control of the White House with intent to remove Trump and place another person in his place or take control themselves. People wanting to kill Trump with the intent of only killing Trump or his family would have been enacting murder, or assassination technically as it is politically motivated. "Correct, it would not be an armed insurrection. It would not be an insurrection at all." Ok so what is your definition of an insurrection? To me, I prefer the Cambridge definition: An organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence. I do not however believe it requires "country". For example there could be an insurrection of State government. In this case I believe that the people who entered the US Capitol with the purpose of stopping the election process believing they could get Trump reinstated were acting in an insurrection attempt. But only those people, most were protesters. I was commenting on this: "And if you’re so f’ing stupid that you can’t see how firearms need to be present to deem something as serious as an armed insurrection it’s because political partisanship is blinding your logic." Why do there need to be firearms? If it is an insurrection, as in by definition, obviously an insurrection, why would there "need to be" firearms for it to be considered "armed"? Insurrections must have firearms to be "armed" insurrections? Why? |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by WebsterMark on 06/03/21 at 13:41:57 An organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence. Ok, fine. Jan 6 does not meet that definition. This was not an organized attempt to defeat their government and take control. |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by WebsterMark on 06/03/21 at 13:42:53 6573647961747962160 wrote:
One killed by police, two died of natural causes, one by overdose and one as of yet unexplained death. |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by WebsterMark on 06/03/21 at 13:46:24 When the phrase armed insurrection is used today, it is taken by virtually everyone to mean firearms. “Police kill an unarmed man who was welding a knife.” We’ve been reminded constantly that the young woman in Ohio recently killed while in the process of stabbing someone with a knife was unarmed. |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by verslagen1 on 06/03/21 at 14:39:51 3721362B33262B30440 wrote:
Are you referring to 2016 or 2020? |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by Eegore on 06/03/21 at 14:46:04 Ok, fine. Jan 6 does not meet that definition. This was not an organized attempt to defeat their government and take control. I think it was by some, not all participants. Since they, themselves indicate they travelled to The Capitol, to stop the election and place Trump back in power. That, to me, means they were part of an insurrection attempt. When the phrase armed insurrection is used today, it is taken by virtually everyone to mean firearms. Then US law would disagree with popular opinion. "Armed" insurrection does not require firearms, by law, to be present. Since this is a critique of an Attorney's assessment I would think law has something to do with that. You are saying that even though factually people with any form of weapon is considered armed, since public opinion considers the term armed meaning firearms, we should now only consider armed to mean firearms exclusively for insurrections? |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by WebsterMark on 06/03/21 at 16:18:05 So the attacks against the White House a year ago were likewise an armed insurrections? I’m sure I can find plenty of video where the protestors at the fence expressed their desire to kill Trump and Pence. |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by Rockn on 06/03/21 at 18:14:53 7E4C4B5A5D4C5B64485B42290 wrote:
please do |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by Eegore on 06/03/21 at 20:51:17 So the attacks against the White House a year ago were likewise an armed insurrections? I’m sure I can find plenty of video where the protestors at the fence expressed their desire to kill Trump and Pence. Maybe. The important part is not that they are there to kill, but to take over or otherwise assign new leadership. Murder to eliminate Trump/Pence is assassination. Expressed desire to kill is not by itself insurrection, but if it was, and they had weapons it would be armed. There would be zero requirement for firearms to be present in order for the event you are referencing to be considered armed, by law. Public opinion would not change those facts. |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by WebsterMark on 06/04/21 at 03:36:22 Little Bill “you sir are a cowardly SOB. You just shot an unarmed man.” William Munny “ he should have armed himself if he was going to decorate his salon with my friend“ |
|
Title: Re: Evidence? Post by WebsterMark on 06/04/21 at 04:28:18 This is one dangerous dude below. I mean this is the most serious threat to the homeland in existence today. Watch out!!! If this guy is released, based on his previous criminal history, none of us are safe. Thank God The DOJ spells out the details of his horrendous crime spree so we can prepare should this threat show up in our towns. According to court documents, Paul Hodgkins, 38, of Tampa, Florida, entered the U.S. Capitol building at approximately 2:50 p.m. on Jan. 6. Around 3 p.m., Hodgkins entered the Senate chamber, walked among the desks, and then removed eye goggles. He took a “selfie-style” photograph with his cell phone and walked down the Senate well where, a few feet away, several individuals were shouting, praying and cheering using a bullhorn. Hodgkins walked toward the individuals and remained standing with them while they continued commanding the attention of others. At approximately 3:15 p.m., Hodgkins exited the Senate chamber and the U.S. Capitol Building. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |