TZK wrote on 01/08/22 at 10:44:54:


We've seen the election stolen, the gains made in the economy destroyed, the border kicked wide open
Aaand the same people hyperventilating in hysterical fear about The Rona, perfectly happy with illegals flooding in

If by election stolen, you mean state legislatures changing election laws that made it impossible to track down any shenanigans and strategies to allow those who otherwise would never have voted to cast a vote for Grandpa Puddinhead, then everything JOG said was accurate.

"That explains a lot."


 Explains either people do not read what is typed or I can't convey accurately that I am being sarcastic.  

 When I say "The Frog died"  I really mean something completely different.  I obviously do not mean what my actual words would convey.

 Why use the words I typed to figure out what I mean?  Just make up new words.

"I'm not feeling guilty about the words.
Copy and paste works pretty good."

 Unless you are stating I SAID something, repeatedly, and I ask you to show me where.  Then all the sudden copy and paste isn't applicable.

 You really think when I said a proverbial Frog died, I meant I think Freedom should die?  How do those even come close to being the same thing?

 I said I don't like red gas tanks on the Savage, that must mean I think motorcycles should be outlawed.  


 As long as people don't use the words I type and instead do things like claim I SAID something without evidence, or do things like strikethrough to change the context of my sentence then sure anyone can claim I SAID anything they want.

 Bottom line is now we are literally just altering sentences to change them to mean other things.  So it's easier to just agree to any question because whatever I type will just be altered.

[/quote]

That You believe what I call bullshit doesn't make me wrong.
We WERE energy independent.
Would you deny that?
The border was More secure before Biden took over.
Would you deny that?
Gas went up after Biden took over.
Biden went to opec and asked them to increase production.
Would you deny that?
You can deny the election was stolen, but only because the courts have made getting the proof impossible to get.
It's obvious to any honest person.

[/quote]

Keep the posts coming! This is hilarious!!  I especially love the part about the courts making it impossible to prove the election was stolen

TZK wrote on 01/08/22 at 17:57:45:


That You believe what I call bullshit doesn't make me wrong.
We WERE energy independent.
Would you deny that?
The border was More secure before Biden took over.
Would you deny that?
Gas went up after Biden took over.
Biden went to opec and asked them to increase production.
Would you deny that?
You can deny the election was stolen, but only because the courts have made getting the proof impossible to get.
It's obvious to any honest person.

[/quote]

Keep the posts coming! This is hilarious!!  I especially love the part about the courts making it impossible to prove the election was stolen
[/quote]


Answer the questions then

Billynoneck wrote on 01/08/22 at 20:28:08:
"... Biden didnt win because He was the right man for the job, he won because he wasnt Trump [/quote]

Same was Said about Trump,
cause he wasn't Clinton.
(Yet the real reason,
Mush for Brains won,
    was Fraud)


Gonna answer JOG's questions ?

I do believe the strike-through, was two negative words, in one sentence.

 It was but it also completely altered the context to say the opposite. Not all sentences with two negatives should have both removed.  "Don't" in my sentence applies to the term delusion, and "not" applies to politics and money.  When you remove BOTH the words "don't" and "not" in that specific sentence you make that sentence mean the opposite because you are not correcting a double negative of the same terms.

So you admit:
'I don't have some delusion that politics and money are not involved in all this'

 This re-writes it to say:

 I have some delusion that politics and money are involved in all this.


 This is fundamentally incorrect:

 I do NOT have some delusion.  That delusion being that money and politics are NOT involved.  It's not the best sentence structure, I admit that, but the edit changes it to say the opposite of what I actually said.

 Using an example from your reference:

You can't see no one in this crowd.
       +
You can't see no one in this crowd.
       =
You see one in this crowd.


 But you don't.  You don't see one.

I had to laugh at that because I couldn't have put it better if I tried

and then there is the "proof" that you provide that can be disproven for any number of reasons like, "a guy on the internet said that's a lie"

I do wonder how much the internet is to blame with a lot of the older folks not understanding how algorithms work and not understanding just how easy it is to fall into a complete echo chamber online and just not notice