misconceptions

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > misconceptions > Page 7

Page 7 of 8

23-02-2022 04:57
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: jump back into the discussion? sure Great. Answer my question. You asked me to define your terns for you. No Try again. Edited on 23-02-2022 05:02
23-02-2022 05:32
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14452)	tmiddles wrote:You asked me to define your terns for you. No My mistake. I thought you wanted to reengage in the discussion. My bad. Let me know if anything changes.
23-02-2022 09:52
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: [discussion. . Language requires meaning. You have gone out of your way to insist you meant nothing again. You did the sane thing refusing to identify your claim that Antifa was beating cops on jan 6. I am fairly sure its just because you know you dont have a defensible position. But as it stands you've said nothing other than to immediately contradict yourself. IBdaMann wrote: .... I define my terms. I am honest an upfront. IBdaMann wrote: Save me some time. How do you define [my terms]?. Edited on 23-02-2022 10:15
23-02-2022 16:15
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14452)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: [discussion. . Language requires meaning. How do you define levying war?
23-02-2022 16:52
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	@tmiddles, Would you agree or disagree with the following statement? "Ashli Babbit committed treason but Bill Ayers did not."

24-02-2022 02:48
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: How do you define levying war? Depends on who is speaking. You'll need to define your own terms. GasGuzzler wrote: @tmiddles, Would you agree or disagree with the following statement? "Ashli Babbit committed treason but Bill Ayers did not." Disagree. Who would say something so stupid? The Weather Underground (Ayers) bombed government buildings with the objecrive of destroying our government through intimidation (despite attempting to bomb empty buildings). Tim McVey is even more treasonous as he tried and succeeded in killing people. He was both a terrorist and the worst traotor in some time. Did someone actually say that? How about you actually say something yourself?
24-02-2022 04:18
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: @tmiddles, Would you agree or disagree with the following statement? "Ashli Babbit committed treason but Bill Ayers did not." Disagree. Who would say something so stupid? The Weather Underground (Ayers) bombed government buildings with the objective of destroying our government through intimidation (despite attempting to bomb empty buildings). How about you actually say something yourself? So just to be clear, your opinion is that Bill Ayers AND Ashli Babbit committed treason. Is this correct? I'll say something when I feel like it. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 24-02-2022 04:53
24-02-2022 04:53
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14452)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: How do you define levying war? Depends on who is speaking. Suppose you are doing the speaking. tmiddles wrote:Disagree. Who would say something so stupid? Let's see, your definition of "treason" apparently includes "occupy a government building" and "petition the Government for a redress of grievances." In your view, both of those make one richly deserving of being summarily executed by the government without any need for a trial. tmiddles wrote:Tim McVey is even more treasonous as he tried and succeeded in killing people. He was both a terrorist and the worst traotor in some time. In what way was McVeigh a traitor? In what way was McVeigh treasonous? In what way was McVeigh a terrorist?
24-02-2022 04:58
Into the Night★★★★★ (21635)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: How do you define levying war? Depends on who is speaking. You'll need to define your own terms. GasGuzzler wrote: @tmiddles, Would you agree or disagree with the following statement? "Ashli Babbit committed treason but Bill Ayers did not." Disagree. Who would say something so stupid? The Weather Underground (Ayers) bombed government buildings with the objecrive of destroying our government through intimidation (despite attempting to bomb empty buildings). Tim McVey is even more treasonous as he tried and succeeded in killing people. He was both a terrorist and the worst traotor in some time. Did someone actually say that? How about you actually say something yourself? Tim McVey is unknown. There is no record of a Tim McVey bombing anything or killing anyone as far as I know. Do you mean McVeigh? He was not trying to destroy government. The bombing was in retaliation for a government that murdered it's own civilians in a raid in Waco, TX. He was not a terrorist. He was not a traitor. He did not commit treason. The retaliation was for treasonous activity by the federal government. Treason is waging war against the States or their constitutions, or against the Constitution of the United States. Treason is what the DEMOCRATS have done. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-02-2022 07:32
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	GasGuzzler wrote:...your opinion is that Bill Ayers AND Ashli Babbit committed treason. Is this correct? I didn't research Ayers specifically but as I understand it the Weather Underground bombed government building with the intent of destroying our government (and replacing it with one they wanted, bypassing our system of elected government) so YES Ashli Babbit was an active participant in a mod that sought to prevent our electoral process from moving forward with the intent of replacing a duely elected president (Biden) with one of their choosing (Trump), bypassing our system as well so YES on her. Both groups of which Ayers and Babbit were parts are also terrorist groups by the FBI definition of that term: " Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature." https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism And so far you've said nothing about what you think or believe. This is a very lazy, cheap, and popular "debating" tactic. You can't be wrong if you never said anything. Tucker, Shapiro, Peterson, they all do it. Constantly making statements with questions. Super weazely with nothing you can pin them down on. Getting back to the topic though, which is not Treason, the real question is how am I forming my perception of reality here: With both Babbit and Ayers the public record of photographs, video, and witnesses, largely compiled by law enforcement is highly credible. I don't find it likely that what I saw when I looked into this was corrupted. I also did not find any credible counter argument to explain events. I'm going with the most probably scenario in concluding what the truth is. This is the same process in research of any kind. I am not doing research from scratch on everything (that would be impossible). I'm using judgment in accepting information I can likely trust as it's highly probable it is true. A far fetched or unlikely scenario can be investigated but to conclude that it's the truth, absent some reason, is usually just BS. IBdaMann wrote: Suppose you are doing the speaking.... In what way was McVeigh treasonous?... I just spoke. Covered all your questions above. You've still said nothing Tucker Into the Night wrote:l...McVeigh,,,retaliation for a government that murdered it's own civilians in a raid in Waco, TX. Yes and your defense of him is sickening. Does blowing up kids in day care retaliate for what? Into the Night wrote: Treason is waging war against the States. So breaking the law to prevent a lawful election, to get your guy in office despite what a lawful election would determine, that qualifies right? Edited on 24-02-2022 07:39
24-02-2022 18:03
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14452)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:Suppose you are doing the speaking....In what way was McVeigh treasonous?... I just spoke. Covered all your questions above. Nope. You EVADED. You shifted goalposts and fell back on preaching something that has already been debunked. tmiddles wrote:Ashli Babbit was an active participant in a mod that sought to prevent our electoral process from moving forward with the intent of replacing a duely elected president (Biden) with one of their choosing (Trump) This is totally dishonest on your part. When asked how a peaceful, unarmed occupier of a government building was treasonous, you shifted the subject to the intent (something Constitutionally protected) of an undefined movement that you invented (like QAnon). So how was Ashli Babbit, ... a peaceful, unarmed occupier of a government building ... treasonous? Also, your notion that the government is somehow unassailable by We the People has been debunked. All aspects of the government are fair game for We the People to dismantle. Protesting is the #1 right guaranteed in the Constitution ... and you know this. tmiddles wrote:Both groups of which Ayers and Babbit were parts are also terrorist groups by the FBI definition of that term This is totally dishonest on your part. Ashli Babbit was never declared a terrorist ... and you know it. Ashli Babbit was peaceful and unarmed. Ashli Babbit had a Constitutional right to occupy a government building in petitioning for a redress of grievances. So, no, you did not answer the question. I guess you can't be wrong if you never answer any questions. tmiddles wrote:Tucker, Shapiro, Peterson and I all do it. We are constantly making statements with questions. Super weasely with nothing you can pin us down on. ... except that Tucker, Shapiro and Peterson all make clear, unambiguous statements that can be verified, while throwing in rhetorical questions for reinforcement. You simply bark dishonest GOTCHA! questions and won't answer any posed to you. You bark questions and demand answers ... as your way of controlling the conversation instead of actually participating in any discussions ... because you are here to preach. Your arrival at this board was marked by you asking if Tangier island was a good example of human-caused Global Warming ... forcing the assumption of Global Warming being true while virtue signaling your TDS. Instead of participating in any conversations, you have levied war on science and have demonized those using it. You came here on a Global Warming mission to preach, not to answer any questions. I can't recall any question of mine that you have ever answered. To do so would require you to admit that you were wrong on occasion. You, however, cannot abide having to admit an error or a lack of omniscience ... although you will claim that you somehow admit when you are wrong. tmiddles wrote:I'm wrong a lot. I admit that. You never do, and you won't answer questions because ... you can't be wrong if you don't say anything. I have tacked this new one onto your list. Please take a moment to peruse these past questions and specify the ones that point to something to which you wish to admit being wrong. This would be a really good time. Otherwise, shouldn't question #2 be too easy? 1) What are the unambiguous definitions of Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect that neither violate nor deny physics? [Status: Unanswered] 2) Why should any rational adult believe in either Global Warming, Climate Change or Greenhouse Effect? [Status: Unanswered] 3) How can I unambiguously demonstrate to my children thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer? [Status: Unanswered] 4) How can I know the temperature of a large, unspecified volume, e.g. Denver, to within, say, 10degF with only one temperature measurement, e.g. the Denver airport? [Status: Unanswered] 5) What are the unambiguous definitions of "race," "negro," "black people," "white people," "brown people," "white supremacy," "white nationalsim," "white nationalist," "white supremacist," "black supremacist" and "racist"? [Status: Unanswered] 6) Is there an official list of races? [Status: Unanswered] - 6a) How do I determine my own race or that of my children? [Status: Unanswered] 7) Why should any rational adult believe that there is a problem of racism in the United States? [Status: Unanswered] 8) Why should law abiding citizens be rendered defenseless before rampant violent crime? [Status: Unanswered] 9) Where in the 1st Amendment is "hate" prohibited such that, if shown, a prosecutor can throw someone in jail for having had that emotion/thought? [Status: Unanswered] 10) Why do you claim that an atmosphere only makes a planet's or moon's solid surface hotter since you are fully aware that no place at the bottom of earth's atmosphere ever reaches anywhere close to the daytime temperatures of the moon's atmosphereless solid surface? [Status: Unanswered] 11) If we were to discover that Lisa Gherardini was actually a shitty person, would that justify Black Lives Matter storming the Louvre to destroy the Mona Lisa? [Status: Unanswered] 12) Why should we destroy artifacts and relics pertaining to history that we never want to forget or repeat? [Status: Unanswered] 13) The Aztecs committed genocide of many other tribes and practiced human sacrifice; should their artwork and artifacts be destroyed? [Status: Unanswered] 14) Why would you or anyone pretend to be a judge of what history is to be revised or destroyed? [Status: Unanswered] 15) In what substantive/meaningful way do the platforms of Black Lives Matter, ANTIFA, The National Organization of Women, the DNC, Communist Party USA and Socialist Party USA ... differ? [Status: Unanswered] 16) Which type of wood are you claiming melts (assuming the proper temperature and pressure) ... and what is that specific temperature and pressure? [Status: Unanswered] 17) Why should any rational adult believe that the earth's emissivity is somehow changing to any perceptible extent? [Status: Unanswered] 18) What evidence do you have that the hockey stick slashers you presented were neither BLM or ANTIFA? [Status: Unanswered] 19) What evidence do you have that any of the hockey stick slashers you presented were arrested and are now in prison? [Status: Unanswered] 20) Why do you oppose Trump's entry restrictions (into the USA) as being racist on members of a particular religion from six particular countries (while he investigates certain problems) and yet you support Biden's black racial requirement for the Supreme Court (which is clearly illegal per the Civil Rights Act of 1964? [Status: Unanswered] 21) Why do you scream red-faced at the mere rumor of violence by Trump supporters yet you go to the mat in defense of BLM and ANTIFA violence documented in video and photographs? [Status: Unanswered] 22) So how was Ashli Babbit, a peaceful, unarmed occupier of a government building, treasonous? [Status: Unanswered]
24-02-2022 19:16
Into the Night★★★★★ (21635)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Suppose you are doing the speaking.... In what way was McVeigh treasonous?... I just spoke. Covered all your questions above. Baldfaced lie. You EVADED. Answer the questions put to you. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:l...McVeigh,,,retaliation for a government that murdered it's own civilians in a raid in Waco, TX. Yes and your defense of him is sickening. Does blowing up kids in day care retaliate for what? Into the Night wrote: Treason is waging war against the States. So breaking the law to prevent a lawful election, to get your guy in office despite what a lawful election would determine, that qualifies right? It was not a lawful election. Election fraud is NOT a lawful election. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-02-2022 21:16
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: ... You EVADED. ... treasonous? ... too easy?...," "black supremacist" and "racist"? [Status: As usual not a single statement made there Tucker Try Again Im not here to answer questions from someone who won't answer any. Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: So breaking the law to prevent a lawful election, to get your guy in office despite what a lawful election would determine, that qualifies right? It was not a lawful election. Election fraud is NOT a lawful election. OK and if there was election fraud then that would be treasonous wouldn't it? Regardless of who does it.
24-02-2022 22:34
Into the Night★★★★★ (21635)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: ... You EVADED. ... treasonous? ... too easy?...," "black supremacist" and "racist"? [Status: As usual not a single statement made there Tucker Try Again Im not here to answer questions from someone who won't answer any. Evasion. Answer the questions put to you. He has answered your questions already. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: So breaking the law to prevent a lawful election, to get your guy in office despite what a lawful election would determine, that qualifies right? It was not a lawful election. Election fraud is NOT a lawful election. OK and if there was election fraud then that would be treasonous wouldn't it? Regardless of who does it. If it's sufficient to cause an election fault and used to conduct a coup, yes. Otherwise it's just illegal and should be punished according to State law. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-02-2022 23:17
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:... if there was election fraud then that would be treasonous wouldn't it? Regardless of who does it. If it's sufficient to cause an election fault and used to conduct a coup, yes. Otherwise it's just illegal and should be punished according to State law. That's my understanding as well. The intent definitely matters, successful or not. So there are two major claims made by opposing groups: 1- That massive election Fraud was perpetrated to put Biden in office illegitimately 2- That the Jan 6 activities were conducted to derail the electoral process and keep Trump in office illegitimately Either or both would be treason IF true correct?

24-02-2022 23:23
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote:...your opinion is that Bill Ayers AND Ashli Babbit committed treason. Is this correct? I didn't research Ayers specifically but as I understand it the Weather Underground bombed government building with the intent of destroying our government (and replacing it with one they wanted, bypassing our system of elected government) so YES Ashli Babbit was an active participant in a mod that sought to prevent our electoral process from moving forward with the intent of replacing a duely elected president (Biden) with one of their choosing (Trump), bypassing our system as well so YES on her. You just can't accuse Bill Ayers of treason eh? I'm seeing a pattern here. Violence is OK as long as it's rooted in liberal leftist Marxism. May I assign you this position? Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
24-02-2022 23:26
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	GasGuzzler wrote: You just can't accuse Bill Ayers of treason eh? I'm seeing a pattern here. Violence is OK as long as it's rooted in liberal leftist Marxism. May I assign you this position? What? I said it was treason. You are REALLY trying to pretend I didn't. The Weather Underground, ALL OF THEM, are scum. Treasonous, evil, horrible people. ALL OF THEM. The only reason they didn't kill a lot more people was dumb luck. I saw a documentary about them years ago and I'm satisfied that was enough research on the group for life. I don't have any questions about them I want answered.
24-02-2022 23:39
Into the Night★★★★★ (21635)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:... if there was election fraud then that would be treasonous wouldn't it? Regardless of who does it. If it's sufficient to cause an election fault and used to conduct a coup, yes. Otherwise it's just illegal and should be punished according to State law. That's my understanding as well. The intent definitely matters, successful or not. So there are two major claims made by opposing groups: 1- That massive election Fraud was perpetrated to put Biden in office illegitimately 2- That the Jan 6 activities were conducted to derail the electoral process and keep Trump in office illegitimately Either or both would be treason IF true correct? Jan 6 was not to derail an election. There was no election. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-02-2022 00:23
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: Jan 6 was not to derail an election. There was no election. And you think that there was no election because you believe election Fraud occurred correct? That fraud would be a crime and treason correct? Does the Constitution provide for how a crime is to be handled? Yes Article III Section 2. Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. .... \ Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Amendment XIV ....[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.... So did the constitution fail us ? What went wrong, if anything? I'm satisfied as the traitors from Jan 6 are being prosecuted according to the constitution. Trump appointed judges concluded that there was no evidence of election fraud. That there could be MASSIVE fraud by idiots without any evidence is absurd. Edited on 25-02-2022 00:24
25-02-2022 07:53
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14452)	tmiddles wrote:So did the constitution fail us ? People failed us. Elected officials failed to serve their constituents and to adhere to the Constitution. tmiddles wrote:What went wrong, if anything? Criminals stole the vote by stuffing ballots in key population centers in seven swing states. Trump-hating RINOs joined forces with Democrats to disenfranchise We the People, to steal the election and to just get rid of Trump. tmiddles wrote:I'm satisfied as the traitors from Jan 6 are being prosecuted according to the constitution. ... because you are an evil Marxist schytt. You asked "What went wrong?" and the answer can be summarized as "Dishonest, unscrupulous, hateful people like you are what went wrong." tmiddles wrote: Trump appointed judges concluded that there was no evidence of election fraud. Incorrect ... and I know that your error right here is intentional. tmiddles wrote: That there could be MASSIVE fraud by idiots without any evidence is absurd. Incorrect. There were mountains of evidence. The election was brazenly stolen in broad daylight, right in front of We the People on national television. Do you practice repeating "There is no evidence" in front of the mirror so you don't inadvertently bust out laughing when you actually say it to someone? None of your BS mischaracterizations can transform the reality of it having happened.
25-02-2022 08:24
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:...People failed us. Judge Bibas was not elected but appointed, by Trump. Following the constitution he dismissed Trumps claim of Election fraud as being baseless. So you would seem to be the one failing to realize this. Here is the direct link to the courts ruling: https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/203371np.pdf IBdaMann wrote: Criminals stole the vote ...mountains of evidence. Who exactly? Name names. And were they prosecuted successfully? If not why not? (reread the Constitution as needed to understand how relevant that is) Who is one person most easily proven guilty in the election fraud scandal you believe in? Someone who would be a slam dunk in court the evidence is so conclusive. What is their name? You're literally just proclaiming things without anything to support them. What is your explanation for not a single scrap of this theory getting validated in court? You have none. It's BS. Why? Because the theory that MASSIVE fraud was committed across the country, much of it by half wits, and that not a single person was caught and charged, is complete absurd. This is how a sense of reality is determined by sane people. If something is overwhelmingly likely, you assume it is true. If something is extremely unlikely you assume it is not true. Edited on 25-02-2022 09:08
25-02-2022 09:59
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14452)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...People failed us. Judge Bibas was not elected but appointed, by Trump. Why is Bibas, or the person who appointed him, relevant? Start with that. Presume that I do not suffer from TDS and that I do not need to pretend to force the mountainous round peg of all world events into the square molehill of "Donald Trump."
25-02-2022 10:21
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: Why is Bibas, or the person who appointed him, relevant? I already answered you: The Constitution of the United States It created an excellent criminal justice system under the judicial branch of goverment (that's where Bibas comes in, he's a Judge). Study up: Article III Section 2. Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. .... \ Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Amendment XIV ....[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.... Or did you have a compelling reason to abandon the Constitutional route? Edited on 25-02-2022 10:25
25-02-2022 17:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (21635)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Jan 6 was not to derail an election. There was no election. And you think that there was no election because you believe election Fraud occurred correct? That fraud would be a crime and treason correct? RQAA. Stop asking the same questions over and over mindlessly. They've already been answered. tmiddles wrote: Does the Constitution provide for how a crime is to be handled? Yes ...deleted irrelevant quotes... The Constitution has been discarded by the Democrats. You can't hide behind it. tmiddles wrote: So did the constitution fail us ? What went wrong, if anything? The Constitution has been discarded by the Democrats. You can't hide behind it. tmiddles wrote: I'm satisfied as the traitors from Jan 6 are being prosecuted according to the constitution. There was no treason by anyone on Jan 6th (except by members of Congress). tmiddles wrote: Trump appointed judges concluded that there was no evidence of election fraud. Lie. I have already addressed this too. Evidence DOES NOT REQUIRE A COURT OR A JUDGE TO EXIST! tmiddles wrote: That there could be MASSIVE fraud by idiots without any evidence is absurd. Mantra 35a. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-02-2022 17:52
Into the Night★★★★★ (21635)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...People failed us. Judge Bibas was not elected but appointed, by Trump. Following the constitution he dismissed Trumps claim of Election fraud as being baseless. So you would seem to be the one failing to realize this. Here is the direct link to the courts ruling: https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/203371np.pdf Irrelevance fallacy. Bibas cannot just wish the evidence away by a ruling. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Criminals stole the vote ...mountains of evidence. Who exactly? Name names. And were they prosecuted successfully? If not why not? (reread the Constitution as needed to understand how relevant that is) No court is required. Irrelevance fallacy. tmiddles wrote: Who is one person most easily proven guilty in the election fraud scandal you believe in? Someone who would be a slam dunk in court the evidence is so conclusive. What is their name? Not one person. tmiddles wrote: You're literally just proclaiming things without anything to support them. The evidence has already been presented to you. Argument of the Stone fallacy. tmiddles wrote: What is your explanation for not a single scrap of this theory getting validated in court? You have none. It's BS. RQAA. It is not a theory. It is evidence. Stop asking the same question mindlessly. It's been answered. tmiddles wrote: Because the theory that MASSIVE fraud was committed across the country, much of it by half wits, and that not a single person was caught and charged, is complete absurd. Mantra 35a. tmiddles wrote: This is how a sense of reality is determined by sane people. If something is overwhelmingly likely, you assume it is true. If something is extremely unlikely you assume it is not true. You cannot wish the evidence away, dude. You cannot just discard it either. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-02-2022 17:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21635)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Why is Bibas, or the person who appointed him, relevant? I already answered you: The Constitution of the United States Not an answer. Neither is quoting sections of the Constitution. EVIDENCE DOES NOT REQUIRE A COURT TO EXIST! The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-02-2022 22:30
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: The Constitution has been discarded by the Democrats. You can't hide behind it.35a. And how was that possible with Republicans in power? The Constitution is well enfotced. No one can simply discard it. If you try you find yourself on the wrong side of the law and losing in court. Into the Night wrote: Evidence DOES NOT REQUIRE A COURT OR A JUDGE TO EXIST! again, read the constiturion. CRIMES actually DO require a court. There is a reason you cant identify a single culprit and the evidence against them. You got nothing Edited on 25-02-2022 22:32
25-02-2022 23:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21635)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: The Constitution has been discarded by the Democrats. You can't hide behind it.35a. And how was that possible with Republicans in power? Democrats are in power, dumbass. tmiddles wrote: The Constitution is well enfotced. No one can simply discard it. It is not enforced. It has been discarded by Democrats. tmiddles wrote: If you try you find yourself on the wrong side of the law and losing in court. NO COURT IS NECESSARY FOR EVIDENCE TO EXIST! tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Evidence DOES NOT REQUIRE A COURT OR A JUDGE TO EXIST! again, read the constiturion. CRIMES actually DO require a court. Evidence is not a crime. tmiddles wrote: There is a reason you cant identify a single culprit and the evidence against them. I have already shown you the evidence. So have others. Argument of the Stone fallacy. tmiddles wrote: You got nothing Argument of the Stone fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-02-2022 00:19
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: Democrats are in power, dumbass. Democrats were FAR FROM in power during and right after the election. So the election fraud was committed by who exactly? Because while the Election was conducted this is in fact who was in power: President: Republican Senate: Republican Congress: Democrats Contested states legislatures majority: Pennsylvania Republican Georgia Republican Michigan Republican Wisconsin Republican Arizona Republican Nevada Republican So? Is Nancy Pelosi more powerful than so many republicans? Into the Night wrote: Evidence is not a crime. Evidence of a crime though right? So who did what? No you've NEVER presented that. Any why wouldn't Republican's prosecute the criminal? Let me guess, a VAST conspiracy with Rhinos and deep state and excuses excuses excuses Edited on 26-02-2022 00:21
26-02-2022 00:47
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Democrats are in power, dumbass. Democrats were FAR FROM in power during and right after the election. Irrelevant. They are in power now (via coup). tmiddles wrote: So the election fraud was committed by who exactly? Democrats. tmiddles wrote: Because while the Election was conducted this is in fact who was in power: President: Republican Senate: Republican Congress: Democrats Correct, but irrelevant. tmiddles wrote: Contested states legislatures majority: Pennsylvania Republican Georgia Republican Michigan Republican Wisconsin Republican Arizona Republican Correct, but irrelevant. tmiddles wrote: Nevada Republican Incorrect, but irrelevant. tmiddles wrote: So? Widespread election fraud occurred. There is a mountain load of evidence that supports that claim, and such evidence has been presented here numerous times since what was supposed to be election day. This is true regardless of who happened to be in power at the time. tmiddles wrote: Is Nancy Pelosi more powerful than so many republicans? What do you mean by "more powerful" and "so many republicans"? tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Evidence is not a crime. Evidence of a crime though right? So who did what? No you've NEVER presented that. Any why wouldn't Republican's prosecute the criminal? Let me guess, a VAST conspiracy with Rhinos and deep state and excuses excuses excuses RQAA.

26-02-2022 00:56
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Democrats are in power, dumbass. Democrats were FAR FROM in power during and right after the election. Irrelevant. They are in power now (via coup). They don't have Time Machines GFM. They were not in power before during or after the election. (you can check the dates as needed). So how did they do that? Would you like to accuse the Green Party of master minding an election fraud? They are even less in power. And I stand corrected on Nevada that's a Dem majority. gfm7175 wrote: Widespread election fraud occurred. committed by human beings right? Name one. Just one real name, of a real person, the crime they committed, the evidence against them and your theory on why they weren't prosecuted. (because no one was). And if you think I'm asking for too much it's what the US Constitution demands.
26-02-2022 01:58
Into the Night★★★★★ (21635)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Democrats are in power, dumbass. Democrats were FAR FROM in power during and right after the election. Lie. tmiddles wrote: So the election fraud was committed by who exactly? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Because while the Election was conducted this is in fact who was in power: RQAA. There was no election. President: Republican Senate: Republican Congress: Democrats [/quote] The president does not elect himself. Congress is not a State legislature. tmiddles wrote: Contested states legislatures majority: Pennsylvania Republican Georgia Republican Michigan Republican Wisconsin Republican Arizona Republican Nevada Republican NONE of these States ever chose their electors. tmiddles wrote: So? Is Nancy Pelosi more powerful than so many republicans? Pelosi is not a State legislature. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Evidence is not a crime. Evidence of a crime though right? No. Evidence is not a crime. tmiddles wrote: So who did what? No you've NEVER presented that. RQAA. I have already answered this question. So have others. Stop mindlessly repeating the question. tmiddles wrote: Any why wouldn't Republican's prosecute the criminal? Some are being prosecuted. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Let me guess, a VAST conspiracy with Rhinos and deep state and excuses excuses excuses Argument of the Stone fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-02-2022 02:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (21635)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Democrats are in power, dumbass. Democrats were FAR FROM in power during and right after the election. Irrelevant. They are in power now (via coup). They don't have Time Machines GFM. No one said they did, dumbass. tmiddles wrote: They were not in power before during or after the election. (you can check the dates as needed). Irrelevant. tmiddles wrote: So how did they do that? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Would you like to accuse the Green Party of master minding an election fraud? They are even less in power. Pivot fallacy. tmiddles wrote: And I stand corrected on Nevada that's a Dem majority. Irrelevant. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Widespread election fraud occurred. committed by human beings right? Name one. Just one real name, of a real person, the crime they committed, the evidence against them and your theory on why they weren't prosecuted. (because no one was). RQAA. tmiddles wrote: And if you think I'm asking for too much it's what the US Constitution demands. The Constitution doesn't demand anything. You obviously have no idea what a constitution does. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-02-2022 04:22
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Democrats are in power, dumbass. Democrats were FAR FROM in power during and right after the election. Irrelevant. They are in power now (via coup). They don't have Time Machines GFM. Who said they did? tmiddles wrote: They were not in power before during or after the election. (you can check the dates as needed). Irrelevant. tmiddles wrote: So how did they do that? Would you like to accuse the Green Party of master minding an election fraud? They are even less in power. RQAA and pivot. tmiddles wrote: And I stand corrected on Nevada that's a Dem majority. Bingo, but still irrelevant. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Widespread election fraud occurred. committed by human beings right? Name one. Just one real name, of a real person, the crime they committed, the evidence against them and your theory on why they weren't prosecuted. (because no one was). And if you think I'm asking for too much it's what the US Constitution demands. RQAA, and learn what a constitution is and how it works. It would do you some good.
26-02-2022 05:52
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: You just can't accuse Bill Ayers of treason eh? What? I said it was treason. The Weather Underground, ALL OF THEM, are scum. Treasonous... ALL OF THEM. What??? How can you possibly accuse Bill Ayers and the Weathermen of treason? Do you have any proof? What evidence do you have? Were they convicted? tmiddles wrote: In short you don't have ANYTHING to back up your claim, just rumors. No convictions you are using as proof?!? Convictions would be proof! tmiddles wrote: What is your explanation for not a single scrap of this theory getting validated in court? tmiddles wrote: That there could be MASSIVE fraud (bombings) by idiots without any evidence is absurd. tmiddles wrote: You know that whole "allegedly" thing in the news? Innocent until proven guilty. It's an American thing, I realize you don't get it. So I need a conviction for my claim of election fraud to be true, but you can have them swinging from the gallows just because tmiddles said so. Got it. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
26-02-2022 13:08
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	GasGuzzler wrote: So I need a conviction for my claim of election fraud to be true, For the greatest fraud in history involving thousands of criminals commiting crimes against the political establishment it is not plausible there is not a single prosecution. So its not a rule I made. It's simple probability. Your hypothesis is extremely unlikely. The only rational conclusion is that it is false. There were trials and convictions of the weathermen. "Boudin, Clark, and Gilbert were found guilty and sentenced to lengthy terms in prison. " https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground Ayers gf died building a bomb, Diana Oughton, he writes about it IN THE BOOK HE WROTE ABOUT BEING A TERRORIST Tell you what: If Nancy Pelosi writes a book about how she perpetrated election fraud in 2020 you are golden. No criminal conviction needed. As it stands you have NOTHING You can't even cite a single criminal and the evidence against them in your imaginary greatest fraud ever. (Jan 6 has over 700 real people with real charges) 1- it is something you want to believe, badly 2- you have added in an all powerful villian capable of blocking law enforcement, dissapearing evidence or _____ 3- you have nothing at all: no prosecution, no confessions, not even a single name. But no problem you got the magic excuse (refer to #2). That all powerful, unstopable and brilliant foe, the democrats, magically prevented that. It is a recipe for any kind of BS. Edited on 26-02-2022 13:25
26-02-2022 19:00
Into the Night★★★★★ (21635)	tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: So I need a conviction for my claim of election fraud to be true, For the greatest fraud in history involving thousands of criminals commiting crimes against the political establishment it is not plausible The evidence has already been shown to you. You cannot wish the evidence away. tmiddles wrote: there is not a single prosecution. The evidence has already been shown to you. You cannot wish the evidence away. tmiddles wrote: So its not a rule I made. It's a rule you made. tmiddles wrote: It's simple probability. Math error: failure to declare boundary. Failure to declare randX. Buzzword fallacy. tmiddles wrote: Your hypothesis is extremely unlikely. The evidence has already been shown to you. You cannot wish the evidence away. tmiddles wrote: The only rational conclusion is that it is false. The evidence has already been shown to you. You cannot wish the evidence away. tmiddles wrote: ...deleted off topic portions... As it stands you have NOTHING The evidence has already been shown to you. You cannot wish the evidence away. tmiddles wrote: You can't even cite a single criminal and the evidence against them in your imaginary greatest fraud ever. (Jan 6 has over 700 real people with real charges) The evidence has already been shown to you. You cannot wish the evidence away. tmiddles wrote: 1- it is something you want to believe, badly The evidence has already been shown to you. You cannot wish the evidence away. tmiddles wrote: 2- you have added in an all powerful villian capable of blocking law enforcement, The evidence has already been shown to you. You cannot wish the evidence away. dissapearing evidence or _____ tmiddles wrote: 3- you have nothing at all: no prosecution, no confessions, not even a single name. The evidence has already been shown to you. You cannot wish the evidence away. tmiddles wrote: But no problem you got the magic excuse (refer to #2). The evidence has already been shown to you. You cannot wish the evidence away. tmiddles wrote: That all powerful, unstopable and brilliant foe, the democrats, magically prevented that. The evidence has already been shown to you. You cannot wish the evidence away. tmiddles wrote: It is a recipe for any kind of BS. The evidence has already been shown to you. You cannot wish the evidence away. Argument of the Stone fallacies. Prosecutor's fallacy. Denial of history. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 26-02-2022 19:02
27-02-2022 00:26
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote:The evidence has already been shown to you. no it wasn't Real question is: was it shown to a judge? Can you name a single criminal who committed the 2020 election fraud you believe in ITN? Just one name Here is an example: the Jan 6 attack had well over 700 named criminals committing crimes with evidence. One name is: Adam Johnson Convicted https://www.npr.org/2022/02/25/1083230184/the-man-who-grabbed-pelosis-podium-during-the-jan-6-riot-is-sentenced-to-prison
27-02-2022 00:45
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14452)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:The evidence has already been shown to you. no it wasn't Yes it was. I remember it very clearly. You simply deny/denied it all. tmiddles wrote:Real question is: was it shown to a judge? That's a totally irrelevant question. The real question is "Did We the People see it?" Oooops, we did. tmiddles wrote:Can you name a single criminal who committed the 2020 election fraud you believe in ITN? Just one name Can you name any of the hundreds of eye witnesses to the fraud who provided sworn affidavits that were seen by judges, just to show that you were paying attention and not simply closing your eyes, plugging your ears and screaming "La-La-La-La-La-La-La"? Just one name.
27-02-2022 03:08
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: Can you name any of the hundreds of eye witnesses to the fraud who provided sworn affidavits Sure: "Direct" Evidence example (Giuliani's first witness): "It's such a shame. This is a democracy," Daryl Brooks, who said he was a GOP poll watcher, said at the press conference, held at Four Seasons Total Landscaping in Northeast Philadelphia. "They did not allow us to see anything. Was it corrupt or not? But give us an opportunity as poll watchers to view all the documents — all of the ballots." Mr. Brooks is a convicted sex offender, isn't a resident of Philadelphia (comes from New Jersey) and no, has not convinced a Judge of anything. Poor Giuliani looks like he is at Church listening to the gospel. There is an adult books store just to the side of Giuliani and a crematoreum as well. You couldn't write a script with ass clownery this pathetic and have people believe it. So you believe the Earth is Flat also? Because if WE THE PEOPLE SEE IT, means some group of people seeing something, then you'd have to make the same conclusion I guess.

Page 7 of 8

Join the debate misconceptions: