misconceptions

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > misconceptions > Page 3

Page 3 of 8

10-02-2022 03:21
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:Trump raised money to challenge election fraud in court. And? 300 million, alleged MASSIVE fraud, so where is the success in court? Neither he nor We the People received any justice from the courts. All judges involved, including the justices on the Supreme Court, should be summarily removed by We the People. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Many crimes were committed by Democrats. For instance? Those involved in the election stealing. tmiddles wrote:I think you need to review your constitution there buddy. I think you need to learn to read English for comprehension. No, wait, ... I am certain of it. tmiddles wrote:What you described could be evidence, but for as court to determine. Nope. I will never let anyone do my thinking for me. Your attempts to equate independent thought with vigilante activism are summarily dismissed. tmiddles wrote: Let me guess, you, along with your fellow traitors, have some war lord , illegal armed revolution fantasty no different than what you'd find in a war ravaged country like Somalia. Your attempts to equate independent thought with treachery and treason are summarily dismissed.
10-02-2022 03:45
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: ...The only "breaking in" she was doing involved her just being a Trump supporter pushing to the front to voice her opinion,. Have you seen the video? And so if you were a security guard at a business and a group was forcing their way inside, it would be a travesty if you opened fire? IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Many crimes were committed by Democrats. For instance? Those involved in the election stealing.. an instance as in a specific case? Any arrests/convictions/court judgements? Names at least? IBdaMann wrote: Do you think a peaceful protest constitutes a crime? Treason is a crime. It seems you have nothing to say about there being a systematic approach to fact finding. Just all your own sense of things. Which will allow for anything from a flat earth to the Jews causing Germany to lose WWI. Edited on 10-02-2022 04:24
10-02-2022 04:12
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	Claiming that true conservatives have to agree with every belief of the party line is saying that one must let others do their thinking. Yet many here have claimed that i let others do my thinking. me thinks that "thou doth protest too much." Anyway, i'm not a conservative or a liberal. I've some conservative beliefs and some liberal beliefs. Edited on 10-02-2022 04:19
10-02-2022 04:21
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote:Have you seen the video? Who do you think you are fooling? That video shows government agents/thugs freely attacking peaceful protesters. Have you seen the video? Assault is a crime. Edited on 10-02-2022 04:22
10-02-2022 04:26
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: Assault is a crime. And you dont see assault on a police officer here?

10-02-2022 04:30
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	keepit wrote: Claiming that true conservatives have to agree with every belief of the party line Once again you didn't quote anybody. Who are you claiming said this? If nobody, then your waste of bandwidth is ignored. keepit wrote: Yet many here have claimed that i let others do my thinking. How many constitutes "many"? You need to answer that question first. Then you need to specify who they are ... if you don't want to be summarily ignored. keepit wrote:Anyway, i'm not a conservative or a liberal. You're a leftist who supports government tyranny. You're not fooling me. You had your chance to refute the instances of yours that were quoted. You blew it. keepit wrote: I've some conservative beliefs and some liberal beliefs. Should everyone be able to buy without restriction at any location or event as many AR-15s and AK-47s as he wants with unlimited magazines of unlimited capacity and a lifetime supply of ammunition?
10-02-2022 04:42
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	moderation is usually a good thing. One of the posters here said that since i think censorship of outrageous medical claims or advice is a good thing, that defines me as not a true conservative. Not that i aim to be a conservative or a liberal.
10-02-2022 08:38
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	keepit wrote:moderation is usually a good thing. Censorship is never a good thing. keepit wrote:One of the posters here said that since i think censorship of outrageous medical claims or advice is a good thing, that defines me as not a true conservative. Yep. Any support for censorship is tyrannical and precludes one from being a conservative. Any ideology that presumes to make one person's opinion the judge of what thoughts and ideas are legal is tyranny and precludes one from being a conservative. Any support for tyranny precludes one from being a conservative. Ergo, you are a tyrannical leftist.
10-02-2022 08:42
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	keepit wrote: moderation is usually a good thing. One of the posters here said that since i think censorship of outrageous medical claims or advice is a good thing, that defines me as not a true conservative. Not that i aim to be a conservative or a liberal. You are a liberal... Censorship only removes the things your party find objectionable, like our Constitution. All, while trying to assure us it's for the best interest of everyone. People have been tending to their own wounds and illnesses for a very long time, saving only the most serious for a doctor. The doctor can only provide aid and comfort, the patient does the actual healing work. Paying a professional to smear ointment on a cut, slap a band-aid on it, doesn't make it heal any quicker, than one you apply yourself... If one individual can learn something, everyone else can learn it too. Piece of paper hanging on the wall doesn't mean a whole lot. Just means you took the time to study the subject in great detail. Those same books and study materials are available to everyone. How would you censor an internet forum anyway. The membership is anonymous. People can claim just about any fantasy, and no way to disprove. If you don't know the source, don't trust the advice. Nothing preventing you from using the suggestion, as something to look further into, from more trusted sources. Someone gives you medical advice, go ask your doctor. Most aren't hurting for patients, and will give an honest answer, even if they are going to miss out charging your insurance company. You trust them, they'll get you to come back for more expensive tests and procedures.
10-02-2022 11:57
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: keepit wrote:moderation is usually a good thing. Censorship is never a good thing. It's not censorship to simply choose not to listen to someone. If you want to make a speech in the park, and I don't go to listen to you, I'm not censoring you. If you then come and knock on my door, and insist that you make the speech in my lobby, and I refuse you and tell you to go to a public space, I'm not censoring you. You have freedom of speech. You don't have the freedom to force others to assist you in making that speech or to force them to listen to you. Finding a space to communicate, free from Trolls trying to shout you down, is actually an essential part of having a viable free speech. Edited on 10-02-2022 12:03
10-02-2022 11:59
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	ibd, quit saying never. Censorship is sometimes a good thing. quit applying the word tyrannical so much. It's rarely applicable. You're often counterproductive and your lack of credibility limits your possibilities. Edited on 10-02-2022 12:14
10-02-2022 12:10
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: Have you seen the video? Yes. Some people are just nuts and they get themselves killed https://wapo.st/3pYO3uQ "There's a gun, there's a gun... He's got a gun!" Climbs in anyway. Boom
10-02-2022 12:52
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Trump raised money to challenge election fraud in court. And? 300 million, alleged MASSIVE fraud, so where is the success in court? None yet. The coup by Democrats has been successful...so far. RQAA tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Many crimes were committed by Democrats. For instance? Who was convicted of what? Who was charged with what? RQAA tmiddles wrote: ...deleted pivot fallacy... What you described could be evidence, but for as court to determine. A court is not required for evidence to exist. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:...See what is happening.. Let me guess, you, along with your fellow traitors, Slander. tmiddles wrote: have some war lord , illegal armed revolution fantasty no different than what you'd find in a war ravaged country like Somalia. It is not illegal to be armed. I am not discarding the Constitution. Democrats are. tmiddles wrote: You're not new. The entire system of government we have is designed to stop traitors and tyrants. The Constitution is not a system. It is the law. It defines and declares the government. That government does not exist without it. The United States has fallen. Democrats have successfully conducted a coup (so far) and have discarded the Constitution, turning the federal government into an oligarchy. If Democrats want a civil war, they are going about the right way of starting one. If civil war does come, conservatives will finish it. 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
10-02-2022 12:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: I think Demonkkkrats should give a good looksey over the Bill of Rights with regard to the J6 political prisoners... Do you think any crimes were committed on Jan 6 GFM? Several. Congress committed a crime by selecting electors for a State without authorization. Vandalism is a crime. You can largely thank Antifa and BLM for that. Assault on police officers is a crime. You can largely thank Antifa and BLM for that too. Murder is a crime. Shooting a protestor that was helping the police is murder. tmiddles wrote: What about the woman, Ashli Babbitt, who was shot dead as she busted through a window? Was that justified in your opinion? She wasn't busting through a window. She was there helping police. The murderer shot into the crowd as well. 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 10-02-2022 12:57
10-02-2022 13:04
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: ...The only "breaking in" she was doing involved her just being a Trump supporter pushing to the front to voice her opinion,. Have you seen the video? I have seen the whole video, not just the snippet you are showing out of context. tmiddles wrote: And so if you were a security guard at a business and a group was forcing their way inside, it would be a travesty if you opened fire? Contextomy fallacy. The women shot was not forcing her way in. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Many crimes were committed by Democrats. For instance? Those involved in the election stealing.. an instance as in a specific case? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Any arrests/convictions/court judgements? Names at least? RQAA tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Do you think a peaceful protest constitutes a crime? Treason is a crime. There was no treason. tmiddles wrote: It seems you have nothing to say about there being a systematic approach to fact finding. Mantra 10c. tmiddles wrote: Just all your own sense of things. Which will allow for anything from a flat earth to the Jews causing Germany to lose WWI. Mantras 1h...1g...1e... 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

10-02-2022 13:06
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	keepit wrote: Claiming that true conservatives have to agree with every belief of the party line is saying that one must let others do their thinking. Yet many here have claimed that i let others do my thinking. me thinks that "thou doth protest too much." Anyway, i'm not a conservative or a liberal. I've some conservative beliefs and some liberal beliefs. This isn't about party. This is about Democrats discarding the Constitution of the United States. 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
10-02-2022 13:09
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	keepit wrote: moderation is usually a good thing. Buzzword fallacy. You can't cancel the Constitution by claiming 'moderation'. keepit wrote: One of the posters here said that since i think censorship of outrageous medical claims or advice is a good thing, Unconstitutional. See the 1st amendment. keepit wrote: that defines me as not a true conservative. That defines you as a flaming liberal. 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
10-02-2022 13:11
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: keepit wrote:moderation is usually a good thing. Censorship is never a good thing. It's not censorship to simply choose not to listen to someone. You are demanding censorship. Don't play dumb and conduct a pivot 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
10-02-2022 13:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	keepit wrote: ibd, quit saying never. Censorship is sometimes a good thing. It is never a good thing. keepit wrote: quit applying the word tyrannical so much. It's rarely applicable. It is tyrannical. It is perfectly applicable. keepit wrote: You're often counterproductive and your lack of credibility limits your possibilities. You don't get to declare 'credibility' for anyone. You are not the king. It is YOU that is counterproductive. You discard the Constitution of the United States. You support The Oligarchy. You can't drape yourself in the Constitution you discard. 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
10-02-2022 13:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Have you seen the video? Yes. Some people are just nuts and they get themselves killed https://wapo.st/3pYO3uQ "There's a gun, there's a gun... He's got a gun!" Climbs in anyway. Boom She wasn't climbing in. She was climbing on top. That window wasn't even broken. The murderer shot her, and shot into police. The guards abandoned the door. It was clearly a set up to shoot someone. 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
10-02-2022 17:39
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote:Yes. Some people are just nuts and they get themselves killed You are evil. You would denigrate a patriot and justify his/her murder just because you suspect he/she holds a differing political view. On the other hand, you will support to your death all forms of violence committed by those you suspect share your political views.
10-02-2022 20:14
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote:It's not censorship to simply choose not to listen to someone. Correct. It is censorship to silence a voice because of the view expressed. tmiddles wrote:If you want to make a speech in the park, and I don't go to listen to you, I'm not censoring you. Correct. Obviously I'm not talking about speeches in parks. tmiddles wrote:You have freedom of speech. ... except where I don't have freedom of speech. tmiddles wrote:Finding a space to communicate, free from Trolls trying to shout you down, is actually an essential part of having a viable free speech. Again, you used the wrong wording. Let me reword for you: Finding a place to avoid differing views, where differing views are censored and intelligent people are banned, is actually an essential part of having a safe space refuge for the weak-minded who feel very threatened by those of superior education.
11-02-2022 00:47
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote:...Democrats have successfully conducted a coup...civil war, ...conservatives will finish it. So in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA when a crime is committed the remedy is not to prosecute that crime in court but to run out into the street with your guns? When a crime or injustice is committed you go to court in a country with the RULE OF LAW. There you prove your case to a judge who should be impartial, fair and competent. For example Justice Bibas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanos_Bibas A Republican appointed by Trump who dismissed his case in the 9th circuit (1 step below the supreme court). Into the Night wrote:Assault on police officers is a crime. Agreed! (that's a cop being beaten with a hockey stick on Jan 6) So I take it you do not agree with IBD that this was peaceful. IBdaMann wrote: Do you think a peaceful protest constitutes a crime? Into the Night wrote: She wasn't busting through a window. She was there helping police. The murderer shot into the crowd as well. All of that is simply dead wrong. Watch the video. She broke through the window and a single shot was fired, up and away from the crowd. She was shot by police and was not helping at all. She was a traitor. I do think it's tragic she was shot but it's entirely her fault. I don't understand how we don't have better tools than guns to stop people still after hundreds of years. Into the Night wrote: You are demanding censorship. Citation missing. How? IBdaMann wrote: Finding a place to avoid differing views, where differing views are censored and intelligent people are banned, is actually an essential part o... That is absolutely the case more than it's not, I would agree with you. It's also not censorship as you've pointed out.
11-02-2022 00:58
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: She wasn't climbing in. Dead wrong: https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/national/capitol-riots/nj-man-who-witnessed-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-pleads-guilty-thomas-baranyi-congress-capitol-riot-january-6-donald-trump/65-a3a04bd3-29ba-4b23-bb21-5a6eee7fca56 "Babbitt was shot while attempting to climb through a shattered window into the lobby. " "We tore through the scaffolding, through flash bangs and tear gas and blitzed our way in through all the chambers just trying to get into Congress," Baranyi said. "We had stormed into the chambers inside and there was a young lady who rushed through the windows," he said. "A number of police and Secret Service were saying 'get down, get out of the way.' She didn't heed the call and as we kind of raced up to try to grab people and pull them back, they shot her in the neck, and she fell back on me." "It could have been me, but she went in first," he added. That is from a fellow TRUMPER and traitor on Jan 6. Eye witness. Not that you need it as there is video.
11-02-2022 01:42
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote: Dead wrong Nope, Into the Night is spot on and you are deliberately spreading disinformation. I watched the video of the shooting. Ashi Babbit was shot over a barricade that had not been toppled/broken/breached. In fact, the official who shot Ashli Babbit could have just as easily arrested her. Babbit simply did not OBEY orders to back off/back away. Ashli Babbit was shot simply because a government official got trigger-happy and HATED Trump supporters and free people. Armed government officials knew that they could simply kill innocent protesters with impunity and that all Constitutional protections of We the People were held in abeyance that day. As a result, a patriot was shot and killed by a tyrannical government that promptly blamed the victim with the help of evil people like you.
11-02-2022 01:59
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: She wasn't climbing in. IBdaMann wrote:Into the Night is spot on Video speaks for itself. As does the Trump supporter eye witness who literally ended up with her blood on his hands: https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/national/capitol-riots/nj-man-who-witnessed-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-pleads-guilty-thomas-baranyi-congress-capitol-riot-january-6-donald-trump/65-a3a04bd3-29ba-4b23-bb21-5a6eee7fca56 "Babbitt ... a young lady who rushed through the windows," Are you under the impressing the bullet had to go through a window to hit her? Because she had put her head through the busted window. She was the first to breach the barrier, that's why they shot her. And guess what? It worked. Pretty much the only way one guy with a gun can convince 200 people to back off. Should he have laid down to be beaten with a hockey stick? Maybe. But it's not fair to expect that. But you can of course believe whatever you like. Edited on 11-02-2022 02:01
11-02-2022 03:51
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote:Video speaks for itself. It certainly does. tmiddles wrote:As does the Trump supporter eye witness who literally ended up with her blood on his hands: The video speaks for itself. tmiddles wrote:"Babbitt ... a young lady who rushed through the windows," The video shows clearly that she did not need to be shot. The video shows clearly a gun happy government official who just needed to shoot at least one Trump supporter before dinner. Are you under the impression the barricade had been toppled? Attached image: Edited on 11-02-2022 03:54
11-02-2022 04:30
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:0qq Are you under the impression the barricade had been toppled? What does "toppled" mean? If you csn get throigh? There was a hole in door that had been bashed in and she stuck her head through it apparently intent on climbing through. Im not a cop so I cant speak to precedure on shootings. Whats interesting is your ability to believe otherwise. Itn denied it You and ITN "That window wasn't even broken." Eye witness ""Babbitt was shot while attempting to climb through a shattered window into the lobby. " You said he was right so youve denied it too Just as you all denied Trump said he was calling for a ban on muslims in his first commercial. You choose to be crazy. Edited on 11-02-2022 04:35
11-02-2022 04:48
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2933)	tmiddles wrote: Are you under the impression the barricade had been toppled? What does it matter? A black officer shot an unarmed white person and BLM didn't burn the country down. White lives don't matter to them. Got it. tmiddles wrote: Im not a cop so I cant speak to precedure on shootings. There must be a deadly threat. An unarmed 35 yr old woman is not a deadly threat. What's interesting is your ability to believe otherwise. tmiddles wrote: Just as you all denied Trump said he was calling for a ban on muslims in his first commercial. Are you still all butt hurt about your misinterpretation of plain English? You choose to be crazy. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
11-02-2022 05:04
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote:There was a hole in door The cowardly capitol assassin was under no threat. He just decided to shoot an unarmed woman. The video speaks for itself. tmiddles wrote: Im not a cop so I cant speak to precedure on shootings. Yet you don't let that prevent you from forming a firmly-held, erroneous position that you promulgate. The video speaks for itself. tmiddles wrote:Eye witness ""Babbitt was shot while attempting to climb through a shattered window into the lobby. " "Video speaks for itself" - tmiddles, moments before denying the video tmiddles wrote:You said he was right so youve denied it too The video speaks for itself. The video says you are a liar. tmiddles wrote:Just as you all denied Trump said he was calling for a ban on muslims in his first commercial. Just as you insist on lying by omission.

11-02-2022 09:38
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: The video speaks for itself. But where is the video for this?: Into the Night wrote:....Trump supporters were trying to stop Antifa from breaking windows with the tool they brought specifically for the purpose. You will see where security LET Antifa into the Capitol building. You will see Trump supporters defending the police, not attacking them. ...The so-called 'break-in' was by Antifa and BLM. The attacks on cops was by Antifa and BLM. .... link We clearly see in the video the windows being broken. Are those Antifa? Hey ITN did you ever find this video of ANTIFA and BLM at the capitol? Also there have been 769 people charged with crimes committed at the capital on Jan 6. How many were BLM and ANTIFA? (it's zero!) But the REAL question here is WHAT ARE COURTS GOOD FOR? Do you regard them as being useful in any way? I consider them to be one of the most important processes we have for finding facts. Let me guess: The entire judicial system and the entire FBI are conspiring against TRUMP? Abandoning the role of the court in determining criminal guilt is a very dangerous move.
11-02-2022 14:07
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote:But the REAL question here is WHAT ARE COURTS GOOD FOR? Do you regard them as being useful in any way? Pay attention. Courts are where and when We the People try cases and (supposedly) administer justice.. Courts are not intended to replace independent thinking. If you ask again as though I never provided you an answer, you will get an RQAA.
11-02-2022 22:12
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: .. We the People try cases and (supposedly) administer justice.. . And when a court makes a judgement what reasons would you have to disregard it in favor of your own take on it? I can think of a few: - there was inadequate representation/money to prove the case - the court lacked the information I have - the law itself is something I disagree with - i have reason to believe the court was bribed/corrupt Thats all I can think of. You?
11-02-2022 23:40
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:...Democrats have successfully conducted a coup...civil war, ...conservatives will finish it. So in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA There is no United States of America anymore. Not since the coup by Democrats. tmiddles wrote: when a crime is committed the remedy is not to prosecute that crime in court Too many prosecutors are not prosecuting criminals, and too many courts are setting criminals free. tmiddles wrote: but to run out into the street with your guns? It may come to that. tmiddles wrote: When a crime or injustice is committed you go to court in a country with the RULE OF LAW. If it comes to guns, there is NO rule of law. It's called war. tmiddles wrote: There you prove your case to a judge who should be impartial, fair and competent. Doesn't happen in a war. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:Assault on police officers is a crime. Agreed! (that's a cop being beaten with a hockey stick on Jan 6) After said cop attacked protestors. Funny how you keep ignoring that part. Said cop is no longer under any protection of the law. tmiddles wrote: So I take it you do not agree with IBD that this was peaceful. It basically was, accept for the violence from mostly Antifa and BLM supporters, who were attacking cops without reason (other than hate). tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Do you think a peaceful protest constitutes a crime? Into the Night wrote: She wasn't busting through a window. She was there helping police. The murderer shot into the crowd as well. All of that is simply dead wrong. Watch the video. It's in the video. She was helping police. She wasn't busting through a Windows. The murderer shot into the crowd. tmiddles wrote: She broke through the window She didn't break a single window. tmiddles wrote: and a single shot was fired, up and away from the crowd. The shot was fired into the crowd. tmiddles wrote: She was shot by police and was not helping at all. She was shot by a security guard, not by police. tmiddles wrote: She was a traitor. No treason occurred. tmiddles wrote: I do think it's tragic she was shot but it's entirely her fault. No. She was murdered. tmiddles wrote: I don't understand how we don't have better tools than guns to stop people still after hundreds of years. You don't understand a lot. No surprise. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: You are demanding censorship. Citation missing. How? RQAA. If you want to deny your own posts again, you are being an idiot. Anyone that wants to can go back and look for themselves. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Finding a place to avoid differing views, where differing views are censored and intelligent people are banned, is actually an essential part o... That is absolutely the case more than it's not, I would agree with you. It's also not censorship as you've pointed out. You do not agree. Saying you agree and then going against that agreement is not agreeing. 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
11-02-2022 23:47
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote:And when a court makes an erroneous judgement what reasons would you have to continue thinking for yourself ? This is a very stupid question. tmiddles wrote:I can think of a few: - there was inadequate representation/money to prove the case - the court lacked the information I have - the law itself is something I disagree with - i have reason to believe the court was bribed/corrupt Thats all I can think of. None of these have anything to do with why someone should think for himself. Give it another try. Why should a rational adult think for himself? .
12-02-2022 00:02
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:Assault on police officers is a crime. Agreed! (that's a cop being beaten with a hockey stick on Jan 6) After said cop attacked protestors. Funny how you keep ignoring that part. Said cop is no longer under any protection of the law. So let me get this straight: The cop, who's job it is to defend the capital, "attacked protestors", who then beat him with a hockey stick. But he deserved it because he is no longer under any protection of the law? You're not a big supporter of the police, I get that. But I'm having a hard time following you reasoning. IBdaMann wrote: None of these have anything to do with why someone should think for himself. I'm asking you personally. Under what circumstances do you dismiss the findings of a court?
12-02-2022 00:02
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:Assault on police officers is a crime. Agreed! (that's a cop being beaten with a hockey stick on Jan 6) After said cop attacked protestors. Funny how you keep ignoring that part. Said cop is no longer under any protection of the law. So let me get this straight: The cop, who's job it is to defend the capital, "attacked protestors", who then beat him with a hockey stick. But he deserved it because he is no longer under any protection of the law? You're not a big supporter of the police, I get that. But I'm having a hard time following you reasoning. IBdaMann wrote: None of these have anything to do with why someone should think for himself. I'm asking you personally. Under what circumstances do you dismiss the findings of a court?
12-02-2022 00:06
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote:Under what circumstances do you dismiss the findings of a court? My spidey sense tells me that a really lame tmiddles trap is being set. Why did you use the word "disregard"? Why did you not ask under what circumstances I would disagree with a court ruling?
12-02-2022 01:11
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:...under what circumstances I would disagree with a court ruling? OK what? And there is a trap waiting for all of us every day, it's called being wrong about things and making errors in judgement. I'm wrong a lot. I admit that. You are too. Try admitting it once in a while.
12-02-2022 03:14
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:Assault on police officers is a crime. Agreed! (that's a cop being beaten with a hockey stick on Jan 6) After said cop attacked protestors. Funny how you keep ignoring that part. Said cop is no longer under any protection of the law. So let me get this straight: The cop, who's job it is to defend the capital, "attacked protestors", who then beat him with a hockey stick. But he deserved it because he is no longer under any protection of the law? Any cop that is breaking the law is no longer a cop. tmiddles wrote: You're not a big supporter of the police, I get that. I am. I support the police, because they generally try to enforce the law, not break it. tmiddles wrote: But I'm having a hard time following you reasoning. Obviously. You trapped yourself in your own compositional error fallacy. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: None of these have anything to do with why someone should think for himself. I'm asking you personally. Under what circumstances do you dismiss the findings of a court? RQAA. When the court exceeds it's authority. 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

Page 3 of 8

Join the debate misconceptions: