January 6th hearings

Discussion of the recent unfolding of history.

Re: January 6th hearings

Postby Mr Reasonable » Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:48 am

day 6


pending
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 32427
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: January 6th hearings

Postby Mr Reasonable » Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:21 am

this shit is absurd
pending
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 32427
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: January 6th hearings

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Jun 29, 2022 10:03 am

-
In the Depp v Heard case -- the jury decided unanimously in favor of Depp. If they had only heard the case presented by Heard's attorneys - they would have decided unanimously in favor of Heard.

Most of Hutchinson's testimony is hearsay (inadmissible) -- and within hours -- already disputed by her source ("Tony") as being entirely false - "that is NOT what I said to her at all" -- testimony - among a great deal more - that you will never hear.

Putting on this kind of display to the public is vulgarly low - never allowed in real courts because of its extreme dishonesty - America should be wholly embarrassed.
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just the same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --

The prospect of death weighs naught upon the purpose of life - James S Saint - 2009
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4238
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: January 6th hearings

Postby Mr Reasonable » Wed Jun 29, 2022 10:47 am

this is a congressional hearing, not a trial. do you not know how a trial works?

for example, when the house voted to impeach trump for the events of 1/6, the next step was to have a trial in the senate in order to determine whether he would be convicted and removed from office.

the first motion in that trial was to shut it down and refuse to hear any evidence from either side. it passed because of the republican majority in the senate at the time, and so the republicans shut down the possibility of hearing any of the evidence from either side. trump and his people all stonewalled subpoenas from the house and refused to speak in their own defense.

this is not a trial. it's a hearing. it seems like 1), you're confused about the difference, and 2) that you should be upset with the gop for voting to end the impeachment trial without allowing any witnesses or evidence and you should be upset with trump et al for refusing to testify under oath and give their side of the story.

it's also notable that the majority of witnesses in this hearing are republicans from trump's own administration who are giving firsthand accounts of their experiences and what they saw and that they are doing so under oath.
pending
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 32427
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: January 6th hearings

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:15 pm

Mr Reasonable wrote:this is a congressional hearing, not a trial. do you not know how a trial works?

If you knew how a real trial works - you wouldn't be able to stomach watching your Congress doing that vulgar propaganda display.

Mr Reasonable wrote:for example, when the house voted to impeach trump for the events of 1/6, the next step was to have a trial in the senate in order to determine whether he would be convicted and removed from office.

the first motion in that trial was to shut it down and refuse to hear any evidence from either side.

How is that any different than a motion to dismiss or a judge declaring insufficient evidence to proceed? -- happens in real trials all the time when the initial evidence is so obviously obscured or unfounded (exactly what happened in Mr Trumps Impeachment trial).

Mr Reasonable wrote:it passed because of the republican majority in the senate at the time, and so the republicans shut down the possibility of hearing any of the evidence from either side. trump and his people all stonewalled subpoenas from the house and refused to speak in their own defense.

Sufficient evidence must be presented to even begin a trial. And the case was dismissed because there were not enough socialists/communists in the Senate to win a case -- had nothing to do with republicans or actual democrats (if any of those still exist in the US). Only about 30% of your Senate was communist -- only about 45% now.

Mr Reasonable wrote:this is not a trial. it's a hearing.

It isn't a hearing either. In a hearing - BOTH sides have a say - cross examining takes place - real evidentiary rules apply (not silly propaganda films and hearsay gossip).

Mr Reasonable wrote:it seems like 1), you're confused about the difference, and
2) that you should be upset with the gop for voting to end the impeachment trial without allowing any witnesses or evidence and you should be upset with trump et al for refusing to testify under oath and give their side of the story.

1) You obviously either do not know the real difference or - more probably - just lie and don't care.
2) Emphasis on (1b).

Mr Reasonable wrote:it's also notable that the majority of witnesses in this hearing are republicans from trump's own administration who are giving firsthand accounts of their experiences and what they saw and that they are doing so under oath.

Very very little of what they are showing you is "first hand accounts". It is almost entirely attorney's rhetoric and display trickery -- often attempted in real trials -- usually thrown out by the judge and objecting counsel (except for the corrupted).

Dunny flies like you who swallow any shit that falls from the ass above you should not even watch hearings until you learn something about evidentiary rules :
Legal Information Institute wrote:Federal Rules of Evidence, as amended to December 1, 2020. Click on any rule to read it.

ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
    Rule 101. Scope; Definitions
    Rule 102. Purpose
    Rule 103. Rulings on Evidence
    Rule 104. Preliminary Questions
    Rule 105. Limiting Evidence That Is Not Admissible Against Other Parties or for Other Purposes
    Rule 106. Remainder of or Related Writings or Recorded Statements
ARTICLE II. JUDICIAL NOTICE
    Rule 201. Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts
ARTICLE III. PRESUMPTIONS IN CIVIL CASES
    Rule 301. Presumptions in Civil Cases Generally
    Rule 302. Applying State Law to Presumptions in Civil Cases
ARTICLE IV. RELEVANCE AND ITS LIMITS
    Rule 401. Test for Relevant Evidence
    Rule 402. General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence
    Rule 403. Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons
    Rule 404. Character Evidence; Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts
    Rule 405. Methods of Proving Character
    Rule 406. Habit; Routine Practice
    Rule 407. Subsequent Remedial Measures
    Rule 408. Compromise Offers and Negotiations
    Rule 409. Offers to Pay Medical and Similar Expenses
    Rule 410. Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements
    Rule 411. Liability Insurance
    Rule 412. Sex-Offense Cases: The Victim’s Sexual Behavior or Predisposition
    Rule 413. Similar Crimes in Sexual-Assault Cases
    Rule 414. Similar Crimes in Child Molestation Cases
    Rule 415. Similar Acts in Civil Cases Involving Sexual Assault or Child Molestation
ARTICLE V. PRIVILEGES
    Rule 501. Privilege in General
    Rule 502. Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product; Limitations on Waiver
ARTICLE VI. WITNESSES
    Rule 601. Competency to Testify in General
    Rule 602. Need for Personal Knowledge
    Rule 603. Oath or Affirmation to Testify Truthfully
    Rule 604. Interpreter
    Rule 605. Judge’s Competency as a Witness
    Rule 606. Juror’s Competency as a Witness
    Rule 607. Who May Impeach a Witness
    Rule 608. A Witness’s Character for Truthfulness or Untruthfulness
    Rule 609. Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction
    Rule 610. Religious Beliefs or Opinions
    Rule 611. Mode and Order of Examining Witnesses and Presenting Evidence
    Rule 612. Writing Used to Refresh a Witness’s Memory
    Rule 613. Witness’s Prior Statement
    Rule 614. Court’s Calling or Examining a Witness
    Rule 615. Excluding Witnesses
ARTICLE VII. OPINIONS AND EXPERT TESTIMONY
    Rule 701. Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses
    Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses
    Rule 703. Bases of an Expert’s Opinion Testimony
    Rule 704. Opinion on an Ultimate Issue
    Rule 705. Disclosing the Facts or Data Underlying an Expert’s Opinion
    Rule 706. Court-Appointed Expert Witnesses
ARTICLE VIII. HEARSAY
    Rule 801. Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay
    Rule 802. The Rule Against Hearsay
    Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay — Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness
    Rule 804. Hearsay Exceptions; Declarant Unavailable
    Rule 805. Hearsay Within Hearsay
    Rule 806. Attacking and Supporting the Declarant’s Credibility
    Rule 807. Residual Exception
ARTICLE IX. AUTHENTICATION AND IDENTIFICATION
    Rule 901. Authenticating or Identifying Evidence
    Rule 902. Evidence That Is Self-Authenticating
    Rule 903. Subscribing Witness’s Testimony
ARTICLE X. CONTENTS OF WRITINGS, RECORDINGS, AND PHOTOGRAPHS
    Rule 1001. Definitions That Apply to This Article
    Rule 1002. Requirement of the Original
    Rule 1003. Admissibility of Duplicates
    Rule 1004. Admissibility of Other Evidence of Content
    Rule 1005. Copies of Public Records to Prove Content
    Rule 1006. Summaries to Prove Content
    Rule 1007. Testimony or Statement of a Party to Prove Content
    Rule 1008. Functions of the Court and Jury
ARTICLE XI. MISCELLANEOUS RULES
    Rule 1101. Applicability of the Rules
    Rule 1102. Amendments
    Rule 1103. Title

Effective Date and Application of Rules

Pub. L. 93–595, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1926, provided: “That the following rules shall take effect on the one hundred and eightieth day [July 1, 1975] beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act [Jan. 2, 1975]. These rules apply to actions, cases, and proceedings brought after the rules take effect. These rules also apply to further procedure in actions, cases, and proceedings then pending, except to the extent that application of the rules would not be feasible, or would work injustice, in which event former evidentiary principles apply.”

Historical Note

The Federal Rules of Evidence were adopted by order of the Supreme Court on Nov. 20, 1972, transmitted to Congress by the Chief Justice on Feb. 5, 1973, and to have become effective on July 1, 1973. Pub. L. 93–12, Mar. 30, 1973, 87 Stat. 9, provided that the proposed rules “shall have no force or effect except to the extent, and with such amendments, as they may be expressly approved by Act of Congress”. Pub. L. 93–595, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1926, enacted the Federal Rules of Evidence proposed by the Supreme Court, with amendments made by Congress, to take effect on July 1, 1975.

The Rules have been amended Oct. 16, 1975, Pub. L. 94–113, §1, 89 Stat. 576, eff. Oct. 31, 1975; Dec. 12, 1975, Pub. L. 94–149, §1, 89 Stat. 805; Oct. 28, 1978, Pub. L. 95–540, §2, 92 Stat. 2046; Nov. 6, 1978, Pub. L. 95–598, title II, §251, 92 Stat. 2673, eff. Oct. 1, 1979; Apr. 30, 1979, eff. Dec. 1, 1980; Apr. 2, 1982, Pub. L. 97–164, title I, §142, title IV, §402, 96 Stat. 45, 57, eff. Oct. 1, 1982; Oct. 12, 1984, Pub. L. 98–473, title IV, §406, 98 Stat. 2067; Mar. 2, 1987, eff. Oct. 1, 1987; Apr. 25, 1988, eff. Nov. 1, 1988; Nov. 18, 1988, Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §§7046, 7075, 102 Stat. 4400, 4405; Jan. 26, 1990, eff. Dec. 1, 1990; Apr. 30, 1991, eff. Dec. 1, 1991; Apr. 22, 1993, eff. Dec. 1, 1993; Apr. 29, 1994, eff. Dec. 1, 1994; Sept. 13, 1994, Pub. L. 103–322, title IV, §40141, title XXXII, §320935, 108 Stat. 1918, 2135; Apr. 11, 1997, eff. Dec. 1, 1997; Apr. 24, 1998, eff. Dec. 1, 1998; Apr. 17, 2000, eff. Dec. 1, 2000; Mar. 27, 2003, eff. Dec. 1, 2003; Apr. 12, 2006, eff. Dec. 1, 2006; Sept. 19, 2008, Pub. L. 110–322, §1(a), 122 Stat. 3537; Apr. 28, 2010, eff. Dec. 1, 2010; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011; Apr. 16, 2013, eff. Dec. 1, 2013; Apr. 25, 2014, eff. Dec. 1, 2014; Apr. 25, 2019, eff. Dec. 1, 2019., Dec. 1, 2020

    ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
    ARTICLE II. JUDICIAL NOTICE
    ARTICLE III. PRESUMPTIONS IN CIVIL CASES
    ARTICLE IV. RELEVANCE AND ITS LIMITS
    ARTICLE V. PRIVILEGES
    ARTICLE VI. WITNESSES
    ARTICLE VII. OPINIONS AND EXPERT TESTIMONY
    ARTICLE VIII. HEARSAY
    ARTICLE IX. AUTHENTICATION AND IDENTIFICATION
    ARTICLE X. CONTENTS OF WRITINGS, RECORDINGS, AND PHOTOGRAPHS
    ARTICLE XI. MISCELLANEOUS RULES

ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS ›

Click on the link to get the expanded detailed text links.
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just the same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --

The prospect of death weighs naught upon the purpose of life - James S Saint - 2009
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4238
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: January 6th hearings

Postby Mr Reasonable » Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:07 am

you fucking dope they voted not to hear the evidence in the senate. and trump has his team stonewall subpoenas in the house. seems like they would have taken those opportunities to tell their story, except they can't do it under oath because they'd get charged for perjury. you can rage all you want and misunderstand/misrepresent the nature of the scenario that's playing out but the public can see it and they aren't all brainwashed like you are.
pending
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 32427
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: January 6th hearings

Postby obsrvr524 » Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:52 am

Mr Reasonable wrote:you fucking dope they voted not to hear the evidence in the senate. and trump has his team stonewall subpoenas in the house.

Obviously you didn't read up on the issue of presenting evidence.

In order for any trial to begin - a prosecutor must present prima facie evidence that a crime has been committed. When the House walks impeachments papers over to the Senate - those papers are to provide such prima facie evidence along with other stipulations and requirements. The House impeachment committee DID NOT PROVIDE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE that any crime had been committed. Sen McConnell stated that at the time.

The entire impeachment effort had been a show for the public - no real evidence had ever been presented - just like now with the Jan 6 committee - no real evidence of anything (much of it obviously faked by their Hollywood producer) -- so people just turn away from it entirely.

It is one thing to cooperate with a legitimate effort to find truth. It is quite another to allow a deeply corrupt adversary to rifle through any and all information even vaguely related to you while seeking anything that can be twisted into a political hit piece or possible expensive litigation. Just look at all of the political arrests and unlawful searches they are engaged in since O'Biden took office. They are the modern-day Nazis.

Mr Reasonable wrote: seems like they would have taken those opportunities to tell their story,

If it seems that way to you - then you are obviously oblivious to what is really going on and certainly not "Reasonable". Why do you think your Constitution already disallows unwarranted searches and seizures? You probably have no idea. The reason is that corrupt officials can very easily make you look guilty as hell or at very least make you spend all of your money and the rest of your life trying to defend against frivolous litigation stemming from anything discovered that might relate to probable cause - just to harass - which is exactly what they have been doing to Mr Trump since before he got into office.

Of course he is going to resist giving those very obviously corrupt devils anything - just as any sane person should.

If they wanted support from people like me - they really should have been honest in their pursuits -- but then they wouldn't be who they are.

Mr Reasonable wrote:they aren't all brainwashed like you are.

At least we have a brain to wash.
Last edited by obsrvr524 on Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just the same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --

The prospect of death weighs naught upon the purpose of life - James S Saint - 2009
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4238
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: January 6th hearings

Postby obsrvr524 » Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:58 am

-
They already have 3 government eyewitness officials willing to testify under oath that what Hutchinson testified to is fraudulent. She was not an eyewitness at all - not even close to being qualified as a witness. She played a word game.

But that committee didn't even bother to ask anyone directly involved if what she was coached into saying was true.

YOU ARE BEING MANIPULATED.


Mr Trump was not even in the Beast at that time - and certainly could not have reached to the steering wheel. The story was/is a typical Adam Shiff drama script.
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just the same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --

The prospect of death weighs naught upon the purpose of life - James S Saint - 2009
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4238
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: January 6th hearings

Postby Sculptor » Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:15 am

obsrvr524 wrote:-
They already have 3 government eyewitness officials willing to testify under oath that what Hutchinson testified to is fraudulent. She was not an eyewitness at all - not even close to being qualified as a witness. She played a word game.

But that committee didn't even bother to ask anyone directly involved if what she was coached into saying was true.

YOU ARE BEING MANIPULATED.


Mr Trump was not even in the Beast at that time - and certainly could not have reached to the steering wheel. The story was/is a typical Adam Shiff drama script.


You are in denial.
Nothing short of a baseball bat hitting your face at 200 mph is going to make you see the light.
Ichthus77 loves himself
Sculptor
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2589
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: January 6th hearings

Postby Sculptor » Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:20 am

obsrvr524 wrote:
Mr Reasonable wrote:this is a congressional hearing, not a trial. do you not know how a trial works?

If you knew how a real trial works - you wouldn't be able to stomach watching your Congress doing that vulgar propaganda display.
.


What do you not understand by the phrase "this is not a trial"?

Are you that stupid?
This is a chance for people to give their evidence to determine the facts to see what sort of trail is necessary and to determine the exact illegality and culpability of those involved.

Trump has some questions to answer, obviously.

But what you are really too bloody stupid to see is that these hearings are a complete GIFT to Trump since it gives him advance warning of every point he has to defend when the trial does start.
He now has time to cheat and lie and pay witnesses to give false testimony.

In effect, since he has no defence for his actions he will do a deal for no contest, and not run for president again, in exchange for some sort of immunity.
Ichthus77 loves himself
Sculptor
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2589
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: January 6th hearings

Postby origami » Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:48 am

We agree with you.

It is a show trial.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: January 6th hearings

Postby Mr Reasonable » Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:04 am

no one thinks it's a trial. it's a hearing. you should watch the hearing.
pending
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 32427
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: January 6th hearings

Postby origami » Fri Jul 01, 2022 2:25 am

We didn't say trial. We said show trial.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: January 6th hearings

Postby origami » Fri Jul 01, 2022 2:29 am

By the way, how did the twatter botpocalipse hit you? Be honest, we'll believe you if you say it's still a large number.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: January 6th hearings

Postby obsrvr524 » Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:13 am

=
Last edited by obsrvr524 on Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just the same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --

The prospect of death weighs naught upon the purpose of life - James S Saint - 2009
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4238
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: January 6th hearings

Postby obsrvr524 » Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:14 am

Mr Reasonable wrote:it's a hearing.

No
it
is
not

You clueless dunny fly.

I already explained why.
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just the same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --

The prospect of death weighs naught upon the purpose of life - James S Saint - 2009
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4238
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: January 6th hearings

Postby Mr Reasonable » Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:21 am

origami wrote:By the way, how did the twatter botpocalipse hit you? Be honest, we'll believe you if you say it's still a large number.


i block bots that follow me so nothing really changed. 1st rule of twitter...block early, block often.
pending
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 32427
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: January 6th hearings

Postby Mr Reasonable » Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:21 am

obsrvr524 wrote:
Mr Reasonable wrote:it's a hearing.

No
it
is
not

You clueless dunny fly.

I already explained why.



but it is.
pending
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 32427
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: January 6th hearings

Postby obsrvr524 » Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:48 am

Mr Reasonable wrote:but it is.

But it is NOT ---

Hearing -
an instance or a session in which testimony and arguments are presented, especially before an official, as a judge

Where are the counter arguments? Where is the obvious exculpatory evidence?

What you are watching is one-sided, soviet star-chamber style propaganda narrative being Hollywood style broadcast to the public for authoritarian socialist political influence.

Putin and Xi Jinping do the exact same thing -- for the exact same reason -- serving the exact same purpose.

Haven't you noticed that there is no one speaking in defense of Mr Trump (even though it isn't even supposed to be about Mr Trump)? -- not even an expected strawman argument. The committee is formed by 100% Trump haters. It is held in Congress only so that when they lie, Mr Trump cannot sue them for liable.

It is pure 100% peasant tripe -- for brainwashing.
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just the same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --

The prospect of death weighs naught upon the purpose of life - James S Saint - 2009
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4238
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: January 6th hearings

Postby Mr Reasonable » Fri Jul 01, 2022 6:40 am

it's a hearing bruh. it doesn't make any difference if you're confused about what a hearing is. it's still a hearing. you just deciding to flail around screeching in confusion about what a hearing is doesn't mean it's not a hearing. i don't know what else to tell you.
pending
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 32427
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: January 6th hearings

Postby obsrvr524 » Fri Jul 01, 2022 7:18 am

-
It is propaganda. It doesn't make any difference if you're confused about what propaganda is. it's still propaganda. you just deciding to flail around screeching in confusion about what propaganda is doesn't mean it's not propaganda. i don't know what else to tell you.
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just the same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --

The prospect of death weighs naught upon the purpose of life - James S Saint - 2009
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4238
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: January 6th hearings

Postby Mr Reasonable » Fri Jul 01, 2022 7:54 am

lol
pending
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 32427
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: January 6th hearings

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:53 am

The whole thing is a complete sham. And it's boring, literally nobody watches this garbage.

Trump is posed for a bigger win in 2024. The kangaroo court isn't going to distract people away from $10.00 gallon gas and 150% inflation on all domestic goods.
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7941
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: January 6th hearings

Postby Mr Reasonable » Fri Jul 01, 2022 9:02 am

13 million people watched the last one as it happened.
pending
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 32427
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: January 6th hearings

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Fri Jul 01, 2022 9:08 am

Liberals need to stuff a stack of "Biden-only" ballots into count machines at 3am, to "win".

This is the same as you believing that any American actually believes in the propaganda garbage.

Nobody cares about these lies. Trump wins 2024.
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7941
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Current Events



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users