3rdnlng

Simply put, you are a Marxist and a creator of "facts." You hate the police, not because you actually hate them but because you hate the fact that they stand between you, your ilk and anarchy. You are willing to make things up out of the blue to further your ridiculous case. You've spent enough time here spouting nonsense and getting responses. Go fix your own country.

Now, cop killers are ok in your book?

Two Louisville cops got shot tonight. Double proof that all so called protesters are murderers.

I presume you are referring to Breonna Taylor? Guess what, a grand jury decided that none of the cops murdered her, even though you made a rather lengthy post accusing Officer Mattingly of doing just that earlier in this thread. In fact, you've made the statement that every time a cop shoots someone it's murder. You even went so far as to state that cops murder over 1000 people per year. Well, I stated that 9 unarmed black people (and 19 whites) were killed by police in 2019. So, it doesn't matter if the 1000 had weapons and most likely many of them actually used them against the police?

Your reading comprehension could use a little help. I never said that your evidence was valid. You Canadians sure take a lot for granted.

Yes to both.

Since this forum is visual rather than audio I won't hear you at all. My comments were directed to someone else most recently known as Tiberius. As a newbie you wouldn't understand the mountains of reasons that he gets put down here.

So, you're going to now complain that he tries to bring the level of conversation down to your level so that you can understand it? Your "evidence" seems to be something you said before and have repeated or some opinion piece by a whacko.

You are a parser of words, presenting articles that mix up terms to try to get over on the reader and "prove" their false premise.

I put your bs in bold in the post I quoted of yours.

You're a Canadian, so you really don't count.

As an older guy I thought multiple spontaneous eruptions were a thing of the past but Hillary's defeat proved me wrong.

Yet in 2019 police killed 9 black "unarmed" people. This does not take into account that those unarmed people may still have been trying to harm the officers. So, at least 991 of those dead people were armed and presumably threatening the officers. That's what got them shot, not their skin color or how low their pants were hanging. I don't know that I've responded to you before but I've read a lot of your horseshit posts. You make wild accusations without links and then try to argue your points with circular logic and do so ad nauseum. You don't come here to learn anything or discuss, but come here to wear people down with your volume of bs.

With the exception of a poster called Tiberius/Gatorman who could say anything at any time, it appears that all conservative leaning people opt for what they feel is best for their country while the libs choose instant gratification. Gee, I wonder if anything can be drawn from this?

Careful, you're making me laugh so hard I might be topping your Benghazi laughter.

I don't think we disagree, I just thought that Park's declaration was premature. Then again, without being privy to what might be going on behind closed doors I could very easily have my head up my ass regarding this situation.

With this logic Trump must have lost PA in 2016 by a large margin. Even after all these years of your posting, it never fails to amaze me just how ***** stupid you are.

If I remember correctly NK wants a formal end to the war. Why give them anything without getting something back?

Not sure, but it seems like it could be wasting a chip better left in their pocket.

What's next, searching the archives for my posts so that you can practice spelling "hoax" some more?

No 3rd Chair, you stated that the SCOTUS illegally ruled regarding the Janus decision. How would you describe an illegal decision by SCOTUS? What exactly is it that was illegal about their decision? Who actually can legally decide that the SCOTUS made an illegal decision? We'll see if you can actually answer without deflecting and claiming everything is a hoax. If you were in court you'd be held in contempt, but here you're just contemptible. You are too chickenshit to actually get into a discussion but fall back on deflection or the pompous use of Latin based legal terms in an attempt to bs your way out of a substantial discussion.

That would be called the revised "tuck him in rule".

Will you accept the results if Trump has a good lead on election day but every halfway contested race ends up with loads of mail-in ballots heavily favoring Biden to bring him over the top? Sorta like what happened in Minnesota with Al Franken.

And Cruella Pelosi's nephew and Kimberly Guilfoyle's (sp?) ex husband.