Forum Replies Created

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 4,543 total)
  • Author
  • in reply to: Talk Radio #1952438


    “Did you ever listen to him explain the development of the term Feminazi? Who it is referring to and what it means?”

    Yes, more than once (he is quite repetitive, though I don’t blame him give his task)

    ” about people haven’t regularly listened to him ”

    “You write that he referred to Chelsea Clinton as the White House dog. ”

    more than once

    “Okay, that seems like an offensive comment.”

    you are welcome.

    ” And you write that he apologized for it.”

    I wrote “apologized” ( he blamed it on a producer error, what a sloppy producer he must have had to make the same mistake 3 times)

    Having an original show for 15 hours every week for over 30 years there’s bound to be some offensive commentary. Have you never made offensive comments?”

    lol, I told you I knew you’d have excuses

    I asked you so nicely to spare me.

    No I have never insulted a kid on national radio. 3 times.

    “Additionally, referring to the president’s daughter as the White House dog is hardly the biggest aveira out there.”

    lol! I’m surprised it isn’t a mitzva
    see we speak different languages .
    Again,I know yo have canned excuses for your guy

    ” do you even know how or in what sense he used that? ”

    “Clearly not. Because you openly claimed he meant something he never did (and reapeatedly pointed out as such when the MSM claimed he meant exactly what you claimed, even though he never used it as such.) ”

    I said no such thing

    “Those who he applied the term feminazis, and the ONLY group he ever applied it to, were those advocating for laws permitting abortion-on-demand”

    This is factually incorrect.

    But again, I know you have excuses for everything he says. you ove him and can’t see fault, I get that. Really I do.

    “. He didn’t even apply that term to general supporters of abortion.”

    You arent telling the truth. Ive heard him refer to people demanding equal wage “feminazis” as well as Sandra fluke who thought health insurance should include Birth control. I know I know the Nazis supported equal wages too.

    Look, I’m not getting sucked into this silliness with you.

    anything he ever said, you will claim, well he speaks so long what do you expect, or its not that offensive (or both lol). You can also lie about who he called what (which his strange If you’ve listened to him regularly I’m not even sure where this bizarre limitation of his term came from, did you even listen to him? )

    Again I get that you can do that. No need to prove me right

    in reply to: Talk Radio #1952271


    “expressing a point humorusly” is not a license to be a bigot.
    Take the SNL example, the whole show is “expressing points humorously” people are still all bent out of shape over a “joke” they deemed offensive.

    There are plenty of Offensive things rush has said availabel online.
    I’m not so interested in having you explain why each was “just a joke”

    to avoid you saying I couldnt come up wit hany I’ll provide 2 examples.

    One which Rush later admitted was offensive and “apologized” (though he did it 3 times). The other is less offensive but highlights the double standard among his supporters

    1)in 1993 when Clinton was in the Whitehouse he held up a picture and introduced the world to “socks the white house cat” He then said “and here is the white house dog” with a picture of then 12 year old Chelsea Clinton.

    I know Know , it was “sarcastic” and was trying to make a point.

    He did variations of this “joke” 3 times

    2) He often used the term “feminazi” (I once heard him clai to have coined it) I’m old enough to remember how ben out of shape people got when AOC called the camps on the southern border “concentration camps” How dare she minimize the holocaust. Yet rush described those who want equal rights for women as “nazis” (almost) daily and all is fine. Because hey He is being “humorous”

    spare me

    in reply to: Election Fraud Allegations: Facts Only Wiki #1952076


    “is in case a clown like you took a Federal case all the way up to SCOTUS.
    They wouldn’t waste their time to even read it!”

    ding ding ding!
    nailed it!
    when there are clowns invloved the case is certain to get tossed!*

    “How many times do I have to tell you that they read it and made decisions on it, ie. Judgment?!?”
    hopefully no more times, since it is wrong, as you finally acknowledged “they read the case and decided not to take it.”
    Ie they decide NOT to take the Court case, if they decide not to take the case, then there is no case.

    and again, even if there was a case, still doesn’t change the fact that when I told you Jan 18th the case would be dismissed as moot, and I was lying, I wasnt lying.

    “Before you comment on things that you Know Nothing about – How about researching the the Topic?!?”

    I was right on every prediction I made on this thread, you have been mystified has to how I know all these things asking “but how do you know that”

    * BTW this is the answer to your question posed Feb 8 (before the Court denied certiorari, ie. declined to hear the case)
    I had said “…they will dismiss it without judgment (probably for being moot)”
    You asked “And again – how do you know that? “Are you either a Shoita, Koton or Deaf?”

    You would have known it to, if you just put down your blinders , as you correctly note a case brought by a clown wouldn’t stand a chance of being heard, or even read.

    in reply to: Talk Radio #1952008


    while what you say is 100% true. And I think the world is a better place now that he is gone. that in no way diminishes the fact that he was no dummy. He knew what he was doing

    in reply to: Election Fraud Allegations: Facts Only Wiki #1951694

    “Yes, they read almost every case & then they make decisions.”

    Lol at “almost” So maybe this is one of the cases they didn’t read?
    (and again, ‘m not saying they didn’t read it, I read it it didn’t take that long,I’m sure they did too)

    “Sometimes they’ll take the case, sometimes they won’t.”
    correct. I’m glad to have explained this to you.
    On Dec 20th you didn’t know that, you said the opposite: “Then that will be the first time in history – that SCOTUS accepted a petition, but didn’t have a Court case afterwards!”

    Then you were under the mistaken impression that once a petition is accepted they always have a “court case” Now you correctly note “Sometimes they’ll take the case, sometimes they won’t”

    You are most welcome!

    “When they don’t want to take it – they have different ways to get rid of it.
    One of the ways is to get rid of it – is by dismissed it because it was moot!”

    correct! As I have been telling you for months. They don’t always take court cases (as you now agree) Though in the past you called me a liar when I said this.

    The court chooses which cases to hear. I told you (over and over) that they would not hear Powell’s case. You called me a liar .

    “SCOTUS doesn’t work the way you think”

    It works exactly As Ive been telling you for months

    “I found out how it works – when I did my case.”

    Was your case this week? Because a few weeks ago you didn’t know how it worked. I think this may be the source of your confusion you are confusing secret supreme court with regular supreme court. I don’t know anything about secret supreme court.

    In regular suprme court they don’t always hear the case as you correctly note now, and not like you said Dec 20.
    no thanks are necessary for my having explained this to you It is my pleasure .


    Yes, it’s all a selfish plot to keep people alive and clicking on their website so the ads get more views

    in reply to: Election Fraud Allegations: Facts Only Wiki #1951475


    “Did you ever take a case to SCOTUS, like I did?”

    “They might tell e/o that it is dismissed as being Moot, but what does that mean?”

    Already explained it to you January 18th. after which you insisted that I was wrong, the case would still be “heard” and that I was a liar

    “I’ll tell what it means – they read the case and decided not to take it.”
    Maybe, maybe not .
    Regardless Doesn’t change the fact that I correctly said this would happen months ago, and AFTER I told you this you said I was a liar

    “In other words, it’s really a Judgment.”
    Thats not how words work. words have definitions, not all words are interchangeable

    “Stop confusing yourself that it’s not Really a Judgment.”
    not confused. Even if Thomas is wrong when he wrote the court declined to review the case.

    It still doesnt chaneg the fact that when I told you January 18th that the case would be dismissed as moot, I was not lying.

    At any rate looking forward to the outcome in Powell’s case.
    I’m super excited to see what pretzel logic you will come up with to defend her when (if) it is ruled that she lied, or she settles and apologizes

    in reply to: Talk Radio #1951378


    ITs hard to seperate the man from the character

    He had to fill 3 hours day in and day out. That is no easy to do. He can’t just say wel its a slow news day so lets call it after 10 minutes.
    Natrually a lot of gibberish came forth in that time.

    Sadly some iof his listeners believed it because their gadol said it . Many knew it was shtick don’t take him (too?) seriously of course everything/most of what he said was imbecilic

    in reply to: Talk Radio #1951294


    I’d like to see a source for that.

    (I’m not arguing)

    allow me to clarify. At no point did I mean to imply that Rush Limbaugh wasn’t an intellectual . I meant his show. His show was not intended to stimulate thought , or to be “high brow” it was intended to entertain the masses who already agreed with him.

    If you were looking for an honest intellectual take on politics/news if you looked to Limbaugh’s show, or SNL you were looking in the wrong place

    in reply to: Talk Radio #1951274

    The comparison between Rush and che is an apt one.
    bot are entertainers first and foremost (though rush was far more entertaining than che) People who go to either of them for news or rational intellectual takes on any subject are looking in the wrong place.

    That people take anything either of them says/said seriously is puzzling .

    Its like being offended by Howard Stern. Um, yes that is the point, if you don’t like it shut it off.
    Limbaugh was more akin to Howard Stern than to Bill Buckley

    in reply to: Election Fraud Allegations: Facts Only Wiki #1951225

    “And I’m sure they read the Motions.”

    They may have, (though impossible to tell from the order and dissents)

    The court denied certiorari. Certiorari is the process when a higher court reviews the lower court’s decision. SCOTUS denied it, meaning they aren’t reviewing the case.

    They aren’t saying anything as to whether there was fraud, or whether Pensylvanis’ court had right to change deadline. They simply arent ruling on it.

    As spelled out in Thomas’s dissent “The motions of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. for
    leave to intervene as petitioner are dismissed as moot” (note not “judged as moot”) later in the dicisio he describes the court as “doing nothing ”
    similarly Gorsuch and Alito in their dissent, agree with Tomas that ” we should grant review in these cases.” Becasue the court DID NOT reviwe it. The petiton for the court to review the case was denied,. The case WAS NOT heard. and again “These cases call out for review, and I respectfully dissent from the Court’s decision to deny certiorari. ”

    in reply to: Election Fraud Allegations: Facts Only Wiki #1951218


    “It’s way past anything that SCOTUS could change. This is a judgment of moot.”

    Lol as late as Jan 18 you still thought there was a chance, based on “goyishe prophets”

    you called me a liar, when I told you The case would be dismissed for being moot (2 weeks before you invented “judgement of moot” .
    an apology would be nice

    in reply to: Nassrallah’s “outrageous claims” #1950983


    “Ben Hechts book is based on”

    yes ” based on.” There have been many reviews of it written over the decades. I did not say it was all unture.
    The bulk of it is true.

    what I pointed out was that Ben Hecht was a Zionist. By any definition of the word.

    “The Gri”z- and the Chofetz chayim and R’ elchana wasserman etc…
    all were ardent beleivers in settling in e”y, anf all davened regularly to malchus beis Dovdi to be established – i.e. a Jewish state with different leaders.”

    Nu nu so mazel Tov they were Zinoists. Thats a good thing!

    Not sure what your point is.

    If you enjoy redefining “Zionism” from its commonly understood definition to include “he Gri”z- and the Chofetz chayim and R’ elchana wasserman”
    That’s’ fine. Though I’m not sure what it has to do with anything .

    “only led to violence against the Altanela”
    It wasnt “only the altalena” (assassination of de Haan, The Saison when Hagannah worked with the British agaisnt tHe Irgun, and when Begin famously ordered his followers not to fight back) Still not sure what your point is.

    in reply to: Nassrallah’s “outrageous claims” #1951004


    Yes it is based on records, but is not all true (most is)

    “The differences only led to violence against the Altanela, menachem Begin was very insistent that his followers do not descend into violence/lies etc”

    there was other violence as wel. But at any rate, Menachem Begin was a Zionist too. His views on zinoism were closer to Ben Gurion’s than to lehavdil, Rav Elchonon z”l’s

    ditto for Ben Hecht. He too was a zionist.

    IF you want to redefine zinosim to include “The Gri”z- and the Chofetz chayim and R’ elchana wasserman etc” That’s fine with me.

    But by ANY definition of Zionism you use Ben Hecht was one.

    in reply to: Election Fraud Allegations: Facts Only Wiki #1951005

    petition denied

    in reply to: Nassrallah’s “outrageous claims” #1950397


    “but he saw the zionist leaders for what they were.”

    not quite right. He was a revisionist Zionist a follower of Jabotinsky and Begin. He believed (strongly) there should be a Jewish State. Naturally as a follower of revisionist Zinosim he was opposed to the Labor Zionist Leaders , who while they all agreed s to the need for a Jewish political state, they had different ideas as to how the state should look. Occasioanlty the disagreements led to lies/exagerations about the other group (as in parts of Ben Hecht’s book) other times these disagreements led to violence (Altalena for example) .
    But they were all Zionists

    “was maskim to the Gri”z. does that make them zionists?”

    did the Griz believe we should establish a State for Jews? If so then yes he was a Zionist. If not, then he wasn’t.

    in reply to: Lindsey Graham’s Stupid Argument #1950021

    “Unfortunately seems we are barely arguing anymore”

    Thats great!

    I would phrase the summary slightly differently, we disagree if there theoretically is such a law.
    We agree that practically speaking there isn’t .as you said “We both agree the defendant would lose.”

    “So what are we arguing about?”

    Two minor points (in addition to whether there theoretically exists suc ha law, which of course there isn’t , though to be fair some scholars say what you say) though one I’m less sure about

    1) IF a law only exists in theory but not in practice does that law exist? I say of course not.
    Like according to the man deamaor that An Ir hanidachas could never happen, ie it doesn’t exist (lehavdil). there is no such thinkg as ir hanidachas So what’s the point? Lilmod ulekabel sechar (note: not just in case it ever does happen, according to this man deamaor that is not a thing) .
    Lehavdil in the constitution there is no such thing as “Lilmod ulekabel sechar” There is no theoretical law if it can’t happen in real life, then it isn’t a law, in fact the court won’t even rule on theoretical cases- I grant that reasonable people can disagree on this point
    2) The fact that it has never happened PROOVES that this interpretation isn’t correct. How could no one have made this claim before (in fact the court has ruled the reverse ,that there is no right to secede, and there are laws limiting the 1st amendment wehn it comes to talk of overthrow the government) ? – I’m less sure about this, I think it weakens your contention but granted it isnt proof.

    “I like spicy cholent”
    me too! see you then

    in reply to: Nassrallah’s “outrageous claims” #1949951


    “The “Outrageous claim” has long been proven by the brilliant book perfidy by ben Hecht – although the book is illegal in the Zionist state.”

    Its not.
    I bought it in Israel it was widely available.

    It is a good book, though a bit ahistroical.
    It is also a very Zionist book Ben Hecht was an ardent Zionist

    in reply to: Lindsey Graham’s Stupid Argument #1949846


    “Really. So when the guy is coming at his victim with knife upraised
    The victim tells him, ”hang tight, let me just make a quick call to my local court to see if I can kill you in self defense right now. BTW can you tell me the exact specifications of your knife because they will need to know. Also how much do you weigh?”

    no, he does what he needs to do. Then later the police/court will determine if what he did was justified . He claims the guy had a knife, witnesses say it was plastic etc etc.
    (to be clear if he was right to FEEL threatened that would be justified too in many cases eg although knife was plastic he had reason to think was real)

    I’m not saying any chidushim.
    you say “that’s what I have been trying to get you to understand all along.”
    I got it. You keep making the same mistake.

    Do you think A person can stab anyone he wants then say “Self defense! The guy was coming wit h a knife upraised”?
    and that is it end of discussion! He made the claim, uttered the magic phrase and now can’t be questioned.
    Johnny Cochran could’ve saved himself a lot of time, forget trying on gloves, just have OJ say the magic phrase and he walks

    “I see it that the law says self defense is permitted.”


    ” I see the situation in in currently and I make a quick decision based on how I think the law applies to my specific scenario.”


    “I don’t worry about the fact that I will not know how to answer in every other scenario. It really makes no difference.”


    BUT you skipped what happens next if the police, later and courts deem your action to not have been justified. The knife was plastic for example, or he didn’t even have a knife you just claimed that he did so you can stab him.
    Obviously you’d be in trouble.

    Just because (you claim) you were acting in self defense doesn’t mean you are guiltless no matter what happens

    “Same here.”


    “The law (according to my chosen constitutional scholar) allows overthrow of tyrannical government.”

    ok, lets go with this

    “I, decide that the government stealing the vote fits the bill. Bingo I can act on it.”

    BUT the police and courts will later determine if your act was jsutified, was the government really tyranical, are your claims true. Saying ” tyrannical government ” is not a magic phrase that lets you do what yu want, just like claiming “self defense” isn’t

    Do I know if a different situation that you are curious about, also fits the bill of this law?
    Dunno. Come over shabbos after the cholent. If I can keep my eyes open we can schmooze about it. Whats the difference??”

    Two differences
    1) curiosity, I find this discussion interesting
    2) In my opinion it weakens your view. There have been many, (ok several.) To the best of my knowledge, NOT ONE of them made this claim, seems a bit odd. No its not proof of anything, just strange

    I’d rather come for the cholent though

    in reply to: Lindsey Graham’s Stupid Argument #1949711


    ” Here to the law states that the citizenry has the right to overthrow a tyrannical government the application is the question”

    So Ive given it more thought, and there are two separate points, that I conflated into one, thank you for setting me straight

    1) There is no such law
    2) Even if there were The court applies the law.

    You list all sorts of variables for the knife case to try to obfuscate the issue (see not just me!). It really isnt complicated the law is (not a verbatim quote ) “No killing unless in self defense”
    Who gets to decide what is self defense ? the court. easy.

    You say the law allows for overthrow the government, if it is tyranical. Again who decides how tyrannical ? If they try to discourage mail in voting is that tyranical? IF they demand voter ID would that be tyrannical? “I said it certainly applies in a case where it is having its vote stolen” who decides if votes are stolen?” well I say: ” Trump stole votes in 2016! he is tyrannical!” Is that a magic phrase that lets me shoot him? NOTE: these aren’t questions for you. The court would decide. The court says “hey why’d you shoot the President,” I’d say, “well He came at me with a knife, my life was in danger” court says “how big etc…” And decides If my action was justified. OR I say “he stole the election,” court would ask for proof, I’d say “well it feels that way”, and court would decide if my action was justified

    So back to Jan 6 Even if there were a law that said you have ” right to overthrow a tyrannical government” Who would decide when the government is tyrannical?. Again easy – the court. not you, not me. The court.
    So the shirtless viking when he gets his day in court can argue I was fulfilling my second amendment right (The court of course would be confused by what he meant, and he will mention whatever scholarly explanation he digs up) but it is the court that interprets. IT isnt a magic get-out-of jail phrase that he can use.

    “Perhaps the reason you cannot come up with any cases where the courts allowed arms Uprising against the government is because until now we never had a tyrannical government in the United States of America”

    Fair enough, though hard to argue Locking up people based on their ethnicity wasn’t tyrannical. (Though court did allow it) You still could argue nobody tried using this secret magic interpretation of the 2nd amendment known only to some scholars, so it was never tested in court.

    (as an aside as you may know there have been armed uprisings against “Tyrannical governments” sadly the rebels in those cases didn’t go to court , wit hone exception The court ruled in Texas v White in 1869 that there was no “right to secede” Its strange that there would be a “right to overthrow” but not secede. but I grant it is possible. ITs stranger still that they made no mention of the 2nd amendment it their arguments but again I guess that only gives right to ovetrhtrow not secede)

    Hopefully one of the “insurgents” wil use the 2nd amendment in court, so we can get a ruling.

    Sadly I don t think their lawyers will think of it .
    Here’s’ hoping they read YWN coffee room!

    in reply to: Lindsey Graham’s Stupid Argument #1949645


    “Where they actually heard the case & they dismissed it – that is a judgement.”
    Fair enough .
    Excited for February 19th?

    “You asked 2 questions”

    no I didn’t.
    “And I answered them!”
    no you didn’t. you repeated what I said , which is fine , you don’t have to care what I said, and are of course free to repeat the “answers” I have already given

    in reply to: Lindsey Graham’s Stupid Argument #1949640


    “Your evading my point.”

    I’m not.
    I’m showing that your point can’t be true. Since practically it wouldn’t work.
    Laws are by definition practical. Having a law that if *** thinks the Government is tyranical he/she/they have the right to use force to overthrow it. With *** being an entitiy to be deteriiiiend later Is not a law any country would have .

    If you think it is fine.
    That is our disagreement .

    “I’m not the one who made the law. It’s on the books. ”

    You are and its not.
    There is no such law on the books. There have been over 200 years of Court cases. Can you provide ONE court opinion, even a rejected minority opinion that gives people that interprets the 2nd amendment as giving a right to overthrow the government think the government?

    In fact even the 1st amendment is somewhat limited when it comes to talk of overthrowing the government see the Smith act and US code 18 U.S. Code § 2385 – Advocating overthrow of Government” Now while SCOTUS in Yates Vs. US did interpret The SMith act more narrowly (that abstract talk of overthrow the Government was ok) They did not overturn the entire law as being against the 2nd amendment. In fact he second amendment isnt even mentioned in the decision decisions.

    “Is blm also correct?”
    you say “Cute what you did there” I’m not sure what you mean, that was my only question to you, from the get go. but I got my answer “If they are part of the terrible issue, then yes. ” thanks.

    “So what about a six inch steak knife? I don’t know. ”

    Here’s the thing, I DO know. The court decides. period. That is the answer to your question. ITs simple really. I’m not sure why you find mine more challenging

    “A-ha! Got you! If you can’t answer that, obviously your not clear on the issue!”
    nope you didn’t get me. and I can answer it . In fact the The answer to your question is crystal clear so much so, I’m surprised you even asked it . It has to be otherwise society couldn’t function. yo u cant have a system where each individual person decides what mode of attack deserves lethal force nor what constitutes a tyrannical government .

    in reply to: Lindsey Graham’s Stupid Argument #1949470


    “Tyranny is not anything you don’t like.”

    I’ll be as succinct as I can in case you decide to elaborate:

    WHO gets to decide?

    That is my question.

    in reply to: Lindsey Graham’s Stupid Argument #1949447


    “They didn’t rule at all – they avoided any political issues.”

    Lol!! in our other thread you said any pronouncement or dismissal from a court is a “ruling” or “judgment”
    (Note: your statement here is correct dismissal is NOT a ruling. BUT not all cases where dismissed. Some where ruled upon and even a dismissal, depends under what grounds may or may not weaken your case)

    ““Biden “stole” six states?… Why didn’t they steal the senate too?””

    sorry for the confusion I wasn’t actually asking these questions, they were rhetorical. I know what the answers are. I provided the answer you gave before you gave it.

    in reply to: Lindsey Graham’s Stupid Argument #1949276


    “Most haven’t thought about it, is my opinion.”

    Including yourself… as you said “I have no need to know the answer” The question is a direct outcome of the position you’ve taken

    which is of course fine.

    You made a point, one that I have heard before but never fully understood . I was hoping you’d elaborate on your point.
    You absolutely do not have to (obviously) .

    And I supplied a direct rational enjoinder. namely your contention
    that People have a right to rebel isn’t true, and never was. certainly reading into the 2nd amendment is a very new idea.

    Again, I do not expect to convince you. I did hope to understand you though.

    I gained a lot from our previous discussion
    If this wont be one of those times. Fine
    But don;t say I’m providing a distraction. You made a surprising contention, I’m trying to understand it. If you don’t know the answer, that is completely fine a simple “wow good question, I don’t know but I want to keep my opinion anyway” would suffice

    in reply to: Lindsey Graham’s Stupid Argument #1949191

    The fact that off the cuff I can’t give you clear guidelines to a specific scenario, doesn’t change anything.”

    Fair enough, sorry for putting you on the spot. 8ts an argument I’ve heard before which while fine in theory, falls apart quickly in practice. I was hoping you’d flesh it out a bit more.

    “Do you agree that that is the intent of the second amendment?”

    Without question no. For the first 2 centuries of existence it was understood as applying to states . The nra promoted this reinterpretation over the past decades,, and it was finally accepted by scotus in Heller .
    There was no armed uprising (whiskey rebellion, John brown , waco) in which anyone saud hey they have a right to rebel, the givt is tyrannical.
    Even the civil war, which WAS a state led rebellion this view was rejected by court

    “But throwing in a specific instance and me not knowing the answer doesn’t do anything.”

    It does, because it shows that your position is untenable. The idea that any individual person has constitutional right to rise up against the govt if he thinks they are tyrannical is a position that stretches the imagination to the point thst most would acknowledge it can’t be true.

    Sure some would say it is true and some will prefer not to think about it. But it is far from a standard view.

    I’m not trying to convince you of the wrongness of your view , that was not my intent in bringing up blm, or any extreme example
    I don’t think its possible to change your mind. I’m just trying to understand your view and was curious if you’d be consistent or not

    in reply to: Lindsey Graham’s Stupid Argument #1949100

    “Here goes. Don’t know why I’m doing it, it’s not healthy but I can’t resist”

    I have the same problem!

    “Remember that compound in Texas? Waco?”
    Yes I do, there have been plenty of armed uprisings in US history. I never heard anyone say that is their right. Interesting .

    Though, to clarify, although I would lose it doesn’t make me wrong (obviously).
    And not just Waco, I suppose all the violent BLM protesters are right too, they elive (rightly or wrongly) that the Govt is tyrannical (in their treatment on blacks) as such they have a RIGHT to rise up in armed , violent rebellion, even killing cops if necessary. Is this correct?

    “Cute that this word is misspelled. (just cute, we all make clumsy typos)”
    Lol! I thought the same when I read my post after posted.

    “I ask you, if it was possible to steal the election from trump, do you for a moment believe the left would not do it?”

    They would. Though that is the far less likely scenario.

    I ask you if Trump believed there was fraud wouldn’t he throw the might of the federal govt into proving it. what does he have to lose? There are plenty of lawyers who’d have taken his case if he had a real one.

    I think we are approaching conspiracy theory land, this is when every bit of information that doesnt fit the narrative is part of the plot.
    Trump appointed judges ruled against him? They are in on it!
    Biden “stole” six states? Yes not to make it obvious, couldn’t steal just enough so stole extra
    Why didn’t they steal the senate too? Would’ve been too risky Tafasta meruba
    Bill Barr? Rino!

    These arent lal points you’ve made, I’m combining other YWN posters plus real life people who yes “”always ”believe every thing he says”

    in reply to: Lindsey Graham’s Stupid Argument #1948798


    I don’t really understand the difference between someone calling themselves “klug” and calling yourself “reb” (and getting bent out of shape if others don’t do it) out of ” respect that I bestow to anyone of … knowledge.”

    in reply to: Lindsey Graham’s Stupid Argument #1948744


    How does this constitutional right to overthrow the Government work?

    I f I decide My taxes are too high and are tyrannical do I have a right to defend myself and property by shooting any IRS agents who try to take it?


    Also your post is peppered with a few inaccuracies

    ” THAT is what created the frustration and anger to boil over into this riot, not some single speech by trump.”

    No not a single speech. IT was months of saying the same, in fact he said it before the election took place, he said it before the 2016 election took place as well, sadly many of his supporters follow him no matter what. He said it so it must be true . so yes many of them believed there was fraud, but no not from a single speech.

    BTW THIS is what what Trump did was so terrible. Yes, many of them think they were doing the right thing, the President said there was fraud, as many of them claimed. Your argument works to defend them, not Trump. Trump knows there was no significant fraud (He would have hired real lawyers and presented his evidence if it were real .)

    I think I may agree with you on the rioters. What do we want for them, they are not very inteeligent or sophisticated, if they are told there was fraud they believe it. The guy who told these bozos over and over that there country is being stolen, and they have to fight ot keep it should be held accountable, not them.

    “, because statistical based on all signs before the election it was going to be a trump landslide.”
    Not sure what you mean, Most polls showed biden winning. The pundits who had accurately predicted past elections (including 2016) predicted biden winning . what signs are you referring to?

    And please please please don;t use any signs ignoring Covid “oh before covid Economy was great …..” Sadly Covid happened, and can’t just be disregarded (if only!)

    in reply to: democrats stupid argument #1948467


    “I can’t belive nobody realised it was a typo.”

    don;t worry I got that it was a typo

    I had trouble believing that any person would accept Student B’s defense of having instigated a group of students to want to hang the teacher, by accepting ” but student A….”

    in reply to: democrats stupid argument #1948460

    “The fact that you think I’m mourning trump’s loss is about as much proof is needed that you haven’t a clue where I stand.”

    If I got the cause wrong, I’m sorry (though I Wasn’t referring to his loss, I was referring to his subsequent descent into madness) I guess I was looking for a kaf zechus to explain your break with reality over the past months
    Perhaps it was wishful thinking, as now that Trump is gone, you’d improve and be in a better place

    If it is something else in your life. I hope you get help with that and work it out.

    It gets better

    in reply to: democrats stupid argument #1948446


    That has nothing to do with your slipping grip on reality. My hamster admittedly bizarre wheel spinning doesn’t make it less true

    I was hoping you’d come back a bit after Trump left.

    Look at your most recent comment, it is so out of character for you, it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Just insulting for the sake of insulting .(frankly its something I’d say)
    Come back forget your boy Trump he let you down on his way out I get that this is distressing move past it. You’ll find someone better in 2024. Nikki Haley ? (She finally sees the error of following Trump)

    in reply to: democrats stupid argument #1948442

    “based on the assumption that student a,(democrats) is completely innocent”


    Student a is terrible
    but :
    1. He isn’t the one on trial
    2. He didn’t lead to an insurrection against the teacher (intended or not)
    3. He isn’t the class President

    in reply to: democrats stupid argument #1948419

    “I’m continually baffled by how someone actively involved on healthcare can be so out of touch with reality.”

    don’t be so baffled, you lost your grip on reality sometime mid Trump’s presidency based on most of your comments over the past year or so , your ability to separate fact from fiction, and fact from opinion has been seriously impaired

    in reply to: democrats stupid argument #1948387


    Thanks for fixing my mashal!
    Yours is much better

    Would nayone in their right mind dram Student B should ever be in charge ? Obviosuly not, he led to his followers trying to hang the teacher for crying out loud. Sure Student a isnt great but what does that have to do with the attempt on tteacher’s life.

    Excellent Mashal!
    Though I thought you liked Trump kudos for having written such a stinging rebuke

    in reply to: democrats stupid argument #1948297

    ” Now imagine Student A talks all day, every day, loudly, and teacher does nothing. Student B whispers just once, and is thrown out. Student B complains about student A…THAT, is NOT “whataboutism”. That is a blatant duel standard. ”

    This mashal has no connection to reality.

    A better example would be ”
    Now imagine Student A talks all day, every day, loudly, and teacher does nothing. Student B tells his classmates day in and day out for months that teacher isnt legitimate and unless they “fight” they will never get the class back. A group of Student B supporters then Go roaming the School looking for Teacher to hang him while smashing windows. Teacher says “Student B, you have got to go” Student B says “Yeah but Student A talks all day and that was ok why the double standard”

    in reply to: Cuomo covered up nursing home deaths #1947732

    “We had the javits center, the comfort, and even Shor Yoshuv”

    None of these were available on March 25 when Cuomo announced the poilcy

    in reply to: Cuomo covered up nursing home deaths #1947603

    Completly inexcusable
    Although at the time it seemed like a reasonable approach
    hospitals had a bed shortage , instead of “storing” stable Covid + nursing home residents in hospitals, and having nurses change PPE between tending to them and Covid neg patients

    why not send them back to their homes and have nurses change PPE between tending to them and Covid neg residents.

    for whatever reason, it didn’t work .

    so own up to it , hiding and coverups are completely inexcusable

    in reply to: Election Fraud Allegations: Facts Only Wiki #1946794


    “And again – how do you know that”

    I’m smart? From reading, following the law? also see below
    You dont always need a navi to predict the future. If you drop a glass it will break.

    “Don’t tell me that you don’t know the difference between mistaken and lying.”
    I do, as I told you, I do not think you were lying.

    “IDK of any Court Case with Powell.”
    Its been all over the news. You should follow the news more if you want to be more informed. This you you wont be mistaken as often, and wont call other people names, while you are the one who is mistaken.

    “Tell me whether it’s Federal or State”

    ” and where was this case filed.”
    US district court for DC

    “Also the Docket number.”
    Case 1:21-cv-00040
    Also the Docket number.

    in reply to: Election Fraud Allegations: Facts Only Wiki #1946703

    Healt h dearest

    “Don’t put words in my mouth!”

    I am not,
    Help me understand

    You claimed her case would be heard by the Supreme court, and that “she will” (note: not that she did already) release her evidence then.
    you said this Dec 20 AFTER her briefs were in. She has provided NO new information since then.

    I replied (correctly) that her case won’t be heard.
    what did You think I meant

    “At that time I didn’t read her file – so I didn’t know that her motion contained her evidence.”

    Lol. so when you said “she will provide evidence” You were lying correct? ( To be c lear: you are big on calling people liars, I dont think you were lying (then) . I think you were simply mistaken, and perhaps hopeful that somehow things would go your way. but inexplicably view it ias a weakness to admit it now, and instead come up with increasingly bizarre explanations and redefinition.

    “Btw, the case is Still pending,”

    Yes, as I told you confrence is scheduled fro 2/19 (note: nOT a court case)

    ” but you know that the SCOTUS will give a Judgement of “Moot”.”
    no not a judgment of moot, but they will dismiss it without judgment (probably for being moot)

    How do you know that?”

    What can I say, these are things we learn in kindergarten

    “If you had a drop of honesty – you’d ask her.”
    I dont have any questions for her. I do have a question for you though : When (if?) Powell settles or loses her court case against Dominion, and either agrees that she lied, or it is ruled that she lied.
    Will you then agree that she lied

    in reply to: Lindsey Graham’s Stupid Argument #1946622

    The part I don’t get Is he wasn’t impeached before leaving office . He was impeached (for the 2nd time) on Jan 13, he left office on Jan 20 (at noon) , he was impeached before leaving office, period.

    (Though I do think the impeachment is silly, a better idea would have been censure they probably wouldve had a few decent Republicans (yes there are some) joining )

    in reply to: Election Fraud Allegations: Facts Only Wiki #1946413


    ” that your interpretation ”

    Interpretation of what?

    “Moot is a judgment”
    not in the sense that we have been discussing for months. And it certainly isnt a “court case” being heard. It is literally the opposite .
    And you really thought all this time I was saying the court was just going to ignore the case , without formally dismissing it?
    cmon, even for you that is a stretch ,
    (Furthermore Your claim, of what you meant isn’t plausible since AFTER her briefs were submitted, you still insisted she would reveal more evidence in court when her “case is heard” (an event I told you wouldn’t happen) Even if the conference counts as a court case, no new information will be provided by her, so your claim is still wrong)

    but, Ok
    So lets pretend a case being dismissed as moot, is the same as a case that is heard. (though even typing those words out as a hypothetical is bizarre)

    Fine moving on, back to the subject at hand

    When (if?) Powell settles or loses her court case against Dominion, and either agrees that she lied, or it is ruled that she lied.
    Will you then agree that she lied

    in reply to: Election Fraud Allegations: Facts Only Wiki #1946377


    “This is called having a Court Case.”

    It what language?
    definitely not English nor Yiddish , French or Hebrew, In none of those languages is ruling a case as moot called “having a court case”

    I don’t know what the rest of your post about “PC law” has to do with anything

    And again, although you are redefining words to try to fit your wrong point. It STILL doesn’t help you. You said she would be hard in court. Surely you must grant she won’t b invited to said conference. So even if we suspend English, and redefine “having a court case” to include “dismissing a case for being moot”
    I STILL didn’t lie when I told you (over and over) that her case wouldn’t be heard

    so back to the topic at hand

    When (if?) Powell settles or loses her court case against Dominion, and either agrees that she lied, or it is ruled that she lied.
    Will you then agree that she lied

    in reply to: Election Fraud Allegations: Facts Only Wiki #1946343


    Lets keep it simple
    On 12/20 you said ““Then that will be the first time in history – that SCOTUS accepted a petition, but didn’t have a Court case afterwards””

    today are you saying:
    1) that there was/ will be a court case (on the topic in question)
    2) there wasn’t/wont be and this is a historic development – “first time in history”
    3) Your assertion on 12/20 was mistaken

    I cant think of another option

    in reply to: Election Fraud Allegations: Facts Only Wiki #1946313


    “Who do you think dismisses cases – you or the Court?!?”

    The court does. The court doesn’t rule on theoretical cases neither on issues that have not materialized (ripeness) nor on things that already happened, and cant be undone (mootness) in Both of these situations, the court does not issue a judgment. Instead the case is dismissed

    ““provided it does not fall within one of the recognized exceptions””

    Lol! I told you (months ago) that it did. you called me a liar. You only YESTERDAY said that. Way back on 12/20 you said ““Then that will be the first time in history – that SCOTUS accepted a petition, but didn’t have a Court case afterwards””
    I told you then (and many times since) there would be no court case, you called me a liar.
    You did not mention any exception until yesterday.

    Of course time proved me correct. Do you have the resolve to say “Wow Ubiq you were right when you said the curt wouldn’t issue a ruling, I’m sorry I called you a liar” ?
    Lol! of course not. Instead you redefine basic words

    “I think I explained it so well, even a First Grader can understand my posts!!!”

    You do! I understood every word of all that you’ve posted. Do not worry

    Repeating my new questions
    When (if?) Powell settles or loses her court case against Dominion, and either agrees that she lied, or it is ruled that she lied.
    Will you then agree that she lied

    in reply to: Election Fraud Allegations: Facts Only Wiki #1946185


    you wish

    in reply to: Election Fraud Allegations: Facts Only Wiki #1946057


    new question

    When (if?) Powell settles or loses her court case against Dominion, and either agrees that she lied, or it is ruled that she lied.
    Will you then agree that she lied

    in reply to: Election Fraud Allegations: Facts Only Wiki #1946055

    “Do you have a problem understanding simple posts?!?”


    “She put all her proofs in her Files/Motion.”

    You changed to this position later, at first you insisted (over and over) that she would have a hearing. and that if her case was dismissed it would be the first time in history remeber when yo said this “Then that will be the first time in history – that SCOTUS accepted a petition, but didn’t have a Court case afterwards!”

    It is quite a redefinition of ” a court case” to include a case being thrown out as moot, as coun

    “So either you are too Lazy to read the File”
    read it already

    “Is it because that you have a Lot of Gaiva?!?”

    No. It is becasue I find our discussions fascinating.

    “I tried to explain this before to you – if the SCOTUS decides that a case is Moot – that is a judgment.”

    Yes, I got your new definition of judgment. And I suppose it is also “hav[ing] a court case” correct?

    I’m not sure why you are copying wikipedia. I know what a moot case is, As I told you months (literallly) ado that the case wouldn’t be heard since would be moot.

    There was no judgment and will be none.
    As You correctly quote from Wikipedia …a moot case must be dismissed,…” there is no decision, there is no judgment it is “dismissed”

    See later on in Wikipedia whci h YOU quoted) where they compared t to “ripeness” where it is even more explicit “..that holds that judges SHOULD NOT RULE on cases based entirely on anticipated disputes…”

    The question posed was whether enough evidence to support claims of violations of elections (among other things)
    What did the court decide?
    What will they decide?

    They of course won’t (as I’ve ben saying for months)

    They aren’t “deciding” it is moot. That wasn’t (and isn’t) the question
    The case will be dismissed (because it is now moot)

    in reply to: Election Fraud Allegations: Facts Only Wiki #1945781


    Putting aside the fact that you are flat out wrong. As there is no defitnion of a case being heard that includes a case being thrown out as moot (can you please provide a source for this new definition)

    That was not what we were disagreeing about.

    I’ll remind you:

    This conversation began with your post 1928872 on 12/15 when you said that Sydney Powell Would prove fraud. I said not to take anything she says seriously since she is a proven liar.

    The lie I identified was that she claimed she would release evidence “soon” and “soon” had already past.

    You redefined “soon” to include at a supreme court case (whenever that may be) putting aside the fact tht NO defintion of soon” includes “at her supreme court case” (this is a recurring theme of yours redefining words instead of just admitting your error, its fascinating really)

    To which I replied, her court case would never be heard

    To which you replied (as late as Jan 7 !!!) that she was still “… going to SCOTUS and I even posted the 2 case numbers here, because you were too Lazy to look for them yourself!” (note NOT that she went already and submitted her briefs, but that there would still be a hearign in the old, ordinary defintion of the word)

    To which I replied, that no her case would never be heard

    To which You called me a liar.
    And as late as Jan 18 still thought Trump had a chance.

    I have to say, I thought when her case is finanly thrown out You’d have to admit that I wasn’t lying when I said her case wouldn’t be heard. Never in a million years did I dream you would go so far as to redefine “case being heard” (See I’m not so smart I can be wrong sometimes)
    Though I’m not sure If I should be impressed or disappointed with your dishonesty

    in reply to: Election Fraud Allegations: Facts Only Wiki #1945605


    “Btw, this is called a judgment.
    You sure don’t know legal terms!”


    for months the right has been saying that dismissing a case on procedural grounds doesnt count as a judgment . but fine its a juddgement.

    However that was not our disagreement. I told you over and ovver that her case would not get heard, and that she would not be releasing any evidence she claimed she had , making her a liar.

    You called me a liar for saying that.

    I stand by that claim, her case will not get heard. She lied to you

    “I just posted that I was just quoting from the Evangel Xitians.
    They believe that Trump will still be president for 4 more years.
    They think Biden will be removed.”

    yes, and like almost everything you post, that is nonsense.

    “I personally don’t have an opinion either way,”

    Lol Sure you do. And you express your wrong opinion quite strongly, with lots of name calling.

    “But if they end up being right, are you going to Sue Some DemonCrats for Traumatizing Your Hopes?!?”

    what hopes? I’m not traumatized. I dont still harbor any irrational beleiefs that Trump will still win . you have us mixed up again

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 4,543 total)