info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Why is House Jan 06 committee still baiting hooks and tossing fishing nets?
1 view
Skip to first unread message
g...@fox.net
Jan 9, 2022, 4:26:12 PM1/9/22
to
On 09 Jan 2022, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com> posted some
news:CmHCJ.275146$aF1.1...@fx98.iad:
> On 1/9/2022 11:38 AM, MattB wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 09:37:34 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/9/2022 9:29 AM, MattB wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 22:42:50 -0700, Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/7/2022 4:45 PM, MattB wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 22:52:16 -0700, Gronk
>>>>>> <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> MattB wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 31 Dec 2021 11:26:51 -0700, Fred Oinka
>>>>>>>> <Fred...@invalid.com>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 31 Dec 2021 10:19:33 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>> <j...@phendrie.con>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The answer is perfectly parallel to the answer Willie Sutton
>>>>>>>>>> gave
>>>>> when he was
>>>>>>>>>> asked why he robbed banks: "Because that's where the money
>>>>>>>>>> is."
>>>>> The House Jan
>>>>>>>>>> 06 committee is investigating so many Republiscums/QAnon
>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>> that's where
>>>>>>>>>> the perpetrators of the insurrection/coup are.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The alleged answer by Sutton has been turned into what's
>>>>>>>>>> called
>>>>> Sutton's Law in
>>>>>>>>>> medical diagnosis:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sutton's law states that when diagnosing, one should
>>>>>>>>>> first
>>>>> consider the
>>>>>>>>>> obvious. It suggests that one should first conduct
>>>>>>>>>> those tests
>>>>> which could
>>>>>>>>>> confirm (or rule out) the most likely diagnosis. It is
>>>>>>>>>> taught
>>>>> in medical
>>>>>>>>>> schools to suggest to medical students that they might
>>>>>>>>>> best
>>>>> order tests in
>>>>>>>>>> that sequence which is most likely to result in a
>>>>>>>>>> quick
>>>>> diagnosis, hence
>>>>>>>>>> treatment, while minimizing unnecessary costs. It is
>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>> applied in
>>>>>>>>>> pharmacology, when choosing a drug to treat a specific
>>>>>>>>>> disease
>>>>> you want the
>>>>>>>>>> drug to reach the disease. It is applicable to any
>>>>>>>>>> process of
>>>>> diagnosis, e.g.
>>>>>>>>>> debugging computer programs. Computer-aided diagnosis
>>>>>>>>>> provides
>>>>> a statistical
>>>>>>>>>> and quantitative approach.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A more thorough analysis will consider the false
>>>>>>>>>> positive rate
>>>>> of the test
>>>>>>>>>> and the possibility that a less likely diagnosis might
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>> more serious
>>>>>>>>>> consequences. A competing principle is the idea of
>>>>>>>>>> performing
>>>>> simple tests
>>>>>>>>>> before more complex and expensive tests, moving from
>>>>>>>>>> bedside
>>>>> tests to blood
>>>>>>>>>> results and simple imaging such as ultrasound and then
>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>> complex such as
>>>>>>>>>> MRI then specialty imaging. The law can also be
>>>>>>>>>> applied in
>>>>> prioritizing tests
>>>>>>>>>> when resources are limited, so a test for a treatable
>>>>> condition should be
>>>>>>>>>> performed before an equally probable but less
>>>>>>>>>> treatable condition.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The law is named after the bank robber Willie Sutton,
>>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>> reputedly replied
>>>>>>>>>> to a reporter's inquiry as to why he robbed banks by
>>>>>>>>>> saying
>>>>> "because that's
>>>>>>>>>> where the money is." In Sutton's 1976 book Where the
>>>>>>>>>> Money
>>>>> Was, Sutton denies
>>>>>>>>>> having said this, but added that "If anybody had asked
>>>>>>>>>> me, I'd
>>>>> have probably
>>>>>>>>>> said it. That's what almost anybody would say ... it
>>>>>>>>>> couldn't
>>>>> be more
>>>>>>>>>> obvious."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A similar idea is contained in the physician's adage,
>>>>>>>>>> "When
>>>>> you hear
>>>>>>>>>> hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutton%27s_law
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When you see an insurrection, think Republiscums/QAnon, not
>>>>> "antifa." It
>>>>>>>>>> couldn't be more obvious.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A waste of tax payers money. Just like the impeachments.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What they need to investigate is why security was so lame
>>>>>>>> that day.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's a clue:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No[,] I need more than a new article as the Washington Post
>>>>>> is not
>>>>>> credible.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/04/how-trumps-polit
>>>>> icized-pentagon-bungled-response-capitol-invasion/
>>>>>
>>>>> When the attack on the Capitol began, Walker continued, he
>>>>> received a frantic call
>>>>> for assistance at 1:49 p.m. from the then-head of the Capitol
>>>>> Police and immediately
>>>>> relayed the request to the Pentagon. But it was not until 5:08
>>>>> p.m. — three hours
>>>>> and 19 minutes later — that Walker finally received permission
>>>>> to deploy his troops.
>>>>> That was long after the Capitol had been overrun.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/12/14/what-did-national-gu
>>>>> ard-do-jan-6-probe-hones-guard-response.html
>>>>>
>>>>> In March testimony to the Senate, Walker said it took more than
>>>>> three hours for him to get approval to deploy to the Capitol after
>>>>> Capitol Police requested help. He testified that Pentagon
>>>>> officials' concerns about "optics," as well as "unusual"
>>>>> restrictions placed on him Jan. 5 that prevented deploying a quick
>>>>> reaction force without higher approval, delayed the response.
>>>>>
>>>>> A Pentagon inspector general report released last month found that
>>>>> Defense Department officials "did not delay or obstruct the DoD's
>>>>> response" to the attack. It also said Walker was given approval to
>>>>> deploy earlier than he testified he was and that then-Army
>>>>> Secretary Ryan McCarthy had to call Walker a second time a
>>>>> half-hour after the initial approval to reissue the deployment
>>>>> order.
>>>>>
>>>>> But Walker and other former Guard officials have taken issue with
>>>>> the inspector general report.
>>>>>
>>>>> Walker, who is now the House sergeant-at-arms, has called on the
>>>>> inspector general to retract the report, telling The Washington
>>>>> Post last month he never received the 4:35 p.m. call in which the
>>>>> IG said McCarthy gave his first approval to deploy.
>>>>>
>>>>> In a 36-page memo to the Jan. 6 Select Committee obtained and
>>>>> published last week by Politico, Col. Earl Matthews, who was
>>>>> Walker's top lawyer at the National Guard at the time of the
>>>>> attack, said the IG report is "replete with factual inaccuracies,
>>>>> discrepancies and faulty analysis" and "relies on demonstrably
>>>>> false testimony or statements."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why didn't Walker go ASAP?
>>>
>>> Not allowed.
>>
>> Then why should be thoroughly investigated?
>
> That's not a proper question. You're illiterate and stupid.
You're full of shit, Rudy.
The committee has nothing and you have even less.
Liz Cheney is dumber than you are.
If that's possible.
news:CmHCJ.275146$aF1.1...@fx98.iad:
> On 1/9/2022 11:38 AM, MattB wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 09:37:34 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/9/2022 9:29 AM, MattB wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 22:42:50 -0700, Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/7/2022 4:45 PM, MattB wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 22:52:16 -0700, Gronk
>>>>>> <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> MattB wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 31 Dec 2021 11:26:51 -0700, Fred Oinka
>>>>>>>> <Fred...@invalid.com>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 31 Dec 2021 10:19:33 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>> <j...@phendrie.con>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The answer is perfectly parallel to the answer Willie Sutton
>>>>>>>>>> gave
>>>>> when he was
>>>>>>>>>> asked why he robbed banks: "Because that's where the money
>>>>>>>>>> is."
>>>>> The House Jan
>>>>>>>>>> 06 committee is investigating so many Republiscums/QAnon
>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>> that's where
>>>>>>>>>> the perpetrators of the insurrection/coup are.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The alleged answer by Sutton has been turned into what's
>>>>>>>>>> called
>>>>> Sutton's Law in
>>>>>>>>>> medical diagnosis:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sutton's law states that when diagnosing, one should
>>>>>>>>>> first
>>>>> consider the
>>>>>>>>>> obvious. It suggests that one should first conduct
>>>>>>>>>> those tests
>>>>> which could
>>>>>>>>>> confirm (or rule out) the most likely diagnosis. It is
>>>>>>>>>> taught
>>>>> in medical
>>>>>>>>>> schools to suggest to medical students that they might
>>>>>>>>>> best
>>>>> order tests in
>>>>>>>>>> that sequence which is most likely to result in a
>>>>>>>>>> quick
>>>>> diagnosis, hence
>>>>>>>>>> treatment, while minimizing unnecessary costs. It is
>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>> applied in
>>>>>>>>>> pharmacology, when choosing a drug to treat a specific
>>>>>>>>>> disease
>>>>> you want the
>>>>>>>>>> drug to reach the disease. It is applicable to any
>>>>>>>>>> process of
>>>>> diagnosis, e.g.
>>>>>>>>>> debugging computer programs. Computer-aided diagnosis
>>>>>>>>>> provides
>>>>> a statistical
>>>>>>>>>> and quantitative approach.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A more thorough analysis will consider the false
>>>>>>>>>> positive rate
>>>>> of the test
>>>>>>>>>> and the possibility that a less likely diagnosis might
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>> more serious
>>>>>>>>>> consequences. A competing principle is the idea of
>>>>>>>>>> performing
>>>>> simple tests
>>>>>>>>>> before more complex and expensive tests, moving from
>>>>>>>>>> bedside
>>>>> tests to blood
>>>>>>>>>> results and simple imaging such as ultrasound and then
>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>> complex such as
>>>>>>>>>> MRI then specialty imaging. The law can also be
>>>>>>>>>> applied in
>>>>> prioritizing tests
>>>>>>>>>> when resources are limited, so a test for a treatable
>>>>> condition should be
>>>>>>>>>> performed before an equally probable but less
>>>>>>>>>> treatable condition.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The law is named after the bank robber Willie Sutton,
>>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>> reputedly replied
>>>>>>>>>> to a reporter's inquiry as to why he robbed banks by
>>>>>>>>>> saying
>>>>> "because that's
>>>>>>>>>> where the money is." In Sutton's 1976 book Where the
>>>>>>>>>> Money
>>>>> Was, Sutton denies
>>>>>>>>>> having said this, but added that "If anybody had asked
>>>>>>>>>> me, I'd
>>>>> have probably
>>>>>>>>>> said it. That's what almost anybody would say ... it
>>>>>>>>>> couldn't
>>>>> be more
>>>>>>>>>> obvious."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A similar idea is contained in the physician's adage,
>>>>>>>>>> "When
>>>>> you hear
>>>>>>>>>> hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutton%27s_law
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When you see an insurrection, think Republiscums/QAnon, not
>>>>> "antifa." It
>>>>>>>>>> couldn't be more obvious.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A waste of tax payers money. Just like the impeachments.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What they need to investigate is why security was so lame
>>>>>>>> that day.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's a clue:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No[,] I need more than a new article as the Washington Post
>>>>>> is not
>>>>>> credible.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/04/how-trumps-polit
>>>>> icized-pentagon-bungled-response-capitol-invasion/
>>>>>
>>>>> When the attack on the Capitol began, Walker continued, he
>>>>> received a frantic call
>>>>> for assistance at 1:49 p.m. from the then-head of the Capitol
>>>>> Police and immediately
>>>>> relayed the request to the Pentagon. But it was not until 5:08
>>>>> p.m. — three hours
>>>>> and 19 minutes later — that Walker finally received permission
>>>>> to deploy his troops.
>>>>> That was long after the Capitol had been overrun.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/12/14/what-did-national-gu
>>>>> ard-do-jan-6-probe-hones-guard-response.html
>>>>>
>>>>> In March testimony to the Senate, Walker said it took more than
>>>>> three hours for him to get approval to deploy to the Capitol after
>>>>> Capitol Police requested help. He testified that Pentagon
>>>>> officials' concerns about "optics," as well as "unusual"
>>>>> restrictions placed on him Jan. 5 that prevented deploying a quick
>>>>> reaction force without higher approval, delayed the response.
>>>>>
>>>>> A Pentagon inspector general report released last month found that
>>>>> Defense Department officials "did not delay or obstruct the DoD's
>>>>> response" to the attack. It also said Walker was given approval to
>>>>> deploy earlier than he testified he was and that then-Army
>>>>> Secretary Ryan McCarthy had to call Walker a second time a
>>>>> half-hour after the initial approval to reissue the deployment
>>>>> order.
>>>>>
>>>>> But Walker and other former Guard officials have taken issue with
>>>>> the inspector general report.
>>>>>
>>>>> Walker, who is now the House sergeant-at-arms, has called on the
>>>>> inspector general to retract the report, telling The Washington
>>>>> Post last month he never received the 4:35 p.m. call in which the
>>>>> IG said McCarthy gave his first approval to deploy.
>>>>>
>>>>> In a 36-page memo to the Jan. 6 Select Committee obtained and
>>>>> published last week by Politico, Col. Earl Matthews, who was
>>>>> Walker's top lawyer at the National Guard at the time of the
>>>>> attack, said the IG report is "replete with factual inaccuracies,
>>>>> discrepancies and faulty analysis" and "relies on demonstrably
>>>>> false testimony or statements."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why didn't Walker go ASAP?
>>>
>>> Not allowed.
>>
>> Then why should be thoroughly investigated?
>
> That's not a proper question. You're illiterate and stupid.
You're full of shit, Rudy.
The committee has nothing and you have even less.
Liz Cheney is dumber than you are.
If that's possible.
g...@fox.net
Jan 9, 2022, 4:31:58 PM1/9/22
to
On 09 Jan 2022, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com> posted some
news:dpHCJ.275147$aF1.1...@fx98.iad:
> On 1/9/2022 11:44 AM, MattB wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 09:42:26 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/9/2022 9:35 AM, MattB wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 21:32:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>> <notg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/8/2022 8:53 PM, MattB wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 19:01:07 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>> <notg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/8/2022 6:23 PM, MattB wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 18:38:27 -0700, Fred OInka
>>>>>>>> <Fred...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 17:15:25 -0800, MattB
>>>>>>>>> <trdel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 16:14:18 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>>> <notg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/8/2022 2:49 PM, MattB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 13:47:17 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>>>>> <notg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/8/2022 1:25 PM, MattB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 10:23:23 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <notg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/7/2022 10:02 PM, MattB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Washington Post is *highly* credible, little
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matteeeB.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, little matteeeB, it really is. You can't identify a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single news story they've ever written that was not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> factual. I'm not talking about bullshit like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the stuff written by Janet Cooke, or the NYT's Jayson
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blair. Those weren't news reporters, they were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columnists. When their fraud was detected — a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fabricated story by Cooke, egregious plagiarism by Blair
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> — they were fired.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm talking about news stories like this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "U.S. plans to discuss missile deployments with Russia
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as part of effort to defuse Ukraine crisis"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/us-russi
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a-talks-ukraine/2022/01/07/2fb5874e-6ff6-11ec-974b-d1c6de
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8b26b0_story.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Read that story, and then tell us what is inaccurate in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. The answer is, "nothing" — the story is 100%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accurate, as are all their news stories.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The stories about the security failures leading up to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump's insurrection last year are also 100% accurate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That WaPo story, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another one, *fully* explain why the response was so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wretchedly bad. Read them:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/202
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1/warnings-jan-6-insurrection/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/04/how-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trumps-politicized-pentagon-bungled-response-capitol-in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vasion/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All these do is prove my point. They need to look into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why security was so lax, [sic] was it Trump or members
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Congress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a Hartung comma. It's wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It was absolutely not Congress, and you know it. It was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security agencies for which Trump was ultimately
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsible, specifically the FBI and Homeland
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Security. Field agents were detecting the signs of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insurrection for months, and couldn't get their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superiors in DC to act on them. If you were to read the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first of those two excellent WaPo stories, you'd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand it, but being a willfully blind and dishonest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Republiscum/QAnon ideologue, you won't do it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Forget "Congress," forget "Pelosi." The Capitol police
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not have intelligence gathering capability or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsibility, and the leaders of Congress do not have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any day-to-day management responsibility of either the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sergeants-at-arms or of the chief of the Capitol police.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Being a lying, gutless little Republiscum/QAnon fuck,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're bound and determined to make this "But what about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pelosi?", and of course you fail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you should have no problem with an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There already is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/january-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6-committee-examines-internal-fbidhs-documents-seeking-answ
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ers-rcna11076
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you weren't such a stupid right-wingnut blowjob who
>>>>>>>>>>>>> only reads lie sites, you would know this already. But
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you *are* a stupid right-wingnut blowjob who only
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reads lie sites, so there's no way you would know it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I said an independent investigation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, you liar, above you said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "What they [house committee] need to investigate is
>>>>>>>>>>> why security was so lame
>>>>>>>>>>> that day."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You can't believe a committee formed by the House would
>>>>>>>>>>> that day."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> non-partisan and independent?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and also:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> They [house committee] need to look into why security
>>>>>>>>>>> was so lax
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A non-partisan committee.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The thread is about the house committee, and when you write
>>>>>>>>>>> "they," that's necessarily who you mean. "They" are.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The reason there is no "independent" commission, little
>>>>>>>>>>> matteeeB, is because your side — the Republiscums/QAnon,
>>>>>>>>>>> Kevin McCarthy and Moscow Mitch McConnell, wouldn't allow
>>>>>>>>>>> it. They knew where the evidence would lead.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> OK, "My side"? I believe those that attacked police
>>>>>>>>>> officers or
>>>>>>>>>> destroyed property should be prosecuted, and I believe any
>>>>>>>>>> BLM or Antifa that have done so should be treated in the
>>>>>>>>>> exact same way or with equal justice.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As well as the looters and rioters across the country.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yet again, the far left
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are far-right. You prove it in every post.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, do you agree everyone who attacks the police should get equal
>>>>>> treatment?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not the issue. That was a lame attempt.
>>>>>
>>>>> We're talking *only* about the insurrectionists. Stay on topic.
>>>>
>>>> There was no insurrection.
>>>
>>> There was an insurrection.
>>
>> Those fools could not have overthrown the government.
>
> That's right,
they didn't try to do so.
First rule of successful insurrections, "ARRIVE HEAVILY ARMED."
According to the feds, the only "arms" the rioters had were, "stun guns,
pepper spray, baseball bats and flagpoles wielded as clubs."
g...@fox.net
Jan 9, 2022, 4:34:01 PM1/9/22
to
On 09 Jan 2022, Fred OInka <Fred...@invalid.com> posted some
news:0nhmtgp914mvtq4o5...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 09 Jan 2022 11:32:28 -0800, MattB <trdel...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>You did, and I answered it. You wanted to know why there isn't an
>>>independent commission investigating Trump's insurrection and I told
>>>you: it's because the Republiscums/QAnon wouldn't allow it.
>>
>> That's not what I asked, are you lacking in reading comprehension
>>skills?
>>
>> I want to know why security was so lax.
>
> Rudy never gives a direct answer. He is always wrong.
You're letting him walk all over you and kick your ass.
news:0nhmtgp914mvtq4o5...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 09 Jan 2022 11:32:28 -0800, MattB <trdel...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>You did, and I answered it. You wanted to know why there isn't an
>>>independent commission investigating Trump's insurrection and I told
>>>you: it's because the Republiscums/QAnon wouldn't allow it.
>>
>> That's not what I asked, are you lacking in reading comprehension
>>skills?
>>
>> I want to know why security was so lax.
>
> Rudy never gives a direct answer. He is always wrong.
You're letting him walk all over you and kick your ass.
0 new messages