info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Why is House Jan 06 committee investigating so many Republiscums/QAnon?
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Rudy Canoza
Dec 31, 2021, 1:31:38 PM12/31/21
to
On 12/31/2021 10:26 AM, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker
lied:
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2021 10:19:33 -0800, Rudy Canoza <j...@phendrie.con>
> wrote:
>
>> 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 [sic] money.
Tax *payers'* money, you illiterate cocksucker.
It isn't a waste, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker. It
is going to produce evidence that Trump organized, financed and directed the
insurrection/coup attempt, and other Trump criminality. We all know it is,
Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker. That's why Trump is so
desperately and frantically trying to hide the evidence.
lied:
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2021 10:19:33 -0800, Rudy Canoza <j...@phendrie.con>
> wrote:
>
>> 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 [sic] money.
Tax *payers'* money, you illiterate cocksucker.
It isn't a waste, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker. It
is going to produce evidence that Trump organized, financed and directed the
insurrection/coup attempt, and other Trump criminality. We all know it is,
Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker. That's why Trump is so
desperately and frantically trying to hide the evidence.
MattB
Dec 31, 2021, 5:54:10 PM12/31/21
to
On Fri, 31 Dec 2021 11:26:51 -0700, Fred Oinka <Fred...@invalid.com>
wrote:
>A waste of tax payers money. Just like the impeachments.
What they need to investigate is why security was so lame that day.
wrote:
What they need to investigate is why security was so lame that day.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 1, 2022, 12:12:39 PM1/1/22
to
is Trump, for organizing the insurrection.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 1, 2022, 12:14:53 PM1/1/22
to
On 12/31/2021 3:10 PM, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker lied:
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2021 14:54:08 -0800, MattB <trdel...@gmail.com>
> They were told to stand down. There is also videos of the guards
> pulling the barriers aside and letting them in.
No, there isn't, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker.
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2021 14:54:08 -0800, MattB <trdel...@gmail.com>
> pulling the barriers aside and letting them in.
No, there isn't, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker.
MattB
Jan 1, 2022, 12:54:45 PM1/1/22
to
On Fri, 31 Dec 2021 16:10:44 -0700, Fred Oinka <Fred...@invalid.com>
wrote:
wrote:
>They were told to stand down. There is also videos of the guards
>pulling the barriers aside and letting them in.
Yes, but who did the ordering.
>pulling the barriers aside and letting them in.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 1, 2022, 1:42:03 PM1/1/22
to
On 1/1/2022 9:54 AM, MattB wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2021 16:10:44 -0700, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker lied:
>>> On Fri, 31 Dec 2021 11:26:51 -0700, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker lied:
The period is wrong. You posed a question, so you should have ended it with a
question mark, not a period. You know, this thingy: '?'
No Capitol police were "ordered" to stand down. That's total bullshit, as is
100% of what Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker says. The
problem is that although there were *lots* of signals picked up by the FBI and
Homeland Security that the traitors were planning a huge illegal action on Jan
06, the agents detecting it couldn't get anyone in DC to take it seriously. But
they knew. It is pure dereliction of duty and incompetence. Heads really ought
to roll.
You can read an extremely detailed story about the failure to act on what they
knew here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2021/warnings-jan-6-insurrection/
There are three part to it: before, during and after.
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2021 16:10:44 -0700, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker lied:
>>> On Fri, 31 Dec 2021 11:26:51 -0700, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker lied:
question mark, not a period. You know, this thingy: '?'
No Capitol police were "ordered" to stand down. That's total bullshit, as is
100% of what Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker says. The
problem is that although there were *lots* of signals picked up by the FBI and
Homeland Security that the traitors were planning a huge illegal action on Jan
06, the agents detecting it couldn't get anyone in DC to take it seriously. But
they knew. It is pure dereliction of duty and incompetence. Heads really ought
to roll.
You can read an extremely detailed story about the failure to act on what they
knew here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2021/warnings-jan-6-insurrection/
There are three part to it: before, during and after.
MattB
Jan 1, 2022, 2:11:26 PM1/1/22
to
On Sat, 01 Jan 2022 11:06:05 -0700, Fred Oinka <Fred...@invalid.com>
wrote:
>On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 09:12:37 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>Every time Trump is the target nothing happens.
If that was a true attempt at "insurrection" then it was planned by
fools. To attempt to overthrow the government unarmed and with no
backup. I know this shows why I believe Antifa, the Boogaloo, and
these Jan 6th people are all totally ignorant people.
wrote:
>On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 09:12:37 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
If that was a true attempt at "insurrection" then it was planned by
fools. To attempt to overthrow the government unarmed and with no
backup. I know this shows why I believe Antifa, the Boogaloo, and
these Jan 6th people are all totally ignorant people.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 1, 2022, 2:35:28 PM1/1/22
to
work, but clearly they *did* think it would work, and that marks them as fools.
There is a growing body of evidence that what Trump and his criminal gang —
Meadows, Bannon, Flynn, Eastman, Gosar, Cruz and numerous others — were
attempting to do was to *delay* the certification long enough for them to be
able to persuade some corrupt Republiscum/QAnon state legislative leaders to try
to throw out their *certified* electoral votes, and simply vote in new pro-Trump
slates of electors. Meadows in particular has *literally* admitted this in his
memoir. I don't know how they think that might have worked, either, because
once a state's election results have been certified, the electoral college has
met, and a state's governor has *certified* and signed the electoral votes and
sent them to the National Archive, *that* *is* *that*. There is no provision
for any state to rescind it's certified-and-sent electoral votes. Any attempt
at that would have been quickly rejected by the Supreme Court.
Republiscums/QAnon, in addition to being completely corrupt and pro-coup, are
just remarkably stupid.
> To attempt to overthrow the government unarmed and with no
> backup. I know this shows why I believe Antifa, the Boogaloo, and
> these Jan 6th people are all totally ignorant people.
again. You just can't resist throwing "antifa" in there. You don't really
oppose right-wingnut extremists, because you're one. You are illiterate and
hopelessly stupid and dull.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 1, 2022, 2:56:47 PM1/1/22
to
On 1/1/2022 11:49 AM, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker lied:
> WAPO lies[,] Rudy, we all know that.
Inverse Hartung comma noted.
No, WaPo does not lie, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker.
You can't refute a single thing from that story, Jack-Off Skeeter
Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker, and you also have no support for your
lie that the Capitol police and other security were told to "stand down." They
were not told that, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker, you
impotent no-fight squat-to-piss faggot cocksucker.
Inverse Hartung comma noted.
No, WaPo does not lie, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker.
You can't refute a single thing from that story, Jack-Off Skeeter
Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker, and you also have no support for your
lie that the Capitol police and other security were told to "stand down." They
were not told that, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker, you
impotent no-fight squat-to-piss faggot cocksucker.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 1, 2022, 2:58:50 PM1/1/22
to
On 1/1/2022 11:50 AM, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker
admitted:
> On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 11:35:25 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
> Kyle is a murderer and Trump is a HIV-oozing faggot shitbag.
You're a HIV-oozing faggot shitbag too, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey
admitted:
> On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 11:35:25 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
You're a HIV-oozing faggot shitbag too, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey
MattB
Jan 1, 2022, 5:08:22 PM1/1/22
to
On Sat, 01 Jan 2022 12:50:49 -0700, Fred Oinka <Fred...@invalid.com>
wrote:
>On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 11:35:25 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
>Kyle is innocent and so is Trump.
Kyle has been cleared 100%, Trump though not guilty of an attempted
insurrection, is not innocent. Trump is guilty of having an inflated
ego. Then again, so is Biden. Rudy was and is 100% wrong regarding
Kyle.
wrote:
>On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 11:35:25 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
Kyle has been cleared 100%, Trump though not guilty of an attempted
insurrection, is not innocent. Trump is guilty of having an inflated
ego. Then again, so is Biden. Rudy was and is 100% wrong regarding
Kyle.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 1, 2022, 5:18:49 PM1/1/22
to
wrong. It was not self-defense.
Blue Lives Matter
Jan 1, 2022, 6:51:42 PM1/1/22
to
On Sat, 01 Jan 2022 14:08:18 -0800, MattB <trdel...@gmail.com>
I hope "Rudy" remains convinced that Rittebhouse should have been
convicted. I enjoy seeing him bloviate about things he cannot do
anything about.
convicted. I enjoy seeing him bloviate about things he cannot do
anything about.
MattB
Jan 1, 2022, 7:26:46 PM1/1/22
to
David Hartung
Jan 1, 2022, 7:34:50 PM1/1/22
to
Capitol riot.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 1, 2022, 8:34:01 PM1/1/22
to
saw one. You're only swearing.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 1, 2022, 8:34:33 PM1/1/22
to
Rudy Canoza
Jan 1, 2022, 8:42:29 PM1/1/22
to
On 1/1/2022 3:06 PM, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker lied:
> On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 14:18:46 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/1/2022 2:08 PM, MattB wrote:
>>> On Sat, 01 Jan 2022 12:50:49 -0700, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker lied:
> So you don't believe in our legal system?
It doesn't always produce the correct result, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell
Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker. For certain it didn't in this case, Jack-Off Skeeter
Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker.
> Now he's going to get rich.
No, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker, he is not.
> On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 14:18:46 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/1/2022 2:08 PM, MattB wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 11:35:25 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/1/2022 11:11 AM, MattB wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 01 Jan 2022 11:06:05 -0700, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker lied:
>>>> On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 11:35:25 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/1/2022 11:11 AM, MattB wrote:
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 09:12:37 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/31/2021 2:54 PM, MattB wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 31 Dec 2021 11:26:51 -0700, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 09:12:37 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/31/2021 2:54 PM, MattB wrote:
It doesn't always produce the correct result, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell
Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker. For certain it didn't in this case, Jack-Off Skeeter
Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker.
> Now he's going to get rich.
No, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker, he is not.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 1, 2022, 9:24:37 PM1/1/22
to
On 1/1/2022 5:48 PM, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker lied:
> On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 17:42:22 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
> You don't get to make that call
I do, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker.
>>> Now he's going to get rich.
>>
>> No, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker, he is not.
>
>
> I see you snipped the link that showed how possible he can.
He won't, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker. That
Covington cunt kid didn't get rich, either, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell
Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker.
> On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 17:42:22 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
I do, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker.
>>> Now he's going to get rich.
>>
>> No, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker, he is not.
>
>
He won't, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker. That
Covington cunt kid didn't get rich, either, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell
Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 2, 2022, 3:59:11 PM1/2/22
to
On 1/1/2022 7:43 PM, Fred OInka wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 18:24:33 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
> Oh he will.
He won't, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker. The
Covington cunt kid didn't get rich, and neither will the Waukesha murderer.
> On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 18:24:33 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
He won't, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker. The
Covington cunt kid didn't get rich, and neither will the Waukesha murderer.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 2, 2022, 5:37:12 PM1/2/22
to
On 1/2/2022 1:47 PM, Fred OInka wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2022 12:59:08 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
> 250 million is not rich?
He didn't get $250 million, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW
Pig-Fucker. He didn't get anywhere close to that, Jack-Off Skeeter
Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker. That's how much he sued for, Jack-Off
Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker, but that's not what he got.
Everyone knows that, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker.
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2022 12:59:08 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
He didn't get $250 million, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW
Pig-Fucker. He didn't get anywhere close to that, Jack-Off Skeeter
Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker. That's how much he sued for, Jack-Off
Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker, but that's not what he got.
Everyone knows that, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker.
Gronk
Jan 5, 2022, 12:52:17 AM1/5/22
to
>> On Fri, 31 Dec 2021 10:19:33 -0800, Rudy Canoza <j...@phendrie.con>
>>
>>
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/04/how-trumps-politicized-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.
Trump Won
Jan 5, 2022, 4:20:02 AM1/5/22
to
gronk blubbered:
Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one.
When will you be hunting Kyle down and challenging him to a duel?
>>> On Fri, 31 Dec 2021 10:19:33 -0800, Rudy Canoza
<j...@phendrie.con>
>>>
<j...@phendrie.con>
>>>
>>>> The answer is perfectly parallel to the answer Willie Sutton
gave when he was
gave when he was
When will you be hunting Kyle down and challenging him to a duel?
MattB
Jan 7, 2022, 7:45:13 PM1/7/22
to
On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 22:52:16 -0700, Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
No I need more than a new article as the Washington Post is not
credible.
wrote:
credible.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 7, 2022, 7:51:58 PM1/7/22
to
> credible.
Inverse Hartung comma noted.
The Washington Post is *highly* credible, little matteeeB. That WaPo story, and
another one, *fully* explain why the response was so wretchedly bad. Read them:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2021/warnings-jan-6-insurrection/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/04/how-trumps-politicized-pentagon-bungled-response-capitol-invasion/
Geroge Plimptin
Jan 7, 2022, 8:10:15 PM1/7/22
to
On 07 Jan 2022, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com> posted some
news:Le5CJ.84239$b%.8034@fx24.iad:
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions
Washington post biased piece of shit and so are their opinions.
When are you going to show up to fight Gunner, Rudy?
This is 2022. You've been running from him for almost four years now.
Ever since the Lee Douglass Harrison argument when you pulled out a half
dozen sock puppets to do battle - AND YOU STILL FUCKING LOST.
news:Le5CJ.84239$b%.8034@fx24.iad:
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions
Washington post biased piece of shit and so are their opinions.
When are you going to show up to fight Gunner, Rudy?
This is 2022. You've been running from him for almost four years now.
Ever since the Lee Douglass Harrison argument when you pulled out a half
dozen sock puppets to do battle - AND YOU STILL FUCKING LOST.
BeamMeUpScotty
Jan 7, 2022, 8:48:25 PM1/7/22
to
try to create a FAKE reason to investigate them to dig up dirt to use to
get them to take a dive in round nine of the fight like... John McCain
and Mitt Romney who both took a dive in the 9th round so they would lose
and the Demauxcrats wouldn't release the dirt.
--
That's karma,
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
*deriving their just* *powers from the consent* of the governed, — That
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is
the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government,"
It would seem that *MANDATES* are NOT derived from the consent of the
governed. The Constitution doesn't delegate unlimited power to mandate
the governed, become part of a medical experiment.
"This is the classic definition of a “cult,” when facts and real science
are tossed aside for beliefs that contradict the actual facts."
Rudy Canoza
Jan 7, 2022, 10:20:08 PM1/7/22
to
On 1/7/2022 5:10 PM, Chadlee Bryant, 250lb 5'9" morbidly obese lying fat fuck
and convicted felon, admitted:
> On 07 Jan 2022, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com> posted some
> news:Le5CJ.84239$b%.8034@fx24.iad:
>
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions
>
> Washington post is the Gold Standard
Yes, right along with the New York Times.
Thank you, Chadlee.
and convicted felon, admitted:
> On 07 Jan 2022, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com> posted some
> news:Le5CJ.84239$b%.8034@fx24.iad:
>
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions
>
Yes, right along with the New York Times.
Thank you, Chadlee.
MattB
Jan 8, 2022, 1:02:34 AM1/8/22
to
On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 16:51:54 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Bullshit.
was so lax, was it Trump or members of Congress.
wrote:
>That WaPo story, and
>another one, *fully* explain why the response was so wretchedly bad. Read them:
>
>https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2021/warnings-jan-6-insurrection/
>
>
>https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/04/how-trumps-politicized-pentagon-bungled-response-capitol-invasion/
All these do is prove my point. They need to look into why security
>another one, *fully* explain why the response was so wretchedly bad. Read them:
>
>https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2021/warnings-jan-6-insurrection/
>
>
>https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/04/how-trumps-politicized-pentagon-bungled-response-capitol-invasion/
was so lax, was it Trump or members of Congress.
The Starmaker
Jan 8, 2022, 2:00:24 AM1/8/22
to
BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
> On 1/7/22 8:10 PM, Geroge Plimptin wrote:
> > On 07 Jan 2022, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com> posted some
> > news:Le5CJ.84239$b%.8034@fx24.iad:
> >
> >> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions
> >
> > Washington post biased piece of shit and so are their opinions.
> >
> > When are you going to show up to fight Gunner, Rudy?
> >
> > This is 2022. You've been running from him for almost four years now.
> > Ever since the Lee Douglass Harrison argument when you pulled out a half
> > dozen sock puppets to do battle - AND YOU STILL FUCKING LOST.
> >
> Before each election the Demauxcrats pick the most likely opposition and
> try to create a FAKE reason to investigate them to dig up dirt to use to
> get them to take a dive in round nine of the fight like... John McCain
> and Mitt Romney who both took a dive in the 9th round so they would lose
> and the Demauxcrats wouldn't release the dirt.
Al Capone wouldn't have done it differently...
>
> On 1/7/22 8:10 PM, Geroge Plimptin wrote:
> > On 07 Jan 2022, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com> posted some
> > news:Le5CJ.84239$b%.8034@fx24.iad:
> >
> >> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions
> >
> > Washington post biased piece of shit and so are their opinions.
> >
> > When are you going to show up to fight Gunner, Rudy?
> >
> > This is 2022. You've been running from him for almost four years now.
> > Ever since the Lee Douglass Harrison argument when you pulled out a half
> > dozen sock puppets to do battle - AND YOU STILL FUCKING LOST.
> >
> Before each election the Demauxcrats pick the most likely opposition and
> try to create a FAKE reason to investigate them to dig up dirt to use to
> get them to take a dive in round nine of the fight like... John McCain
> and Mitt Romney who both took a dive in the 9th round so they would lose
> and the Demauxcrats wouldn't release the dirt.
just beat up the voters before they vote and after they vote...
today's gangsters wear democract suits...
Show me a democrat politician and I'll show you the crime...
"The unconstitutional we do immediately; the illegal takes a little longer." - The Biden Administration United States Government Policy
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 8, 2022, 1:23:27 PM1/8/22
to
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-russia-talks-ukraine/2022/01/07/2fb5874e-6ff6-11ec-974b-d1c6de8b26b0_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/2021/warnings-jan-6-insurrection/
>>
>>
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/04/how-trumps-politicized-pentagon-bungled-response-capitol-invasion/
>
> All these do is prove my point. They need to look into why security
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.
MattB
Jan 8, 2022, 4:25:49 PM1/8/22
to
On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 10:23:23 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
Then you should have no problem with an investigation as to your
view as it will point only to Trump.
view as it will point only to Trump.
MattB
Jan 8, 2022, 4:28:58 PM1/8/22
to
On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 13:40:29 -0700, Fred OInka <Fred...@invalid.com>
wrote:
>On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 10:23:23 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
>I can't wait to shove it in your face like I did with Kyle.
Rudy is wrong so often. Progressives are so very often.
wrote:
>On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 10:23:23 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
Rudy is wrong so often. Progressives are so very often.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 8, 2022, 4:35:09 PM1/8/22
to
That's not what the committee was formed to investigate, nor should it take
that on.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 8, 2022, 4:39:49 PM1/8/22
to
> Progressives are
something you can't define. That's right.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 8, 2022, 4:47:20 PM1/8/22
to
On 1/8/2022 1:25 PM, MattB wrote:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/january-6-committee-examines-internal-fbidhs-documents-seeking-answers-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.
MattB
Jan 8, 2022, 5:47:44 PM1/8/22
to
On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 13:35:05 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
Who did it, and where can it be seen? The liberal press or Fox for
that matter, does not count as an investigation.
Why are you afraid of a independent investigation? We need to fix
how this happened.
that matter, does not count as an investigation.
Why are you afraid of a independent investigation? We need to fix
how this happened.
MattB
Jan 8, 2022, 5:49:46 PM1/8/22
to
On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 13:47:17 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
I said an independent investigation. That committee is for the next
election and is not for anything else.
election and is not for anything else.
Geroge Plimptin
Jan 8, 2022, 7:02:57 PM1/8/22
to
On 08 Jan 2022, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com> posted some
news:FDnCJ.28398$PNM6....@fx09.iad:
Another pointless fishing expedition because DEMOCRATS and Liz Cheney are
just looking to deflect the rain of shit on their parade.
There was no insurrection.
news:FDnCJ.28398$PNM6....@fx09.iad:
just looking to deflect the rain of shit on their parade.
There was no insurrection.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 8, 2022, 7:14:22 PM1/8/22
to
"What they [house committee] need to investigate is why security was so lame
that day."
and also:
They [house committee] need to look into why security was so lax
The thread is about the house committee, and when you write "they," that's
necessarily who you mean. "They" are.
The reason there is no "independent" commission, little matteeeB, is because
your side — the Republiscums/QAnon, Kevin McCarthy and Moscow Mitch McConnell,
wouldn't allow it. They knew where the evidence would lead.
Geroge Plimptin
Jan 8, 2022, 7:29:14 PM1/8/22
to
On 08 Jan 2022, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com> posted some
news:uNpCJ.6348$yl1....@fx23.iad:
>>>>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2021/warnings
>>>>>>> -jan-6-insurrection/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/04/how-trumps-pol
>>>>>>> -jan-6-insurrection/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/04/how-trumps-pol
they could find no links to Trump.
There was no insurrection.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 8, 2022, 7:58:42 PM1/8/22
to
On 1/8/2022 4:29 PM, Chadlee Blowjob, 250lb 5'9" morbidly obese convicted child
molester, lied:
No, I didn't say anything about the Democrats investigating the FBI, Chadlee
Blowjob.
Everyone knows, Chadlee Blowjob, that an independent commission would prove,
beyond a shadow of doubt, that Trump organized, financed and directed the
insurrection. You already know he did, Chadlee Blowjob.
molester, lied:
Blowjob.
Everyone knows, Chadlee Blowjob, that an independent commission would prove,
beyond a shadow of doubt, that Trump organized, financed and directed the
insurrection. You already know he did, Chadlee Blowjob.
MattB
Jan 8, 2022, 8:09:16 PM1/8/22
to
On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 17:08:58 -0700, Fred OInka <Fred...@invalid.com>
wrote:
>On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 14:47:40 -0800, MattB <trdel...@gmail.com>
>But if it was CNN you would accept it?
Hell no.
wrote:
>On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 14:47:40 -0800, MattB <trdel...@gmail.com>
Hell no.
MattB
Jan 8, 2022, 8:15:31 PM1/8/22
to
On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 16:14:18 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
You can't believe a committee formed by the House would be
non-partisan and independent?
>
>and also:
>
> They [house committee] need to look into why security was so lax
A non-partisan committee.
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.
non-partisan and independent?
>
>and also:
>
> They [house committee] need to look into why security was so lax
>
>
>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
>
>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.
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.
MattB
Jan 8, 2022, 9:23:34 PM1/8/22
to
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>
>As well as the looters and rioters across the country.
Yet again, the far left doesn't believe that. They yell for equal
justice, but what they really want is special treatment for their
select few.
wrote:
>On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 17:15:25 -0800, MattB <trdel...@gmail.com>
Yet again, the far left doesn't believe that. They yell for equal
justice, but what they really want is special treatment for their
select few.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 8, 2022, 10:00:13 PM1/8/22
to
>
>>
>> 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"?
pretense of trying to appear "centrist," but you are not. You are
far-right-wingnut, and you are 100% on the Republiscum/QAnon team. How do we
know that? Because you *never* attack the right-wingnuts, and you *always and
only* attack your imaginary "leftists" and "liberals" and "progressives," none
of which you can define. If you were truly centrist — or even libertarian, as I
am — you would attack the far-right-wingnuts, e.g. Hartung and Gak and
#ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, just as viciously as you attack "leftists." But you
don't. That's because you are Republiscum/QAnon yourself. You prove it in
every post.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 8, 2022, 10:01:09 PM1/8/22
to
You are far-right. You prove it in every post.
MattB
Jan 8, 2022, 11:53:59 PM1/8/22
to
On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 19:01:07 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
OK, do you agree everyone who attacks the police should get equal
treatment? Equal time in jail? Yes or No.
treatment? Equal time in jail? Yes or No.
MattB
Jan 8, 2022, 11:59:30 PM1/8/22
to
On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 19:00:08 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
You did not answer the question.
Progressive idiot club.
>
>>
>>>
>>> and also:
>>>
>>> They [house committee] need to look into why security was so lax
>>
>> A non-partisan committee.
>
>It would have been, but the Republiscums/QAnon leaders — your side — refused it.
>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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"?
>
>Yes, absolutely your side, little matteeeB. You make this completely clownish
>pretense of trying to appear "centrist," but you are not. You are
>far-right-wingnut, and you are 100% on the Republiscum/QAnon team. How do we
>know that? Because you *never* attack the right-wingnuts, and you *always and
>only* attack your imaginary "leftists" and "liberals" and "progressives," none
>of which you can define. If you were truly centrist — or even libertarian, as I
>am — you would attack the far-right-wingnuts, e.g. Hartung and Gak and
>#ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, just as viciously as you attack "leftists." But you
>don't. That's because you are Republiscum/QAnon yourself. You prove it in
>every post.
By your description, you have admitted to being part of the
>>
>>>
>>> and also:
>>>
>>> They [house committee] need to look into why security was so lax
>>
>> A non-partisan committee.
>
>It would have been, but the Republiscums/QAnon leaders — your side — refused it.
>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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"?
>
>Yes, absolutely your side, little matteeeB. You make this completely clownish
>pretense of trying to appear "centrist," but you are not. You are
>far-right-wingnut, and you are 100% on the Republiscum/QAnon team. How do we
>know that? Because you *never* attack the right-wingnuts, and you *always and
>only* attack your imaginary "leftists" and "liberals" and "progressives," none
>of which you can define. If you were truly centrist — or even libertarian, as I
>am — you would attack the far-right-wingnuts, e.g. Hartung and Gak and
>#ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, just as viciously as you attack "leftists." But you
>don't. That's because you are Republiscum/QAnon yourself. You prove it in
>every post.
Progressive idiot club.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 9, 2022, 12:32:05 AM1/9/22
to
We're talking *only* about the insurrectionists. Stay on topic.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 9, 2022, 12:33:47 AM1/9/22
to
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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"?
>>
>> Yes, absolutely your side, little matteeeB. You make this completely clownish
>> pretense of trying to appear "centrist," but you are not. You are
>> far-right-wingnut, and you are 100% on the Republiscum/QAnon team. How do we
>> know that? Because you *never* attack the right-wingnuts, and you *always and
>> only* attack your imaginary "leftists" and "liberals" and "progressives," none
>> of which you can define. If you were truly centrist — or even libertarian, as I
>> am — you would attack the far-right-wingnuts, e.g. Hartung and Gak and
>> #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, just as viciously as you attack "leftists." But you
>> don't. That's because you are Republiscum/QAnon yourself. You prove it in
>> every post.
>
> By your description, you have admitted to being part of the
> Progressive
You don't have a fucking clue what "progressive" means. It's only a swearword
for you.
I'm not a "progressive" — farthest thing from it.
Gronk
Jan 9, 2022, 12:42:47 AM1/9/22
to
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-guard-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."
There Was No Insurrection
Jan 9, 2022, 3:10:03 AM1/9/22
to
gronk fibbed:
>
> 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
>> No, I need more than a new article as the Washington Post is
not
>> credible.
>
>
>
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions
Fail.
Opinion are not facts.
>
> 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
not
>> credible.
>
>
>
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions
Fail.
Opinion are not facts.
pagoda
Jan 9, 2022, 4:15:08 AM1/9/22
to
Washington Post is not
>>>>>>>>>> credible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Inverse Hartung comma noted.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>> credible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Inverse Hartung comma noted.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> 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-russia-
talks-ukraine/2022/01/07/2fb5874e-6ff6-11ec-974b-
d1c6de8b26b0_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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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-russia-
talks-ukraine/2022/01/07/2fb5874e-6ff6-11ec-974b-
d1c6de8b26b0_story.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Read that story, and then tell us what is inaccurate in it.
The answer is,
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:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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/2021/warnings-
jan-6-insurrection/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/04/how-
jan-6-insurrection/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/04/how-
>>
>>>
>>> and also:
>>>
>>> They house committee need to look into why security was so
lax
>>
>> A non-partisan committee.
>
> It would have been, but
Fixed that for you.
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
Mitch McConnell,
>>> wouldn't allow it. They knew where the evidence would lead.
>>
>> OK, "My side"?
>
> Yes, absolutely your side
Still no evidence and Liz Cheney looks like a bigger horse's ass
>>> wouldn't allow it. They knew where the evidence would lead.
>>
>> OK, "My side"?
>
> Yes, absolutely your side
every day.
pagoda
Jan 9, 2022, 4:35:03 AM1/9/22
to
Washington Post is not
>>>>>>>>>>>> credible.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Inverse Hartung comma noted.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>> credible.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Inverse Hartung comma noted.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> 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-
russia-talks-ukraine/2022/01/07/2fb5874e-6ff6-11ec-974b-
d1c6de8b26b0_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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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-
russia-talks-ukraine/2022/01/07/2fb5874e-6ff6-11ec-974b-
d1c6de8b26b0_story.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Read that story, and then tell us what is inaccurate in
it. The answer is,
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:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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/2021/warnings-
jan-6-insurrection/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/04/how-
trumps-politicized-pentagon-bungled-response-capitol-invasion/
>>>>>>>>>>
jan-6-insurrection/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/04/how-
trumps-politicized-pentagon-bungled-response-capitol-invasion/
>>>>>>>>>>
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.
Rudy denies the evidence of far left insurrection in Portland and
>>>>> 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.
Seattle.
in·sur·rec·tion
/ˌinsəˈrekSH(ə)n/
noun
a violent uprising against an authority or government.
"Rioters Set Fire to Federal Courthouse in Portland One Day after
Fencing Removed"
https://www.yahoo.com/now/rioters-set-fire-federal-courthouse-
162333860.html
Footage showed the rioters attempting to force their way into the
courthouse while chanting “f*** the United States!” Later in the
evening rioters set a fire outside the courthouse entrance.
MattB
Jan 9, 2022, 12:29:33 PM1/9/22
to
On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 22:42:50 -0700, Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
Why didn't Walker go ASAP? He needs to be subpoenas to give
testimony under oath. Then there is his sudden new job as House
sergeant-at-arms, that needs to be looked into, was it for services
rendered to those in control of the House? Things need to be looked
into and in detail.
Why do you fear a fair and open commission?
wrote:
testimony under oath. Then there is his sudden new job as House
sergeant-at-arms, that needs to be looked into, was it for services
rendered to those in control of the House? Things need to be looked
into and in detail.
Why do you fear a fair and open commission?
MattB
Jan 9, 2022, 12:35:50 PM1/9/22
to
On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 21:32:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
There was no insurrection. Just a bunch of idiots pretending to be
Antifa. If they had planned an insurrection, they were just stupid
fools, to attempt it unarmed?
Why should not ALL Americans get equal treatment for attacking the
police? I mean, you talk about equal justice.
Antifa. If they had planned an insurrection, they were just stupid
fools, to attempt it unarmed?
Why should not ALL Americans get equal treatment for attacking the
police? I mean, you talk about equal justice.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 9, 2022, 12:37:39 PM1/9/22
to
> He needs to be subpoenas [sic]
Ha ha ha ha ha!
> to give testimony under oath. Then there is his sudden new job as House
> sergeant-at-arms, that needs to be looked into,
> was it for services rendered to those in control of the House?
> Things need to be looked into and in detail.
>
> Why do you fear a fair and open commission?
Abort Retry Fail
Jan 9, 2022, 12:42:10 PM1/9/22
to
> Why should not ALL Americans get equal treatment for attacking the
> police? I mean, you talk about equal justice.
--
A_R_F
Abort Retry Fail?
Sector Error #61
Rudy Canoza
Jan 9, 2022, 12:42:50 PM1/9/22
to
> Just a bunch of idiots pretending to be Antifa.
were 100% dedicated Trumpswabs.
>
> Why should not ALL Americans get equal treatment for attacking the
> police?
Stop with your phony posturing as "centrist" and "even handed." You don't want
equal justice — you want Trump's insurrectionists to be set free and left alone,
while "leftist" protesters are harshly prosecuted. You are not "centrist" — you
are a reactionary far-right-wingnut.
MattB
Jan 9, 2022, 1:36:06 PM1/9/22
to
On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 21:33:43 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
Did you ask a question?
type. This is settled.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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"?
>>>
>>> Yes, absolutely your side, little matteeeB. You make this completely clownish
>>> pretense of trying to appear "centrist," but you are not. You are
>>> far-right-wingnut, and you are 100% on the Republiscum/QAnon team. How do we
>>> know that? Because you *never* attack the right-wingnuts, and you *always and
>>> only* attack your imaginary "leftists" and "liberals" and "progressives," none
>>> of which you can define. If you were truly centrist — or even libertarian, as I
>>> am — you would attack the far-right-wingnuts, e.g. Hartung and Gak and
>>> #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, just as viciously as you attack "leftists." But you
>>> don't. That's because you are Republiscum/QAnon yourself. You prove it in
>>> every post.
>>
>> By your description, you have admitted to being part of the
>> Progressive
>
>No.
>
>You don't have a fucking clue what "progressive" means. It's only a swearword
>for you.
>
>I'm not a "progressive" — farthest thing from it.
You are a rather dumb progressive, and one of the low common sense
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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"?
>>>
>>> Yes, absolutely your side, little matteeeB. You make this completely clownish
>>> pretense of trying to appear "centrist," but you are not. You are
>>> far-right-wingnut, and you are 100% on the Republiscum/QAnon team. How do we
>>> know that? Because you *never* attack the right-wingnuts, and you *always and
>>> only* attack your imaginary "leftists" and "liberals" and "progressives," none
>>> of which you can define. If you were truly centrist — or even libertarian, as I
>>> am — you would attack the far-right-wingnuts, e.g. Hartung and Gak and
>>> #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, just as viciously as you attack "leftists." But you
>>> don't. That's because you are Republiscum/QAnon yourself. You prove it in
>>> every post.
>>
>> By your description, you have admitted to being part of the
>> Progressive
>
>No.
>
>You don't have a fucking clue what "progressive" means. It's only a swearword
>for you.
>
>I'm not a "progressive" — farthest thing from it.
type. This is settled.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 9, 2022, 1:57:11 PM1/9/22
to
commission investigating Trump's insurrection and I told you: it's because the
Republiscums/QAnon wouldn't allow it.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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"?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, absolutely your side, little matteeeB. You make this completely clownish
>>>> pretense of trying to appear "centrist," but you are not. You are
>>>> far-right-wingnut, and you are 100% on the Republiscum/QAnon team. How do we
>>>> know that? Because you *never* attack the right-wingnuts, and you *always and
>>>> only* attack your imaginary "leftists" and "liberals" and "progressives," none
>>>> of which you can define. If you were truly centrist — or even libertarian, as I
>>>> am — you would attack the far-right-wingnuts, e.g. Hartung and Gak and
>>>> #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, just as viciously as you attack "leftists." But you
>>>> don't. That's because you are Republiscum/QAnon yourself. You prove it in
>>>> every post.
>>>
>>> By your description, you have admitted to being part of the
>>> Progressive
>>
>> No.
>>
>> You don't have a fucking clue what "progressive" means. It's only a swearword
>> for you.
>>
>> I'm not a "progressive" — farthest thing from it.
>
> You are a rather dumb progressive, and
handlers fed you that word and told you it was "bad," but they didn't tell you
what it means, and you're too stupid to find out on your own.
You *are* a reactionary right-wingnut who comically tries to posture as a
"centrist." You are no centrist. You are extreme right.
MattB
Jan 9, 2022, 2:32:30 PM1/9/22
to
On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 10:57:06 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
That's not what I asked, are you lacking in reading comprehension
skills?
I want to know why security was so lax.
Were you looking into a mirror when you wrote that? Progressive
that you are.
camp.
skills?
I want to know why security was so lax.
that you are.
>
>You *are* a reactionary right-wingnut who comically tries to posture as a
>"centrist." You are no centrist. You are extreme right.
You should work for Pelosi, or Trump, as you'd fit in with either
>You *are* a reactionary right-wingnut who comically tries to posture as a
>"centrist." You are no centrist. You are extreme right.
camp.
MattB
Jan 9, 2022, 2:38:23 PM1/9/22
to
On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 09:37:34 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Then why should be thoroughly investigated? Who gave the orders
that stopped him also. A complete investigation. Why do you oppose
this?
forces and didn't go in and at whose orders.
>
>> Things need to be looked into and in detail.
>
>"looked into" — ha ha ha ha ha!
>
>>
>> Why do you fear a fair and open commission?
>
>He doesn't. Trump and McCarthy and McConnell do.
non sequitur
wrote:
that stopped him also. A complete investigation. Why do you oppose
this?
>
>> He needs to be subpoenas [sic]
>
>Ha ha ha ha ha!
>
>
>> to give testimony under oath. Then there is his sudden new job as House
>> sergeant-at-arms, that needs to be looked into,
>
>Why?
Just does as it might be relevant as to why he didn't have enough
>> He needs to be subpoenas [sic]
>
>Ha ha ha ha ha!
>
>
>> to give testimony under oath. Then there is his sudden new job as House
>> sergeant-at-arms, that needs to be looked into,
>
>Why?
forces and didn't go in and at whose orders.
>
>> was it for services rendered to those in control of the House?
>
>Unhinged conspiracy belief. The sergeant-at-arms is elected by the entire house.
Then a investigation would prove that.
>> was it for services rendered to those in control of the House?
>
>Unhinged conspiracy belief. The sergeant-at-arms is elected by the entire house.
>
>> Things need to be looked into and in detail.
>
>"looked into" — ha ha ha ha ha!
>
>>
>> Why do you fear a fair and open commission?
>
>He doesn't. Trump and McCarthy and McConnell do.
MattB
Jan 9, 2022, 2:44:25 PM1/9/22
to
On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 09:42:26 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
Those fools could not have overthrown the government. The most they
could have done was delay the certification of the election. They are
ignorant people. Then both the Jan 6th people, and the Antifa/BLM,
that attacked the federal building in Portland are about equal low IQ
and that is very low.
could have done was delay the certification of the election. They are
ignorant people. Then both the Jan 6th people, and the Antifa/BLM,
that attacked the federal building in Portland are about equal low IQ
and that is very low.
>
>> Just a bunch of idiots pretending to be Antifa.
>
>They were not "pretending to be 'antifa'" and they were *not* "antifa." They
>were 100% dedicated Trumpswabs.
Same type of people both think violence does them good.
>> Just a bunch of idiots pretending to be Antifa.
>
>They were not "pretending to be 'antifa'" and they were *not* "antifa." They
>were 100% dedicated Trumpswabs.
>
>>
>> Why should not ALL Americans get equal treatment for attacking the
>> police?
>
>This wasn't only attacking the police. It was attacking the Constitution.
That isn't what they are charged with.
>>
>> Why should not ALL Americans get equal treatment for attacking the
>> police?
>
>This wasn't only attacking the police. It was attacking the Constitution.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 9, 2022, 3:14:30 PM1/9/22
to
We already know why.
> Who gave the orders that stopped him also.
illiterate and stupid.
No one "gave the orders that stopped him," you stupid fuckstain. An order needs
to be given to *authorize* the deployment. That order would come from someone
*above* Walker. He can't issue his own deployment orders.
You don't know anything.
> A complete investigation. Why do you oppose this?
oppose a complete and independent investigation. I *want* such an
investigation. It is *your* side, the Republiscums/QAnon, who oppose it and
blocked it.
>>
>>> He needs to be subpoenas [sic]
>>
>> Ha ha ha ha ha!
>>
>>
>>> to give testimony under oath. Then there is his sudden new job as House
>>> sergeant-at-arms, that needs to be looked into,
>>
>> Why?
>
> Just does
house was *not* in that role at the time of Trump's insurrection.
>>
>>> was it for services rendered to those in control of the House?
>>
>> Unhinged conspiracy belief. The sergeant-at-arms is elected by the entire house.
>
> Then a investigation would prove that.
sergeant-at-arms is elected by the entire house.
>
>>
>
>>
>>> Things need to be looked into and in detail.
>>
>> "looked into" — ha ha ha ha ha!
>>
>>>
>>> Why do you fear a fair and open commission?
>>
>> He doesn't. Trump and McCarthy and McConnell do.
>
> non sequitur
No, it's *the* explanation. The reason there isn't an independent commission
>>
>> "looked into" — ha ha ha ha ha!
>>
>>>
>>> Why do you fear a fair and open commission?
>>
>> He doesn't. Trump and McCarthy and McConnell do.
>
> non sequitur
investigating Trump's insurrection, including the intelligence failures, is
because Trump and McCarthy and McConnell won't allow it. That's the reason.
You don't realize how stupid you are.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 9, 2022, 3:17:16 PM1/9/22
to
*stop* the counting of the electoral vote in Congress. This is not in dispute.
How Trump thought they might succeed in doing that is anyone's guess. It was
a really stupid thing to try to do, but then, Trump and his followers *always*
exhibit extreme stupidity.
>>
>>> Just a bunch of idiots pretending to be Antifa.
>>
>> They were not "pretending to be 'antifa'" and they were *not* "antifa." They
>> were 100% dedicated Trumpswabs.
>
> Same type of people both think violence does them good.
>>
>>>
>>> Why should not ALL Americans get equal treatment for attacking the
>>> police?
>>
>> This wasn't only attacking the police. It was attacking the Constitution.
>
> That isn't what they are charged with.
>>
>> Stop with your phony posturing as "centrist" and "even handed." You don't want
>> equal justice — you want Trump's insurrectionists to be set free and left alone,
>> while "leftist" protesters are harshly prosecuted. You are not "centrist" — you
>> are a reactionary far-right-wingnut.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 9, 2022, 3:27:45 PM1/9/22
to
>
> I want to know why security was so lax.
accurate, unbiased WaPo story. Field agents for the FBI and Homeland Security
sent numerous alerts back to DC, and they were ignored. That's the answer. The
superiors who ignored them were all part of the Trump regime. That doesn't
prove that their having brushed aside the warnings was done in order to protect
Trump, but it's a possibility. The only other possible explanation is extreme
incompetence, and that falls on Trump, too.
>>
>> You *are* a reactionary right-wingnut who comically tries to posture as a
>> "centrist." You are no centrist. You are extreme right.
>
> You should work for Pelosi, or Trump, as you'd fit in with either
> camp.
I actually think Pelosi is an extremely *effective* house speaker, even though I
don't like most of what she wants to achieve. Effective doesn't mean "good"; it
just means using the office well to get done what the speaker wants to get done.
Within my lifetime, these have been the effective house speakers:
Sam Rayburn
John McCormack
Tip O'Neill
Newt Gingrich (briefly)
Nancy Pelosi
And these have been the much less effective speakers:
Carl Albert
Jim Wright
Tom Foley
Dennis Hastert
John Boehner
Paul Ryan
The first group had great success in promoting their agendas and controlling
their caucuses. The second group did not have anything close to that.
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$aF1.1...@fx98.iad:
You're full of shit, Rudy.
The committee has nothing and you have even less.
Liz Cheney is dumber than you are.
If that's possible.
news:CmHCJ.275146$aF1.1...@fx98.iad:
The committee has nothing and you have even less.
Liz Cheney is dumber than you are.
If that's possible.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 9, 2022, 4:29:21 PM1/9/22
to
On 1/9/2022 1:26 PM, Chadlee Blowjob, 250lb 5'9" morbidly obese convicted child
molester, lied:
> You're always right, Rudy.
Yes, Blowjob, I am.
>
> The committee has nothing and
The committee is going to publicize Trump's criminal conduct, Blowjob.
molester, lied:
Yes, Blowjob, I am.
>
> The committee has nothing and
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:
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, 4:34:02 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.
>
You're letting him walk all over you and kick your ass.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 9, 2022, 4:34:24 PM1/9/22
to
On 1/9/2022 1:31 PM, Chadlee Blowjob, 250lb 5'9" morbidly obese convicted child
molester, lied:
Yes, Blowjob, they did.
molester, lied:
Rudy Canoza
Jan 9, 2022, 4:35:59 PM1/9/22
to
On 1/9/2022 1:34 PM, Chadlee Blowjob, 250lb 5'9" morbidly obese convicted child
molester, lied:
> On 09 Jan 2022, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker lied:
molester, lied:
> On 09 Jan 2022, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker lied:
>
>> 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.
So are you, Blowjob.
>> 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.
MattB
Jan 9, 2022, 6:56:51 PM1/9/22
to
On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 12:27:42 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
Then why do you have a problem with a thorough investigation
into the security of that day and probable solutions so it never
happens again? No politics just facts and solutions.
Please you are one ugly little man, I look nothing like you.
into the security of that day and probable solutions so it never
happens again? No politics just facts and solutions.
>
>>>
>>> You *are* a reactionary right-wingnut who comically tries to posture as a
>>> "centrist." You are no centrist. You are extreme right.
>>
>> You should work for Pelosi, or Trump, as you'd fit in with either
>> camp.
>
>No. But you should go to work for David Duke or Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Nope.
>>>
>>> You *are* a reactionary right-wingnut who comically tries to posture as a
>>> "centrist." You are no centrist. You are extreme right.
>>
>> You should work for Pelosi, or Trump, as you'd fit in with either
>> camp.
>
>No. But you should go to work for David Duke or Marjorie Taylor Greene.
>
>I actually think Pelosi is an extremely *effective* house speaker, even though I
>don't like most of what she wants to achieve. Effective doesn't mean "good"; it
>just means using the office well to get done what the speaker wants to get done.
> Within my lifetime, these have been the effective house speakers:
She is a rather stupid woman.
>I actually think Pelosi is an extremely *effective* house speaker, even though I
>don't like most of what she wants to achieve. Effective doesn't mean "good"; it
>just means using the office well to get done what the speaker wants to get done.
> Within my lifetime, these have been the effective house speakers:
>
> Sam Rayburn
> John McCormack
> Tip O'Neill
> Newt Gingrich (briefly)
> Nancy Pelosi
>
>And these have been the much less effective speakers:
>
> Carl Albert
> Jim Wright
> Tom Foley
> Dennis Hastert
> John Boehner
> Paul Ryan
>
>The first group had great success in promoting their agendas and controlling
>their caucuses. The second group did not have anything close to that.
Yes, with you progressives it is all about control and freebies.
> Sam Rayburn
> John McCormack
> Tip O'Neill
> Newt Gingrich (briefly)
> Nancy Pelosi
>
>And these have been the much less effective speakers:
>
> Carl Albert
> Jim Wright
> Tom Foley
> Dennis Hastert
> John Boehner
> Paul Ryan
>
>The first group had great success in promoting their agendas and controlling
>their caucuses. The second group did not have anything close to that.
MattB
Jan 9, 2022, 6:57:48 PM1/9/22
to
On Sun, 09 Jan 2022 13:35:02 -0700, Fred OInka <Fred...@invalid.com>
wrote:
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.
>
>>>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.
That just goes to show he is a progressive troll.
MattB
Jan 9, 2022, 7:08:37 PM1/9/22
to
On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 12:14:25 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
Then we need to know who and why it was prevented and measures put
in place so it can't happen again. Why do you only want to focus on
Trump and what will help with the next election.? I am hoping both
parties go for more moderate and reasonable candidates.
limited in reading comprehension.
House, maybe it is relevant
in place so it can't happen again. Why do you only want to focus on
Trump and what will help with the next election.? I am hoping both
parties go for more moderate and reasonable candidates.
>
>You don't know anything.
>
>
>> A complete investigation. Why do you oppose this?
>
>You tried that gag already, and it failed then just as it fails now. I *don't*
>oppose a complete and independent investigation. I *want* such an
>investigation. It is *your* side, the Republiscums/QAnon, who oppose it and
>blocked it.
Where do you get your first-hand knowledge on QAnon?
>You don't know anything.
>
>
>> A complete investigation. Why do you oppose this?
>
>You tried that gag already, and it failed then just as it fails now. I *don't*
>oppose a complete and independent investigation. I *want* such an
>investigation. It is *your* side, the Republiscums/QAnon, who oppose it and
>blocked it.
>
>>>
>>>> He needs to be subpoenas [sic]
>>>
>>> Ha ha ha ha ha!
>>>
>>>
>>>> to give testimony under oath. Then there is his sudden new job as House
>>>> sergeant-at-arms, that needs to be looked into,
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> Just does
>
>Not an answer. Don't forget, fuckwit: the current sergeant-at-arms of the
>house was *not* in that role at the time of Trump's insurrection.
Yes, as I wrote it is a new job gotten after Jan 6th. You seem to be
>>>
>>>> He needs to be subpoenas [sic]
>>>
>>> Ha ha ha ha ha!
>>>
>>>
>>>> to give testimony under oath. Then there is his sudden new job as House
>>>> sergeant-at-arms, that needs to be looked into,
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> Just does
>
>Not an answer. Don't forget, fuckwit: the current sergeant-at-arms of the
>house was *not* in that role at the time of Trump's insurrection.
limited in reading comprehension.
>
>>>
>>>> was it for services rendered to those in control of the House?
>>>
>>> Unhinged conspiracy belief. The sergeant-at-arms is elected by the entire house.
>>
>> Then a investigation would prove that.
>
>No, we don't need any "investigation" in order to "prove" that the
>sergeant-at-arms is elected by the entire house.
WOW, a distraction from the original point. Then who controls the
>>>
>>>> was it for services rendered to those in control of the House?
>>>
>>> Unhinged conspiracy belief. The sergeant-at-arms is elected by the entire house.
>>
>> Then a investigation would prove that.
>
>No, we don't need any "investigation" in order to "prove" that the
>sergeant-at-arms is elected by the entire house.
House, maybe it is relevant
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Things need to be looked into and in detail.
>>>
>>> "looked into" — ha ha ha ha ha!
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why do you fear a fair and open commission?
>>>
>>> He doesn't. Trump and McCarthy and McConnell do.
>>
>> non sequitur
>
>No, it's *the* explanation. The reason there isn't an independent commission
>investigating Trump's insurrection, including the intelligence failures, is
>because Trump and McCarthy and McConnell won't allow it. That's the reason.
>
>You don't realize how stupid you are.
Bullshit and non sequitur.
>>
>>>
>>>> Things need to be looked into and in detail.
>>>
>>> "looked into" — ha ha ha ha ha!
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why do you fear a fair and open commission?
>>>
>>> He doesn't. Trump and McCarthy and McConnell do.
>>
>> non sequitur
>
>No, it's *the* explanation. The reason there isn't an independent commission
>investigating Trump's insurrection, including the intelligence failures, is
>because Trump and McCarthy and McConnell won't allow it. That's the reason.
>
>You don't realize how stupid you are.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 9, 2022, 7:10:17 PM1/9/22
to
>>>
>>> I want to know why security was so lax.
>>
>> I've already given you the answer. The answer is found in that excellent,
>> accurate, unbiased WaPo story. Field agents for the FBI and Homeland Security
>> sent numerous alerts back to DC, and they were ignored. That's the answer. The
>> superiors who ignored them were all part of the Trump regime. That doesn't
>> prove that their having brushed aside the warnings was done in order to protect
>> Trump, but it's a possibility. The only other possible explanation is extreme
>> incompetence, and that falls on Trump, too.
>
> Then why do you have a problem with a thorough investigation
that investigation.
use, like "progressive," without telling you what they mean.
>>>>
>>>> You *are* a reactionary right-wingnut who comically tries to posture as a
>>>> "centrist." You are no centrist. You are extreme right.
>>>
>>> You should work for Pelosi, or Trump, as you'd fit in with either
>>> camp.
>>
>> No. But you should go to work for David Duke or Marjorie Taylor Greene.
>
> Nope.
>>
>> I actually think Pelosi is an extremely *effective* house speaker, even though I
>> don't like most of what she wants to achieve. Effective doesn't mean "good"; it
>> just means using the office well to get done what the speaker wants to get done.
>> Within my lifetime, these have been the effective house speakers:
>
> She is a rather stupid woman.
office.
>>
>> Sam Rayburn
>> John McCormack
>> Tip O'Neill
>> Newt Gingrich (briefly)
>> Nancy Pelosi
>>
>> And these have been the much less effective speakers:
>>
>> Carl Albert
>> Jim Wright
>> Tom Foley
>> Dennis Hastert
>> John Boehner
>> Paul Ryan
>>
>> The first group had great success in promoting their agendas and controlling
>> their caucuses. The second group did not have anything close to that.
>
> Yes, with you progressives
handlers told you to use it as a swearword.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 9, 2022, 7:10:57 PM1/9/22
to
MattB
Jan 9, 2022, 7:16:18 PM1/9/22
to
On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 12:17:12 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
I don't have enough info to know that at this time.
> They tried to
>*stop* the counting of the electoral vote in Congress.
They could never have stopped it just delayed it. They are rather
stupid.
> This is not in dispute.
> How Trump thought they might succeed in doing that is anyone's guess. It was
>a really stupid thing to try to do, but then, Trump and his followers *always*
>exhibit extreme stupidity.
Both the extreme left, and the extreme right, exhibit extreme
violence if done by the far left?
You do not believe it is *offensive* violence to burn and loot?
You do not believe the assault on the Federal Courthouse in Portland
was *offensive* violence?
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why should not ALL Americans get equal treatment for attacking the
>>>> police?
>>>
>>> This wasn't only attacking the police. It was attacking the Constitution.
>>
>> That isn't what they are charged with.
>
>It's what they were doing.
Then why aren't they charged with it?
>
>>>
>>> Stop with your phony posturing as "centrist" and "even handed." You don't want
>>> equal justice — you want Trump's insurrectionists to be set free and left alone,
>>> while "leftist" protesters are harshly prosecuted. You are not "centrist" — you
>>> are a reactionary far-right-wingnut.
>
><crickets>
Yes, your statement above is bullshit.
> They tried to
>*stop* the counting of the electoral vote in Congress.
stupid.
> This is not in dispute.
> How Trump thought they might succeed in doing that is anyone's guess. It was
>a really stupid thing to try to do, but then, Trump and his followers *always*
>exhibit extreme stupidity.
stupidity.
>
>>>
>>>> Just a bunch of idiots pretending to be Antifa.
>>>
>>> They were not "pretending to be 'antifa'" and they were *not* "antifa." They
>>> were 100% dedicated Trumpswabs.
>>
>> Same type of people both think violence does them good.
>
>Nope. Trumpswabs initiate *offensive* violence.
You do not believe assaulting people and police to be *offensive*
>
>>>
>>>> Just a bunch of idiots pretending to be Antifa.
>>>
>>> They were not "pretending to be 'antifa'" and they were *not* "antifa." They
>>> were 100% dedicated Trumpswabs.
>>
>> Same type of people both think violence does them good.
>
>Nope. Trumpswabs initiate *offensive* violence.
violence if done by the far left?
You do not believe it is *offensive* violence to burn and loot?
You do not believe the assault on the Federal Courthouse in Portland
was *offensive* violence?
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why should not ALL Americans get equal treatment for attacking the
>>>> police?
>>>
>>> This wasn't only attacking the police. It was attacking the Constitution.
>>
>> That isn't what they are charged with.
>
>It's what they were doing.
>
>>>
>>> Stop with your phony posturing as "centrist" and "even handed." You don't want
>>> equal justice — you want Trump's insurrectionists to be set free and left alone,
>>> while "leftist" protesters are harshly prosecuted. You are not "centrist" — you
>>> are a reactionary far-right-wingnut.
>
><crickets>
MattB
Jan 9, 2022, 7:17:50 PM1/9/22
to
On Sun, 09 Jan 2022 13:39:20 -0700, Fred OInka <Fred...@invalid.com>
wrote:
>On Sun, 09 Jan 2022 11:44:23 -0800, MattB <trdel...@gmail.com>
>Rudy doesn't believe in rule of law. Take the Rittonhouse verdict for
>example.
Rudy is a progressive Democrat and a troll.
wrote:
>On Sun, 09 Jan 2022 11:44:23 -0800, MattB <trdel...@gmail.com>
>example.
Rudy is a progressive Democrat and a troll.
MattB
Jan 9, 2022, 8:03:05 PM1/9/22
to
On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 16:10:14 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
I want and support a complete investigation. You do not, are you a
member of QAnon? I can see that in you.
Yes how to use people and buy votes and steal from the working
class as Bidenflation is showing us now.
member of QAnon? I can see that in you.
class as Bidenflation is showing us now.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 9, 2022, 8:16:29 PM1/9/22
to
Christopher Miller, and Trump's secretary of the army, Ryan McCarthy, who
prevented it. In other words, as you already knew, it was Trump.
>>
>> You don't know anything.
>>
>>
>>> A complete investigation. Why do you oppose this?
>>
>> You tried that gag already, and it failed then just as it fails now. I *don't*
>> oppose a complete and independent investigation. I *want* such an
>> investigation. It is *your* side, the Republiscums/QAnon, who oppose it and
>> blocked it.
>
> Where do you get your first-hand knowledge on QAnon?
That was just another whiff-of — another case of you turning tail and running away.
Who blocked an independent commission, which the Democrats and some
Republicsums/QAnon wanted to establish? Answer: the Republiscum/QAnon
leadership — your side.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> He needs to be subpoenas [sic]
>>>>
>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> to give testimony under oath. Then there is his sudden new job as House
>>>>> sergeant-at-arms, that needs to be looked into,
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>
>>> Just does
>>
>> Not an answer. Don't forget, fuckwit: the current sergeant-at-arms of the
>> house was *not* in that role at the time of Trump's insurrection.
>
> Yes, as I wrote it is a new job gotten after Jan 6th.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> was it for services rendered to those in control of the House?
>>>>
>>>> Unhinged conspiracy belief. The sergeant-at-arms is elected by the entire house.
>>>
>>> Then a investigation would prove that.
>>
>> No, we don't need any "investigation" in order to "prove" that the
>> sergeant-at-arms is elected by the entire house.
>
> WOW, a distraction from the original point.
> Then who controls the House, maybe it is relevant
No, it's not relevant. The entire house votes to elect the sergeant-at-arms.
There were significant Republiscum/QAnon votes for Gen. Walker to become the
sergeant-at-arms.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Things need to be looked into and in detail.
>>>>
>>>> "looked into" — ha ha ha ha ha!
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you fear a fair and open commission?
>>>>
>>>> He doesn't. Trump and McCarthy and McConnell do.
>>>
>>> non sequitur
>>
>> No, it's *the* explanation. The reason there isn't an independent commission
>> investigating Trump's insurrection, including the intelligence failures, is
>> because Trump and McCarthy and McConnell won't allow it. That's the reason.
>>
>> You don't realize how stupid you are.
>
>
> Bullshit and
independent commission is *solely* because the Republiscum/QAnon leadership
blocked it.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 9, 2022, 8:22:05 PM1/9/22
to
attempted to block the certification of Biden's victory in a free, fair and
clean election. They had no hope of blocking it, but being staggeringly stupid
Trumpswabs, like you, they attempted to block it. You know this. You know they
weren't just "protesting" and "making their voices heard." You don't break into
a locked building and assault cops to "make your voices heard."
But we know those insurrectionists were acting on *your* behalf as well. You
approved of the insurrection.
>
>> They tried to
>> *stop* the counting of the electoral vote in Congress.
>
> They could never have stopped it just delayed it.
>
>> This is not in dispute.
>> How Trump thought they might succeed in doing that is anyone's guess. It was
>> a really stupid thing to try to do, but then, Trump and his followers *always*
>> exhibit extreme stupidity.
>
> Both the extreme left, and the extreme right,
fooled. *You* are extreme right. You prove it in every post.
>>>>
>>>>> Just a bunch of idiots pretending to be Antifa.
>>>>
>>>> They were not "pretending to be 'antifa'" and they were *not* "antifa." They
>>>> were 100% dedicated Trumpswabs.
>>>
>>> Same type of people both think violence does them good.
>>
>> Nope. Trumpswabs initiate *offensive* violence.
>
> You do not believe assaulting people and police to be *offensive*
> violence if done by the far left?
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why should not ALL Americans get equal treatment for attacking the
>>>>> police?
>>>>
>>>> This wasn't only attacking the police. It was attacking the Constitution.
>>>
>>> That isn't what they are charged with.
>>
>> It's what they were doing.
>
> Then why aren't they charged with it?
accurate description of what they were doing. It's what Republiscums/QAnon —
your side — do.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Stop with your phony posturing as "centrist" and "even handed." You don't want
>>>> equal justice — you want Trump's insurrectionists to be set free and left alone,
>>>> while "leftist" protesters are harshly prosecuted. You are not "centrist" — you
>>>> are a reactionary far-right-wingnut.
>>
>> <crickets>
>
> Yes
but you are nothing of the kind. You are a far-right-wingnut extremist. You
Rudy Canoza
Jan 9, 2022, 8:25:08 PM1/9/22
to
>
>
> Rudy is a progressive Democrat
far-right-wingnut Trumpswab in saying it.
You can't define "progressive." You've admitted it repeatedly.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 9, 2022, 8:29:17 PM1/9/22
to
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I want to know why security was so lax.
>>>>
>>>> I've already given you the answer. The answer is found in that excellent,
>>>> accurate, unbiased WaPo story. Field agents for the FBI and Homeland Security
>>>> sent numerous alerts back to DC, and they were ignored. That's the answer. The
>>>> superiors who ignored them were all part of the Trump regime. That doesn't
>>>> prove that their having brushed aside the warnings was done in order to protect
>>>> Trump, but it's a possibility. The only other possible explanation is extreme
>>>> incompetence, and that falls on Trump, too.
>>>
>>> Then why do you have a problem with a thorough investigation
>>
>> I don't. Your side, the Republiscums/QAnon, are the ones who have prevented
>> that investigation.
>
> I want and support a complete investigation. You do not
only posturing again.
What you hate about her is that she is so *effective* at stifling your side:
the Republiscums/QAnon.
Biden Retards
Jan 9, 2022, 10:55:03 PM1/9/22
to
Rudy babbled:
>
> On 1/9/2022 4:08 PM, MattB wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 12:14:25 -0800, Rudy Canoza
<notg...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>>>>> No, I need more than a new article as the Washington
>>>>>>> three hours
>>>>>>> and 19 minutes later — that Walker finally received
No it wasn't. You don't know shit and you wouldn't admit it if you
did.
Those two dumb cunts Pelosi and Cheney don't know shit either and
the FBI already said so.
>
> On 1/9/2022 4:08 PM, MattB wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 12:14:25 -0800, Rudy Canoza
<notg...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
Post is not
>>>>>>>> credible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/04/how-
trumps-politicized-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. —
>>>>>>>> credible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/04/how-
trumps-politicized-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
>>>>>>> three hours
>>>>>>> and 19 minutes later — that Walker finally received
did.
Those two dumb cunts Pelosi and Cheney don't know shit either and
the FBI already said so.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 9, 2022, 11:06:02 PM1/9/22
to
>> We *already* know who and why. It was Trump's acting defense secretary,
>> Christopher Miller, and Trump's secretary of the army, Ryan McCarthy, who
>> prevented it. In other words, as you already knew, it was Trump.
>
> No it wasn't.
>> Christopher Miller, and Trump's secretary of the army, Ryan McCarthy, who
>> prevented it. In other words, as you already knew, it was Trump.
>
It was.
MattB
Jan 10, 2022, 1:10:02 PM1/10/22
to
On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 17:16:25 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
Do you have evidence? No opinion pieces from the Washington Post
but factual evidence?
or heard, as distinguished from something he learned from some other
person or source. It is also a knowledge that is gained through
firsthand observation or experience, as distinguished from a belief
based on what someone else has said. The federal rules of evidence
requires lay witnesses to have personal knowledge of the matters they
testify about. It is an affidavit that is based on personal knowledge,
unless the affiant makes clear that a statement relies on “information
and belief”.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/f/firsthand-knowledge/
Who are these "Republiscum/QAnon votes"?
but factual evidence?
>
>>>
>>> You don't know anything.
>>>
>>>
>>>> A complete investigation. Why do you oppose this?
>>>
>>> You tried that gag already, and it failed then just as it fails now. I *don't*
>>> oppose a complete and independent investigation. I *want* such an
>>> investigation. It is *your* side, the Republiscums/QAnon, who oppose it and
>>> blocked it.
>>
>> Where do you get your first-hand knowledge on QAnon?
>
>What "first-hand knowledge"?
Firsthand knowledge refers to something which the witness actually saw
>>>
>>> You don't know anything.
>>>
>>>
>>>> A complete investigation. Why do you oppose this?
>>>
>>> You tried that gag already, and it failed then just as it fails now. I *don't*
>>> oppose a complete and independent investigation. I *want* such an
>>> investigation. It is *your* side, the Republiscums/QAnon, who oppose it and
>>> blocked it.
>>
>> Where do you get your first-hand knowledge on QAnon?
>
>What "first-hand knowledge"?
or heard, as distinguished from something he learned from some other
person or source. It is also a knowledge that is gained through
firsthand observation or experience, as distinguished from a belief
based on what someone else has said. The federal rules of evidence
requires lay witnesses to have personal knowledge of the matters they
testify about. It is an affidavit that is based on personal knowledge,
unless the affiant makes clear that a statement relies on “information
and belief”.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/f/firsthand-knowledge/
>
>That was just another whiff-of — another case of you turning tail and running away.
>
>Who blocked an independent commission, which the Democrats and some
>Republicsums/QAnon wanted to establish? Answer: the Republiscum/QAnon
>leadership — your side.
Seems it wasn't blocked as it is functioning. Why do you lie?
>That was just another whiff-of — another case of you turning tail and running away.
>
>Who blocked an independent commission, which the Democrats and some
>Republicsums/QAnon wanted to establish? Answer: the Republiscum/QAnon
>leadership — your side.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> He needs to be subpoenas [sic]
>>>>>
>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> to give testimony under oath. Then there is his sudden new job as House
>>>>>> sergeant-at-arms, that needs to be looked into,
>>>>>
>>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>> Just does
>>>
>>> Not an answer. Don't forget, fuckwit: the current sergeant-at-arms of the
>>> house was *not* in that role at the time of Trump's insurrection.
>>
>> Yes, as I wrote it is a new job gotten after Jan 6th.
>
>But you think he somehow is implicated in the intelligence failure.
Nope, wrong yet again.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> He needs to be subpoenas [sic]
>>>>>
>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> to give testimony under oath. Then there is his sudden new job as House
>>>>>> sergeant-at-arms, that needs to be looked into,
>>>>>
>>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>> Just does
>>>
>>> Not an answer. Don't forget, fuckwit: the current sergeant-at-arms of the
>>> house was *not* in that role at the time of Trump's insurrection.
>>
>> Yes, as I wrote it is a new job gotten after Jan 6th.
>
>But you think he somehow is implicated in the intelligence failure.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> was it for services rendered to those in control of the House?
>>>>>
>>>>> Unhinged conspiracy belief. The sergeant-at-arms is elected by the entire house.
>>>>
>>>> Then a investigation would prove that.
>>>
>>> No, we don't need any "investigation" in order to "prove" that the
>>> sergeant-at-arms is elected by the entire house.
>>
>> WOW, a distraction from the original point.
>
>No.
>
>> Then who controls the House, maybe it is relevant
>
>That's another run-on sentence with a Hartung comma.
Wrong again.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> was it for services rendered to those in control of the House?
>>>>>
>>>>> Unhinged conspiracy belief. The sergeant-at-arms is elected by the entire house.
>>>>
>>>> Then a investigation would prove that.
>>>
>>> No, we don't need any "investigation" in order to "prove" that the
>>> sergeant-at-arms is elected by the entire house.
>>
>> WOW, a distraction from the original point.
>
>No.
>
>> Then who controls the House, maybe it is relevant
>
>That's another run-on sentence with a Hartung comma.
>
>No, it's not relevant. The entire house votes to elect the sergeant-at-arms.
>There were significant Republiscum/QAnon votes for Gen. Walker to become the
>sergeant-at-arms.'
>No, it's not relevant. The entire house votes to elect the sergeant-at-arms.
>There were significant Republiscum/QAnon votes for Gen. Walker to become the
Who are these "Republiscum/QAnon votes"?
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Things need to be looked into and in detail.
>>>>>
>>>>> "looked into" — ha ha ha ha ha!
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you fear a fair and open commission?
>>>>>
>>>>> He doesn't. Trump and McCarthy and McConnell do.
>>>>
>>>> non sequitur
>>>
>>> No, it's *the* explanation. The reason there isn't an independent commission
>>> investigating Trump's insurrection, including the intelligence failures, is
>>> because Trump and McCarthy and McConnell won't allow it. That's the reason.
>>>
>>> You don't realize how stupid you are.
>>
>>
>> Bullshit and
>
>No, not bullshit. You really *are* that stupid. The reason there is no
>independent commission is *solely* because the Republiscum/QAnon leadership
>blocked it.
Rudy, you need new material as you are getting rather boring.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Things need to be looked into and in detail.
>>>>>
>>>>> "looked into" — ha ha ha ha ha!
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you fear a fair and open commission?
>>>>>
>>>>> He doesn't. Trump and McCarthy and McConnell do.
>>>>
>>>> non sequitur
>>>
>>> No, it's *the* explanation. The reason there isn't an independent commission
>>> investigating Trump's insurrection, including the intelligence failures, is
>>> because Trump and McCarthy and McConnell won't allow it. That's the reason.
>>>
>>> You don't realize how stupid you are.
>>
>>
>> Bullshit and
>
>No, not bullshit. You really *are* that stupid. The reason there is no
>independent commission is *solely* because the Republiscum/QAnon leadership
>blocked it.
MattB
Jan 10, 2022, 1:42:15 PM1/10/22
to
On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 17:22:02 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
voices heard." Tell that to BLM and Antifa scum or Demoscum.
writing.
idiots. Look at this very post as proof of that.
Ball, any who does not support socialism or liberal fascism is of the
extreme right.
BLM videos. Like I have said before, you have an agenda of
progressives at heart and lie to promote it. You progressives don't
want equal justice. You want to be treated special and given freebies.
sure about that?
am not a member of the Democratic Socialists of America? There is a
term that fits the current far left it is Liberal fascism. It is from
a fictional book, but is quite accurate in describing what you see
with the media and social tech companies it is Liberal fascism.
Quote:
"'fascist' means (technocratic authoritarianism and force) to achieve
a liberal social end."
Woke, Cancel, banned and controlled speech, violent mobs, fits
>
>But we know those insurrectionists were acting on *your* behalf as well. You
>approved of the insurrection.
Did I? If you have evidence of that, you should report it in
>But we know those insurrectionists were acting on *your* behalf as well. You
>approved of the insurrection.
writing.
>
>>
>>> They tried to
>>> *stop* the counting of the electoral vote in Congress.
>>
>> They could never have stopped it just delayed it.
>
>But, being stupid Trumpswabs like you, they *thought* they could have stopped it.
I consider you to be on about the same level as those Jan 6th
>>
>>> They tried to
>>> *stop* the counting of the electoral vote in Congress.
>>
>> They could never have stopped it just delayed it.
>
>But, being stupid Trumpswabs like you, they *thought* they could have stopped it.
idiots. Look at this very post as proof of that.
>
>>
>>> This is not in dispute.
>>> How Trump thought they might succeed in doing that is anyone's guess. It was
>>> a really stupid thing to try to do, but then, Trump and his followers *always*
>>> exhibit extreme stupidity.
>>
>> Both the extreme left, and the extreme right,
>
>Fuck off. That's your phony posturing as a "centrist" again, and no one is
>fooled. *You* are extreme right. You prove it in every post.
Yes, to a progressive such as yourself and that pervert Jonathon
>>
>>> This is not in dispute.
>>> How Trump thought they might succeed in doing that is anyone's guess. It was
>>> a really stupid thing to try to do, but then, Trump and his followers *always*
>>> exhibit extreme stupidity.
>>
>> Both the extreme left, and the extreme right,
>
>Fuck off. That's your phony posturing as a "centrist" again, and no one is
>fooled. *You* are extreme right. You prove it in every post.
Ball, any who does not support socialism or liberal fascism is of the
extreme right.
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Just a bunch of idiots pretending to be Antifa.
>>>>>
>>>>> They were not "pretending to be 'antifa'" and they were *not* "antifa." They
>>>>> were 100% dedicated Trumpswabs.
>>>>
>>>> Same type of people both think violence does them good.
>>>
>>> Nope. Trumpswabs initiate *offensive* violence.
>>
>> You do not believe assaulting people and police to be *offensive*
>> violence if done by the far left?
>
>You have no evidence the "far left" [sic] has ever done that.
LOL, are you kidding me? Look at some Antifa videos. Look at some
>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Just a bunch of idiots pretending to be Antifa.
>>>>>
>>>>> They were not "pretending to be 'antifa'" and they were *not* "antifa." They
>>>>> were 100% dedicated Trumpswabs.
>>>>
>>>> Same type of people both think violence does them good.
>>>
>>> Nope. Trumpswabs initiate *offensive* violence.
>>
>> You do not believe assaulting people and police to be *offensive*
>> violence if done by the far left?
>
>You have no evidence the "far left" [sic] has ever done that.
BLM videos. Like I have said before, you have an agenda of
progressives at heart and lie to promote it. You progressives don't
want equal justice. You want to be treated special and given freebies.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why should not ALL Americans get equal treatment for attacking the
>>>>>> police?
>>>>>
>>>>> This wasn't only attacking the police. It was attacking the Constitution.
>>>>
>>>> That isn't what they are charged with.
>>>
>>> It's what they were doing.
>>
>> Then why aren't they charged with it?
>
>Because there is no statutory crime of attacking the Constitution. It's an
>accurate description of what they were doing. It's what Republiscums/QAnon —
>your side — do.
There is no law against 'violent preplanned insurrection'? Are you
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why should not ALL Americans get equal treatment for attacking the
>>>>>> police?
>>>>>
>>>>> This wasn't only attacking the police. It was attacking the Constitution.
>>>>
>>>> That isn't what they are charged with.
>>>
>>> It's what they were doing.
>>
>> Then why aren't they charged with it?
>
>Because there is no statutory crime of attacking the Constitution. It's an
>accurate description of what they were doing. It's what Republiscums/QAnon —
>your side — do.
sure about that?
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Stop with your phony posturing as "centrist" and "even handed." You don't want
>>>>> equal justice — you want Trump's insurrectionists to be set free and left alone,
>>>>> while "leftist" protesters are harshly prosecuted. You are not "centrist" — you
>>>>> are a reactionary far-right-wingnut.
>>>
>>> <crickets>
>>
>> Yes
>
>Yes. You whiffed off, as we knew you would. You pretend to be a "centrist,"
>but you are nothing of the kind. You are a far-right-wingnut extremist. You
>prove it in every post.
Do I? Because I do not blindly support the far-leftist agenda and
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Stop with your phony posturing as "centrist" and "even handed." You don't want
>>>>> equal justice — you want Trump's insurrectionists to be set free and left alone,
>>>>> while "leftist" protesters are harshly prosecuted. You are not "centrist" — you
>>>>> are a reactionary far-right-wingnut.
>>>
>>> <crickets>
>>
>> Yes
>
>Yes. You whiffed off, as we knew you would. You pretend to be a "centrist,"
>but you are nothing of the kind. You are a far-right-wingnut extremist. You
>prove it in every post.
am not a member of the Democratic Socialists of America? There is a
term that fits the current far left it is Liberal fascism. It is from
a fictional book, but is quite accurate in describing what you see
with the media and social tech companies it is Liberal fascism.
Quote:
"'fascist' means (technocratic authoritarianism and force) to achieve
a liberal social end."
Woke, Cancel, banned and controlled speech, violent mobs, fits
MattB
Jan 10, 2022, 1:45:33 PM1/10/22
to
On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 17:25:05 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
It has been proven beyond a doubt that you do not believe in equal
justice. You did so in your own words. In fact, wanting equal
justice in your own words makes one far-right.
justice. You did so in your own words. In fact, wanting equal
justice in your own words makes one far-right.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 10, 2022, 2:10:17 PM1/10/22
to
DoD's inspector-general's report. Find them yourself, blowjob. They are
available to anyone who knows the basics of how to use a search engine.
>>
>>>>
>>>> You don't know anything.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> A complete investigation. Why do you oppose this?
>>>>
>>>> You tried that gag already, and it failed then just as it fails now. I *don't*
>>>> oppose a complete and independent investigation. I *want* such an
>>>> investigation. It is *your* side, the Republiscums/QAnon, who oppose it and
>>>> blocked it.
>>>
>>> Where do you get your first-hand knowledge on QAnon?
>>
>> What "first-hand knowledge"?
>
> Firsthand knowledge refers to
first-hand knowledge you claim (dishonestly) to be seeking.
>>
>> That was just another whiff-of — another case of you turning tail and running away.
>>
>> Who blocked an independent commission, which the Democrats and some
>> Republicsums/QAnon wanted to establish? Answer: the Republiscum/QAnon
>> leadership — your side.
>
> Seems it wasn't blocked as it is functioning.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He needs to be subpoenas [sic]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to give testimony under oath. Then there is his sudden new job as House
>>>>>>> sergeant-at-arms, that needs to be looked into,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>
>>>>> Just does
>>>>
>>>> Not an answer. Don't forget, fuckwit: the current sergeant-at-arms of the
>>>> house was *not* in that role at the time of Trump's insurrection.
>>>
>>> Yes, as I wrote it is a new job gotten after Jan 6th.
>>
>> But you think he somehow is implicated in the intelligence failure.
>
> Nope,
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> was it for services rendered to those in control of the House?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unhinged conspiracy belief. The sergeant-at-arms is elected by the entire house.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then a investigation would prove that.
>>>>
>>>> No, we don't need any "investigation" in order to "prove" that the
>>>> sergeant-at-arms is elected by the entire house.
>>>
>>> WOW, a distraction from the original point.
>>
>> No.
>>
>>> Then who controls the House, maybe it is relevant
>>
>> That's another run-on sentence with a Hartung comma.
>
> Wrong again.
what you wrote into a run-on sentence.
>>
>> No, it's not relevant. The entire house votes to elect the sergeant-at-arms.
>> There were significant Republiscum/QAnon votes for Gen. Walker to become the
>> sergeant-at-arms.'
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Things need to be looked into and in detail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "looked into" — ha ha ha ha ha!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do you fear a fair and open commission?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He doesn't. Trump and McCarthy and McConnell do.
>>>>>
>>>>> non sequitur
>>>>
>>>> No, it's *the* explanation. The reason there isn't an independent commission
>>>> investigating Trump's insurrection, including the intelligence failures, is
>>>> because Trump and McCarthy and McConnell won't allow it. That's the reason.
>>>>
>>>> You don't realize how stupid you are.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bullshit and
>>
>> No, not bullshit. You really *are* that stupid. The reason there is no
>> independent commission is *solely* because the Republiscum/QAnon leadership
>> blocked it.
>
> Rudy, you need
You are wrong. You keep insisting you want to see an independent investigation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "looked into" — ha ha ha ha ha!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do you fear a fair and open commission?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He doesn't. Trump and McCarthy and McConnell do.
>>>>>
>>>>> non sequitur
>>>>
>>>> No, it's *the* explanation. The reason there isn't an independent commission
>>>> investigating Trump's insurrection, including the intelligence failures, is
>>>> because Trump and McCarthy and McConnell won't allow it. That's the reason.
>>>>
>>>> You don't realize how stupid you are.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bullshit and
>>
>> No, not bullshit. You really *are* that stupid. The reason there is no
>> independent commission is *solely* because the Republiscum/QAnon leadership
>> blocked it.
>
> Rudy, you need
of the insurrection, including covering the intelligence failures that allowed
it to occur, yet it's your side — the Republiscums/QAnon — who blocked it. So
obviously you don't really want to see it, and we know why: it's because an
independent investigation is *not* in the Republiscums/QAnon interest.
You are such a fucking transparent liar.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 10, 2022, 2:13:03 PM1/10/22
to
>> But we know those insurrectionists were acting on *your* behalf as well. You
>> approved of the insurrection.
>
>
> Did I?
>>
>>>
>>>> They tried to
>>>> *stop* the counting of the electoral vote in Congress.
>>>
>>> They could never have stopped it just delayed it.
>>
>> But, being stupid Trumpswabs like you, they *thought* they could have stopped it.
>
> I consider you to be on about the
>>>
>>>> This is not in dispute.
>>>> How Trump thought they might succeed in doing that is anyone's guess. It was
>>>> a really stupid thing to try to do, but then, Trump and his followers *always*
>>>> exhibit extreme stupidity.
>>>
>>> Both the extreme left, and the extreme right,
>>
>> Fuck off. That's your phony posturing as a "centrist" again, and no one is
>> fooled. *You* are extreme right. You prove it in every post.
>
> Yes,
>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just a bunch of idiots pretending to be Antifa.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They were not "pretending to be 'antifa'" and they were *not* "antifa." They
>>>>>> were 100% dedicated Trumpswabs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Same type of people both think violence does them good.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Trumpswabs initiate *offensive* violence.
>>>
>>> You do not believe assaulting people and police to be *offensive*
>>> violence if done by the far left?
>>
>> You have no evidence the "far left" [sic] has ever done that.
>
> LOL, are you kidding me?
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why should not ALL Americans get equal treatment for attacking the
>>>>>>> police?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This wasn't only attacking the police. It was attacking the Constitution.
>>>>>
>>>>> That isn't what they are charged with.
>>>>
>>>> It's what they were doing.
>>>
>>> Then why aren't they charged with it?
>>
>> Because there is no statutory crime of attacking the Constitution. It's an
>> accurate description of what they were doing. It's what Republiscums/QAnon —
>> your side — do.
>
> There is no law against 'violent preplanned insurrection'?
Constitution. There isn't.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stop with your phony posturing as "centrist" and "even handed." You don't want
>>>>>> equal justice — you want Trump's insurrectionists to be set free and left alone,
>>>>>> while "leftist" protesters are harshly prosecuted. You are not "centrist" — you
>>>>>> are a reactionary far-right-wingnut.
>>>>
>>>> <crickets>
>>>
>>> Yes
>>
>> Yes. You whiffed off, as we knew you would. You pretend to be a "centrist,"
>> but you are nothing of the kind. You are a far-right-wingnut extremist. You
>> prove it in every post.
>
> Do I?
Now you're just fucking off. You have nothing to say.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 10, 2022, 2:14:30 PM1/10/22
to
*proved*. The past participle of "to prove" is *proved*, not "proven."
> beyond a doubt that you do not believe in equal
> justice.
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rudy is a progressive Democrat
>>
>> That's also a lie, and you're only sucking off your fellow extremist
>> far-right-wingnut Trumpswab in saying it.
>>
>> You can't define "progressive." You've admitted it repeatedly.
MattB
Jan 10, 2022, 2:25:41 PM1/10/22
to
On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 11:10:12 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
Do we have they been verified?
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't know anything.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> A complete investigation. Why do you oppose this?
>>>>>
>>>>> You tried that gag already, and it failed then just as it fails now. I *don't*
>>>>> oppose a complete and independent investigation. I *want* such an
>>>>> investigation. It is *your* side, the Republiscums/QAnon, who oppose it and
>>>>> blocked it.
>>>>
>>>> Where do you get your first-hand knowledge on QAnon?
>>>
>>> What "first-hand knowledge"?
>>
>> Firsthand knowledge refers to
>
>I'm not looking for a definition, blowjob. I want you to *identify* the
>first-hand knowledge you claim (dishonestly) to be seeking.
I want QAnon information from QAnon not some left wing rag. First
hand not gossip.
lax.
identification of all agitators.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't know anything.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> A complete investigation. Why do you oppose this?
>>>>>
>>>>> You tried that gag already, and it failed then just as it fails now. I *don't*
>>>>> oppose a complete and independent investigation. I *want* such an
>>>>> investigation. It is *your* side, the Republiscums/QAnon, who oppose it and
>>>>> blocked it.
>>>>
>>>> Where do you get your first-hand knowledge on QAnon?
>>>
>>> What "first-hand knowledge"?
>>
>> Firsthand knowledge refers to
>
>I'm not looking for a definition, blowjob. I want you to *identify* the
>first-hand knowledge you claim (dishonestly) to be seeking.
hand not gossip.
>
>>>
>>> That was just another whiff-of — another case of you turning tail and running away.
>>>
>>> Who blocked an independent commission, which the Democrats and some
>>> Republicsums/QAnon wanted to establish? Answer: the Republiscum/QAnon
>>> leadership — your side.
>>
>> Seems it wasn't blocked as it is functioning.
>
>It was blocked, blowjob. There is no independent commission looking at this.
True there needs to be a investigation into why security was so
>>>
>>> That was just another whiff-of — another case of you turning tail and running away.
>>>
>>> Who blocked an independent commission, which the Democrats and some
>>> Republicsums/QAnon wanted to establish? Answer: the Republiscum/QAnon
>>> leadership — your side.
>>
>> Seems it wasn't blocked as it is functioning.
>
>It was blocked, blowjob. There is no independent commission looking at this.
lax.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He needs to be subpoenas [sic]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> to give testimony under oath. Then there is his sudden new job as House
>>>>>>>> sergeant-at-arms, that needs to be looked into,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just does
>>>>>
>>>>> Not an answer. Don't forget, fuckwit: the current sergeant-at-arms of the
>>>>> house was *not* in that role at the time of Trump's insurrection.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, as I wrote it is a new job gotten after Jan 6th.
>>>
>>> But you think he somehow is implicated in the intelligence failure.
>>
>> Nope,
>
>Yes, you do.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> was it for services rendered to those in control of the House?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unhinged conspiracy belief. The sergeant-at-arms is elected by the entire house.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then a investigation would prove that.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, we don't need any "investigation" in order to "prove" that the
>>>>> sergeant-at-arms is elected by the entire house.
>>>>
>>>> WOW, a distraction from the original point.
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>>> Then who controls the House, maybe it is relevant
>>>
>>> That's another run-on sentence with a Hartung comma.
>>
>> Wrong again.
>
>No, it's absolutely right. The comma — a Hartung comma — is wrong, and it turns
>what you wrote into a run-on sentence.
Grammar flames are a sure sign Rudy has lost.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He needs to be subpoenas [sic]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> to give testimony under oath. Then there is his sudden new job as House
>>>>>>>> sergeant-at-arms, that needs to be looked into,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just does
>>>>>
>>>>> Not an answer. Don't forget, fuckwit: the current sergeant-at-arms of the
>>>>> house was *not* in that role at the time of Trump's insurrection.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, as I wrote it is a new job gotten after Jan 6th.
>>>
>>> But you think he somehow is implicated in the intelligence failure.
>>
>> Nope,
>
>Yes, you do.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> was it for services rendered to those in control of the House?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unhinged conspiracy belief. The sergeant-at-arms is elected by the entire house.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then a investigation would prove that.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, we don't need any "investigation" in order to "prove" that the
>>>>> sergeant-at-arms is elected by the entire house.
>>>>
>>>> WOW, a distraction from the original point.
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>>> Then who controls the House, maybe it is relevant
>>>
>>> That's another run-on sentence with a Hartung comma.
>>
>> Wrong again.
>
>No, it's absolutely right. The comma — a Hartung comma — is wrong, and it turns
>what you wrote into a run-on sentence.
>
>>>
>>> No, it's not relevant. The entire house votes to elect the sergeant-at-arms.
>>> There were significant Republiscum/QAnon votes for Gen. Walker to become the
>>> sergeant-at-arms.'
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Things need to be looked into and in detail.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "looked into" — ha ha ha ha ha!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do you fear a fair and open commission?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He doesn't. Trump and McCarthy and McConnell do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> non sequitur
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it's *the* explanation. The reason there isn't an independent commission
>>>>> investigating Trump's insurrection, including the intelligence failures, is
>>>>> because Trump and McCarthy and McConnell won't allow it. That's the reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't realize how stupid you are.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit and
>>>
>>> No, not bullshit. You really *are* that stupid. The reason there is no
>>> independent commission is *solely* because the Republiscum/QAnon leadership
>>> blocked it.
>>
>> Rudy, you need
>
>You are wrong. You keep insisting you want to see an independent investigation
>of the insurrection, including covering the intelligence failures that allowed
>it to occur, yet it's your side — the Republiscums/QAnon — who blocked it. So
>obviously you don't really want to see it, and we know why: it's because an
>independent investigation is *not* in the Republiscums/QAnon interest.
>
>You are such a fucking transparent liar.
Rudy, I want one focused on why security was as it was, and a
>>>
>>> No, it's not relevant. The entire house votes to elect the sergeant-at-arms.
>>> There were significant Republiscum/QAnon votes for Gen. Walker to become the
>>> sergeant-at-arms.'
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Things need to be looked into and in detail.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "looked into" — ha ha ha ha ha!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do you fear a fair and open commission?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He doesn't. Trump and McCarthy and McConnell do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> non sequitur
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it's *the* explanation. The reason there isn't an independent commission
>>>>> investigating Trump's insurrection, including the intelligence failures, is
>>>>> because Trump and McCarthy and McConnell won't allow it. That's the reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't realize how stupid you are.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit and
>>>
>>> No, not bullshit. You really *are* that stupid. The reason there is no
>>> independent commission is *solely* because the Republiscum/QAnon leadership
>>> blocked it.
>>
>> Rudy, you need
>
>You are wrong. You keep insisting you want to see an independent investigation
>of the insurrection, including covering the intelligence failures that allowed
>it to occur, yet it's your side — the Republiscums/QAnon — who blocked it. So
>obviously you don't really want to see it, and we know why: it's because an
>independent investigation is *not* in the Republiscums/QAnon interest.
>
>You are such a fucking transparent liar.
identification of all agitators.
MattB
Jan 10, 2022, 2:32:14 PM1/10/22
to
On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 11:12:59 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
To a progressive like you, who happens to support terrorist actions
by the left, it would be rejected.
Then you don't believe these men of Jan 6th were attempting
insurrection, just attacking the Constitution?
You attack the Constitution with your progressive views on the
'Electoral College' maybe you are just like these Jan 6th idiots.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stop with your phony posturing as "centrist" and "even handed." You don't want
>>>>>>> equal justice — you want Trump's insurrectionists to be set free and left alone,
>>>>>>> while "leftist" protesters are harshly prosecuted. You are not "centrist" — you
>>>>>>> are a reactionary far-right-wingnut.
>>>>>
>>>>> <crickets>
>>>>
>>>> Yes
>>>
>>> Yes. You whiffed off, as we knew you would. You pretend to be a "centrist,"
>>> but you are nothing of the kind. You are a far-right-wingnut extremist. You
>>> prove it in every post.
>>
>> Do I?
>
>Yes.
>
>Now you're just fucking off. You have nothing to say.
Maybe it is time for more grammar flames as you have lost.
by the left, it would be rejected.
insurrection, just attacking the Constitution?
You attack the Constitution with your progressive views on the
'Electoral College' maybe you are just like these Jan 6th idiots.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stop with your phony posturing as "centrist" and "even handed." You don't want
>>>>>>> equal justice — you want Trump's insurrectionists to be set free and left alone,
>>>>>>> while "leftist" protesters are harshly prosecuted. You are not "centrist" — you
>>>>>>> are a reactionary far-right-wingnut.
>>>>>
>>>>> <crickets>
>>>>
>>>> Yes
>>>
>>> Yes. You whiffed off, as we knew you would. You pretend to be a "centrist,"
>>> but you are nothing of the kind. You are a far-right-wingnut extremist. You
>>> prove it in every post.
>>
>> Do I?
>
>Yes.
>
>Now you're just fucking off. You have nothing to say.
MattB
Jan 10, 2022, 2:35:34 PM1/10/22
to
On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 11:14:26 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
treated differently for the same crime.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rudy is a progressive Democrat
>>>
>>> That's also a lie, and you're only sucking off your fellow extremist
>>> far-right-wingnut Trumpswab in saying it.
>>>
>>> You can't define "progressive." You've admitted it repeatedly.
>
>And little matteeeB whiffs off again...
Why don't you tell us yours, and while you are at it tell us your
definition of a libertarian?
Grammar flames are a sure sign Rudy has lost.
>
>
>> beyond a doubt that you do not believe in equal
>> justice.
>
>That's another lie.
Yet you believe BLM and Antifa and these Jan 6th people should be
>> justice.
>
>That's another lie.
treated differently for the same crime.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rudy is a progressive Democrat
>>>
>>> That's also a lie, and you're only sucking off your fellow extremist
>>> far-right-wingnut Trumpswab in saying it.
>>>
>>> You can't define "progressive." You've admitted it repeatedly.
>
>And little matteeeB whiffs off again...
definition of a libertarian?
Rudy Canoza
Jan 10, 2022, 2:38:31 PM1/10/22
to
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't know anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A complete investigation. Why do you oppose this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You tried that gag already, and it failed then just as it fails now. I *don't*
>>>>>> oppose a complete and independent investigation. I *want* such an
>>>>>> investigation. It is *your* side, the Republiscums/QAnon, who oppose it and
>>>>>> blocked it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where do you get your first-hand knowledge on QAnon?
>>>>
>>>> What "first-hand knowledge"?
>>>
>>> Firsthand knowledge refers to
>>
>> I'm not looking for a definition, blowjob. I want you to *identify* the
>> first-hand knowledge you claim (dishonestly) to be seeking.
>
> I want QAnon information from QAnon
>>
>>>>
>>>> That was just another whiff-of — another case of you turning tail and running away.
>>>>
>>>> Who blocked an independent commission, which the Democrats and some
>>>> Republicsums/QAnon wanted to establish? Answer: the Republiscum/QAnon
>>>> leadership — your side.
>>>
>>> Seems it wasn't blocked as it is functioning.
>>
>> It was blocked, blowjob. There is no independent commission looking at this.
>
There ought to be such an investigation, but your side — Republiscums/QAnon —
blocked it.
>>>>
>>>> No, it's not relevant. The entire house votes to elect the sergeant-at-arms.
>>>> There were significant Republiscum/QAnon votes for Gen. Walker to become the
>>>> sergeant-at-arms.'
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Things need to be looked into and in detail.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "looked into" — ha ha ha ha ha!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why do you fear a fair and open commission?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He doesn't. Trump and McCarthy and McConnell do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> non sequitur
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it's *the* explanation. The reason there isn't an independent commission
>>>>>> investigating Trump's insurrection, including the intelligence failures, is
>>>>>> because Trump and McCarthy and McConnell won't allow it. That's the reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't realize how stupid you are.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bullshit and
>>>>
>>>> No, not bullshit. You really *are* that stupid. The reason there is no
>>>> independent commission is *solely* because the Republiscum/QAnon leadership
>>>> blocked it.
>>>
>>> Rudy, you need
>>
>> You are wrong. You keep insisting you want to see an independent investigation
>> of the insurrection, including covering the intelligence failures that allowed
>> it to occur, yet it's your side — the Republiscums/QAnon — who blocked it. So
>> obviously you don't really want to see it, and we know why: it's because an
>> independent investigation is *not* in the Republiscums/QAnon interest.
>>
>> You are such a fucking transparent liar.
>
> Rudy, I want one focused on why security was as it was
Republiscums/QAnon — blocked an independent investigation into the entire
insurrection. You support that blockage.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 10, 2022, 2:40:14 PM1/10/22
to
>
> You attack the Constitution
No.
> with your progressive views
No. You are only swearing.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stop with your phony posturing as "centrist" and "even handed." You don't want
>>>>>>>> equal justice — you want Trump's insurrectionists to be set free and left alone,
>>>>>>>> while "leftist" protesters are harshly prosecuted. You are not "centrist" — you
>>>>>>>> are a reactionary far-right-wingnut.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <crickets>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes
>>>>
>>>> Yes. You whiffed off, as we knew you would. You pretend to be a "centrist,"
>>>> but you are nothing of the kind. You are a far-right-wingnut extremist. You
>>>> prove it in every post.
>>>
>>> Do I?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> Now you're just fucking off. You have nothing to say.
>
> Maybe it is time for
fucking off and trolling.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 10, 2022, 2:41:36 PM1/10/22
to
>>> beyond a doubt that you do not believe in equal
>>> justice.
>>
>> That's another lie.
>
> Yet you believe BLM and Antifa and
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Rudy is a progressive Democrat
>>>>
>>>> That's also a lie, and you're only sucking off your fellow extremist
>>>> far-right-wingnut Trumpswab in saying it.
>>>>
>>>> You can't define "progressive." You've admitted it repeatedly.
>>
>> And little matteeeB whiffs off again...
>
> Why don't you tell us yours, and
only swearing when you use it. We know this.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages