Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Judge went 'off the deep end' by letting violent Neo-Nazi off easy


Grim Reaper 6

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

It would.  No reason to believe that is on the table.

Remember, in lefties minds, if they say it, it's real. Even if it's based on absolutely nothing but their own boiling hate.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

Only if it involved federal jurisdiction.  BLM riots were city and state.

Federal buildings were attacked and in Portland the damages came to 2.3 million and that figure is just for the federal buildings. The Feds had jurisdiction. 

https://www.newsweek.com/portland-protesters-damage-cost-federal-buildings-1566821

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, WVK said:

If a Biden win will lead to riots shouldn’t Biden stop out for the sake of the nation? 

as per Gromdor
 “I have this idea- why don't we not elect people that will cause our citizens to rebel and burn our own cities?”

 

Things like BOMs minions will riot because they are butt sore losers doesn't mean giving into bullying threats of violence if BOM doesn't get his way, didn't you guys learn that back in 2020 when BOM tantrums got him only laughed at.

Now you do have a point since BOM has a history of instigating his minions into things like riots storming the capital etc then he likely should stop doing that out of respect for the country and it's people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Zebra3 said:

Remember, in lefties minds, if they say it, it's real. Even if it's based on absolutely nothing but their own boiling hate.

Boy you nailed it,  time and again in the minions feeble minds if BOM brays it then it's true and yes, their hate and need to blame others for their failures fuels it.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Edumakated said:

So because something happened that people didn't like that justified rioting?  Seriously?  That is your response?  Again, you are arguing to appease the mob.

The summer of love was liberals.  Stop playing dumb.  Antifa and BLM types aren't conservatives.  Funny how you all want to say Proud Boys are MAGA voters, but want to try to split hairs and try to claim Antifa / BLM aren't really liberal voters.

Boy oh boy did you hit that nail on head, BOM didn't like he lost a fair honest election so he instagates his minions into storming rioting the capital in a failed insurrection, never can we justify a riot especially when it's because BOM is a butt sore loser. Ty for pointing that out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Gromdor said:

That is correct.  Trump and Barr had seven months to do something and failed.  

Trump was going to send in the National Guard. Unfortunately that has to be approved by the state he wants to send them to. They said no and continued to support the rioters and looters. They still haven't recovered economically from their stupidity and the crime rates have soared. Let them wallow in it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what more the Feds can do other than arrest and prosecute, which is exactly what they did.
They certainly didn't "do nothing."
BLM claims they did far too much.

Harte

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Why nothing.  Do you have any suspects or evidence to give him?  We are a country of laws and if almost a year goes by with no evidence collected or suspects arrested, what can a new leader do?  The old leader pretty much pardoned them all with his inaction.

Don't get me wrong, but I am all for jailing rioters if you can successfully prosecute them.  

Wait???? What????

I'm sure I was just reading something about Trump's court cases.  You know, the ones that took multiple years to be prosecuted and somehow happen to have been brought just in time to coincide with the 2024 election cycle.  Now you're saying Trump basically pardoned a bunch of rioters for not acting within months!

I'll let the double standard marinate in hypocrisy for a bit. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Wait???? What????

I'm sure I was just reading something about Trump's court cases.  You know, the ones that took multiple years to be prosecuted and somehow happen to have been brought just in time to coincide with the 2024 election cycle.  Now you're saying Trump basically pardoned a bunch of rioters for not acting within months!

I'll let the double standard marinate in hypocrisy for a bit. 

You know that comparison is not in good faith.  White collar crimes follow a completely different time line than other crimes.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

You know that comparison is not in good faith.  White collar crimes follow a completely different time line than other crimes.

The wheels of justice turn slowly.... unless it's blue collar, then you're either on the express elevators or nothing will happen!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

Wait???? What????

I'm sure I was just reading something about Trump's court cases.  You know, the ones that took multiple years to be prosecuted and somehow happen to have been brought just in time to coincide with the 2024 election cycle.  Now you're saying Trump basically pardoned a bunch of rioters for not acting within months!

I'll let the double standard marinate in hypocrisy for a bit. 

If you're done marinating in your hypocracy, allow me to point out that the only reason it's been so long is Trump doing everything in his power to stall the court cases till the election in the dubious hope he can win, and pardon himself. Whats made this possible is the Trump appointed judges who are bending over backwards for him. Is this going to be another of your agree to disagree escape ploys when your proven wrong yet again?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

If you're done marinating in your hypocracy, allow me to point out that the only reason it's been so long is Trump doing everything in his power to stall the court cases till the election in the dubious hope he can win, and pardon himself. Whats made this possible is the Trump appointed judges who are bending over backwards for him. Is this going to be another of your agree to disagree escape ploys when your proven wrong yet again?

Your right Hank, that agree to disagree escape crap is for the birds.:yes:

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

If you're done marinating in your hypocracy, allow me to point out that the only reason it's been so long is Trump doing everything in his power to stall the court cases till the election in the dubious hope he can win, and pardon himself. Whats made this possible is the Trump appointed judges who are bending over backwards for him. Is this going to be another of your agree to disagree escape ploys when your proven wrong yet again?

Oh, the "Trump will pardon himself" conspiracy theory. You know that was the line you guys were going with in 2020 too, right? :lol: 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Your right Hank, that agree to disagree escape crap is for the birds.:yes:

This is just from page one of my search into your post history. There are 7 more pages (edit: sorry, 6, I wasn't including that I'd just posted page 1 here), if you search for "agree disagree" in your history. 

  

On 3/22/2024 at 7:56 AM, Grim Reaper 6 said:

On your comments above we must agree to disagree.

On 3/21/2024 at 6:58 AM, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Well, thanks for your opinion but on this we can agree to disagree!!!!

Peace

On 3/18/2024 at 11:11 AM, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Thanks for your comments I appreciate your thoughts, but we must agree to disagree on this subject.😶‍🌫️

On 12/26/2023 at 6:26 PM, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Your welcome, so we can respectfully agree to disagree on this subject!

On 12/26/2023 at 4:04 PM, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Well my friend we will not agree on everything, so in this case I think it’s best to respectfully agree to disagree!:tu:

On 12/23/2023 at 8:27 PM, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Again, you certainly welcome to your opinion so we must agree to respectfully disagree.

On 12/18/2023 at 12:08 PM, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Thanks for your point of view, however we will have to agree to disagree respectfully at this point.

On 12/13/2023 at 6:04 PM, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Well then, we can agree to disagree because I have always believed that nothing was more important than my immediate family.  

On 12/12/2023 at 12:47 PM, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Well, on this subject we must agree to disagree, and the entire scientific community also disagrees with you.

No harm no foul, Peace!!😊

On 10/21/2023 at 2:23 PM, Grim Reaper 6 said:

That was my point when I said we could agree to respectfully disagree!!!:yes:

On 10/15/2023 at 4:09 PM, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Hawken, we can respectfully agree to disagree on that subject.

On 10/15/2023 at 3:11 PM, Grim Reaper 6 said:

On this topic we will have to agree to disagree my friend!

On 10/14/2023 at 10:51 AM, Grim Reaper 6 said:

On this subject my friend we must agree to disagree!

 

Edited by Paranoid Android
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

This is just from page one of my search into your post history: 

  

 

What your point, and those comments were not made to you!!!!;)

I kind of feel like your stalking me!!!!!!!:yes:

Edited by Grim Reaper 6
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

What your point, and those comments were not to you!!!!;)

I kind of feel like your stalking me!!!!!!!:yes:

Some of them were directed to me, check the history yourself) . The point is if you say it's ok to agree to disagree, but when I do it, it is.... what were the words you used, allow me to check... ah yes - you said that it was "crap" that was "for the birds". 

After your last post to me last night, you have no right to complain about the content of my post to you! 

Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Some of them were directed to me, check the history yourself) . The point is if you say it's ok to agree to disagree, but when I do it, it is.... what were the words you used, allow me to check... ah yes - you said that it was "crap" that was "for the birds". 

After your last post to me last night, you have no right to complain about the content of my post to you! 

Your right, last night I did go over the top and I apologize for comments I was out of line!!!!!:yes:

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Some of them were directed to me, check the history yourself) . The point is if you say it's ok to agree to disagree, but when I do it, it is.... what were the words you used, allow me to check... ah yes - you said that it was "crap" that was "for the birds". 

After your last post to me last night, you have no right to complain about the content of my post to you! 

Now how about your apology for all the lies you've told. All the disingenuous "facts" that you've trotted out over, and over again. Then when you're called out, and proven wrong, it's agree to disagree time. That wall that you keep throwing shiat at hoping something will stick must be a health Hazzard by now. 💩

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah...when you walk into a s*** storm...

I'm turning back 😆

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

Now how about your apology for all the lies you've told.

i don't lie! I have made mistakes, of which I have apologised and/or retracted when it's come up, but that's not the same at all. But I daresay so have you! 

 

38 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

All the disingenuous "facts" that you've trotted out over, and over again. Then when you're called out, and proven wrong, it's agree to disagree time. That wall that you keep throwing shiat at hoping something will stick must be a health Hazzard by now. 💩

There's a difference between agreeing to disagree based on disputed facts and agreeing to disagree based on interpretation of available facts. You're trying to mix them up as if they are the same thing, when that is simply not the case. We seem to argue and disagree about the interpretation of available data frequently. We rarely, if ever, disagree about the availability of facts, yet you seem to be arguing as if that is what we are talking about here. Very poor form.

Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I don't lie! I have made mistakes, of which I have apologised and/or retracted when it's come up, but that's not the same at all. But I daresay so have you! 

Well, alas, you started out with another one here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Well, alas, you started out with another one here.

Then prove it! Despite asking for evidence of my lies over and over and over and OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER no one has ever provided evidence of a single lie I have made! As you are claiming the evidence exists, present it or retract.  You're not the first person who I've asked for a single shred of evidence, no one has provided anything. Ever! People have tried to suggest that I made a mistake at one point and that mistake constitutes a lie, if that's your tactic then don't bother straight off the bat. But I stand by my honesty, for better or worse what I say is the unadulterated truth as I see it. 

Edit: by "people" I am referring to a select group of leftist/progressive members here on UM, it's strange that not a single conservative has ever accused me of anything. Are all conservatives liars, then? Or is it just our interpretation of facts that differ? 

Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

Then prove it! Despite asking for evidence of my lies over and over and over and OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER no one has ever provided evidence of a single lie I have made!

All you do when called out on your lies is say "Oopsie whoopsy I made a mistake."

With that said, of course no one can provide compelling evidence of your own lies, to you.

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

As you are claiming the evidence exists, present it or retract. 

Eh, we can just go with one of our recent exchanges. You claimed, falsely, multiple times, that Joe Biden "specifically" used a word he did not.

"Oopsie, mistake."

The only problem is that you had previously told me, in that exchange, that you weren't just regurgitating the words of YouTube man.

But that's what you did. It led to your "mistake". So you either lied about your regurgitation of YouTube and made a mistake, or you lied about both. I'm not picky, I think either could be true.

I also seem to recall you digging up a some old posts of mine, juxtaposing them with a video made 3 weeks after the fact, and suggesting that I was disagreeing with the video, and you had watched the video before our disagreement.

I'd describe that as either you were lying, or you're stupid enough to not be able to read dates.

So, which one was it? 

You also trotted out some whopper about being censored by Facebook about the lab leak, which evaporated when pressed.

There was something about "bunches" of fake COVID deaths that turned out to be...2? 3? Less than 5? You told me there were more....but you never followed up. I suppose YouTube was down that day.

To me, this either is the record of an idiot, or liar. I think you can choose your own adventure. Which one is it?

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

You're not the first person who I've asked for a single shred of evidence, no one has provided anything. Ever! People have tried to suggest that I made a mistake at one point and that mistake constitutes a lie, if that's your tactic then don't bother straight off the bat.

Given you call all the lies you get caught out on "mistakes"....

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

But I stand by my honesty, for better or worse what I say is the unadulterated truth as I see it. 

Except it isn't as you see it. It's as whatever YouTuber du jour sees it. That, I suppose, is my principal issue with your "honesty".

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

All you do when called out on your lies is say "Oopsie whoopsy I made a mistake."

With that said, of course no one can provide compelling evidence of your own lies, to you.

So not lies, then! 

 

2 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Eh, we can just go with one of our recent exchanges. You claimed, falsely, multiple times, that Joe Biden "specifically" used a word he did not.

"Oopsie, mistake."

The only problem is that you had previously told me, in that exchange, that you weren't just regurgitating the words of YouTube man.

But that's what you did. It led to your "mistake". So you either lied about your regurgitation of YouTube and made a mistake, or you lied about both. I'm not picky, I think either could be true.

YouTube man did not say that Biden used that word either! But here's the bigger issue in this whole thing - the mistake that I made doesn't actually change the context of Biden's words. I did say that Biden specifically said he "created" the jobs, and I do admit that I probably got that from the descriptive language by YouTube man, but YouTube man also quoted Biden directly, and the words Biden used was "new jobs", which is just as false as "created jobs". So I admit I got the word wrong, but the point behind my comment is still very valid, and certainly not a lie! This also fails to take into account that I watched Biden's comments about this long before I watched YouTube man, but that's just a minor aside at this point. 

 

2 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

I also seem to recall you digging up a some old posts of mine, juxtaposing them with a video made 3 weeks after the fact, and suggesting that I was disagreeing with the video, and you had watched the video before our disagreement.

I'd describe that as either you were lying, or you're stupid enough to not be able to read dates.

So, which one was it? 

A mix. IIRC that was about the Alan Dershowitz video about the likely SCOTUS response to Colorado's decision to kick Trump off the ballot. Dershowitz has put out heaps of videos about this, I don't know if the video I linked to you was the same video I was talking about in our previous context, or whether I was getting your Dershowitz comment mixed up with the Dershowitz video I linked. But again, this is hair splitting at its finest - the worst case scenario (absolute worst case scenario) is that I got the date of this particular video mixed up with other negative comments you have made about Dershowitz. Once again, whether the exact video was the right one I was thinking of, the point is that you have posted negatively about Dershowitz and ridiculed his ability to analyse cases, and the video I posted shows Dershowitz demonstrating the same legal reasoning as SCOTUS did when they made the decision, which was the point I was making. 

I wasn't saying you had attempted to refute that specific video before, that was an implication you made into my post that wasn't present when I made it in the first place. But this is a minor aside to the broader point.

 

2 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

You also trotted out some whopper about being censored by Facebook about the lab leak, which evaporated when pressed.

I stand by it, my posts were deleted by Facebook. I recall someone expressing doubt over my claims, but I don't recall them going further than that, and I don't know how to prove to anyone that posts that were deleted got deleted. 

 

2 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

There was something about "bunches" of fake COVID deaths that turned out to be...2? 3? Less than 5? You told me there were more....but you never followed up. I suppose YouTube was down that day.

Was this about people being included in covid deaths when they didn't die from covid? Eg, the motorcyclist who was included in covid deaths because he had covid when he had an accident? Or the poor 14 year old with Stage 4 brain cancer who was listed as a covid death and his family had to go online when a newspaper took up the story to say "hey, our boy did not die from covid"? If so, then I would argue that the existence of these people is proof that what I said was correct and not a lie. If this isn't what you were thinking of you may have to clarify your position because I'm not certain I get your point.

 

2 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

To me, this either is the record of an idiot, or liar. I think you can choose your own adventure. Which one is it?

Given you call all the lies you get caught out on "mistakes"....

Except it isn't as you see it. It's as whatever YouTuber du jour sees it. That, I suppose, is my principal issue with your "honesty".

I still have not seen any lies. Even the mistakes you've pointed out are so minor they don't significantly change the actual point being made if I had gotten the data correct. It sounds like you're looking for a reason to call me a liar, rather than any actual desire to engage in a discussion. But thanks for the chat :tu: 

~ Regards, PA

Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.