Biggest threat to America?

[The Real timschochet 6,441]

31 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Sorry, but so much wrong here.  I think it can be summarized with "rejected the truthful MSM reporting and chose to believe in pure fabrications."  That, to paraphrase @jonmx, is the stuff of bootlickers.

I think where you are incorrect is in conflating your opinions with fact.  It is absolutely reasonable to speculate on the supposed involvement of Antifa and the FBI in the Jan 6 riot.  That doesn't mean it happened, it means it is fair to speculate.  The MSM's response is to call people insurrectionists and other dehumanizing labels.  Sorry, but I don't find that compelling.  The Jan 6 Committee was an embarrassing joke that wouldn't know an objective investigation if it said hello and slapped them in the face. 

There IS a deep state, the MSM either is complicit or is gaslit by them, and in either case they gaslight and strongarm people into following their message.

I think you’re completely wrong.  But that’s OK; at least we have clarified where we djsagree in this instance. 

[jerryskids 6,573]

13 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I think you’re completely wrong.  But that’s OK; at least we have clarified where we djsagree in this instance. 

Where I don't think we've clarified is:  we both think each other is completely wrong, but I'm willing to discuss it, whereas you want to suppress discussion.   

But to keep the discussion going:  why don't you think it's worth discussing the potential involvement of Antifa and/or the FBI on 1/6?  Please don't say the 1/6 Commission, that was a traveshamockery.   

[supermike80 1,807]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

Well you wrote strength earlier. But now I’m too stupid? Which is it? 

Strong mind meant intelligence.   Sorry i wasnt more clear 

[The Real timschochet 6,441]

37 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Where I don't think we've clarified is:  we both think each other is completely wrong, but I'm willing to discuss it, whereas you want to suppress discussion.   

But to keep the discussion going:  why don't you think it's worth discussing the potential involvement of Antifa and/or the FBI on 1/6?  Please don't say the 1/6 Commission, that was a traveshamockery.   

I don’t seek to suppress discussion. I just don’t think it’s a reasonable topic because there’s no evidence that Antifa or the FBI were involved. If you want to discuss it and speculate about it go ahead. I’m not interested because I regard it as wholly fabricated. And the MSM absolutely shouldn’t be talking about it because there are no facts to talk about. 
 

On a side note I didn’t regard the 1/6 Commission as a mockery of anything. I thought they did an admirable, reasonable job. But there’s always the possibility that I’m missing something.  

[Hardcore troubadour 14,949]

Why did the Jan 6 committee destroy all of the evidence of the crimes committed that day?

[DonS 3,292]

20 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Why did the Jan 6 committee destroy all of the evidence of the crimes committed that day?

GTFO with your conspiracy talk!  I'm sure there is a 100% reasonable explanation for that.  #RESIST

[posty 2,612]

Social media

[jonmx 2,424]

3 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Sorry, but so much wrong here.  I think it can be summarized with "rejected the truthful MSM reporting and chose to believe in pure fabrications."  That, to paraphrase @jonmx, is the stuff of bootlickers.

I think where you are incorrect is in conflating your opinions with fact.  It is absolutely reasonable to speculate on the supposed involvement of Antifa and the FBI in the Jan 6 riot.  That doesn't mean it happened, it means it is fair to speculate.  The MSM's response is to call people insurrectionists and other dehumanizing labels.  Sorry, but I don't find that compelling.  The Jan 6 Committee was an embarrassing joke that wouldn't know an objective investigation if it said hello and slapped them in the face. 

There IS a deep state, the MSM either is complicit or is gaslit by them, and in either case they gaslight and strongarm people into following their message.

You were way too nice.  The J6 committee engaged in destroying evidence and fabricating testimony.   Those are actual criminal offenses (which Biden gave the highest award for).  Ironically the crime over a thousand J6ers were wrongly convicted on and overturned by the Supreme Court (impeding an official proceeding) is one of the many crimes which actually applies to what Liz Chenny did.  

These focking bastards have criminalized a meaningless check memo and somehow manufactured 34 felonies out of it.   And we have a lying media which does not question the validity of these charges which is easily the most absurd criminal charges in our nation's history.  I am beyond flabbergasted at the amazing ignorance one must have to believe our establishment media.   The absurdity of the stuff they report and Tim routinely parrots (mostly peaceful protests, gender assigned at birth, white supremacy is our biggest threat etc.) Is truely unbelievable to every free-thinking American.  That is why the vast majority of people rightfully stopped trusting the media and our government. 

[The Real timschochet 6,441]

1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Why did the Jan 6 committee destroy all of the evidence of the crimes committed that day?

Sigh. Never happened: 

https://www.factcheck.org/2024/10/meme-rehashes-old-false-claim-that-j6-committee-destroyed-evidence/

Once again, you guys are being duped, you’re believing false info. And this is the point. You reject the truth when it is reported and believe in this crap. And that is a huge threat to this country. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,949]

2 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Sigh. Never happened: 

https://www.factcheck.org/2024/10/meme-rehashes-old-false-claim-that-j6-committee-destroyed-evidence/

Once again, you guys are being duped, you’re believing false info. And this is the point. You reject the truth when it is reported and believe in this crap. And that is a huge threat to this country. 

Oh, so they only destroyed some of the evidence.  Thanks for clarifying. Don’t you feel stupid now? 

[The Real timschochet 6,441]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Oh, so they only destroyed some of the evidence.  Thanks for clarifying. Don’t you feel stupid now? 

No I really don’t. But you should. Some of the evidence wasn’t adequately protected, which is not the same as deliberately destroyed. There was no effort to destroy anything, no secret conspiracy, nothing hidden. It was all out there, you just didn’t like what you heard. For once can’t you get your head out of your a$$? The January 6 committee was, if anything, redundant because anyone watching that day already knows what happened: a group of MAGA idiots, egged on by Trump, stormed the Capitol, physically attacked police, caused several deaths and more injuries. Thats all. No conspiracies, no FBI, no Antifa, none of that crap. Just a bunch of crazy idiots who are about to be pardoned, which is pretty shameful. Stop defending them. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,949]

6 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

No I really don’t. But you should. Some of the evidence wasn’t adequately protected, which is not the same as deliberately destroyed. There was no effort to destroy anything, no secret conspiracy, nothing hidden. It was all out there, you just didn’t like what you heard. For once can’t you get your head out of your a$$? The January 6 committee was, if anything, redundant because anyone watching that day already knows what happened: a group of MAGA idiots, egged on by Trump, stormed the Capitol, physically attacked police, caused several deaths and more injuries. Thats all. No conspiracies, no FBI, no Antifa, none of that crap. Just a bunch of crazy idiots who are about to be pardoned, which is pretty shameful. Stop defending them. 

Yeah, your ignorance is glaring.   There were thousands of hours of interviews.  It’s not just the tape of the mostly peaceful riot that day.  

[The Psychic Observer 496]

The only person looking to destroy the truth about Jan 6 is Donald Trump.  Because he doesn't want the truth to come out.

The lie about antifa, the FBI and destroyed evidence has zero credibility and was created to distract the public. It's what Trump does. Repeat a lie enough times and people will believe it.

[Maximum Overkill 1,741]

11 minutes ago, The Psychic Observer said:

The only person looking to destroy the truth about Jan 6 is Donald Trump.  Because he doesn't want the truth to come out

Lyin Biden says What Up Ukraine! 

[jbycho 596]

2 hours ago, The Psychic Observer said:

The only person looking to destroy the truth about Jan 6 is Donald Trump.  Because he doesn't want the truth to come out.

The lie about antifa, the FBI and destroyed evidence has zero credibility and was created to distract the public. It's what Trump does. Repeat a lie enough times and people will believe it.

4 years later and this guy still believes his liberal masters about this crap. 

[The Psychic Observer 496]

25 minutes ago, jbycho said:

4 years later and this guy still believes his liberal masters about this crap. 

Do you believe that Antifa and the FBI were behind Jan 6 and the committee destroyed the evidence of this?

[RLLD 4,143]

Right now, domestically, the far left is the most important threat we face.  Globally its others like China, Russia, middle east etc.

[CaptainObvious1 327]

22 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

Well you wrote strength earlier. But now I’m too stupid? Which is it? 

All of the above

[Mike Honcho 5,101]

21 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Where I don't think we've clarified is:  we both think each other is completely wrong, but I'm willing to discuss it, whereas you want to suppress discussion.   

But to keep the discussion going:  why don't you think it's worth discussing the potential involvement of Antifa and/or the FBI on 1/6?  Please don't say the 1/6 Commission, that was a traveshamockery.   

I'll answer, for the same reason I don't discuss whether the world is flat, at this point it's been conclusively and 100% proven to not be true. 

[jerryskids 6,573]

1 hour ago, Mike Honcho said:

I'll answer, for the same reason I don't discuss whether the world is flat, at this point it's been conclusively and 100% proven to not be true. 

Yeah, those are equivalent.  Thanks for proving my point.  I expected better from you, duly noted.   

[Mike Honcho 5,101]

1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

Yeah, those are equivalent.  Thanks for proving my point.  I expected better from you, duly noted.   

Dad?

[jerryskids 6,573]

4 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Dad?

Yes son?  In addition to being less of a Leftist sheep, you should smoke less, drink less, exercise more, and I'm not getting any younger, some grandkids would be nice!   

[The Real timschochet 6,441]

10 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Yeah, those are equivalent.   

Pretty much. 
 

ETA Actually the flat earth theory might be more likely. 

[jerryskids 6,573]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

Pretty much. 
 

ETA Actually the flat earth theory might be more likely. 

I try to take you seriously, but then you say things like this.   

[edjr 6,578]

On 1/8/2025 at 5:58 PM, jerryskids said:

I try to take you seriously

 

[Engorgeous George 2,142]

On 1/7/2025 at 7:08 PM, The Real timschochet said:

No I really don’t. But you should. Some of the evidence wasn’t adequately protected, which is not the same as deliberately destroyed. There was no effort to destroy anything, no secret conspiracy, nothing hidden. It was all out there, you just didn’t like what you heard. For once can’t you get your head out of your a$$? The January 6 committee was, if anything, redundant because anyone watching that day already knows what happened: a group of MAGA idiots, egged on by Trump, stormed the Capitol, physically attacked police, caused several deaths and more injuries. Thats all. No conspiracies, no FBI, no Antifa, none of that crap. Just a bunch of crazy idiots who are about to be pardoned, which is pretty shameful. Stop defending them. 

As usual, a bridge too far.

[Engorgeous George 2,142]

On 1/8/2025 at 1:25 PM, Mike Honcho said:

I'll answer, for the same reason I don't discuss whether the world is flat, at this point it's been conclusively and 100% proven to not be true. 

Its pretty lumpy where I live.  

[The Real timschochet 6,441]

2 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

As usual, a bridge too far.

I don’t think so. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/us/politics/jan-6-capitol-deaths.html

[jbycho 596]

5 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

Its pretty lumpy where I live.  

It would be nice if it were flat. Probably better gas milage and few dopes trying to climb mountains and needing to be rescued. 

[Engorgeous George 2,142]

4 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I don’t think so. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/us/politics/jan-6-capitol-deaths.html

Which is why it is difficult to take you seriously.

[jbycho 596]

5 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I don’t think so. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/us/politics/jan-6-capitol-deaths.html

Key words that make this laughable. "In connection with...". 

[DonS 3,292]

Just now, jbycho said:

Key words that make this laughable. "In connection with...". 

Was an "anonymous source familiar with the way <insert name> thinks"  consulted? 

[Engorgeous George 2,142]

15 minutes ago, jbycho said:

Key words that make this laughable. "In connection with...". 

Tim might have difficulty with the legal concept of proximate cause.

[The Real timschochet 6,441]

8 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

Tim might have difficulty with teh legal concept of proximate cause.

Or maybe the bipartisan Senate committee did.

But I didn’t make any legal claim. I didn’t ask for anyone to be prosecuted for causing death. I used the phrase “caused deaths” in a general sense which I think is correct. We’re not in a court of law here. 

[Engorgeous George 2,142]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

Or maybe the bipartisan Senate committee did.

But I didn’t make any legal claim. I didn’t ask for anyone to be prosecuted for causing death. I used the phrase “caused deaths” in a general sense which I think is correct. We’re not in a court of law here. 

One does not have to be in a court of law to correctly and concisely understand the concept of causation.  As for the bipartisan committee, lets just say i find most actions undertaken by politicians to be political and with an agenda, whether they can label themselves Bipartisan or not.  i think most rational and cautious people do.  i think you do not when it suits your narrative and you do when it does not.

[The Real timschochet 6,441]

3 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

One does not have to be in a court of law to correctly and concisely understand the concept of causation.  As for the bipartisan committee, lets just say i find most actions undertaken by politicians to be political and with an agenda, whether they can label themselves Bipartisan or not.  i think most rational and cautious people do.  i think you do not when it suits your narrative and you do when it does not.

OK. Well we disagree then; I think the conclusion that this riot caused several deaths which would not have occurred if the riot hadn’t occurred is reasonable and not an agenda driven narrative. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,949]

9 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Or maybe the bipartisan Senate committee did.

But I didn’t make any legal claim. I didn’t ask for anyone to be prosecuted for causing death. I used the phrase “caused deaths” in a general sense which I think is correct. We’re not in a court of law here. 

Senate?

[jbycho 596]

26 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

OK. Well we disagree then; I think the conclusion that this riot caused several deaths which would not have occurred if the riot hadn’t occurred is reasonable and not an agenda driven narrative. 

Why haven't you droned on about the liberal 2020 riots as much as you do about this. For years and years you've been whining. .

It was WAY MORE DESTRUCTIVE to this nation. 

[Engorgeous George 2,142]

6 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

OK. Well we disagree then; I think the conclusion that this riot caused several deaths which would not have occurred if the riot hadn’t occurred is reasonable and not an agenda driven narrative. 

And I suspect, then, that you believe that any deaths in the attendees of the Buffalo Bills game yesterday during the next week can be said to have been caused by the game is a reasonable and correct proposition.  I suppose those folks would not have died but for attendance, or would they just have expired, naturally, because that is what a certain percent of folks do every day?

 

As I said, you go a bridge too far in trying to support your proposition, and in doing so you weaken a proposition which had merit for discussion.  You oversell.  You claim opinion as fact.  You dismiss countervailing arguments without consideration.  You damage the very narrative you would advance, and you do so consistently and you do not see it.  I, and others, have cautioned you about your unexamined life, your unexamined posting style, your uncritically considered arguments.  You do not hear, you do not head, you do not see.  There are few so blind as thee.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,949]

Real Tim loves to point fingers because it makes him feel better about himself.  It’s the only time he does.