Did the bottle of ketchup try to take the steering wheel of the Beast and drive to the Capitol?Harrison Bergeron said:
So many replies I though yesterday during Prime Time an intern testified she overhead at a cocktail party someone she did not know said something to the effect of President Trump threw something that might have been like a bottle of ketchup.
Jan 6 committee
174,969 Views |
3026 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Harrison Bergeron
The real reason they hate the guy.
Whatever your politics, Steve Bannon is 100% right herepic.twitter.com/5ybaYgIzeQ
— Gray Connolly (@GrayConnolly) July 20, 2022
I just don't see why he would, there is absolutely no upside.Sam Lowry said:If I were advising Trump, I would recommend he kept his mouth shut. If I were feeling especially hypocritical, I might even complain that he was being "excluded" from the hearings, knowing full well he could remedy that any time he wanted. But I'd have a reason for all that nonsense - I'd be on Trump's payroll.RMF5630 said:So, Counselor. You would recommend that your client go on National TV and sit down with a Committee led by someone that has come out publicly hates you. In a forum that you have no recourse, no ability to ask follow up or cross-examination questions and the media will dissect every thing you say? You think he should go?Sam Lowry said:Summary of the thread so far...RMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:Shame Dear Leader won't participateHe Hate Me said:Nancy Pelosi for starters. Maybe even some of the committee members themselves.Booray said:Oldbear83 said:Funny how you put my name where everyone knows that would be Sam.Booray said:
OldBear can never be troubled for an actual answer to tough questions.
Then again, in an age where Cheney and Kinzinger sell themselves as 'conservatives' when they are nothing like that, I imagine you believe you and Sam and Oso are 'open-minded' even though you convicted Trump months ago, even with no more than bad emotions for evidence.
You have managed to out-Borat Mr. Sasha with your act.
Still deflecting. Who would Trump call that was not called by the committee?
Why would he? What have anybof us seen of a Liz Cheney led Kangaroo Court that would say let me subject myself to this? There is no recourse, there is no cross examination, there are no limits throwing a spaghetti lunch is being used as proof of a coup, there is no fair arbitrar.
Pages 1-60: "Why can't Trump testify?"
Page 61: "Um, he can."
Page 62: "WHY SHOULD TRUMP TESTIFY???"
The question is, what's your excuse?
Anything he says that is not what they want will be branded a lie. Anything that they do like will be used against him.
The point is that Liz set up an arrangement that guarantees we do not get to the truth. 100% political theater that people like you and a select other seem to be taking hook, line and sinker.
I think we are getting to the truth.RMF5630 said:I just don't see why he would, there is absolutely no upside.Sam Lowry said:If I were advising Trump, I would recommend he kept his mouth shut. If I were feeling especially hypocritical, I might even complain that he was being "excluded" from the hearings, knowing full well he could remedy that any time he wanted. But I'd have a reason for all that nonsense - I'd be on Trump's payroll.RMF5630 said:So, Counselor. You would recommend that your client go on National TV and sit down with a Committee led by someone that has come out publicly hates you. In a forum that you have no recourse, no ability to ask follow up or cross-examination questions and the media will dissect every thing you say? You think he should go?Sam Lowry said:Summary of the thread so far...RMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:Shame Dear Leader won't participateHe Hate Me said:Nancy Pelosi for starters. Maybe even some of the committee members themselves.Booray said:Oldbear83 said:Funny how you put my name where everyone knows that would be Sam.Booray said:
OldBear can never be troubled for an actual answer to tough questions.
Then again, in an age where Cheney and Kinzinger sell themselves as 'conservatives' when they are nothing like that, I imagine you believe you and Sam and Oso are 'open-minded' even though you convicted Trump months ago, even with no more than bad emotions for evidence.
You have managed to out-Borat Mr. Sasha with your act.
Still deflecting. Who would Trump call that was not called by the committee?
Why would he? What have anybof us seen of a Liz Cheney led Kangaroo Court that would say let me subject myself to this? There is no recourse, there is no cross examination, there are no limits throwing a spaghetti lunch is being used as proof of a coup, there is no fair arbitrar.
Pages 1-60: "Why can't Trump testify?"
Page 61: "Um, he can."
Page 62: "WHY SHOULD TRUMP TESTIFY???"
The question is, what's your excuse?
Anything he says that is not what they want will be branded a lie. Anything that they do like will be used against him.
The point is that Liz set up an arrangement that guarantees we do not get to the truth. 100% political theater that people like you and a select other seem to be taking hook, line and sinker.
So tell us, what is the truth?Guy Noir said:I think we are getting to the truth.RMF5630 said:I just don't see why he would, there is absolutely no upside.Sam Lowry said:If I were advising Trump, I would recommend he kept his mouth shut. If I were feeling especially hypocritical, I might even complain that he was being "excluded" from the hearings, knowing full well he could remedy that any time he wanted. But I'd have a reason for all that nonsense - I'd be on Trump's payroll.RMF5630 said:So, Counselor. You would recommend that your client go on National TV and sit down with a Committee led by someone that has come out publicly hates you. In a forum that you have no recourse, no ability to ask follow up or cross-examination questions and the media will dissect every thing you say? You think he should go?Sam Lowry said:Summary of the thread so far...RMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:Shame Dear Leader won't participateHe Hate Me said:Nancy Pelosi for starters. Maybe even some of the committee members themselves.Booray said:Oldbear83 said:Funny how you put my name where everyone knows that would be Sam.Booray said:
OldBear can never be troubled for an actual answer to tough questions.
Then again, in an age where Cheney and Kinzinger sell themselves as 'conservatives' when they are nothing like that, I imagine you believe you and Sam and Oso are 'open-minded' even though you convicted Trump months ago, even with no more than bad emotions for evidence.
You have managed to out-Borat Mr. Sasha with your act.
Still deflecting. Who would Trump call that was not called by the committee?
Why would he? What have anybof us seen of a Liz Cheney led Kangaroo Court that would say let me subject myself to this? There is no recourse, there is no cross examination, there are no limits throwing a spaghetti lunch is being used as proof of a coup, there is no fair arbitrar.
Pages 1-60: "Why can't Trump testify?"
Page 61: "Um, he can."
Page 62: "WHY SHOULD TRUMP TESTIFY???"
The question is, what's your excuse?
Anything he says that is not what they want will be branded a lie. Anything that they do like will be used against him.
The point is that Liz set up an arrangement that guarantees we do not get to the truth. 100% political theater that people like you and a select other seem to be taking hook, line and sinker.
Trump was pissed that he lost?
Trump thinks the election was stolen?
He was mad at Barr?
He wanted to go to the Capitol?
He is in to how big his crowds are?
We have not learned anything new, a couple of tidbits that he threw a lunch. He wanted to belay security to have a bigger crowd?
he's talking about a growing neofeudal mindset in elite society.Redbrickbear said:
The real reason they hate the guy.Whatever your politics, Steve Bannon is 100% right herepic.twitter.com/5ybaYgIzeQ
— Gray Connolly (@GrayConnolly) July 20, 2022
it's too hard to make policy that grows a middle class, that creates ladders out of poverty. Just toss out a little guaranteed minimum income like bread to pigeons and move on down the road. Why bother with creating jobs and prosperity for others when you could just make more money and be a philanthropist? Why pay for prisons and police when the inner city crime only affects the poors? Just let it all burn and give out reparations to the survivors.
That is what happens when we extol humanity rather than deity. Asperational cognition turns reflexively self-serving.
The USS system migration process went forward on January 27, 2021
So Biden admin wiped the USS phones.. interesting
So Biden admin wiped the USS phones.. interesting
Adopt-a-Bear 2024
#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs
#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs
#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
My week beats your year.Oldbear83 said:
So much for Sam's "honesty"
Wrong.Sam Lowry said:My week beats your year.Oldbear83 said:
So much for Sam's "honesty"
Again.
Or should I use your fave word and just say "Debunked"?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
RMF5630 said:So tell us, what is the truth?Guy Noir said:I think we are getting to the truth.RMF5630 said:I just don't see why he would, there is absolutely no upside.Sam Lowry said:If I were advising Trump, I would recommend he kept his mouth shut. If I were feeling especially hypocritical, I might even complain that he was being "excluded" from the hearings, knowing full well he could remedy that any time he wanted. But I'd have a reason for all that nonsense - I'd be on Trump's payroll.RMF5630 said:So, Counselor. You would recommend that your client go on National TV and sit down with a Committee led by someone that has come out publicly hates you. In a forum that you have no recourse, no ability to ask follow up or cross-examination questions and the media will dissect every thing you say? You think he should go?Sam Lowry said:Summary of the thread so far...RMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:Shame Dear Leader won't participateHe Hate Me said:Nancy Pelosi for starters. Maybe even some of the committee members themselves.Booray said:Oldbear83 said:Funny how you put my name where everyone knows that would be Sam.Booray said:
OldBear can never be troubled for an actual answer to tough questions.
Then again, in an age where Cheney and Kinzinger sell themselves as 'conservatives' when they are nothing like that, I imagine you believe you and Sam and Oso are 'open-minded' even though you convicted Trump months ago, even with no more than bad emotions for evidence.
You have managed to out-Borat Mr. Sasha with your act.
Still deflecting. Who would Trump call that was not called by the committee?
Why would he? What have anybof us seen of a Liz Cheney led Kangaroo Court that would say let me subject myself to this? There is no recourse, there is no cross examination, there are no limits throwing a spaghetti lunch is being used as proof of a coup, there is no fair arbitrar.
Pages 1-60: "Why can't Trump testify?"
Page 61: "Um, he can."
Page 62: "WHY SHOULD TRUMP TESTIFY???"
The question is, what's your excuse?
Anything he says that is not what they want will be branded a lie. Anything that they do like will be used against him.
The point is that Liz set up an arrangement that guarantees we do not get to the truth. 100% political theater that people like you and a select other seem to be taking hook, line and sinker.
Trump was pissed that he lost?
Trump thinks the election was stolen?
He was mad at Barr?
He wanted to go to the Capitol?
He is in to how big his crowds are?
We have not learned anything new, a couple of tidbits that he threw a lunch. He wanted to belay security to have a bigger crowd?
Trump was planning to throw out the election results. That effort easily can be viewed as an abuse of power. Was this illegal? That is for you to decide.
I've got a better idea. How about answering Booray's question?Oldbear83 said:Wrong.Sam Lowry said:My week beats your year.Oldbear83 said:
So much for Sam's "honesty"
Again.
Or should I use your fave word and just say "Debunked"?
Here is Boo's question ... againBooray said:He Hate Me said:Trump does not get to call witnesses. I think we already agreed that was true.Booray said:
Don't you find it a little odd that Trump is upset about not being able to cross examine his own witnesses?
When I say " his witnesses" I mean witnesses who are on his side.
So if Trump could call witnesses to give his side of the story, who would he call that the committee did not?
These guysOsodecentx said:Here is Boo's question ... againBooray said:He Hate Me said:Trump does not get to call witnesses. I think we already agreed that was true.Booray said:
Don't you find it a little odd that Trump is upset about not being able to cross examine his own witnesses?
When I say " his witnesses" I mean witnesses who are on his side.
So if Trump could call witnesses to give his side of the story, who would he call that the committee did not?
I think the SS did that, in an act of institutional preservation. If they get dragged into partisan process, they are done, and they know it. It's a sign of just how far the J6 cmee has overreached.4th and Inches said:
The USS system migration process went forward on January 27, 2021
So Biden admin wiped the USS phones.. interesting
Osodecentx said:Here is Boo's question ... againBooray said:He Hate Me said:Trump does not get to call witnesses. I think we already agreed that was true.Booray said:
Don't you find it a little odd that Trump is upset about not being able to cross examine his own witnesses?
When I say " his witnesses" I mean witnesses who are on his side.
So if Trump could call witnesses to give his side of the story, who would he call that the committee did not?
Read the thread. I already gave you some names.
A name-Pelosi.He Hate Me said:Osodecentx said:Here is Boo's question ... againBooray said:He Hate Me said:Trump does not get to call witnesses. I think we already agreed that was true.Booray said:
Don't you find it a little odd that Trump is upset about not being able to cross examine his own witnesses?
When I say " his witnesses" I mean witnesses who are on his side.
So if Trump could call witnesses to give his side of the story, who would he call that the committee did not?
Read the thread. I already gave you some names.
Maybe some of the other committee members. Don't know who or why as to the second. As to Pelosi, I would understand that to be questioning about why the Capitol police were so unprepared. I think that is fair game. My recollection, however, is that teh Capitol police have 535 bosses, not one.
I also wonder why the Capitol Police were so unprepared.Booray said:A name-Pelosi.He Hate Me said:Osodecentx said:Here is Boo's question ... againBooray said:He Hate Me said:Trump does not get to call witnesses. I think we already agreed that was true.Booray said:
Don't you find it a little odd that Trump is upset about not being able to cross examine his own witnesses?
When I say " his witnesses" I mean witnesses who are on his side.
So if Trump could call witnesses to give his side of the story, who would he call that the committee did not?
Read the thread. I already gave you some names.
Maybe some of the other committee members. Don't know who or why as to the second. As to Pelosi, I would understand that to be questioning about why the Capitol police were so unprepared. I think that is fair game. My recollection, however, is that teh Capitol police have 535 bosses, not one.
Given the context of the issue, that's a very dishonest post from you, Sam.Sam Lowry said:I've got a better idea. How about answering Booray's question?Oldbear83 said:Wrong.Sam Lowry said:My week beats your year.Oldbear83 said:
So much for Sam's "honesty"
Again.
Or should I use your fave word and just say "Debunked"?
Which is to say, normal for you these days.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Note - the Grand Dragon of the Dear Leader cult deflectsSam Lowry said:I've got a better idea. How about answering Booray's question?Oldbear83 said:Wrong.Sam Lowry said:My week beats your year.Oldbear83 said:
So much for Sam's "honesty"
Again.
Or should I use your fave word and just say "Debunked"?
Sure 535 bosses. However that would work.Booray said:A name-Pelosi.He Hate Me said:Osodecentx said:Here is Boo's question ... againBooray said:He Hate Me said:Trump does not get to call witnesses. I think we already agreed that was true.Booray said:
Don't you find it a little odd that Trump is upset about not being able to cross examine his own witnesses?
When I say " his witnesses" I mean witnesses who are on his side.
So if Trump could call witnesses to give his side of the story, who would he call that the committee did not?
Read the thread. I already gave you some names.
Maybe some of the other committee members. Don't know who or why as to the second. As to Pelosi, I would understand that to be questioning about why the Capitol police were so unprepared. I think that is fair game. My recollection, however, is that teh Capitol police have 535 bosses, not one.
It didn't-that is the point.He Hate Me said:Sure 535 bosses. However that would work.Booray said:A name-Pelosi.He Hate Me said:Osodecentx said:Here is Boo's question ... againBooray said:He Hate Me said:Trump does not get to call witnesses. I think we already agreed that was true.Booray said:
Don't you find it a little odd that Trump is upset about not being able to cross examine his own witnesses?
When I say " his witnesses" I mean witnesses who are on his side.
So if Trump could call witnesses to give his side of the story, who would he call that the committee did not?
Read the thread. I already gave you some names.
Maybe some of the other committee members. Don't know who or why as to the second. As to Pelosi, I would understand that to be questioning about why the Capitol police were so unprepared. I think that is fair game. My recollection, however, is that teh Capitol police have 535 bosses, not one.
GOP want to blame the failure on Pelosi. She and many others say that the cumbersome and confusing oversight structure for the Capitol police make that charge unfair.
Testimony and a legislative fix on that issue would be welcome.
But it would not change the question of why the riot happened in the first place.
"why the riot happened "
Maybe not everyone buys the claim that Joe Biden really got 81 million legit votes
Maybe some folks were a little unhappy with last-minute changes by politicians in selected states to avoid ID and personal appearance to vote
Maybe some folks wanted to make their displeasure known, some choosing less than optimal ways to express themselves. After all, it was cool to burn down buildings and break into government buildings during the Kavanaugh confirmation, so it must be OK - some may have thought - to show a bit of anger on January 6
Not saying I agree with all that, but pretending the crap sold by Big Media was bought by everyone is more than a bit fatuous
Maybe not everyone buys the claim that Joe Biden really got 81 million legit votes
Maybe some folks were a little unhappy with last-minute changes by politicians in selected states to avoid ID and personal appearance to vote
Maybe some folks wanted to make their displeasure known, some choosing less than optimal ways to express themselves. After all, it was cool to burn down buildings and break into government buildings during the Kavanaugh confirmation, so it must be OK - some may have thought - to show a bit of anger on January 6
Not saying I agree with all that, but pretending the crap sold by Big Media was bought by everyone is more than a bit fatuous
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
What about you? Ready to commit one way or another?Oldbear83 said:
Maybe not everyone buys the claim that Joe Biden really got 81 million legit votes
Having 535 bosses did not work, because that is not the case. The Chief of the Capitol Police reports to a committee of three that includes the Sergeant at Arms of the House and Sergeant at Arms of the Senate. The fact that you thought each member of the House was one of the Chief's bosses is laughable.Booray said:It didn't-that is the point.He Hate Me said:Sure 535 bosses. However that would work.Booray said:A name-Pelosi.He Hate Me said:Osodecentx said:Here is Boo's question ... againBooray said:He Hate Me said:Trump does not get to call witnesses. I think we already agreed that was true.Booray said:
Don't you find it a little odd that Trump is upset about not being able to cross examine his own witnesses?
When I say " his witnesses" I mean witnesses who are on his side.
So if Trump could call witnesses to give his side of the story, who would he call that the committee did not?
Read the thread. I already gave you some names.
Maybe some of the other committee members. Don't know who or why as to the second. As to Pelosi, I would understand that to be questioning about why the Capitol police were so unprepared. I think that is fair game. My recollection, however, is that teh Capitol police have 535 bosses, not one.
Biden Sucks. The rest is details.Sam Lowry said:What about you? Ready to commit one way or another?Oldbear83 said:
Maybe not everyone buys the claim that Joe Biden really got 81 million legit votes
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
It's been almost two years, though. Are we ever going to know? What would it take to prove it either way?Oldbear83 said:Biden Sucks. The rest is details.Sam Lowry said:What about you? Ready to commit one way or another?Oldbear83 said:
Maybe not everyone buys the claim that Joe Biden really got 81 million legit votes
I read varying reports to the current tally of fraudulent votes determined by legal investigations in the states. I have seen as low as 475. Assuming they are all Biden votes (they are not) and needing an additional 100k votes to overturn the Biden lead in PA, GA, and AZ, we are about 210 years away on current pace.Sam Lowry said:It's been almost two years, though. Are we ever going to know? What would it take to prove it either way?Oldbear83 said:Biden Sucks. The rest is details.Sam Lowry said:What about you? Ready to commit one way or another?Oldbear83 said:
Maybe not everyone buys the claim that Joe Biden really got 81 million legit votes
210 years would easily be the fastest answer I ever got from Oldbear. I'm optimistic, thanks!xxx yyy said:I read varying reports to the current tally of fraudulent votes determined by legal investigations in the states. I have seen as low as 475. Assuming they are all Biden votes (they are not) and needing an additional 100k votes to overturn the Biden lead in PA, GA, and AZ, we are about 210 years away on current pace.Sam Lowry said:It's been almost two years, though. Are we ever going to know? What would it take to prove it either way?Oldbear83 said:Biden Sucks. The rest is details.Sam Lowry said:What about you? Ready to commit one way or another?Oldbear83 said:
Maybe not everyone buys the claim that Joe Biden really got 81 million legit votes
Replace Biden with a competent Republican and Conservative. Again, the rest is noise and spittle.Sam Lowry said:It's been almost two years, though. Are we ever going to know? What would it take to prove it either way?Oldbear83 said:Biden Sucks. The rest is details.Sam Lowry said:What about you? Ready to commit one way or another?Oldbear83 said:
Maybe not everyone buys the claim that Joe Biden really got 81 million legit votes
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
What make a person a Conservative oldbear83?
Is it someone that licks Trump's boots?
Is it someone that licks Trump's boots?
I agree 100% about the neo-feudal attitude that permeates so many of America's institutions. I think a key difference is today the nobility is not seeking to subjugate the serfs via absolute power and brutality but by emotional terror. It creates hysteria whether global warming/cooling, "equity," covid, etc., that enables it to manipulate the masses and bend them to their will. Just like a serf of the Middle Ages was terrified of a lord's knight slaughtering his family or taking their food, today's serf are terrified of being labeled X. This drives amazing adherence to at best anti-intellectual and at worst absurd beliefs and actions. Think about it - in 12 months we've convinced millions of highly educated people that men can give birth. It just demonstrates how the pen is in fact mightier than the sword. No one really believes this ****, but everyone has been trained and bullied into submission because they do not want to be the person publicly whipped in the town square.whiterock said:he's talking about a growing neofeudal mindset in elite society.Redbrickbear said:
The real reason they hate the guy.Whatever your politics, Steve Bannon is 100% right herepic.twitter.com/5ybaYgIzeQ
— Gray Connolly (@GrayConnolly) July 20, 2022
it's too hard to make policy that grows a middle class, that creates ladders out of poverty. Just toss out a little guaranteed minimum income like bread to pigeons and move on down the road. Why bother with creating jobs and prosperity for others when you could just make more money and be a philanthropist? Why pay for prisons and police when the inner city crime only affects the poors? Just let it all burn and give out reparations to the survivors.
That is what happens when we extol humanity rather than deity. Asperational cognition turns reflexively self-serving.
Sarah Matthews could be an interesting witness.
NBC News: Jan 6 Cmte planning more hearings in September
— Jesse Rodriguez (@JesseRodriguez) July 21, 2022
and all the way up to mid terms..Cobretti said:NBC News: Jan 6 Cmte planning more hearings in September
— Jesse Rodriguez (@JesseRodriguez) July 21, 2022
Adopt-a-Bear 2024
#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs
#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs
#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
No, it's someone who values Originalist SCOTUS Justices more than what ABC News is saying, who understands that the 'rape trees' left by cartels to mock Biden's Border Patrol is far more heinous than any tweet Trump made insulting those cartels. It's someone who voted for Trump because the alternative was to hand over power to people who hate traditional values and traditions, it's someone who votes for or against a war by the threat the alleged enemy poses to actual Americans.Guy Noir said:
What make a person a Conservative oldbear83?
Is it someone that licks Trump's boots?
It's someone who understands that a riot where policemen really do end up in the hospital is a much bigger threat than a smaller riot where no guns were used by the rioters. It's someone who understands that actual murders left unsolved by police in places like Minneapolis and Kenosha and Atlanta are much worse than whether some idiot sat in Nancy Pelosi's luxury office chair.
It's someone who understands that Trump, whatever he may do later, is not a candidate in any election this year, but a number of Democrats are running for re-election, who specifically supported violence and even paid bail for rioters. If Congress genuinely wanted to address officials who advocate real violence, those politicians would be under scrutiny now.
An American conservative does not move to ban someone from being a candidate for no better reason than dislike for that person.
That may be more than some here can accept.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier