Stupid shit in Medellin

[QUOTE=Villainy;2934117]It is fine that you have uninformed opinions, SubHuman, just spend a few minutes checking. Or perhaps you belong the Elvis school of facts. If you say it, it must be true, despite the absurdity.[/QUOTE]Throwing me in with SC? Sorry, that guys is full of himself. He is not promoting truth like I am but himself. GWB won even after the NYT went back and looked at all the votes. It was by the slimmest of margins but even they said he won.

Congrats on getting the rigged elections right. You can toss in LBJ winning the Texas senate race by cheating back in 1948. We may not have had the Vietnam war fiasco if not for that.

As for my rewriting history, you are such a douche. You cannot admit you were wrong about Covid. Hell, you will deny your positions just like you denied telling your friends Medellin was a safe town and then your friends got mugged. What is next? I never said masks worked, Covid did not come from a lab, the death rate was 3+%, or the vaccines were safe and effective? LOL.

And now you knew about Biden's health the whole time too right? LOL.

It is too bad our sides actually agreed about what would happen with Maduro. There was a rare moment of unity and like usual, you had to go fuck it up.

[QUOTE=Woodman09;2933949]Yep-- Venezuelan election is in the process of Being Stolen and USA 2020 was Stolen-- Dementia Biden was installed -- The CIA and other deepstate scumbags have been running the USA and pushed us into Ukraine war funding. They did Not want DJT -- - But Most of the American People Do-- Hence the Current Battle -.

They Tried to villify, imprison and finally Assassinate Trump and Failed-- Who Knows what will happen now as the CIA run the media except for X-.[/QUOTE]LOL, I wish I could live in this world of delusions. The CIA and deepstate are so all-powerful that they can rig an election and control all of our media but they couldn't gun down a fat, old man? Is the secret service somehow immune from the deepstate? If they were this all-powerful, one of the secret service guys would have just shot him in the pile up and blamed the shooter. Or better yet, they would have Epsteined him, like your buddy Trump and Barr did. Being a conspiracy theorist is so fun because you can draw connections to whatever you want and ignore all of the other stuff that shows how stupid you are.

You have as much evidence as the guys who claim that the whole shooting was an inside job by Trump to boost his numbers based on the fact that he was fist-pumping like a moron in the middle of active shooting and that the shooter was a Trump supporter.

[QUOTE=Villainy;2934117]Apparently you haven't every been near a history book. [b]Why is that not surprising?[/b][/QUOTE]My statements are based in the use of language and law, not history.

I will put my education background up against yours any day of the week. You start off your first sentence with the logical fallacy of the ad hominem attack. You end your post calling names. Similar to your hero Elvis.

Let's start with the basics: definitions of the English language (an area that you appear to be weak on).

[B]Opinion[/B]: [I]a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.[/I].

[QUOTE=Villainy;2934117][b]It is fine that you have uninformed opinions, SubHuman[/b], [/QUOTE]Do you speak English [B]Villainy[/B] if you do read the definition above. No such thing as an uninformed opinion due to the very nature of WHAT an opinion actually is. This is an example what happens when you write with the point of throwing insults instead of making a logical argument. Do you understand that now that you have read the definition for yourself?

[B]Fact[/B]: [I]a thing that is known or proved to be true[/I].

Have you ever actually read the text of the Constitution of the United States of America?

[B]Article 1; Section. 4. of the Constitution of the United States of America says the following[/B]:

[I]The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof[/I]

The Supreme Court held no jurisdiction in this matter and as such should have declined to rule on the case of the 2000 election. It was a matter strictly for the Florida court system. The Supreme Court of the United States of America effectively decided who would be the next head of the the executive branch of government. The judges stole the election from the people of the United States of America. (opinion).

[B]How you like me now ya *****![/B]

[QUOTE=TheDerilious;2934161]LOL, I wish I could live in this world of delusions.[/QUOTE]Yeah, I know. It is so hard being the rational one. I mean, you said that Democratic voters would have their votes tossed in the trash when it came to who was the Democratic nominee right? You were screaming from the rooftops at the media that it was wrong that in the primaries Biden's name was the only one on the ballots in several states, and it was wrong for RFK JR to be sued and excluded from Democratic primaries right? I mean, you can show us all where you posted that. Democratic voters picked Joe Biden not the deep state right?

And you were making fun of the media when they said Biden was fit as a fiddle? And the line that this was the best Joe Biden ever too? When the media was pumping up Biden's health, you were in reality and putting them down right?

I mean the Democratic process of hijacking the nominee who got the most votes was not done right? The voter was respected. After saying only God could make him quit, Biden voluntarily quit. It was not like he was threatened with the 25th Amendment by insiders who pulled a coup right? That would be too disrespectful to those who voted for Biden.

To those of us not in Fantasy Land like you, we have already seen one deep state coup. And if you are going to mock conspiracy theory, stating one like Barr and Trump killed Epstein shows me you suffer from the delusion of Trump Derangement Syndrome and the conspiracy theories that follow from that.

For the Trump assassination, if you are rational, you are left with two possibilities: absolutely frightening near beyond belief incompetence by the Biden run secret service or a skilled but botched assassination attempt from the deep state.

I live by the phrase: do not assume conspiracy when incompetence will do, but I get where Woodman is coming from. Every day, something comes out and the circumstantial evidence of the deep state plot goes up and the incompetence is getting to the point of being beyond belief.

I am not sure if the assassination attempt was a deep state plot, but I am not going to make fun of anyone who believes it. The smell of shit with this tragedy is overwhelming.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2934181]Yeah, I know. It is so hard being the rational one. I mean, you said that Democratic voters would have their votes tossed in the trash when it came to who was the Democratic nominee right? You were screaming from the rooftops at the media that it was wrong that in the primaries Biden's name was the only one on the ballots in several states, and it was wrong for RFK JR to be sued and excluded from Democratic primaries right? I mean, you can show us all where you posted that. Democratic voters picked Joe Biden not the deep state right?

And you were making fun of the media when they said Biden was fit as a fiddle? And the line that this was the best Joe Biden ever too? When the media was pumping up Biden's health, you were in reality and putting them down right?[/QUOTE]You assume that because I don't worship Trumpian fantasies that I'm a democrat, but you don't see that it only shows how far gone you are. The democratic party is also trash in many ways, a deeply entrenched network of old windbags grasping to power. They have worked tooth and nail to quell real populist movements, but that has nothing to do with buying into baseless conspiracies made by right-wing hacks who do the same thing, only worse when they get a modicum of power.

[QUOTE]To those of us not in Fantasy Land like you, we have already seen one deep state coup. And if you are going to mock conspiracy theory, stating one like Barr and Trump killed Epstein shows me you suffer from the delusion of Trump Derangement Syndrome and the conspiracy theories that follow from that.[/QUOTE]No, you just proved my point. I bring up a conspiracy theory that has tons more "logical evidence" attached to it and you immediately dismiss it. It's all bunk but you believe the one that Saint Trump tells you while you ignore the one that indicts him. Just so you understand; Trump is friends with Epstein and has credible rape allegations that tie him Epstein. Epstein gets arrested in high profile bust. Epstein gets killed to keep him quiet / avoid larger trial. This is more "logical" than, Deepstate orders hit on Trump where the 2 most likely outcomes are. Actual civil war by disgruntled Trump nuthuggers or massive voter turnout that is galvanized by his death and votes for his chosen successor (like his son). In both examples, the deep-state loses control. Worse yet, if the deep-state successfully stole the election last time, why wouldn't they just do it again? The Trump nuthuggers proved themselves to be ineffectual last time in mounting a resistance and all Trump did was run away with tail between his legs, crying like a baby about how unfair it was.

[QUOTE]For the Trump assassination, if you are rational, you are left with two possibilities: absolutely frightening near beyond belief incompetence by the Biden run secret service or a skilled but botched assassination attempt from the deep state.[/QUOTE]You forgot option 3) Trump false flagged the event to get votes. The dude had a headshot and "missed" because Trump moved his head at the "perfect time"? Trump is then allowed to randomly stand up and fist pump rather than leave by crawling on the floor in case of other shooters. His secret service agents (more than 5 of them) let him get up and then are literally unable to push a fat, old man off the stage as they leave him exposed to additional, potential shooters (and perfectly placed photographers which would be coincidental, of course).

You forgot option 4) The shooter is anti-deepstate because Trump, as proven by his first term, is a deep-state agent. He did nothing to damage the deep state apparatus and actually only empowered it by pushing establishment judges, supporting every international strongman, and was the defense industry's wet dream. The deep-state won again by having their chosen Republican plant continue in deep-state sponsored duopoly since they clearly allowed him to live for the past 4 years rather than get rid of him way beforehand to prop up a new candidate.

You even forgot option 5) The shooter took advantage of a local protection mishap to get lucky and take advantage of bad federal / local LEO communication. The constant campaign trail events, especially in open air events add more danger and can lead to oversights which should highlight just dangerous it is. Assassination attempts, while rare, are not unheard of and there has been a massive uptick mass shooting events where determined shooters can find their own opportunity. We are never alerted to failed attempts so a 99.9% success rate in stopping assassination attempts means nothing to people even if it would be considered very successful in any other field. Even the best security units are not perfect and this is another example of how dangerous high-powered guns can be.

[QUOTE]I live by the phrase: do not assume conspiracy when incompetence will do, but I get where Woodman is coming from. Every day, something comes out and the circumstantial evidence of the deep state plot goes up and the incompetence is getting to the point of being beyond belief.[/QUOTE]I live by the phrase: use your brain and pull your head out of your ass. If the deepstate really wanted to kill Trump, why wouldn't they pull a Kobe Bryant? By this, I mean; gun down his private jet and use their complete media control to make up a story about a drunk pilot, fog, or Hamas or something like that. They could easily poison him in his home and say he died of heart failure. They could hang him and then plant child porn on his computers to discredit him. All of these seem logistically easier and leave a much smaller footprint. A sniper attack would only galvanize his supporters and leave evidence in a crowd of hundreds during a nationally-televised event. It doesn't pass the smell test and this reeks of Trump worshipers looking for boogeyman to fuel their deepstate fever dreams.

[QUOTE]I am not sure if the assassination attempt was a deep state plot, but I am not going to make fun of anyone who believes it. The smell of shit with this tragedy is overwhelming.[/QUOTE]No, you're just going to feign centrism while believing and promoting the conspiracy theory. What a principled stand, my friend.

[QUOTE=TheDerilious;2934262]You assume that because I don't worship Trumpian fantasies that I'm a democrat, but you don't see that it only shows how far gone you are. The democratic party is also trash in many ways, a deeply entrenched network of old windbags grasping to power. They have worked tooth and nail to quell real populist movements, but that has nothing to do with buying into baseless conspiracies made by right-wing hacks who do the same thing, only worse when they get a modicum of power.

No, you just proved my point. I bring up a conspiracy theory that has tons more "logical evidence" attached to it and you immediately dismiss it. It's all bunk but you believe the one that Saint Trump tells you while you ignore the one that indicts him. Just so you understand; Trump is friends with Epstein and has credible rape allegations that tie him Epstein. Epstein gets arrested in high profile bust. Epstein gets killed to keep him quiet / avoid larger trial. This is more "logical" than, Deepstate orders hit on Trump where the 2 most likely outcomes are. Actual civil war by disgruntled Trump nuthuggers or massive voter turnout that is galvanized by his death and votes for his chosen successor (like his son). In both examples, the deep-state loses control. Worse yet, if the deep-state successfully stole the election last time, why wouldn't they just do it again? The Trump nuthuggers proved themselves to be ineffectual last time in mounting a resistance and all Trump did was run away with tail between his legs, crying like a baby about how unfair it was.

You forgot option 3) Trump false flagged the event to get votes. The dude had a headshot and "missed" because Trump moved his head at the "perfect time"? Trump is then allowed to randomly stand up and fist pump rather than leave by crawling on the floor in case of other shooters. His secret service agents (more than 5 of them) let him get up and then are literally unable to push a fat, old man off the stage as they leave him exposed to additional, potential shooters (and perfectly placed photographers which would be coincidental, of course).

You forgot option 4) The shooter is anti-deepstate because Trump, as proven by his first term, is a deep-state agent. He did nothing to damage the deep state apparatus and actually only empowered it by pushing establishment judges, supporting every international strongman, and was the defense industry's wet dream. The deep-state won again by having their chosen Republican plant continue in deep-state sponsored duopoly since they clearly allowed him to live for the past 4 years rather than get rid of him way beforehand to prop up a new candidate.

You even forgot option 5) The shooter took advantage of a local protection mishap to get lucky and take advantage of bad federal / local LEO communication. The constant campaign trail events, especially in open air events add more danger and can lead to oversights which should highlight just dangerous it is. Assassination attempts, while rare, are not unheard of and there has been a massive uptick mass shooting events where determined shooters can find their own opportunity. We are never alerted to failed attempts so a 99.9% success rate in stopping assassination attempts means nothing to people even if it would be considered very successful in any other field. Even the best security units are not perfect and this is another example of how dangerous high-powered guns can be.

I live by the phrase: use your brain and pull your head out of your ass. If the deepstate really wanted to kill Trump, why wouldn't they pull a Kobe Bryant? By this, I mean; gun down his private jet and use their complete media control to make up a story about a drunk pilot, fog, or Hamas or something like that. They could easily poison him in his home and say he died of heart failure. They could hang him and then plant child porn on his computers to discredit him. All of these seem logistically easier and leave a much smaller footprint. A sniper attack would only galvanize his supporters and leave evidence in a crowd of hundreds during a nationally-televised event. It doesn't pass the smell test and this reeks of Trump worshipers looking for boogeyman to fuel their deepstate fever dreams.

No, you're just going to feign centrism while believing and promoting the conspiracy theory. What a principled stand, my friend.[/QUOTE]Trump killed Epstein? Kobe Bryant killed by the Deep State? False Flag? Say what?

Maybe you are onto something with the false flag. I think Woodman was banging Melania and wanted the Donald out of the way. He had a remote device that was destroyed when the shooter was killed and it was he and not the 20 year old who was shooting at Trump. Admit it Woodman. Your Republican support was all a front! You sold us all out for a piece of prime Eastern European ass.

"Gentleman you left out the biggest steal in USA electoral history. The Election of the 43rd President of the United States of America for his first term. " The 43rd president only served one term. That was Dubya.

[B]See how you people are?[/B]

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2934181]For the Trump assassination[/QUOTE]Much easier to Monday morning quarter back than to actually sit in the pocket and make the throw even when you know you are going to take a hit.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2934141][b]Throwing me in with SC? Sorry, that guys is full of himself.[/b] He is not promoting truth like I am but himself.[/QUOTE][B]Can you tell me exactly what truth you are promoting[/B]? Because I've read a lot of your posts and the only thing I have seen you promote is the idea that you are better than everyone else because you source your prostitutes online and pay them more. You a trick just like everyone else up in here. Sugar babies are just prostitutes that look for their clients online and have different marketing plans.

On the political front your opinions are no more valid than anyone else's. But you think that you can shout down others or just ignore them when they make good points. You do that with me also because you cannot go toe -to-toe with me intellectually.

I have addressed the election of the 43rd President of the United States by going back to first principles. [B]Deal with it[/B]!

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2934295]Trump killed Epstein? Kobe Bryant killed by the Deep State? False Flag? Say what?

Maybe you are onto something with the false flag. I think Woodman was banging Melania and wanted the Donald out of the way. He had a remote device that was destroyed when the shooter was killed and it was he and not the 20 year old who was shooting at Trump. Admit it Woodman. Your Republican support was all a front! You sold us all out for a piece of prime Eastern European ass.[/QUOTE]I'll go slow this time. I don't believe in any of those conspiracy theories, they are all ridiculous. Your trump conspiracy theories (e. G. Stolen election and deep state assassination attempt) are the most farcical of the bunch; the 2020 election was the most vetted election in history and no evidence was found outside of a few cases of Republicans illegally voting twice and yet you keep pushing it because the orange man still whines about it. The deep state assassination conspiracy makes no logical sense since it appears by all metrics to run counter to the theoretical aims of a deep state (they would be pro-Trump).

You're incredulous about conspiracy theories you don't like and even poke fun at me mentioning them as examples (not reality) but get mad when I have fun with my own since apparently (as you said) it's "mean" to criticize morons spouting stupid conspiracies.

[QUOTE=TheDerilious;2934437]the 2020 election was the most vetted election in history and no evidence was found outside of a few cases of Republicans illegally voting twice [/QUOTE]Was this one of them?

[QUOTE=TheDerilious;2934437]I'll go slow this time. the 2020 election was the most vetted election in history[/QUOTE]You make this definitive statements time and again. You do not understand the facts underlining the theory of why the 2020 election was stolen.

How many votes were needed to have been changed from Biden to Trump for Trump to have won? How many ballots had only Biden listed on them and no other votes (like for Senate, Congress ETC)? Who got more votes from blacks, Obama in 2016 or Biden in 2020? The court cases were dismissed because of what reason, there was no evidence of cheating or the people bringing the suits lacked standing? Do you know what lacks standing means? In Georgia, Trump sued and by law his case was required to be heard. What happened?

Be honest. You do not know the answer to ANY of those questions.

[QUOTE=TheDerilious;2934437]The deep state assassination conspiracy makes no logical sense since it appears by all metrics to run counter to the theoretical aims of a deep state (they would be pro-Trump).[/QUOTE]True of False: the deep state had no role in the Russiagate and Ukrainegate impeachments? For your statement to be true, that answer in both cases would have to be no.

Are you done with your mental masturbation yet?

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2934491]The court cases were dismissed because of what reason, there was no evidence of cheating or the people bringing the suits lacked standing? [/QUOTE][B]Lack[/B]: [I]the state of being without or not having enough of something.[/I].

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2934491]Do you know what lacks standing means? [/QUOTE]In law, [B]standing[/B] or [B]locus standi[/B] is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2934491]In Georgia, Trump sued and by law his case was required to be heard. What happened? Be honest. You do not know the answer to ANY of those questions. [/QUOTE]Trump had standing that means his case was heard.

Elvis engaging in Ad hominem Attacks? Check; Elvis engaging in pedantic behavior? Check; Standard Playbook from Elvis: Check;.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2934181]

I live by the phrase: do not assume conspiracy when incompetence will do, but I get where Woodman is coming from. Every day, something comes out and the circumstantial evidence of the deep state plot goes up and the incompetence is getting to the point of being beyond belief.
[/QUOTE]I prefer to employ "when do you know when the USA Govt is lying to you? When it's mouth is moving. ".

You won't go far off track if you follow that line.

[QUOTE=JustTK;2934641]I prefer to employ "when do you know when the USA Govt is lying to you? When it's mouth is moving. ".

You won't go far off track if you follow that line.[/QUOTE]Have you ever even been there?

[QUOTE=SubCmdr;2934170][B]How you like me now ya *****![/B][/QUOTE]I think you are in love with yourself. Which is a good thing, at least somebody is!

[QUOTE=SubCmdr;2934170]My statements are based in the use of language and law, not history.[/QUOTE]So you say. Law is largely predicated on history.

[QUOTE=SubCmdr;2934170]I will put my education background up against yours any day of the week.[/QUOTE]That is an ego boast which only leads to silly arguments. For example, let's say you attended Harvard or Oxford or Cambridge and the other person attended Middle Redneck State University.

You drank and partied and achieved "[B]gentleman C's[/B]". The other person was a diligent student, studied prodigiously and graduated with a body of knowledge that dwarfed what you achieved.

You might argue your "superior" educational background. But, in fact, your education was marginal at best compared to the student who attended the lackluster university. So, to put it succinctly, it is an argument that cannot be won on substance.

[QUOTE=SubCmdr;2934170]

Let's start with the basics: definitions of the English language (an area that you appear to be weak on).

[B]Opinion[/B]: [I]a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.[/I].[/QUOTE]This demonstrates your inability to reason. So, in your [B]opinion[/B] all opinions are indistinguishable. They might or might not be based on facts or substance. So there is no distinction between those based on science, facts, knowledge, experience and those based on whim.

This is why almost every rational person distinguishes opinions based on verifiable data but not provable as "informed opinions" and others as "uninformed opinions" or some other adjective indicating a lack of underlying substance.

[QUOTE=SubCmdr;2934170]Have you ever actually read the text of the Constitution of the United States of America?

[B]Article 1; Section. 4. of the Constitution of the United States of America says the following[/B]:

[I]The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof[/I]

The Supreme Court held no jurisdiction in this matter and as such should have declined to rule on the case of the 2000 election. It was a matter strictly for the Florida court system. The Supreme Court of the United States of America effectively decided who would be the next head of the the executive branch of government. The judges stole the election from the people of the United States of America. (opinion).

[/QUOTE]Well, I guess you are not familiar with the law after all. The disputed Florida election fell within the bounds of a automatic recount. Ballots that were machine rejected were being counted manually. There was a prescribed time limit for the recount but the amount of work was enormous. The Bush campaign sued to end the recount and the Gore campaign countersued to continue the manual recount. The case reached the Supreme Court of Florida which ruled that the recount was to continue. All in accordance with the law.

Here is where you fall off the wagon. The Bush campaign appealed to the US Supreme Court and the case was heard there. (The majority of cases appealed to the US Supreme Court are denied certiorari). But this case, upon which a Presidential election hung in the balance, was heard and a 5-4 party line decision ended the count with Bush leading by a few hundred votes.

So, again was that election stolen? I don't see any rational basis for saying it was. (and if I may repeat, I was a Gore voter). I think it is appropriate to say that election was disputed. I also gave you two examples of presidential elections that [B]were[/B] stolen. In those two elections it is easy to identify a bad actor or bad actors who inarguably changed the result of the election.

So now you can look up the distinction between a "disputed election" and a "stolen election".