The Real Story of January 6th. Documentary

a reply to: frogs453

I’m glad you admit that committee was a total sham.👍

"It’s bipartisan, and we have a quorum. Staff is being hired to do the job. We're there to get the truth, not to get Trump." -pelosi 🤣

a reply to: quintessentone

I can appreciate someone doing fact checks and credibility checks. But one post about it is fine. 9 posts about it in the same thread is a purposeful derail. You can't dance in the fire and cry every time you get burned. -Aaron Lewis.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: quintessentone

I can appreciate someone doing fact checks and credibility checks. But one post about it is fine. 9 posts about it in the same thread is a purposeful derail. You can't dance in the fire and cry every time you get burned. -Aaron Lewis.

One post is not fine and you know that very well because when bombarded by others, responses are required. Again, 'thou and others protest too much' on what they think is a credible source, and that is suspect behaviour.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: Vermilion

Odd, I didn't mention that one, I mentioned it was a shame the first suggestion was rejected. The first one suggested was an independent 9/11 style. The 2nd one, it was suggested to put people who asked for a pardon after the 6th on it. The 3rd is what we got. I think the first choice would have been best.

don't worry a bit. I feel certain with the amount of usage of Jan 6 to propel Joetatoe forward has renewed many people's interest in this topic and we will likely see a large investigation into all the aspects of it, up to and including the lack of security.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: quintessentone

I can appreciate someone doing fact checks and credibility checks. But one post about it is fine. 9 posts about it in the same thread is a purposeful derail. You can't dance in the fire and cry every time you get burned. -Aaron Lewis.

One post is not fine and you know that very well because when bombarded by others, responses are required. Again, 'thou and others protest too much' on what they think is a credible source, and that is suspect behaviour.

9 posts in less than 3 pages. 'thou and others protest too much' indeed.

eta:
debunk the material, not the source. yes I'll laugh at a Mother Jones article presented as truth, just as I'll assume a Gateway Pundit article is laced with untruths. It it were that easy, all discussions here would be 9 posts crying like a small child about how unfair the source is. We try to act like grown folks here. Blend in as best you can.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: quintessentone

I can appreciate someone doing fact checks and credibility checks. But one post about it is fine. 9 posts about it in the same thread is a purposeful derail. You can't dance in the fire and cry every time you get burned. -Aaron Lewis.

One post is not fine and you know that very well because when bombarded by others, responses are required. Again, 'thou and others protest too much' on what they think is a credible source, and that is suspect behaviour.

9 posts in less than 3 pages. 'thou and others protest too much' indeed.

eta:
debunk the material, not the source. yes I'll laugh at a Mother Jones article presented as truth, just as I'll assume a Gateway Pundit article is laced with untruths. It it were that easy, all discussions here would be 9 posts crying like a small child about how unfair the source is. We try to act like grown folks here. Blend in as best you can.

If the source caters to a biased audience right there it is debunked.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: quintessentone

I can appreciate someone doing fact checks and credibility checks. But one post about it is fine. 9 posts about it in the same thread is a purposeful derail. You can't dance in the fire and cry every time you get burned. -Aaron Lewis.

One post is not fine and you know that very well because when bombarded by others, responses are required. Again, 'thou and others protest too much' on what they think is a credible source, and that is suspect behaviour.

9 posts in less than 3 pages. 'thou and others protest too much' indeed.

eta:
debunk the material, not the source. yes I'll laugh at a Mother Jones article presented as truth, just as I'll assume a Gateway Pundit article is laced with untruths. It it were that easy, all discussions here would be 9 posts crying like a small child about how unfair the source is. We try to act like grown folks here. Blend in as best you can.

If the source caters to a biased audience right there it is debunked.

so nothing covered by MSNBC or CNN or Fox is real?

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: quintessentone

I can appreciate someone doing fact checks and credibility checks. But one post about it is fine. 9 posts about it in the same thread is a purposeful derail. You can't dance in the fire and cry every time you get burned. -Aaron Lewis.

One post is not fine and you know that very well because when bombarded by others, responses are required. Again, 'thou and others protest too much' on what they think is a credible source, and that is suspect behaviour.

9 posts in less than 3 pages. 'thou and others protest too much' indeed.

eta:
debunk the material, not the source. yes I'll laugh at a Mother Jones article presented as truth, just as I'll assume a Gateway Pundit article is laced with untruths. It it were that easy, all discussions here would be 9 posts crying like a small child about how unfair the source is. We try to act like grown folks here. Blend in as best you can.

If the source caters to a biased audience right there it is debunked.

debunking something is more than just saying it's debunked. I can see how you could be confused on that point. But you actually have to verify the facts are wrong and bring supporting evidence to ....support your claim.

Again, crying about the source is in no way "debunking it".

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: quintessentone

I can appreciate someone doing fact checks and credibility checks. But one post about it is fine. 9 posts about it in the same thread is a purposeful derail. You can't dance in the fire and cry every time you get burned. -Aaron Lewis.

One post is not fine and you know that very well because when bombarded by others, responses are required. Again, 'thou and others protest too much' on what they think is a credible source, and that is suspect behaviour.

9 posts in less than 3 pages. 'thou and others protest too much' indeed.

eta:
debunk the material, not the source. yes I'll laugh at a Mother Jones article presented as truth, just as I'll assume a Gateway Pundit article is laced with untruths. It it were that easy, all discussions here would be 9 posts crying like a small child about how unfair the source is. We try to act like grown folks here. Blend in as best you can.

If the source caters to a biased audience right there it is debunked.

debunking something is more than just saying it's debunked. I can see how you could be confused on that point. But you actually have to verify the facts are wrong and bring supporting evidence to ....support your claim.

Again, crying about the source is in no way "debunking it".

I did all of what you said above but you don't want to see it. Anyway you are just looking for an argument and I'm not biting.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: quintessentone

I can appreciate someone doing fact checks and credibility checks. But one post about it is fine. 9 posts about it in the same thread is a purposeful derail. You can't dance in the fire and cry every time you get burned. -Aaron Lewis.

One post is not fine and you know that very well because when bombarded by others, responses are required. Again, 'thou and others protest too much' on what they think is a credible source, and that is suspect behaviour.

9 posts in less than 3 pages. 'thou and others protest too much' indeed.

eta:
debunk the material, not the source. yes I'll laugh at a Mother Jones article presented as truth, just as I'll assume a Gateway Pundit article is laced with untruths. It it were that easy, all discussions here would be 9 posts crying like a small child about how unfair the source is. We try to act like grown folks here. Blend in as best you can.

If the source caters to a biased audience right there it is debunked.

debunking something is more than just saying it's debunked. I can see how you could be confused on that point. But you actually have to verify the facts are wrong and bring supporting evidence to ....support your claim.

Again, crying about the source is in no way "debunking it".

I did all of what you said above but you don't want to see it. Anyway you are just looking for an argument and I'm not biting.

Yes, 4 posts of you "not biting". You continue to make me smile.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: quintessentone

I can appreciate someone doing fact checks and credibility checks. But one post about it is fine. 9 posts about it in the same thread is a purposeful derail. You can't dance in the fire and cry every time you get burned. -Aaron Lewis.

One post is not fine and you know that very well because when bombarded by others, responses are required. Again, 'thou and others protest too much' on what they think is a credible source, and that is suspect behaviour.

9 posts in less than 3 pages. 'thou and others protest too much' indeed.

eta:
debunk the material, not the source. yes I'll laugh at a Mother Jones article presented as truth, just as I'll assume a Gateway Pundit article is laced with untruths. It it were that easy, all discussions here would be 9 posts crying like a small child about how unfair the source is. We try to act like grown folks here. Blend in as best you can.

If the source caters to a biased audience right there it is debunked.

debunking something is more than just saying it's debunked. I can see how you could be confused on that point. But you actually have to verify the facts are wrong and bring supporting evidence to ....support your claim.

Again, crying about the source is in no way "debunking it".

I did all of what you said above but you don't want to see it. Anyway you are just looking for an argument and I'm not biting.

Yes, 4 posts of you "not biting". You continue to make me smile.

I am replying to you as a courtesy...and we are done.

a reply to: quintessentone

The First Amendment states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


" or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." "


Every American Citizen Present in Washington D.C. on Jan. 6th had a Constitutional Right to be there and a Constitutional Right petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances Concerning the Validity of the Outcome of the Presidential Election in 2020 ...PERIOD . There is No Debate there FYI .