Nancy Peloci…….”Trump needs to have a chance to prove his innocence”

This all happened in a dream right? Hahahahaha................. Originally Posted by Levianon17

Imma think'n so. Jimmy Hendrix wrote a song about it - Purple Haze. Hmmm... likely explains a lot about a certain someone now that I think about it... Frequent Flyer Platinum member perhaps

Some dreams turn into nightmares. Stormy's case is just the tip of the iceberg. Yet to come are cases involving classified documents, Jan 6 culpability, and Georgia election meddling. Stormy is the least of ex-President Trump's legal problems.

The bitchut link is a joke. There is no proof to back up any of their wild baseless claims. They are afraid of factcheckers and rely on repetition of their falsehoods.
Plus why would you think conservatives are the top 20% in looks, wealth, and intelligence? They have proven over and over they will believe anything fox news tells them.

all of fox's top rated shows and hosts have been lying for 2 years about the election. How do we know? They admitted it.

There are numerous posters on here that claim high rating for viewership equals quality and reliability for their content.

All it proves is the fox viewers believe anything they are told and see no reason to confirm their stories. Trump is still telling debunked lies and his supporters couldn't care less.
they believed fox's fraud claims even after fox admitted by means of emails and texts. They pretend their constant lies delivered on sites like townhall and redstate are true when they lack proof 80-90 % of the time.

Liberals are like putty in the hands of the most notorious. They are told what to think not how to think that's why you'll read some of the most ridiculous shit from Liberal posters. The short clip below puts it all into great perspective. Once you understand the mind of a Liberal you'll never have to worry about getting banned or receiving points again. You realize they are like Parrots they only mimic they really don't know what they are saying.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/K528aCSi-Rg/ Originally Posted by Levianon17

Usually, liars know when they are lying. Many times they lie because of habit. Because of the great lengths they need to go to to prove ridiculous stories that support a long proved falsehood, in can be a matter of pride to not admit their life is built on lies and and a lack of general knowledge

The bitchut link is a joke. There is no proof to back up any of their wild baseless claims. They are afraid of factcheckers and rely on repetition of their falsehoods.
Plus why would you think conservatives are the top 20% in looks, wealth, and intelligence? They have proven over and over they will believe anything fox news tells them.

all of fox's top rated shows and hosts have been lying for 2 years about the election. How do we know? They admitted it.

There are numerous posters on here that claim high rating for viewership equals quality and reliability for their content.

All it proves is the fox viewers believe anything they are told and see no reason to confirm their stories. Trump is still telling debunked lies and his supporters couldn't care less.
they believed fox's fraud claims even after fox admitted by means of emails and texts. They pretend their constant lies delivered on sites like townhall and redstate are true when they lack proof 80-90 % of the time.



Usually, liars know when they are lying. Many times they lie because of habit. Because of the great lengths they need to go to to prove ridiculous stories that support a long proved falsehood, in can be a matter of pride to not admit their life is built on lies and and a lack of general knowledge Originally Posted by VerySkeptical

you sound familiar valued poster

welcome back munchy


Tigbitties38
BANNED






nancy said so

This comes from one of the people demanding proof there was no election fraud, claiming Clinton committed crimes in her campaign, multiple Benghazi investigations, plus all the claims about the Biden family.

The fact that we have a supposed liberal saying something so retarded ought to tell every right thinking person that the Democrats need to be crushed now... or our children are going to live in a tinpot single party dictatorship run by the few, for the few, at the expense of the many.

Still I know nothing will happen until they attempt universal gun registration. That's when things will have to go kinetic. Gun owners understand what that will mean. We all know it's coming. Originally Posted by texassapper

We all know it's coming? Bullshit. When has anyone ever tried to implement universal gun registration? Why are you so against it?
Personally I don't care one way or the other. I have several firearms. What do the gun owners know/understand about gun registration that I don't? What is the big secret your gun owners know that I don't?
If you can't explain what others know, then it can't be too important.
The only people who fear universal gun registration are people who have hidden offences, psychological issues, or are illegally
trafficking in firearms. Who else would care?

The bitchut link is a joke. There is no proof to back up any of their wild baseless claims. They are afraid of factcheckers and rely on repetition of their falsehoods.
Plus why would you think conservatives are the top 20% in looks, wealth, and intelligence? They have proven over and over they will believe anything fox news tells them.

all of fox's top rated shows and hosts have been lying for 2 years about the election. How do we know? They admitted it.

There are numerous posters on here that claim high rating for viewership equals quality and reliability for their content.

All it proves is the fox viewers believe anything they are told and see no reason to confirm their stories. Trump is still telling debunked lies and his supporters couldn't care less.
they believed fox's fraud claims even after fox admitted by means of emails and texts. They pretend their constant lies delivered on sites like townhall and redstate are true when they lack proof 80-90 % of the time.


Usually, liars know when they are lying. Many times they lie because of habit. Because of the great lengths they need to go to to prove ridiculous stories that support a long proved falsehood, in can be a matter of pride to not admit their life is built on lies and and a lack of general knowledge. Originally Posted by VerySkeptical

Well that's the life of a Liberal. They can change their ways if they really wanted to.

This comes from one of the people demanding proof there was no election fraud, claiming Clinton committed crimes in her campaign, multiple Benghazi investigations, plus all the claims about the Biden family. Originally Posted by VerySkeptical

Sigh... it's so tiring arguing with those that deliberately mis-represent ones views. I've never demanded proof there was no fraud, I just want what evidence there is (yeah the whole mountain of it) examined. If there is none... hey then we're all good. But refusing to actually examine it in a true 3rd party audit just introduces doubt about election integrity. As for Clinton, she violated US law. That's clear. There are men on prison for violating those same laws on a much smaller scale, but they don't get the benefit of a two tier justice system. Refusing to prosecute, isn't the same as no evidence.

We all know it's coming? Bullshit. Originally Posted by VerySkeptical

Well maybe the fools among us don't but that's simply because they are ignorant.

When has anyone ever tried to implement universal gun registration? Originally Posted by VerySkeptical

I give you a short history of the lefts attempts at gun registration. Note that this has been the goal of the left for well over 100 years now. They aren't stopping. That's why it will eventually happen.

A Short History of Gun Registration in the United States

In 1911, New York imposed the Sullivan Law, still in effect today, requiring a license to own a handgun. The law gives the issuing authority discretion over whom to issue a license. The purpose of the law was to deny handguns to Irish and Italian immigrants of the period, then considered untrustworthy by New York politicians with different bloodlines.

The law requires a separate license for each handgun owned, and the license achieves registration by noting the make, model and serial number of the handgun. For decades thereafter, New York City had extraordinarily high crime rates. The city’s violent crime rates plummeted in the 1990s, when the NYPD, under then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani, increased its enforcement of a broad range of criminal laws.

In 1934, the Roosevelt administration contemplated a ban on fully-automatic firearms. However, the Department of Justice advised against it, on the grounds that a ban would violate the Second Amendment.[10] Instead, FDR pushed for a law requiring the registration of fully-automatic firearms, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and firearm sound suppressors.[11] The resulting law was the National Firearms Act of 1934. FDR’s attorney general, Homer Cummings, wanted it to require registration of handguns as well. In 1938, the year that Cummings pushed for separate handgun registration legislation, he wrote, “Show me the man who doesn’t want his gun registered and I will show you a man who shouldn’t have a gun.”

In 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Gun Control Act into law, complaining that it didn’t require gun registration.

In 1974, two activist groups, the National Coalition to Ban Handguns and the National Council to Control Handguns, were formed in the United States.[12] Both openly advocated banning handguns.[13] The “Council,” now known as the Brady Campaign, said that it envisioned a three-part plan to achieve a ban: slowing down handgun sales, registration, and a ban.[14] By the early 1980s, the group realized that its efforts to get handguns banned were not succeeding, so it started calling for only some handguns to be banned, but for all others to be registered.[15]

In 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act into law. Among other things, the law prohibited a national gun registry.[16]

Anti-gun groups didn’t achieve a national handgun ban or handgun registration, of course, but in 1993 the Democrat-led Congress imposed a law intended to achieve the first part of the Council’s three-part plan, “slowing down” handgun purchases, by a waiting period of up to five days when acquiring a handgun from a firearm dealer. However, an NRA-backed amendment adopted prior to the law’s imposition terminated the waiting period in favor of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for all firearms acquired from dealers beginning in November 1998.

The “instant” aspect of NICS checks ended the “slowing down” of handgun purchases. However, anti-gun activists soon realized that, through a series of steps, they might be able to use NICS to achieve the second part of the Council’s three-part plan, gun registration. In 1999, the late-Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), a longtime gun control supporter, attempted to launch that effort by introducing legislation to require a NICS check on anyone who, at a gun show, bought a gun from a person who is not a firearm dealer.[17] Legislation focused on gun shows continued thereafter. In 2009, Lautenberg went further, introducing legislation proposing that the FBI retain, indefinitely, records of people who pass NICS checks to acquire guns.[18]

Since December 2012, gun control supporters have “demanded”[19] background checks on private (non-dealer) transfers of all firearms not only at gun shows, but everywhere. In 2013, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) introduced legislation to eliminate the requirement that the FBI destroy the records of approved NICS checks within 24 hours.[20] Also in 2013, a Department of Justice memorandum said that a requirement for background checks on all firearm transfers “depends on . . . requiring gun registration.”[21] NICS would become a registry of firearm transfers if all firearm transfers were subject to NICS checks, the FBI retained records of approved checks indefinitely, and such records included information currently maintained on federal Form 4473s, which document the identity of a person who acquires a firearm from a firearm dealer, along with the make, model and serial number of the firearm acquired. Over time, as people would sell or bequeath their firearms, a registry of firearm transfers would become a registry of firearms possessed.

Why are you so against it? Originally Posted by VerySkeptical

You're not unlike Homer Cummings from nearly a century ago. I guess I have this un-natural attachment to the Constitution and respect for the men that fought for our civil rights to want to give up my rights so that I can obtain .... well I wouldn't get shit from this action... so why would I EVER support it?

Personally I don't care one way or the other. Originally Posted by VerySkeptical

Yes, you don't care... that's why you bothered to post about it... because you don't care.

I have several firearms. Originally Posted by VerySkeptical

Doubtful, but if true, good for you.

What do the gun owners know/understand about gun registration that I don't? Originally Posted by VerySkeptical

Most gun owners understand the history put forth above. They are also aware that in EVERY nation that has genocided the people in it, the first step towards that genocide was registration, then confiscation of personally owned firearms. I guess having your victims shoot back at you really disorganizes trying to get them on the trains to the "re-education" camps.

What is the big secret your gun owners know that I don't? Originally Posted by VerySkeptical

Your ignorance does not mean it's a secret to anyone else. What gun owners know is that there is only one goal of registration or firearms... and that is confiscation. It ought to be obvious why but I'll explain it for the slow folks. in order to take something from you, the government must first be aware that you have it in your possession. Confiscation won't work until registration is first implemented.

If you can't explain what others know, then it can't be too important. Originally Posted by VerySkeptical

See above for your explanation. I understand if you STILL can't make the connection. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

The only people who fear universal gun registration are people who have hidden offences, psychological issues, or are illegally
trafficking in firearms. Originally Posted by VerySkeptical

Ah the old, you have nothing to fear if you're not hiding anything. Does that apply to the election audits? How about to the Clinton email server, and their smashed cells phones? See that's an interesting ploy but ultimately it fails on 5th amendment grounds. You know one of those pesky things that used to prevent the government from arresting people because they COULD... not because the citizens had committed any crimes.

You must not travel very much since you've never been to a nation where shit like that happens. I've seen it up close and personal where Syrian Mukhabarat grab someone off the street and whisk them away for interrogation. Maybe you should try reading a history book if you have no personal experiences outside of US jurisdiction.

Who else would care? Originally Posted by VerySkeptical

The same people that care about the OTHER 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights. I understand it's difficult for you to think outside of your own personal experience, but there are people in this nation that want us all to be free to have their own opinions, thoughts, and beliefs free of government interference. That means I care about the rights of others even if they don't impact me. That used to be a thing in the US... you know I disagree with you but will defend your right to your opinion to the death.

I can't remember the last time I heard anyone say that.

They won't be satisfied until there is a real insurrection. This bullshit with Trump is getting really old now. The Democrats are the real criminals they have damage this Country beyond repair. Originally Posted by Levianon17

this country was already damaged. we just didnt know it.

the american civil war was the cause.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...prove-innocen/
Anybody see something wrong with this statement?

Aside from that thing called The Constitution, in particular, the 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendments. Originally Posted by Jackie S

nancy pelosi really mispoke, i'd say on purpose.

it should be "innocent until proven guilty".

that is the standard.

Not "guilty until proven innocent".