WELCOME GUEST  |  LOG IN
carpetman, hamptons, flooring
27east.com

249 Comments by Bayman3142

<<  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  |  9  >>  

OLA Hosts Gathering In Sag Harbor To Support Local Immigrants

Thank you, HHS, for again proving that Trump merely suggested they return, not TELL them to return.

You keep proving my point for me! Wunderbar!

Now let's see....my definition of exhortation, which you failingly attempt to use against me.....

an address or communication emphatically urging someone to do something.

YOUR definition....purported to be from Miriam Webster, although you have once again posted misleading, patently false, dishonest, and altered information.

Here is the official Miriam definition, unedited.

exhortation noun
ex·​hor·​ta·​tion | \ ˌek-ˌsȯr-ˈtā-shən , -sər-; ˌeg-ˌzȯr-, -zər-\
Definition of exhortation
1 : an act or instance of exhorting
2 : language intended to incite and encourage

Are there any bounds to your editing? Now you can edit Webster's dictionary, which has been around since 1828, to prove your nothing more than large worded hack?

Your fumbled attempt to use my Google definition against me with your Webster definition is laughably ignorant. They are the same, which shows your self perceived intellectual supremacy above all others is really nothing more than poppycock.

Please...dont try to turn this into "Po Boy lie". You know very well it was an example of your utter hypocrisy calling out a posters for editing, when that is all you do. You continue to prove my second point for me by continuing to do so with every response.

You make this too easy.

Seems you reach is about as long and proportionate to a Tyrannosaurus Rex's arms." Jul 20, 19 11:26 AM

Thank you, HHS, for again proving that Trump merely suggested they return, not TELL them to return.

You keep proving my point for me! Wunderbar!

Now let's see....my definition of exhortation, which you failingly attempt to use against me.....

an address or communication emphatically urging someone to do something.

YOUR definition....purported to be from Miriam Webster, although you have once again posted misleading, patently false, dishonest, and altered information.

Here is the official Miriam definition, unedited.

exhortation noun
ex·​hor·​ta·​tion | \ ˌek-ˌsȯr-ˈtā-shən , -sər-; ˌeg-ˌzȯr-, -zər-\
Definition of exhortation
1 : an act or instance of exhorting
2 : language intended to incite and encourage

Are there any bounds to your editing? Now you can edit Webster's dictionary, which has been around since 1828, to prove your nothing more than large worded hack?

Your fumbled attempt to use my Google definition against me with your Webster definition is laughably ignorant. They are the same, which shows your self perceived intellectual supremacy above all others is really nothing more than poppycock.

Please...dont try to turn this into "Po Boy lie". You know very well it was an example of your utter hypocrisy calling out a posters for editing, when that is all you do. You continue to prove my second point for me by continuing to do so with every response.

You make this too easy.

Seems you reach is about as long and proportionate to a Tyrannosaurus Rex's arms." Jul 20, 19 11:27 AM

Hat, the fact that I have to go back and explain simple bits of information to you becomes quite a bore.

I stated clearly for the intelligent clear thinking subject, that the fact that you chose the word "exhortation" as your description of Trumps tweet made the tweet a mere suggestion, not a command, as the left leaning dolts would lead small minds to believe. By omitting the "Why dont they" from the unedited quote, the tweet is no longer an exhortation but an order.

You admittedly edit whatever you want to fit your narrative. So the category of left leaner fits you perfectly.

And YES.... Exhortation is a perfect example....as I said earlier....he urged them...not ordered.

YUUUUUGE DIFFERENCE. As Donald would say.

Thank you for proving my point....AGAIN.
" Jul 21, 19 1:10 AM

*sigh*

Hat....when did I misstate the meaning of exhortation?

And thank you, once again, for reporting to us all how you lack investigative skill by commenting on Trumps tweet without even reading it.

Bravo!" Jul 21, 19 9:36 AM

Speaking of dumb edits

To URGE or to ORDER, that is the question.

To URGE [or to] ORDER[COMMA]that is the [QUESTION].

Do I really have to to break this down for you?

I misconstrued nothing, you ignorantly assume, as is your modus operandi.

July 15 you state "whom he told to "go back where you came from""..your unedited, ignorant, uneducated and false statement. Now I could go and quote the definition of "told" from the Webster dictionary, but we all know now that you will edit even the dictionary if it fits your edited world, so we will leave it as "command" derived from tell. (Look it up, sharpen those banana skills)

July 19 you state that Trumps tweet is an "exhortation" while quoting it as an ORDER..."If you can't see the racism in an exhortation to AMERICAN CITIZENS OF COLOR to "go back to the crime infested place from which they came" now, as a case in point to offer proof of your hypocrisy, I use your own statements against you.

July 19

"HHS... no elaboration needed, your propensity to overlook the obvious is still as sharp as your mathematical and investigative skills, hovering somewhere as sharp as a banana.

Here, I will use your own words to help you squeeze out a legitimate thought.

HHS-
"@ Po Boy

Quote:

"Like my fellow liberals, I too hate America. ... "
--------------------------------

It is unnecessary to repost your edited, transparently misleading lie so often Po Boy.

We already know that lying is the center of your existence."

HHS-

"If you can't see the racism in an exhortation to AMERICAN CITIZENS OF COLOR to "go back to the crime infested place from which they came" then you ARE a true believer intellectually whether you voted for Trump or not."

TRUMP-

"Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came." - The Donald" (you must have taken out my unedited part to fit your false, misleading narrative.)

see....YOU are the one posting edited, transparently misleading lies.

Easy Peasy.....second grade stuff.

Congratulations on the anti semitic bill posed by your poster child of American standards Il Omar, thankfully she is a but a fly in the ointment.

By Bayman3142 (214), Southampton on Jul 19, 19 12:36 PM
___________________________________________________________________________________

YOU USED AN EDITED LIE TO ACCUSE ANOTHER POSTER OF USING EDITED LIES.

You see?
Apparently not.

So...it simple terms, you have stated the Donald "told"...("told to "go back where you came from"). You have stated he "exhorted"(exhortation)...(in an exhortation to AMERICAN CITIZENS OF COLOR to "go back to the crime infested place from which they came") you have stated pure nonsense. Trump never "told" them to do anything, the right wing media said he did. THAT'S the truth.

I blame you right wingers for Trump. The fact that you could not see America would not stomach Bill Clinton in the White House again in ANY capacity made it a forgone conclusion that Hillary would spend election night balled in the corner. And now your answer is defending these 4? And 20 candidates including Bill Deblasio, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and some knuckleheads who break into broken Spanish for no reason other than to fire up those of us who are already tired of bending over backwards? Welcome to 4 more years of cringe worthy tweets, unless Ben Shapiro steps up.

I'm afraid no matter how clear I make this for you, your ego will never allow you to see your utter failure in this argument, and your "moreover" bit is just a distraction from that failure in a true HHS hack.
" Jul 22, 19 11:19 AM

Fore, to the uneducated dolt, you are correct. And are you not racist? Or do agree with Nazi belief? Educate yourself." Jul 22, 19 3:01 PM

Ha!

The red ink hypocrisy strikes again!" Jul 24, 19 7:28 PM

Sag Harbor Interdependence Walk Takes Place Sunday

Schiff: Wake up Mr. Mueller

Mueller: I'm sorry?

Schiff: you looked like you were confused.

Mueller: repeat that please?

Schiff: I said you looked confused...

Mueller: where am I?

Good job dems, definitely reinforced the competence in the investigation. Nothing like putting up an old man who doesn't know who Ronald Reagan is when hired by him.

What a joke.

And now you take a celebratory lap.....completely baffling. But then again...what do we expect if it's a party full of people not willing to fight for what they believe in....right Fore?....just throw money at it, have others fight for you, and hope or pray you never have to run away. But if you do...that's democracy for you.

" Jul 25, 19 11:20 PM

@HHS

1) State your source. And don't make it the Hillary/Dem funded fantasy Steele children's book about spies and goblins in the Trump campaign. Oh...and it can't be the Mueller report either, because according to Mr. Mueller and his report...and here is an unedited quote from the report, not like your "edit to suit MY version", “did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.”

Good luck!

2) PERFERCT case in point of you being nothing but a big worded hack. Let's begin with second grade grammar and common knowledge of how the justice system works. "Evidence of obstruction of justice was uncovered"...correct, but muddy water. Fruit of the poisonous tree. These will all be opinions, but "whose criminality it is the sole prerogative of congress to determine"...yeah, right. Congress doesn't determine if obstruction is a crime, it already is. And if you are reaching for the impeachment twig...good luck....any case of obstruction is handled after Trump leaves office in 2024.

3) you sound like Rachel Maddog finding 1 page of Trump's income tax return. All giddy schoolgirlish. Of course it wasn't exculpatory. It never could be.

AND you hammer ALL my points about you and your complete nonsense, lies, misleading statements, and general doltology with this doosy....

"These are our darkest days"

Hmmmmm.....4/15/1865, 12/7/1941, 11/22/1963, 9/11/2001....

"The sky is falling"
Chicken little." Jul 26, 19 9:25 AM

Typical lies.

Fark much these days? Simple copy and web search brings me right to a site with the EXACT wording, and copy of a document stating specifically Pam Bondi and a Mr. James Rubin hired specifically as KEY personnel offering consulting and advocacy services regarding matters involving ANTI-human trafficking, not "for human trafficking" as you state.

And if it's the Money you are jealous of, maybe you should stop moderating google....oh, wait, google stopped that. Ok, stop truck driving and fiddling with computers and find a more lucrative career. This is America after all.

Or are you still hung up on the illegal immigrants taking jobs thing..." Jul 26, 19 12:11 PM

@HHS

Stupidity, ignorance, laziness, childish, embarrassing and intellectually inadequate.

Your words that can be used to describe 99.9% of your posts.

1) You should have mailed that to Mueller, you could have saved us all some time and money. Since you did not, 2 years of investigation "concluded that there was “insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy” between Trump’s campaign and Russia." Time 7/24/19. You live in this fantasy world where, and I can picture this clearly, you finish your post and state out loud...."Highhat speaks and it is true."
You and the Donald could be the same person......wait.....are you?

2) Nice try, Jesus won't help you. Obstruction is and will always be a crime. You are confused....again. Congress will determine no such thing, but perhaps whether or not to move forward in the form of impeachment. Personally I hope they do. Then all you lefty likey's can go on and on about how Trump is done.....only to be embarrassed AGAIN....and come up with more conspiracy nonsense that is the hallmark of your totally dysfunctional party. (i.e. Wasserman, Pelosi, aoc, no migrant caravan but yet we have a border crisis....I could go on.)

3) exoneration noun
ex·​on·​er·​a·​tion | \ ig-ˌzä-nə-ˈrā-shən, eg- \

Legal Definition of exoneration
1 : the act of disburdening or discharging (as from a charge, liability, obligation, duty, or responsibility)
also : the state of being so freed
2a : the right of a person who has paid a debt for which he or she is only secondarily liable to be reimbursed by the person primarily liable
b : the right of a surety to require a person or estate that is subject to a liability for which the surety is secondarily liable to discharge the liability thus relieving the surety
also : the equitable remedy by which the surety compels discharge of the liability
Webster's (unedited)

Probably the most mindnumbing and idiotic Q&A, plus your use of it tells us alot. Exoneration is legally the improper term. See my above quotation from Time, it contains the word "charge" and explains their was insufficient evidence to do so. Now the definition of exoneration, disburdening or discharging. There was no charge to be discharged from. Try Exculpate.

Darkest days?
Sun is out. Belly is full. I have my freedom and my 2nd ammendment. Think I will go outside and sit by the pool with a glass of made in the USA sweet tea and "The right side of history" by Ben Shapiro. Highly recommend it.

No need to hide under a rock, the Republic is fine.

@z

Won't even waste my time on someone who quotes from fark...seems most feel the same by the lack of follow ups you receive." Jul 27, 19 10:37 AM

More ignorant gibberish.....to be expected at this point.

1) lies by omission. "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let's see if that happens." Trump. If I remember correctly, the U.S. government was also trying to locate these emails. With the way Comey was obsessed with trying to stop Trump instead of justice, Russia had a better chance. The press reaps the reward in the full context of his statement. It came 235 days since golden girl had last given a press conference, to busy wiping hard drives and smashing cell phones. Would damning emails help Trump? One could argue for and against seeing as every poll had Hill pummeling Trump.

2)AGAIN you just don't learn......

criminality noun
crim·​i·​nal·​i·​ty | \ ˌkri-mə-ˈna-lə-tē \
Definition of criminality
1 : the quality or state of being criminal
2 : criminal activity
urban criminality
Webster's
------------------------------------
THINK before you type. Try it sometime.
------------------------------------
crime noun
\ ˈkrīm \
Definition of crime
1 : an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government
especially : a gross violation of law
2 : a grave offense especially against morality
3 : criminal activity
efforts to fight crime
4 : something reprehensible, foolish, or disgraceful (sounds like your post)
It's a crime to waste good food.
Webster's (edited by addition)

Talk about ignorance. Can you see something that BOTH definitions have in common? Congress DOES NOT determine whether Obstruction is a crime (which you correctly state it is) and congress DOES NOT determine CRIMINALITY because they are the SAME THING. Your whole statement is one largely written word hack that when broken down sounds like this:
"Obstruction is a crime and Mueller found evidence of obstruction, now it's up to congress to determine if the evidence makes obstruction a crime."

Now THAT is incoherent gibberish on a grand scale.

3) YOU stated "The report findings were NOT exculpatory, (Trump's mendacious claim of "exoneration" notwithstanding.)"

Which is why I gave you the .01% on the 99.9% of your posts. I agreed with you...no "exoneration", but "exculpatory" is the correct verbiage. Now....because 1 dolt (trump) misuses a word, does that give another dolt (Nadler) the right to verify the misuse of the word during a congressional hearing? That's all that happened, but apparently it is news worthy.

I'm still poolside, sky hasn't fallen." Jul 27, 19 2:34 PM

@HHS

Short, sweet, and simple for you, you are thoroughly lost.

"Obstruction of Justice is a crime."
highhatsize (4082), East Quogue on Jul 27, 19 1:02 PM

"Obstruction is NOT a crime unless the behavior reaches the threshold of criminal culpability"
highhatsize (4082), East Quogue on Jul 27, 19 7:03 PM

6 hours and 1 minute for you to show us your IGNORANCE.

I suggest you brush up on you criminal code, specifically 18 USC 1505 as it applies.

The "culpability" in federal matters is shallow if not empty.

The problem, highhatsize, is that you habitually embrace mindlessly prejudicial ideological BELIEFS and then try to validate them rationally by fabricating (using oversized verbiage) demented explanations that nobody accepts (or can even understand.)
" Jul 28, 19 8:48 AM

@HHS

Please STOP.

The doltishness and ignorance of your last post is completely MIND NUMBING, and shows us all you are a verbiage hack.

"There is NO DOUBT that Trump "OBSTRUCTED" the Russian election tampering investigation by FIRING Comey" (emphasis added)

1) THAT is what YOU BELIEVE happened. (That is your opinion, not a fact)

2) apparently leading you to the truth is futile, you just love to mislead and out right lie. 18 U.S.C. 1505....perhaps you should have taken a closer look at the 3 elements
1 and 2 fit, 3.....nope. Spelling EVERYTHING out for you is tedious.

“investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are not section 1505 proceedings” U.S. ATTORNEYS MANUAL.

And once AGAIN I can use your own post to describe your gibberish...

"Like The Donald's tweets, your every post is a testament to stupidity and laziness."

Let's hear some more verbiage vomit, I can't wait." Jul 28, 19 3:04 PM

You quote from fark. Proof positive of 11,429 ignorant, mindnumbing, doltish, and utter stupidity in your posts.

1512 has NOTHING to do in this matter. AGAIN proof of IGNORANCE and UTTER STUPIDITY in postings. it's no wonder nobody engages you in debate.

Perhaps you and your buddy here should dust up on legal definitions of PROCEEDINGS and INVESTIGATIONS. Keep posting...it's amusing to see how utterly ignorant you two are when I GIVE you the answer as to why Comey's firing CANNOT be obstruction straight from the U.S. ATTORNEYS MANUEL and the F.B.I. and held up in federal district court opinion UNITED STATES V HIGGINS.

Glad you maintain the faithful lapdog." Jul 29, 19 12:20 AM

@HHS

"Cite some references and provide us with the specific LANGUAGE to which you are referring and we can have a meaningful discussion."

There is no meaningful discussion with an individual(s) who haven't developed the necessary reading comprehension level of a second grade student.

"Cite some references"
1. U.S. Attorney's Manual
2. United States v Higgins

Apparently my abbreviation isn't sufficient, you actually like long posts, so here it is straight from the manual...

"investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are not section 1505 proceedings. United States v. Higgins, 511 F. Supp. 453, 455-56 (W.D. Ky. 1981); see also United States v. Scoratow, 137 F. Supp. 620, 621-22 (W.D. Pa. 1956) (FBI investigation is not a 18 U.S.C. § 1503 "proceeding"). But cf. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1510 and 1512(b)(3), (c)(2).

[cited in Criminal Resource Manual 1729; Criminal Resource Manual 1730]"

Now....EVERYTHING you have just poster on this 1505 matter is FALSE, MISLEADING, UTTERLY STUPID, and MINDLESS.

INVESTIGATION is not mentioned a SINGLE time in 1505. The whole purpose is protecting the integrity of the PROCEEDING. It is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.

"@ Bayman3142

18 USC 1505: "Whoever, with INTENT to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance ... " (emphasis added)
------------------------------

How can you possibly have read that statute and construe it to support your belief?"
HHS

I can't help the fact that you do not grasp the concept of losing, but your continuation in trying to prove the firing of Comey is considered obstruction of justice at this point is infantile.

Like all your verbiage vomited posts, the STUPIDITY and LAZINESS, along with a DISDAIN for the TRUTH is absolutely astonishing.

Spin away.
" Jul 29, 19 9:31 AM

@HHS

Does 18 U.S.C. 1505 make the firing of James Comey a case of obstruction of justice?" Jul 30, 19 10:22 AM

@HHS

I certainly hope you are not an attorney.

I wouldn't call that a "cognitive disorder", that is actually laying out my case clearly for any reader with a second grade reading comprehension level, with sources.

On the other hand the VERBIAGE VOMIT( to which you are the supreme leader) serves no purpose but to deflect and deny.

Here is a rabbit-hole for you.

"NO DOUBT"....."CLEARLY"....."I CERTAINLY THINK."..... [*flush*]" Jul 31, 19 8:35 AM

@HHS

If I am so confused, why don't you spell it out for me? Or is your typical response when found in a conundrum "that would be a waste of time" deflection.

My case was clearly presented for you to move from "no doubt" to "clearly" and at last "I certainly think" in the matter of the firing of James Comey being an act of obstruction under 18 USC 1505.

It was a simple YES or NO question you have squirmed for days out of answering, with LOTS and LOTS of verbiage vomit in between.

Again, answer or please STOP." Jul 31, 19 12:05 PM

@ HHS

Ah yes.....and now the "I never said that"

SOMBODY with access to your account posted the following.

"
@ Bayman3142

18 USC 1505: "Whoever, with INTENT to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance ... " (emphasis added)
------------------------------

How can you possibly have read that statute and construe it to support your belief?

There is no doubt that Trump "obstructed" the Russian election tampering investigation by firing Comey. If his evil INTENT (mens rea) is proven, his behavior becomes criminal obstruction of justice."

Remember, we are discussing the firing of Comey. YOU said it is obstruction, I have CLEARLY proven you WRONG.

Since you cannot cognitively grasp anything beyond second grade reading comprehension AND now it appears memory loss has added to the list of your cognitive shortcomings....here.....read slowly......

"@HHS

Does 18 U.S.C. 1505 make the firing of James Comey a case of obstruction of justice? Jul 30, 19 10:22 AM appended by Bayman3142
*crickets*....
By Bayman3142 (229), Southampton on Jul 30, 19 10:22 AM"


"(If this is actually NOT the question to which you are seeking a YES or NO answer, please, please, tell me explicitly - - - and SUCCINCTLY - - - what it is you want and I will accommodate you.)"
HHS

SEEMS EXPLICIT and SUCCINCT to me.

Spin away" Aug 1, 19 2:52 PM

@HHS

Your first quote is all encompassing, not specific to the firing of Comey, so it holds no evidential value to support your belief.

Remember, for an obstruction charge, there would have to be willful intent to interfere with the investigation, and at that point on May 3, 2017, Trump had been told 3 times he was NOT under investigation by Comey himself.

A timeline shows no interruption in the investigation from the May 9, 2017 firing to the May 17, 2017 appointment of Mueller. Besides the fact that Comey was not conducting the investigation himself, but F.B.I.agents
under his direction were, and would not stop just because he was removed.

"Firing Comey would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural and probable effect of interfering with or impeding the investigationfor example, if the termination would have the effect of delaying or disrupting the investigation or providing the President with the opportunity to appoint a director who would take a different approach to the investigation that the President perceived as more protective of his personal interests." (Mueller V2 pg74)

Clearly he did not, in fact he knowingly appointed someone very close to Comey.

Also of note, It was recommended to Trump to fire Comey on May 3, 2017 by Jeff sessions.(Mueller report V2 pg62)

Helen Murillo is an interesting read, written by a law student, but also shows no proof the firing of Comey came close to rising to the elements found in 18 U.S.C. 1505.
" Aug 3, 19 11:35 AM

Alas you are so far gone in your solipsistic and narcissistic ways as to discredit the report written by "A principled, dedicated public servant"(your words) Bob Mueller.

And so you have come full circle in this argument. Praising Mueller, and now, sadly you discredit him.

When will the Left learn. First it was Comey, hero of the people to zero, then came Obama, hero of the people to zero, and now Mueller.

What a sad state the Democrats find themselves in." Aug 4, 19 12:20 PM

@HHS

"YOU" discredit Mueller when my case is based on letter of the law, spirit of the law, and Comey's own report that shows the firing did not meet the criteria of Obstruction.

If you can't see the correlation between the Dems and Comey, Obama, and now Mueller...you should leave your house more often. There is a whole world outside your solipsistic life.

@Fore

Name one." Aug 4, 19 8:02 PM

UPDATE: President Trump Arrives In Southampton To Attend Private Fundraisers On East End Friday

Ah, ignorance has a new face named junebug. Pantaleo did not choke Eric Gardner to death. In fact, it is physically impossible to kill someone with a seven second choke hold. The fact that the criminal Garner was able to speak AFTER he was released is proof positive that the choke hold did not kill him. Oh, and for a period of time in the seven seconds the choke hold was deemed to be justifiable. Justice was not "FINALLY" done. That occurred when a grand jury failed to indict, and the federal government found no cause.
Seems your ignorant statement qualifies you to join the circle jerk." Aug 20, 19 5:49 PM

That would be relevant.....if any of those actually occurred in the contributing factors. " Aug 21, 19 8:44 AM

How about no. Keep trying tho, you'll find something to fit your narrative. Start with obesity, maybe failure to comply, then possibly asthma.

Hmmmmmmm...." Aug 22, 19 12:03 AM

Ah....and now your narrative is complete. By the way you two geniuses, was the criminal Garner able to speak while he was in this "choke" hold? Is a fight against a law enforcement officer a fight for his life?

How about this for the ignorant uninformed keyboard commando....no resisting=no physical force=a living, breathing citizen. THAT is true of ALL these cases.

Thanks for the code of ethics.....civilians should follow the same creed.

" Aug 22, 19 9:00 AM

Easy....

NO

You continue this ridiculous habit of proving my point for me, simple reading comprehension on your nonsense cite broken down for you to try and understand. AND this is all your cite.

1. Dr. Persechino, a veteran city medical examiner, stood by her finding that his death was a homicide caused by the officer’s use of force.

Homicide caused by the officer's use of force is what a reporter, who knows who, says happened. NOT THE MEDICAL EXAMINER. This gets so tedious. I wish you would read the reports and educate yourself alittle instead of all this ignorant opinion pieces you post

In your post IS WHAT THE MEDICAL EXAMINER STATED VERBATIM....did you not see that?

“The chokehold is a significant initial factor of the cascade,” is WHAT SHE STATED. Not HOMICIDE CAUSED BY CHOKEHOLD. A "initial factor of the cascade" that caused Garners death.

VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH OF YOUR CITE....
The doctor who performed an autopsy on Eric Garner testified on Wednesday that a police officer choked him with enough force that it triggered a “lethal cascade” of events, ending in a fatal asthma attack.


FATAL ASTHMA ATTACK

Unbelievably obvious.

and go ahead and post testimony when I start citing it as truth.

Now....where did your "friend" work.?" Aug 23, 19 2:38 PM

Hey fred.....your village just called, they want you to come back.

You want to put a reporter up against a certified report....your problem. I think even fore would have a hard time defending what you have stated it is so moronic." Aug 23, 19 5:44 PM

Hey freddy, that cognitive thing is kicking into high gear.

Here are some FACTS for you, I am really trying not to laugh....

On August 23rd I posted this to you.....

"In your post IS WHAT THE MEDICAL EXAMINER STATED VERBATIM...did you not see that?

“The chokehold is a significant initial factor of the cascade,” is WHAT SHE STATED. Not HOMICIDE CAUSED BY CHOKEHOLD. A "initial factor of the cascade" that caused Garners death."

Now tell me freddy.......what does the above ALL CAPS FOR EMPHASIS say?

I'll make it easier and pull 2 out so as to not jumble them in the statement...

IS WHAT THE MEDICAL EXAMINER STATED VERBATIM

is WHAT SHE STATED

Is that easy enough for you?

Oh, and the coroner's report.....its an official document, not a published report. How about that?






" Aug 24, 19 8:33 AM

Freddy? You back at the village?" Aug 24, 19 8:03 PM

Freddy, your inability to stand down from a moronic false narrative speaks volumes. YOU are what is wrong with this country right now. You see something in a liberal rag and spread it like gospel truth without even attempting to verify the information. (Calling a "friend" doesn't count freddy) It's small minded at best and stupidity for certain. These false stories get people killed, so if you feel I am "bullying" and "intimidating" I'll take it. Unfortunately guys like you dont have the cognitive ability to see the truth and rely on someone telling them what their version of the truth is. Then guys like you go running off at the mouth like professors of doltology, spreading lies and misinformation to other small minded believers.That is also a sign of intellectual weakness.

You have alot to say with your 2896 comments...2895 of them false and outright lies.

That's being kind." Aug 25, 19 8:38 AM

Oh freddy, you dont even know what you asked me to say yes or no to. Dementia? Cognitive disability? It's funny how you keep up with the "you're a bully...you're being intimidating....your foolish...wah way wah." Its guys like you that actually raise my already healthy self esteem. Now I'm a racist, apologist, and bigoted... thank you. Knowing that someone like yourself thinks this of me means I am the exact opposite because of your lack of reading comprehension, hubris, and general lack of cognitive thought process that amounts to small mindedness.

Between Aug 22 and Aug 23 you went on a 7 post rambling, disingenuous,
Counter productive rant about what the medical examiner said. I agreed totally that what you had cited as coming from the medical examiner and it is and was true. You just can't seem to follow along because of an apparent attention span issue.


As far as me telling you to shut your mouth. Your implication that cops are cold blooded killers was so heinous, you definitely should shut your mouth.
Or is that not what you stated? See, I can speak about law enforcement because I've been there....you speak about it, never having been, calling "friends", and because you are a keyboard commando with no experience just ignorant opinions. My "weak" argument comes from personal experience and knowledge of the NYPD patrol guide. Your argument comes from biased news services and ignorance. (And a mystery "friend" who you wont even divulge where they worked) You, and this "friend" don't even know who said what. James O'Neil is not a chief as pointed out by your buddy, does not write the rules, nor does anyone who happened to be anywhere near him...."He then added , do you see the guy standing behind the chief when he was giving the verdict, the guy writes the rules , what is a chokehold etc,my friend stated it’s just bs to deny it wasn’t." fred a. Aug 22 9:10. No chief, no rule writer, and certainly no verdict.
So now you and your friend are ignorant and I am 100% positive he never work for the NYPD.

So let me ask you a question since you are sticking to your "cite" is this cite you used true...yes or no. If yes, support your statement with proof from the medical examiner's report or any direct statement by any medical examiner involved in the case.

"Though Mr. Garner had high blood pressure and chronic asthma, Dr. Persechino, a veteran city medical examiner, stood by her finding that his death was a homicide caused by the officer’s use of force. “The chokehold is a significant initial factor of the cascade,” she said. Did the coroner say that? Yes or no? She said a chokehold. Answer yes or no. Then you can go on with your petty name calling . Yes or no. Answer"
Fred s. Aug 23 12:49

Thanks Freddy" Aug 25, 19 2:08 PM

Fore posts something benighted? Shocker....and it's the blue wall of silence. You cant even get your insults right.

One last time......

Dr. Persechino, a veteran city medical examiner, stood by her finding that his death was a homicide caused by the officer’s use of force.

Dr. Persechino official cause of death listed on autopsy report....

ASTHMA.

Facts are facts, Lies are lies, and the ignorant remain ignorant." Aug 26, 19 9:38 AM

Hey Freddy....you've already opened your mouth so much the doubt factor no longer exist.

Thanks Mark!

The village still calls...but now it asks if fore is available if you are not." Aug 27, 19 9:35 PM

Students Voice Their Concerns About Returning To School In Climate Of Gun Violence

Good Lord fred, stop repeating that lame "do nothing solve nothing" statement. Why use an obvious scenario to try and prove a point? Does not make any sense whatsoever.

And it's not the guns. Guns don't just go walking in and firing away. It is ALWAYS an individual who has one of the following. 1. Absentee parents, 2. Single mom, has been 3. bullied repeatedly, or a 4. societal loner.

That covers it. The shootings in Chicago, 1 and 2, school shootings, 1,3, and 4. Delaware 1 and 2.

Klebold and Harris. The originals. Complete opposite individuals. Harris is likable, but brags about his ability to deceive. In high school Harris becomes angry with everyone around him. Klebold is "painfully shy" but prone to verbal outburst. They were know to sit alone together and a rumor spread they were romantically involved. It is believed Harris' rage and hatred for society feed Klebold's poor self esteem and need for revenge stemming from years of bullying.
(Sources: "Eric Harris" writing, "at least we know why the Columbine killers did it" slate magazine, the Columbine papers, time magazine, the Columbine tapes, time magazine.)


Anyone aware that the two made a video of shooting students in the hallways of Columbine for a school project entitled "Hitmen for Hire" in which a teacher praised the project? You can watch it on youtube. Haunting to say the least.

So tell me...where is the gun at fault more so than society, parents, and teachers?

I'm all for gun control. I believe you need a month long course on how to handle, shoot, clean, store, and when to use your weapon. And in the course of the month you will be subject to a mental fitness test. Then you are licensed and can carry. If you really want a weapon you will have no problem going nights and weekends to attain the RIGHT to carry.

So please stop with the ban this ban that and start with the problem. Political Correctness and snowflakes. Sorry if your feelings got hurt, I'd rather your feelings hurt then people die. So if a teacher says you are a threat, you go someplace to neutralize it. Period.


Oh....if you really want to see how it works....try Switzerland." Sep 10, 19 10:16 AM

Freddy, show me where I called you a name, was it snowflake that offended you? Generally speaking a blanket statement that strikes a cord with an individual has some merit to it. You statement makes little to no sense.

"No.every persons life experiences unfold exactly how you describe it. Maybe sometimes." What? Reread my statement. Was I talking about "EVERYONE"? or did I refer to the mass shooter/shooting incidents? And where pray tell do you see some "psuedo macho bs"? Please explain. I look forward to hearing about it, or just say I'm a bully and not answer for any of your claims and statements as always.

Fore....too simplistic and useless. What does a waiting period serve? And these "red flag' shenanigans as proposed are nothing but a lawsuit in the making.

Hypothetical: red flag can be placed on anyone by who exactly? A neighbor who sees his neighbor shoot the family dog? Sounds like a good time to throw the flag, yes?

What if neighbor 1 is angry with neighbor 2 for some small perceived slight and knows neighbor 2 loves his time at the range so he calls the cops and concocted a story so they come and take his guns away. Neighbor 1 gets to remain anonymous and neighbor 2 has to fight to get his rights back.

What about the returning soldier from a war zone who suffers from PTSD, shows no signs of hurting himself or others, is just having a tough time with his time in the warzone but is getting help and is medicated and feeling better. Does he lose his rights? He served his country, would you take his guns away now?

And to think it's just the Republicans is just ignorant. It's both side. The Dems want to take away to many freedoms so the Republicans fight to keep all of them with nobody talking any sense in the middle. Please stop with the evil on one side of the aisle nonsense.

The answer is Switzerland. 47 attempted gun homicides in 2016 and a near 0 murder rate along with a over 2 million gun ownership in a nation of 8 million.

Oh...and freddy...above is the reason political correctness has everything to do with it. Do some research...or call your police buddy." Sep 10, 19 4:27 PM

Freddy, again, WHAT?

"All the mass murders had a few things in common. They were human beings, they killed people and they used guns. Not a 100% , but the vast majority"

Did I state the mass murders were conducted by anything other than human beings? Perhaps animals? Aliens? Bad tofu? And you can not state "All" and then back off with "not 100%"....is it "All" or is it sometimes?

As far as my P.C. and snowflakes statement, 1. I never backed off it, and stand by it. If your feelings get hurt because a teacher tells a parent and child after plenty of documentation, that they belong somewhere "special" to safeguard the students and the child, oh well, get over it. 2. This scenario is not Politically correct. 3. If this scenario offends anyone, they are a snowflake and should immediately find a "safe spot" and listen to Yanni for comfort.

"put where you get your facts from, there are many unreliable sources" freddy, why can I continue the debate with fore if there are so many "unreliable" sources. Fore seems to finding the same (or close) facts I am. Meanwhile YOU post "All the mass murders had a few things in common. They were human beings, they killed people and they used guns. Not a 100% , but the vast majority" an at once imperical fact statement (all the mass murders) with no factual basis that you then retreat from.

Where are your sources freddy? Mine are simple to verify, "Switzerland murder rate" "gun ownership in Switzerland"

Your "cite the source" argument has shown up in many of your past "debates" with others, such as PO boy. It always comes as the last gasps of a dying "argument".

I am crystal clear on what my rights are freddy, I have the RIGHT to own my guns. It is not a privilege like a driver's license. It is an absolute as an American. Look into and be prepared to get yourself "sad".

Hope this clears up my original post for you freddy. I never called you a name, laid out my plan clearly, and explained why I felt it was the a good plan. You got you feathers ruffled and went off rambling. Not my problem.

Fore. I would not expect you to know anything about what my "toys" are for. You are a self proclaimed pacifist who would rather pay others to fight for you, and if they happen to lose, move on to someplace else.

Have you forgotten I was part of the "blue shield of silence". Seems being a part of that club makes me care deeply about innocent lives. What have you done to protect the innocent? You paid money.

The numbers don't lie. My plan is the same today as it was days ago. Your just too dug in on the left." Sep 11, 19 9:09 AM

Climate Change Is Happening On The East End

You just can't fix stupid.


"A gun just makes killing easier"
WHAT??

lazy, ignorant, boorish, and dumb.

Hmmmmm....let's see, human history, in which you seem to think GOD is the perpetrator in mass murder, harkens back to....
Swords, spears, clubs, rocks, bow and arrows, knives, bombs, and fist. All items used at one time or another to stand up.

OF COURSE a gun makes killing easier. WHAT are you getting at? It's the gun that does the killing? Only a dumb @@s would think that.....mucho estupido.

Try digging a little deeper for the root of the problem, I'd lay it out but "somebody" would be offended and red ink it.

Little corner, little blanky." Sep 24, 19 12:37 AM

<<  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  |  9  >>