More horror from liberal rules

[BuilderBob6]

Just trying to get you to see the illogic of saying you trust the FBI sometimes but not others.

Logic is still a challenge for you, despite the efforts of some on us on this forum to help you. You can't explain how you decide when to trust the FBI and when not, but that is your position.

I posted this elsewhere, but the FBI is somehow not able to find this guy despite the videos and a home address at which he was recently seen doing yardwork. Can you check your rental doghouses to see if he is hiding in one, perhaps with dg, ted and some other progs?

Meet Ray Epps: The Fed-Protected Provocateur Who Appears to Have Led the Very First 1/6 Attack on the US Capitol - Revolver News

In order to protect the country from fictional right-wing "patriot" groups, did the FBI become an insurrectionist "patriot" movement?

www.revolver.news

Lol. In your real life, do people often jump to answer your questions or fulfill your requests when you make fun of them? Pissoff.

You guys attack the liberal media........but your media sources aren't partisan? The Revolver? A right wing blog?

Here's a rebuttal from a left leaning site.

The far-right thinks they've finally found the 'fed' who instigated the Capitol riot

Conservatives hype a new, unfounded theory about Ray Epps that shifts the blame for the Jan. 6 Capitol riot from Trump supporters to the FBI.

www.dailydot.com

 

[Riveting]

Lol. In your real life, do people often jump to answer your questions or fulfill your requests when you make fun of them? Pissoff.

You guys attack the liberal media........but your media sources aren't partisan? The Revolver? A right wing blog?

Here's a rebuttal from a left leaning site.

The far-right thinks they've finally found the 'fed' who instigated the Capitol riot

Conservatives hype a new, unfounded theory about Ray Epps that shifts the blame for the Jan. 6 Capitol riot from Trump supporters to the FBI.

www.dailydot.com

Bob, comparing you with your peer group on this board, you tend to spew out a rant and then disappear when someone challenges you. Your comment about trusting the FBI "some of the time" is an example.

Forget the text of the links, look at the videos. The guy was there, encouraging and even directing people to the Capitol. Why hasn't he been arrested?

Garland refused in testimony to talk about Epps or about how many feds were in the crowd.

Doesn't all this qualify in your 'logic' as a reason not to trust the FBI in this case?

 

[jrcrist]

Lol. In your real life, do people often jump to answer your questions or fulfill your requests when you make fun of them? Pissoff.

You guys attack the liberal media........but your media sources aren't partisan? The Revolver? A right wing blog?

Here's a rebuttal from a left leaning site.

The far-right thinks they've finally found the 'fed' who instigated the Capitol riot

Conservatives hype a new, unfounded theory about Ray Epps that shifts the blame for the Jan. 6 Capitol riot from Trump supporters to the FBI.

www.dailydot.com

You said similar things about the Wuhan lab, how’d that work out for you? You still haven’t learned, after repeated examples, that the msm will lie to push a narrative, both for the left and the right. It just so happens that the majority of the msm is left leaning.
And if you’d look at Beatties work, he has more information than just this Epps guy, so your linked article is more dishonest crap.

 

[BuilderBob6]

Bob, comparing you with your peer group on this board, you tend to spew out a rant and then disappear when someone challenges you. Your comment about trusting the FBI "some of the time" is an example.

Forget the text of the links, look at the videos. The guy was there, encouraging and even directing people to the Capitol. Why hasn't he been arrested?

Garland refused in testimony to talk about Epps or about how many feds were in the crowd.

Doesn't all this qualify in your 'logic' as a reason not to trust the FBI in this case?

No, Garland said the FBI doesn't discuss ongoing investigations. That is policy. When you're looking for a conspiracy, like you are, it means something nefarious.

Did he actually ENTER the Capitol?

Since you didn't read the link......

"One of Revolver’s arguments surrounds the fact that Epps’ name was removed from the FBI’s Capitol Violence Most Wanted List in July. The removal, Revolver argues, indicates that the bureau was almost certainly attempting to scrub their knowledge of Epps.

In reality, Epps removal only confirms that the FBI is no longer seeking the public’s assistance in locating the military veteran. Numerous scenarios, including the possibility that Epps was interviewed by the FBI, could just as easily explain the removal. No evidence has been made public, however, to prove any theory.

Revolver also suggests that a lack of public charges for Epps should also be viewed with suspicion.

But in all the available footage, Epps never actually entered the Capitol or engaged in violence like those who have been arrested. Whether Epps could be successfully prosecuted for just telling people that they should enter the Capitol is questionable. Many others who did enter the Capitol that day still have not been arrested, as the FBI investigation is on going."

Don't confuse me ignoring you with disappearing when challenged. You only want to have a conversation on your terms, about your topic, and get pissy when I don't follow you down your many rabbit holes. You want to be in charge of the conversation. I guess that works for you in your life but it doesn't work here with me. You going to ask me specific questions about the FBI go ahead but I'm not going to throw out all kinds of scenarios just so you can pick them apart. You're here for entertainment value and don't like it when someone doesn't comply. Tough shit.

 

[Riveting]

No, Garland said the FBI doesn't discuss ongoing investigations. That is policy. When you're looking for a conspiracy, like you are, it means something nefarious.

Did he actually ENTER the Capitol?

Since you didn't read the link......

"One of Revolver’s arguments surrounds the fact that Epps’ name was removed from the FBI’s Capitol Violence Most Wanted List in July. The removal, Revolver argues, indicates that the bureau was almost certainly attempting to scrub their knowledge of Epps.

In reality, Epps removal only confirms that the FBI is no longer seeking the public’s assistance in locating the military veteran. Numerous scenarios, including the possibility that Epps was interviewed by the FBI, could just as easily explain the removal. No evidence has been made public, however, to prove any theory.

Revolver also suggests that a lack of public charges for Epps should also be viewed with suspicion.

But in all the available footage, Epps never actually entered the Capitol or engaged in violence like those who have been arrested. Whether Epps could be successfully prosecuted for just telling people that they should enter the Capitol is questionable. Many others who did enter the Capitol that day still have not been arrested, as the FBI investigation is on going."

Don't confuse me ignoring you with disappearing when challenged. You only want to have a conversation on your terms, about your topic, and get pissy when I don't follow you down your many rabbit holes. You want to be in charge of the conversation. I guess that works for you in your life but it doesn't work here with me. You going to ask me specific questions about the FBI go ahead but I'm not going to throw out all kinds of scenarios just so you can pick them apart. You're here for entertainment value and don't like it when someone doesn't comply. Tough shit.

NIce rant, Bob, and some more reasonable points than you usually make. Let's see how it plays out (as was suggested re the Wuhan 'conspiracy' you doubted).

Re my original question to you, do you trust the FBI re Jan. 6 - or do you not comment on ongoing investigations/coverups ?

 

[Riveting]

You going to ask me specific questions about the FBI go ahead but I'm not going to throw out all kinds of scenarios just so you can pick them apart. You're here for entertainment value and don't like it when someone doesn't comply. Tough shit.

btw, what are you here for if not entertainment?

Are you getting some bizarre pleasure from your self-righteous rants? If so, that's a win-win, because I get entertainment from them. Thanks for all you do, Bob.

 

[jrcrist]

The Federales, or McAuliffe are at it again, Bob, don’t fall for it! Just trying to help a fellow Boiler out. They’re not very good at this are they? When was the last time you saw a black Neo Nazi?

Oh and here’s a piece from 2015 from a liberal journalist discussing this apparently new, “conspiracy theory” as you call it

Why Does the FBI Have to Manufacture its Own Plots if Terrorism and ISIS Are Such Grave Threats?

This tactic is akin to having the DEA constantly warn of the severe threat posed by drug addiction while it simultaneously uses pushers on its payroll to deliberately get people hooked on drugs so that they can arrest the addicts they’ve created and thus justify their own warnings and budgets.

theintercept.com

 

[tjreese]

OK, so do many people, including myself.



OK, then has anything I cited didn't pass your bull$hit meter? If so, I'm happy to learn.



Thank you, although that really doesn't help to appease the millions of people who listened to Sidney Powell and believed the Dominion voting system changed their votes (even if she later said in court no reasonable person should believe what she said as factual). Nor does it stop many other forms of fraud like vote buying. Or coercion. Or fake registration forms. And I am not sure if in-person voting only is a viable solution when there are many states already have long history of mail-in voting or absentee ballot. Heck, even Trump himself voted by mail.




So you want to insist others to spend a couple hours (one way) to go to a voting place to vote and not allow mail-in voting?



Sorry, I am not following. Is your personal vote cancelled? What make you believe that?



Sorry, I am not really sure what you mean by "your vote cancelled illegally." Do you mean someone impersonate as you, such that your actual vote is not counted? It sounds like one can easily check his voting history. So if you have any doubt, you might want to try that to verify. What makes you believe that someone have stolen your vote?

Looking Up Your Voting Record Is as Easy as Opening an App

If you're interested in looking up your voting record, there are a few ways of doing so online. Your voting record contains your voter registration information and voting history as maintained by your state, and is publicly available.

www.yahoo.com

I am not sure "regurgitating" is the right word. If someone already has answered your concern in a way better than I can explain, why not just use his words? Plus, I like to provide links such that people can follow up on the source.

As for ideas to ensure voter integrity, how about if you let me know what voter fraud activity you think is the most serious and rampant, and we start with that? If it's about someone "cancelling" your vote by pretending to be you, then I've already shown above that you can check your voting record.




Pretty strong words here. 81 million idiots - I suppose you are referring to the 81M popular votes that Biden got? I find it disappointing that someone like you whom I thought I could respect would make such a broad statement against, well, 81 million people. Just because people doesn't vote for your candidate doesn't mean they are idiot or unpatriotic. I generally avoid statements like that because I realize the world is not as simple as black and white. People vote for a candidate for a variety of reasons, and just because they prefer a candidate different than mine doesn't make them an idiot. We can want the same things (a stronger country) but just see different ways of achieving that.



So can you let me know what makes you so certain (or concerned) that your vote is compromised? I am not sure it is wise to insinuate how one votes has to do with a person's IQ. That said, I do think people are quite easily fooled. Again, using Sidney Powell as an example, I still see many people believing in her election fraud claims even though in court she defended her claims as "no reasonable person would believe as facts."

Sidney Powell argues in new court filing that no reasonable people would believe her election fraud claims

Right-wing lawyer Sidney Powell is claiming in a new court filing that reasonable people wouldn't have believed as fact her assertions of fraud after the 2020 presidential election.

www.foxcarolina.com

Sorry, I’m late getting back to this for a variety of reason outside the forums in general from mechanical issues, to Trust development and birthday celebration. Finding an uncensored link that would project an understanding you would find compatible with information gathered from previous links is not difficult, and is not limited to any particular medium of the media from the state.

FWIW, one of the areas I work is approving for use various components for use in different builds of product. Last week when a particular service build was to begin, it was noted that a component (capacitor) was not approved for production. There was nothing in the computer tracking information that would hint the product was approved and could be used. Nothing to suggest that the information gathered as a result of the obtainable data would show anything other than a non-approved part record. In spite of this, I knew it was an approved product. However, there was absolutely no link to data showing it was originally approved. Instead all the information showed it having no approval. Although I couldn’t vouch for certification of that approval as to whether it met the criteria to be approved or not, I knew the bottom line in that it was an approved product. I couldn’t support my contention, by linking to a field of information in support, nor specifically know why the results of obtainable data did not support my contention. Any audit of the data would show it being a non-approved product…no matter how many times an audit might be conducted it would have the same ending…part unapproved. Still, I granted approval for it’s use in spite of the absent of a link supporting my contention or the quality of meeting the criteria for approval long ago. Historically, even in absence of the data I knew, and know, it was previously approved. It might be something as simple as data lost going through the various handoffs of previous data bases, but there is no way of showing that…the data I would need is gone. Sometimes in real life encounters such as I describe happen.

Now, I considered listing a litany of huge domestic and foreign issues under Joe, but believed it was a exercise in futility. It just seems that those that cannot see the catastrophic things now, and in many years from now, as a result of Joe would have great difficulty grasping that litany in magnitude. So, why bother? I also considered your statement on idiots. You got that one right. Those voters made an idiotic vote, but they may have a narrow field of expertise outside cause and effect relative to their vote indicating they are not idiots, but just voted in an irresponsible manner in what appears to be supported by all the disapproval ratings. Those numbers indicate that many do have buyers remorse which is baffling to me because everything the puppet masters pull on ole Joe was predictable, and nobody with an eye to see or an ear to hear should be surprised.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

How is it racist for Republicans to ask for ID in order to vote, but it’s not racist for Democrats to ask for ID and/or Vax Cards to enter public spaces?

Care to answer this @BuilderBob6 @PurdueFan1 or @BNIBoiler ?

 

[Boilermaker03]

How is it racist for Republicans to ask for ID in order to vote, but it’s not racist for Democrats to ask for ID and/or Vax Cards to enter public spaces?

Especially since a large number of unvaxxed people are black.