Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 06:30:44 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: BIDEN: "Trump Won't Denounce Political Violence!" Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv References: Content-Language: en-US From: trotsky In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 102 Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.hasname.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 11:30:45 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 5267 X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17c7f99f2940cd2a$68473$2544727$46d50c60@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 5669 On 4/18/24 11:37 AM, BTR1701 wrote: > In article , FPP > wrote: > >> On 4/17/24 3:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>> In article , FPP >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 4/16/24 3:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>> In article , FPP >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 4/15/24 10:15 AM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>> On Apr 15, 2024 at 1:34:00 AM PDT, "FPP" wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 4/14/24 2:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article , >>>>>>>>> "Adam H. Kerman" wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 2024 at 6:15:20 PM PDT, FPP wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/9/24 12:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 2024 at 6:53:43 AM PDT, FPP >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/24 2:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> . . . >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you still haven't explained why Biden hasn't denounced any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of them, since he's decreed that denouncing political violence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the duty of every president. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [Fred Phelps citing headline] >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fact check: Joe Biden has condemned Antifa, violent protests >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Wait, I thought Antifa didn't exist? Now you're claiming it does >>>>>>>>>>>>> and that Biden has condemned them? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow. Baby steps, I guess. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Or do they only exist to the extent you can win on Usenet today? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It exists as a concept, but not as an organization. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> LOL! So it was a concept that was trying to burn down the federal >>>>>>>>>>> courthouse every night in Portland during the 2020 Summer of Love, >>>>>>>>>>> was it? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm so confused about Fred Phelps' position here. These large-scale >>>>>>>>>> protests that included violence, arson, and vandalism were organized >>>>>>>>>> through Twitter by people forwarding tweets. An "organization" is a >>>>>>>>>> body that organizes something. A protest was organized by those >>>>>>>>>> tweeting. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Of course Effa is full of it here. Even his fellow leftists recognize >>>>>>>>> Antifa as a thing, not just some ephemeral 'concept'. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> He acts like since they don't issue membership cards they're not a >>>>>>>>> group. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> fact that they worked in concert is what made them an organization, >>>>>>>>>> even without being organized as a corporation, partnership, or >>>>>>>>>> unincorporated society with charters and bylaws and other organic >>>>>>>>>> documents. Working together by passing the word along is what made >>>>>>>>>> them an organization. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It exists as a means of organizing among those doing the organizing. >>>>>>>>>> This is actual, not conceptual. Working together toward a common >>>>>>>>>> purpose is all that's necessary to be an organization. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Two dumbfucks don't make a right. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From House.gov (who have slightly more credibility than two >>>>>>>> ignorant fucks bitching and whining on Usenet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hahahahahahaha! Congress has credibility? Since when? >>>>>> >>>>>> 1787. You know... that thing that you took an oath to protect and >>>>>> defend. >>>>> >>>>> Congress didn't exist then. That's the Constitution you're talking >>>>> about, which is what I took an oath to defend. No one takes an oath to >>>>> defend Congress, jackass. >>>>> >>>> Constitution written in 1787. Ratified 1788. Met 1789. >>> >>> Which mean there was no Congress until at least 1789, not 1787 as you >>> claimed above. >>> >>> Any questions? >> >> All I mentioned was a date. I made no claim. > > I asked since when has Congress had any credibility and you gave me a > date in which Congress didn't even exist. > > Reading trouble? Again? Sounds more like not giving a shit about what you're blathering about. Hope this helps.