The gauntlet has been thrown.Actually you have done it or I wouldn't bring it up so many times. I have looked at every single time you have attempted to quote me. I will encourage you to just stop now.
Unless you go back and edit every time you have attempted to quote me they will not match up. As I have said, there is but a hand full of times where you actually quoted me word for word.
Why don't you just leave it alone now.
A country at war not following the rules. No way!!! Clearly this is the fault of Dems and their ignore crime approach to law enforcement.'Ukraine’s tactics have violated international humanitarian law as they’ve turned civilian objects into military targets. The ensuing Russian strikes in populated areas have killed civilians and destroyed civilian infrastructure.'
We are Amnesty International UK. We are ordinary people from across the world standing up for humanity and human rights.www.amnesty.org.uk
Can't we all agree pot is in a unique category, more like alcohol than a "drug?" Especially since it's legal in about half the states.Pot is a plant. It is illegal by Federal Law, even if some states make it legal.
You don't consider it a drug, but you feel you know enough about the vax to determine it doesn't work, the stats regarding efficacy were falsified, and the medical science community are all in on the scam.
Do you not see a dichotomy there?
Didn't I say to leave it alone now. I think you should go focus on something else.The gauntlet has been thrown.
Present a minimum of two examples where I have quoted your words but have modified the text that is within the quote to be different than what you originally posted.
Provide the post number if you are not using the site software to quote the post.
I was joking with my weed comment. I'm sure many an anti-vaxxer has smoked a cigarette, etc. I'm also sure a ton of vaxxers are smoking cigs etc too.Ain't it funny how the argument can change based on the desired narrative?
I'd love to know how many anti-vaxxers smoke cigs, weed, or even use vape pens, but are afraid of medicine...
Ahhhh, back to the concept that if you say it, then everyone must just accept it as truth. No need for proof to be offered or provided.Didn't I say to leave it alone now. I think you should go focus on something else.
Twice, I said to drop it twice.Ahhhh, back to the concept that if you say it, then everyone must just accept it as truth. No need for proof to be offered or provided.
"Thxone has spoken!"
pretty damn funny. Do you want that participation trophy now?
I get that we don’t like Nancy, but this isn’t good really. It’s like the WNBA player who just got fvcked in Russia. They are testing our resolve. Pelosi isn’t the first important head of state to go to Taiwan. People go there all the time and she had every right to visit there. This is a sign of war coming. These are the first strikes from an enemy preparing to take us on.LOL China is sanctioning Pelosi and her family. That is awesome!!
Well, perhaps if anything is left after.... we can all not vote Democrat. Lessons learned.I get that we don’t like Nancy, but this isn’t good really. It’s like the WNBA player who just got fvcked in Russia. They are testing our resolve. Pelosi isn’t the first important head of state to go to Taiwan. People go there all the time and she had every right to visit there. This is a sign of war coming. These are the first strikes from an enemy preparing to take us on.
China doesn’t care about our parties. I do agree with you, but voting Republican hasnt helped. They perpetuated the corporate take over for 40 years and now that corporations are going woke to make money, they don’t like it. Republicans gave the power to corporations and now democrats are using those same corporations like a Trojan horse. I’m no democrat, but republicans actually stepped in their own sh1t.Well, perhaps if anything is left after.... we can all not vote Democrat. Lessons learned.
Listen troll, you don't get to determine how I view situations or how I respond to them. Go eat some more diicks.Twice, I said to drop it twice.
You ask me how my day and uncles felt about getting screwed over.
I responded with "Who said they got screwed over? Nobody".
This was a direct response to a question you presented me.
Here is your response where you shifted my quote to a different topic:
“Nobody got screwed over”? Seriously? What rock do you live under?
You REALLY never heard about service members getting shafted by the government?
MAN, that’s some wacky world your mind is living in."
Misuse of my quote.
Well...since you like to talk about context and comprehension so much, let's take a close look at that post: View attachment 41071
Notice that I said "It doesn't mean I'm unable to empathize with them when they get fvcked over after serving their time". I then asked about your dad's and uncleS getting screwed over, since you volunteered that they were in the service AND in Vietnam. Your sharing that info would suggest they are somehow tied to the issue of being affected by Agent Orange. If they weren't, why would you even bring them into the discussion? Was it to provide some weight to your argument that service members should not be taken care of after the gov't has done them wrong?
You then responded "Who said they got screwed over? Nobody." You did not say this response was specific to your relatives, AND my post (that you quoted) specifically speaks of all service members, not just your relatives.
Since you were non-specific, your response was sweeping to the entire body of my post. That's how our language works.
Work on your comprehension, especially of your own words, if you think you are going to "catch" me.
This one didn't work out for you at all.
I posted my opinion on convicting someone of rape. You then took that quote and applied it to this horseshit:
Vietnam never happened. Your dad never went, nor did your uncles. Korean War and WWII never happened. Nor did Civil War.
9/11 never happened. Iraq war? Nope. Afghanistan? No.
Grade school must never have happened since you obviously didn’t witness that either."
Misuse of my quote.
That's two thus far shooter.
'Afraid that's not how it works, Skippy. You made the very clear statement that you will not convict someone of an act unless you actually witnessed that act. In this case, that act is rape. What that means is that you do not believe something has happened unless you have seen it in person, regardless of victim testimony, eyewitness testimony, evidence, or even hearsay testimony.
Are you going to now spin the script to say that this standard of action is one you only apply in the case of rape, and you feel differently about other circumstances? Be careful how you answer b/c you could be painting yourself right into another corner.
Would you apply the same standards to a murder trial? How about larceny? If you refuse to believe a rape victim, why would you believe someone who claims they were in a war?
It was also asked many times but never answered: Would you believe your own daughter without witnessing the assault if SHE was the victim? The answer helps with that bigger picture of what standards you apply, and WHEN.
Again, pay attention to that corner.