You believed Hillary's emails too didn't you? Was there a little red "c" in the corner or not, Mark?
US buying Greenland
Moderator: Animal
-
Tuesday
- Needs to step away from the keyboard.
- Posts: 866
- Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:10 pm
- dot
- Dodgin’ Ese
- Posts: 2498
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:25 pm
Re: US buying Greenland
The fallacy in your logic is still clear and on the record. Well done, Red, you're still as intelligently bankrupt as ever.
dot wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2024 8:03 pmSubpoenas defied with no charges. Your logic would say the subpoenas were never defied. Charges filed was never the argument, the argument was always what the crime was. You, just like the rest of the usual crowd, couldn't disprove the literal definition of insurrection. Thus you have as little to offer now as you did then. Run along until you have something to contribute, Red.necronomous wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2024 7:39 pm If the crime was insurrection, the would be indicteed for it. But they weren't. So it's either important or it's not. Fun times.
-
Tuesday
- Needs to step away from the keyboard.
- Posts: 866
- Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:10 pm
Re: US buying Greenland
Brainwashed zombies will say its fake
- necronomous
- The Super Cool Contrarian
- Posts: 8489
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:42 pm
Re: US buying Greenland
How is following the law a fallacy? Neat try though.dot wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2026 12:19 amThe fallacy in your logic is still clear and on the record. Well done, Red, you're still as intelligently bankrupt as ever.
dot wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2024 8:03 pmSubpoenas defied with no charges. Your logic would say the subpoenas were never defied. Charges filed was never the argument, the argument was always what the crime was. You, just like the rest of the usual crowd, couldn't disprove the literal definition of insurrection. Thus you have as little to offer now as you did then. Run along until you have something to contribute, Red.necronomous wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2024 7:39 pm If the crime was insurrection, the would be indicteed for it. But they weren't. So it's either important or it's not. Fun times.
- necronomous
- The Super Cool Contrarian
- Posts: 8489
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:42 pm
-
Tuesday
- Needs to step away from the keyboard.
- Posts: 866
- Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:10 pm
Re: US buying Greenland
Its not easy to admit youre duped easily and often. I forgot to add the VoTeR FrAuD scam to the list. That'll be another donut for you.
-
Tuesday
- Needs to step away from the keyboard.
- Posts: 866
- Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:10 pm
Re: US buying Greenland
Raise your hand if you thought Hunter's laptop was real. 
- dot
- Dodgin’ Ese
- Posts: 2498
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:25 pm
Re: US buying Greenland
I'm sorry, I didn't know you were stupid enough to still think pivoting to avoid answering the question was valid. Enjoy struggling to answer.
dot wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2024 8:03 pmSubpoenas defied with no charges. Your logic would say the subpoenas were never defied. Charges filed was never the argument, the argument was always what the crime was. You, just like the rest of the usual crowd, couldn't disprove the literal definition of insurrection. Thus you have as little to offer now as you did then. Run along until you have something to contribute, Red.necronomous wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2024 7:39 pm If the crime was insurrection, the would be indicteed for it. But they weren't. So it's either important or it's not. Fun times.