Just Sayin....

[silverscreenselect]

Trump came out and he threw out hats to the crowd. I got one and gave it to my sister.

BTW, I am at 1:23 in the green jacket, putting on the cap I caught from Trump.

Flock, I owe you an apology. I claimed earlier in this thread that you were bought for a set of wristbands. I was wrong. It's clear now that the Trump hat you received played an equal or greater role in turning the rest of your mind into mush. Many with far greater intellects than yours have been swayed by far less of a gift from "our Partner Trump."

[tlynn78]

Here's a fact. David Perdue said that his election was stolen. Here's the quote again:

Most people in Georgia know that something untoward happened in November 2020. In fact, I’ll just say it ... in my election, in the President’s election – they were stolen. The evidence is compelling now, not the hyperbole that you saw come out right out to the election by people from out of the state. But just the court case that we saw last year.

Your quote is not from the rally that Flock attended, dumbass.

You've got to excuse the grown-ass man with the prepubescent brain; he spends so much time poring over Flock's posts for some tidbit he might have missed, he can't keep anything straight. Kind of creepy, really.

[Spock]

Here's a fact. David Perdue said that his election was stolen. Here's the quote again:

Your quote is not from the rally that Flock attended, dumbass.

You've got to excuse the grown-ass man with the prepubescent brain; he spends so much time poring over Flock's posts for some tidbit he might have missed, he can't keep anything straight. Kind of creepy, really.

Good thing Flock came back to give him something to do in his retirement.

It just floors me that us Bored conservatives have 2 attorneys pouring over our posts in what can be charitably described as an obscure corner of the internet.

[flockofseagulls104]

It is very instructive that the e-bigots have chosen to focus on the topic that David Perdue has said that he believes he may actually have won his election against Saint Ossoff. If I follow bob's 'logic' correctly, that is apparently the main reason that he believes we should have one party rule in this country, because, in his mind, people like Perdue and Trump are not content to accept the decision of the voters.

They conveniently excuse the President of the Earth when she did the same thing. Why the difference?

Possibly their reason that she can be excused is because her reasons for disputing the results of the election are valid to them, but Perdue's and Trump's reasons are totally invalid and dangerous. Apparently, in their minds, we have to fix the election process to avoid what Ms. President has alleged is wrong with it, but we have to ignore any problems the others have alleged and documented because there's nothing to see there.

It would be instructive and interesting to see what logical convolutions are involved in the e-bigots thought processes to explain this difference. Amusing and somewhat frightening, I would think.

If my stalker posts anything that may have any actual relation to this topic, I ask that someone quote it for me.

To interpret for BJ: Tell me why it's OK for Stacey Abrams to claim her election was stolen, but it's completely out of bounds for David Perdue to do so?

[Bob Juch]

It is very instructive that the e-bigots have chosen to focus on the topic that David Perdue has said that he believes he may actually have won his election against Saint Ossoff. If I follow bob's 'logic' correctly, that is apparently the main reason that he believes we should have one party rule in this country, because, in his mind, people like Perdue and Trump are not content to accept the decision of the voters.

They conveniently excuse the President of the Earth when she did the same thing. Why the difference?

Possibly their reason that she can be excused is because her reasons for disputing the results of the election are valid to them, but Perdue's and Trump's reasons are totally invalid and dangerous. Apparently, in their minds, we have to fix the election process to avoid what Ms. President has alleged is wrong with it, but we have to ignore any problems the others have alleged and documented because there's nothing to see there.

It would be instructive and interesting to see what logical convolutions are involved in the e-bigots thought processes to explain this difference. Amusing and somewhat frightening, I would think.

If my stalker posts anything that may have any actual relation to this topic, I ask that someone quote it for me.

To interpret for BJ: Tell me why it's OK for Stacey Abrams to claim her election was stolen, but it's completely out of bounds for David Perdue to do so?

She's not claiming election fraud, but that her opponent fixed the election starting two years before the election.

Abrams lost to Kemp by nearly 55,000 votes in 2018. In her concession, Abrams said the outcome reflected voter suppression.

In 2018, Abrams ran for governor against Republican Brian Kemp, who at the time was Georgia’s secretary of state. As secretary of state, Kemp was in charge of running the state’s elections.

During his tenure in that role, he trimmed more than 1.4 million inactive voters, with low-income and minority Georgians most likely to have their registrations canceled, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Over 668,000 of those registrations were canceled in 2017. In the lead-up to the 2018 election, Georgia put 53,000 voter registrations on hold, the majority of them Black voters, for additional screening.

"I acknowledge that former Secretary of State Brian Kemp will be certified as the victor in the 2018 gubernatorial election," Abrams said, according to NPR. "But to watch an elected official who claims to represent the people in this state baldly pin his hopes for election on suppression of the people's democratic right to vote has been truly appalling."

[flockofseagulls104]

It is very instructive that the e-bigots have chosen to focus on the topic that David Perdue has said that he believes he may actually have won his election against Saint Ossoff. If I follow bob's 'logic' correctly, that is apparently the main reason that he believes we should have one party rule in this country, because, in his mind, people like Perdue and Trump are not content to accept the decision of the voters.

They conveniently excuse the President of the Earth when she did the same thing. Why the difference?

Possibly their reason that she can be excused is because her reasons for disputing the results of the election are valid to them, but Perdue's and Trump's reasons are totally invalid and dangerous. Apparently, in their minds, we have to fix the election process to avoid what Ms. President has alleged is wrong with it, but we have to ignore any problems the others have alleged and documented because there's nothing to see there.

It would be instructive and interesting to see what logical convolutions are involved in the e-bigots thought processes to explain this difference. Amusing and somewhat frightening, I would think.

If my stalker posts anything that may have any actual relation to this topic, I ask that someone quote it for me.

To interpret for BJ: Tell me why it's OK for Stacey Abrams to claim her election was stolen, but it's completely out of bounds for David Perdue to do so?

She's not claiming election fraud, but that her opponent fixed the election starting two years before the election.

Abrams lost to Kemp by nearly 55,000 votes in 2018. In her concession, Abrams said the outcome reflected voter suppression.

In 2018, Abrams ran for governor against Republican Brian Kemp, who at the time was Georgia’s secretary of state. As secretary of state, Kemp was in charge of running the state’s elections.

During his tenure in that role, he trimmed more than 1.4 million inactive voters, with low-income and minority Georgians most likely to have their registrations canceled, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Over 668,000 of those registrations were canceled in 2017. In the lead-up to the 2018 election, Georgia put 53,000 voter registrations on hold, the majority of them Black voters, for additional screening.

"I acknowledge that former Secretary of State Brian Kemp will be certified as the victor in the 2018 gubernatorial election," Abrams said, according to NPR. "But to watch an elected official who claims to represent the people in this state baldly pin his hopes for election on suppression of the people's democratic right to vote has been truly appalling."

Ok, so you have given us a quote as to why Ms. President believes she actually won. What's the difference? Why have so many people been censored and canceled by the MSM and SM for doing the same thing the President of the Earth has done? And why haven't these same entities done the same to her?

[earendel]

Ok, so you have given us a quote as to why Ms. President believes she actually won. What's the difference? Why have so many people been censored and canceled by the MSM and SM for doing the same thing the President of the Earth has done? And why haven't these same entities done the same to her?

I'll probably regret getting involved in this, but Ms. Abrams didn't say that she actually won. She said that her chances of winning would have been much better if there had not been voter suppression that began two years before the election (and before she announced her candidacy, I believe - although I may be wrong on that).

[flockofseagulls104]

Ok, so you have given us a quote as to why Ms. President believes she actually won. What's the difference? Why have so many people been censored and canceled by the MSM and SM for doing the same thing the President of the Earth has done? And why haven't these same entities done the same to her?

I'll probably regret getting involved in this, but Ms. Abrams didn't say that she actually won. She said that her chances of winning would have been much better if there had not been voter suppression that began two years before the election (and before she announced her candidacy, I believe - although I may be wrong on that).

Ear, she has been quoted and it is on video many times where she has said specifically and verbatim that she actually won the election. Don't believe me? I linked to one of them in an earlier post on this thread. She said "We Won". (Better hurry before social media takes them all down)
She specifically went around saying 'I do not concede' and did not actually concede her campaign until fairly recently when she decided to run again. Were you not aware of that? Maybe you should ask yourself why you weren't aware of it, but you are extremely aware of Trump allegedly doing the same thing.
Ear, I sometimes wish I could be like you and be 'above' all the disputes and look down on it like the people who are engaged in this stuff are like children bickering. But I am for better or worse, a skeptic, and I do not take to being spoonfed what I should believe lightly. I see hypocrisy like this and it irks me. And this hypocrisy, lying, censorship, etc has been growing exponentially over recent years. And it affects all of us, even you.

[silverscreenselect]

But I am for better or worse, a skeptic, and I do not take to being spoonfed what I should believe lightly.

Your degree of skepticism varies wildly depending on the source of what you're being spoonfed.

[jarnon]

Here's a fact. David Perdue said that his election was stolen. Here's the quote again:

Your quote is not from the rally that Flock attended, dumbass.

I never said it was, dumbass.

I won't speak for Bob but I posted comments from David Perdue that specifically shot down Flock's latest fact-free idiocy. I don't blame Flock for misremembering what went on at the rally. He was probably too enthralled by that shiny new wristband of his and kept staring at it. Even money he's still wearing it now.

[flockofseagulls104]

Your quote is not from the rally that Flock attended, dumbass.

I never said it was, dumbass.

I won't speak for Bob but I posted comments from David Perdue that specifically shot down Flock's latest fact-free idiocy. I don't blame Flock for misremembering what went on at the rally. He was probably too enthralled by that shiny new wristband of his and kept staring at it. Even money he's still wearing it now.

I am glad to see the stalker is still at it. What a maroon.

Why does it matter SOOOOO much to them what Perdue said or didn't say, and why I heard it or not amidst the hours of speeches at the rally? Obviously, they will vehemently disagree with anything he or anyone else at the rally said. Why this particular topic? Perhaps because I made an offhand, generic remark about it in one post, and they saw it as an opportunity to attack me and call me a liar? Seems pretty petty and pathetic to me. But what else is new?

Since it matters so much to you, it was a purple wristband, and I don't think it was especially shiny. I removed it after I came home on Saturday night. It's probably currently in whatever landfill my sanitation service utilizes.

Maybe you or bob can do some research and find out that my sanitition company doesn't actually use a landfill, then call me a liar about that.....

[Bob78164]

Your quote is not from the rally that Flock attended, dumbass.

I never said it was, dumbass.

I won't speak for Bob but I posted comments from David Perdue that specifically shot down Flock's latest fact-free idiocy. I don't blame Flock for misremembering what went on at the rally. He was probably too enthralled by that shiny new wristband of his and kept staring at it. Even money he's still wearing it now.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I think it's a mistake for you to call this out while ignoring Flock saying, "Well, [Perdue] said nothing like that at the rally," when in fact Perdue said at the rally, “Let me be very clear. Very clear. In the state of Georgia, thanks to Brian Kemp, our elections were absolutely stolen. He sold us out.”

Calling out an error by only one side while ignoring a more egregious error by the other side lets the other side pat themselves on the back in self-righteous pride. I understand it coming from Esto because Esto has a clear agenda. I don't perceive you as sharing that agenda. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

I never said it was, dumbass.

I won't speak for Bob but I posted comments from David Perdue that specifically shot down Flock's latest fact-free idiocy. I don't blame Flock for misremembering what went on at the rally. He was probably too enthralled by that shiny new wristband of his and kept staring at it. Even money he's still wearing it now.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I think it's a mistake for you to call this out while ignoring Flock saying, "Well, [Perdue] said nothing like that at the rally," when in fact Perdue said at the rally, “Let me be very clear. Very clear. In the state of Georgia, thanks to Brian Kemp, our elections were absolutely stolen. He sold us out.”

Calling out an error by only one side while ignoring a more egregious error by the other side lets the other side pat themselves on the back in self-righteous pride. I understand it coming from Esto because Esto has a clear agenda. I don't perceive you as sharing that agenda. --Bob

Still persuing your pathetic attack on me, bob?
I think it's astounding that you understand Esto has an agenda, while you yourself, don't.

[flockofseagulls104]

I think I can understand any success you have in the courtroom, bob. Based on the way you frame arguments here, I think your opponents get so frustrated by your ignorance and pettiness that some of them just give up to get away from you.

[jarnon]

I never said it was, dumbass.

I won't speak for Bob but I posted comments from David Perdue that specifically shot down Flock's latest fact-free idiocy. I don't blame Flock for misremembering what went on at the rally. He was probably too enthralled by that shiny new wristband of his and kept staring at it. Even money he's still wearing it now.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I think it's a mistake for you to call this out while ignoring Flock saying, "Well, [Perdue] said nothing like that at the rally," when in fact Perdue said at the rally, “Let me be very clear. Very clear. In the state of Georgia, thanks to Brian Kemp, our elections were absolutely stolen. He sold us out.”

Calling out an error by only one side while ignoring a more egregious error by the other side lets the other side pat themselves on the back in self-righteous pride. I understand it coming from Esto because Esto has a clear agenda. I don't perceive you as sharing that agenda. --Bob

Flock explained that, as he understands it, Perdue was talking about an obscure consent decree dealing with how signatures on absentee ballots are checked.

I'm not yet senile enough to forget how Kemp used his position as secretary of state to steal the gubernatorial election. He'll never be a hero to the left, no matter how much Trump and Perdue call him a traitor.

[Spock]

I think I can understand any success you have in the courtroom, bob. Based on the way you frame arguments here, I think your opponents get so frustrated by your ignorance and pettiness that some of them just give up to get away from you.

I have never figured out if he is actually as obtuse as he comes across or if he just pretends to be so.

[flockofseagulls104]

I think I can understand any success you have in the courtroom, bob. Based on the way you frame arguments here, I think your opponents get so frustrated by your ignorance and pettiness that some of them just give up to get away from you.

I have never figured out if he is actually as obtuse as he comes across or if he just pretends to be so.

Well, He did threaten to sue me because I must have besmirched his reputation as a lawyer to all his current and potential clients that frequent the bored to read his pearls of wisdom. No offense, but that seems pretty obtuse to me.

[Bob78164]

I have never figured out if he is actually as obtuse as he comes across or if he just pretends to be so.

I had to double check the context to realize that you weren't talking about flock. --Bob

[tlynn78]

I have never figured out if he is actually as obtuse as he comes across or if he just pretends to be so.

I had to double check the context to realize that you weren't talking about flock. --Bob

Not surprising given both your reading comprehension skills and ability to understand context clues.

[wbtravis007]

Ok, so you have given us a quote as to why Ms. President believes she actually won. What's the difference? Why have so many people been censored and canceled by the MSM and SM for doing the same thing the President of the Earth has done? And why haven't these same entities done the same to her?

I'll probably regret getting involved in this, but Ms. Abrams didn't say that she actually won. She said that her chances of winning would have been much better if there had not been voter suppression that began two years before the election (and before she announced her candidacy, I believe - although I may be wrong on that).

Ear, she has been quoted and it is on video many times where she has said specifically and verbatim that she actually won the election. Don't believe me? I linked to one of them in an earlier post on this thread. She said "We Won". (Better hurry before social media takes them all down)
She specifically went around saying 'I do not concede' and did not actually concede her campaign until fairly recently when she decided to run again. Were you not aware of that? Maybe you should ask yourself why you weren't aware of it, but you are extremely aware of Trump allegedly doing the same thing.
Ear, I sometimes wish I could be like you and be 'above' all the disputes and look down on it like the people who are engaged in this stuff are like children bickering. But I am for better or worse, a skeptic, and I do not take to being spoonfed what I should believe lightly. I see hypocrisy like this and it irks me. And this hypocrisy, lying, censorship, etc has been growing exponentially over recent years. And it affects all of us, even you.

I'm willing to bet money that Ear is correct here.

Any takers?

[flockofseagulls104]

I'll probably regret getting involved in this, but Ms. Abrams didn't say that she actually won. She said that her chances of winning would have been much better if there had not been voter suppression that began two years before the election (and before she announced her candidacy, I believe - although I may be wrong on that).

Ear, she has been quoted and it is on video many times where she has said specifically and verbatim that she actually won the election. Don't believe me? I linked to one of them in an earlier post on this thread. She said "We Won". (Better hurry before social media takes them all down)
She specifically went around saying 'I do not concede' and did not actually concede her campaign until fairly recently when she decided to run again. Were you not aware of that? Maybe you should ask yourself why you weren't aware of it, but you are extremely aware of Trump allegedly doing the same thing.
Ear, I sometimes wish I could be like you and be 'above' all the disputes and look down on it like the people who are engaged in this stuff are like children bickering. But I am for better or worse, a skeptic, and I do not take to being spoonfed what I should believe lightly. I see hypocrisy like this and it irks me. And this hypocrisy, lying, censorship, etc has been growing exponentially over recent years. And it affects all of us, even you.

I'm willing to bet money that Ear is correct here.

Any takers?

How much?

[wbtravis007]

Ear, she has been quoted and it is on video many times where she has said specifically and verbatim that she actually won the election. Don't believe me? I linked to one of them in an earlier post on this thread. She said "We Won". (Better hurry before social media takes them all down)
She specifically went around saying 'I do not concede' and did not actually concede her campaign until fairly recently when she decided to run again. Were you not aware of that? Maybe you should ask yourself why you weren't aware of it, but you are extremely aware of Trump allegedly doing the same thing.
Ear, I sometimes wish I could be like you and be 'above' all the disputes and look down on it like the people who are engaged in this stuff are like children bickering. But I am for better or worse, a skeptic, and I do not take to being spoonfed what I should believe lightly. I see hypocrisy like this and it irks me. And this hypocrisy, lying, censorship, etc has been growing exponentially over recent years. And it affects all of us, even you.

I'm willing to bet money that Ear is correct here.

Any takers?

How much?

If you'd be willing to put your money in escrow along with mine, you name it.

[flockofseagulls104]

I'm willing to bet money that Ear is correct here.

Any takers?

How much?

If you'd be willing to put your money in escrow along with mine, you name it.

How about you agree to stop trolling me forever if I prove she said her campaign actually won the election despite the official results?

[wbtravis007]

How much?

If you'd be willing to put your money in escrow along with mine, you name it.

How about you agree to stop trolling me forever if I prove she said her campaign actually won the election despite the official results?

I said I’d put money on the proposition that Ear is correct. When you asked how much, I assumed that you were prepared to bet money on that. Guess not.

How bout this for stakes: you shut your pie hole for a month against my pledge to not post here any more.

If you agree to those stakes, and can show that Ear is incorrect, I’m gone.

Deal?

[flockofseagulls104]

If you'd be willing to put your money in escrow along with mine, you name it.

How about you agree to stop trolling me forever if I prove she said her campaign actually won the election despite the official results?

I said I’d put money on the proposition that Ear is correct. When you asked how much, I assumed that you were prepared to bet money on that. Guess not.

How bout this for stakes: you shut your pie hole for a month against my pledge to not post here any more.

If you agree to those stakes, and can show that Ear is incorrect, I’m gone.

Deal?

I suspect weaseling going on here.

First of all, you told me to name the stakes. If I wanted to wager money, I would be willing to do what you suggested. But I don't. I want you to quit being an asshole. So I have named the stakes. You have amended it to add your incentive that I stop posting for a month. I hereby agree.

Now in plain english, the statement that Earendel made that is the subject of this wager is

"I'll probably regret getting involved in this, but Ms. Abrams didn't say that she actually won. She said that her chances of winning would have been much better if there had not been voter suppression that began two years before the election (and before she announced her candidacy, I believe - although I may be wrong on that)."

My contention to which Earendel replied the above, was:

"Why have so many people been censored and canceled by the MSM and SM for doing the same thing the President of the Earth has done? And why haven't these same entities done the same to her?"

I contend that she has said, many times, in public and in many different ways, that despite the officially accepted results of the 2018 election for Georgia Governor in which Brian Kemp was declared the winner, she actually won the election, because he cheated. She did not concede that she had lost. She would not concede because she did not accept that the results were right, in her opinion. Trump has said that he does not concede his loss in 2020 because he does not accept that the results were right. Abrams contends that there was voter suppression. Trump stated many times before the election that mail-in ballots were an invitation for fraud and abuse, and has much evidence of fraud and abuse. Both have attempted to use the court system to dispute the results of their election. Yet Abrams is held by the MSM as a hero, and Trump. Well, what else is new?

I have already posted a link to one such occurrence where she says she won, in which she says unequivocally, that "We Won". I assume she is politically astute enough to know that by saying these words in the way she said them, they would and could be used against her. I think she did so deliberately. I did several searches to try and determine if there was any video record of creative editing of that particular statement to make it look different than what she actually was trying to communicate. I could not find any. There are after the fact, second hand accounts that she was referring to a 'moral victory', but I could find no video evidence of that. Those kinds of things are never used when Trump clarifies videos of him saying something that goes viral. So I will go with what is found when one does a general search.

She has stated that despite the official results, her campaign actually won. She has confirmed it by steadfastly refusing to concede her loss until recently when she decided to try again. If you want to weasel it by arguing over pronouns, this bet is off. This, by itself, and by the rules in which you apparently operate, wins me the bet.

I had already stated and posted this link. It is possible you didn't bother to go look at it before you suggested this wager, but I will assume you have. Why would you make this wager knowing you have already lost it? Probably some kind of play on words? I will not accept any 'depends on what the meaning of "IS" is stuff.

If you contend you win the bet because she was actually stating that she won a 'moral' victory, then you must also concede publicly here on the bored that you realize that most of the vitriol hurled at President Trump during and after his administration has also been creatively edited and comes to the wrong conclusion. Are you willing to do that? I am not willing to go into another legthy argument. So if that's the case, the bet is off.

So basically, I win this bet because:

1. Ear was NOT correct in his contention:
-- I have posted proof that Abrams said "We Won" in a context that would be used in the same way if Trump said it.

And

2. I am correct in my contention that the MSM and SM is biased in the way they handle the two:
-- Trump did what Abrams did: He did not concede his loss. He asked his audience to protest peacefully. He took his evidence to the courts and published it on the internet. But she gets hero treatment while he gets trashed. And many people, most notably Mike Lindell, have been censored and canceled for trying to disseminate the evidence they have compiled. No one, to my knowledge, has been censored or canceled for supporting Ms. Abrams contentions.

"We had this little election back in 2018. And despite the final tally and the inauguration and the situation we find ourselves in, I do have a very affirmative statement to make. We won.”.

https://twitter.com/Julio_Rosas11/statu ... 3311979529


You can accept that as my answer. Or not. I am not willing to go into any more debate with you on who's right or who's wrong. So I suspect we're at a draw. You can go ahead and continue trolling me, if that gets you off.