Liz Cheney

[Weyoun]

What are we even arguing here?

As a former Charlottesville native - I would note that the crowd who came to protest was explicitly white supremacist and explicitly protesting the removal of a Confederate statue.

One could argue that this statue was pretty much ignored for years - I had no idea it was there! - and that perhaps if we collectively shrugged, one more person would be alive today.

BUT these folks clearly were white supremacists - why would you call them "very fine," unless to try to appeal to them? And why would any leader of our nation want that?

I know this is hard for you to comprehend, but not everyone opposed to removing such statues are white supremacists. You may not agree with them on that issue but that doesn’t make them white supremacists.

Probably, but we’re not talking about people who simply oppose their removal. We talk about people who are getting in a car and taking three days off to protest it. Those folks almost certainly are white supremacists. Photos show them with confederate, Nazi, and Norse flags. Richard Spencer is an acknowledged white supremacist. I am embarrassed for you that you can’t figure that out. Just say they are racists and move on.

[BackInTex]

To Weynon. I can't quote the previous post due to that damn Internal Server Error (has anyone figured that out?)


This is soooooo tiresome. You now seem to admit there were people there that are not white supremists.
* NO ONE said there were no white supremacists there. Everyone acknowledges there were.
* NO ONE said the white supremacists there were fine people. NO ONE
* THE ONLY ONES TALKING ABOUT THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS are those saying Trump said they were fine people. He did not. He said "There were some very fine people there...." He never said everyone there was a fine person.

[Weyoun]

To Weynon. I can't quote the previous post due to that damn Internal Server Error (has anyone figured that out?)


This is soooooo tiresome. You now seem to admit there were people there that are not white supremists.
* NO ONE said there were no white supremacists there. Everyone acknowledges there were.
* NO ONE said the white supremacists there were fine people. NO ONE
* THE ONLY ONES TALKING ABOUT THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS are those saying Trump said they were fine people. He did not. He said "There were some very fine people there...." He never said everyone there was a fine person.

I haven’t said anything of the sort. I think the protest against the statue removal was almost entirely a white supremacist movement. Maybe they were four people who weren’t, but who cares with the whole rest of them were, and they were waving Nazi flags and confederate flags and all sorts of Volte Deus stuff.

This is all pretty obvious to people paying attention to it at the time, including my multiple friends, who saw all transpiring.

That is incredibly stupid the president to show some sort of equivalence between everyone. But I think he was really doing a dog whistle, just like he did with that weird comment toward the Proud Boys during the debate.

[BackInTex]

To Weynon. I can't quote the previous post due to that damn Internal Server Error (has anyone figured that out?)


This is soooooo tiresome. You now seem to admit there were people there that are not white supremists.
* NO ONE said there were no white supremacists there. Everyone acknowledges there were.
* NO ONE said the white supremacists there were fine people. NO ONE
* THE ONLY ONES TALKING ABOUT THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS are those saying Trump said they were fine people. He did not. He said "There were some very fine people there...." He never said everyone there was a fine person.

I haven’t said anything of the sort. I think the protest against the statue removal was almost entirely a white supremacist movement. Maybe they were four people who weren’t, but who cares with the whole rest of them were, and they were waving Nazi flags and confederate flags and all sorts of Volte Deus stuff.

This is all pretty obvious to people paying attention to it at the time, including my multiple friends, who saw all transpiring.

That is incredibly stupid the president to show some sort of equivalence between everyone. But I think he was really doing a dog whistle, just like he did with that weird comment toward the Proud Boys during the debate.

You and your type seem to be the only ones hearing any whistles. You just make shit up to either make you feel better about yourself or to make others feel worse about themselves. Either way it looks bad on you.

[Weyoun]

What is your benign explanation for Proud Boys - "stand back and stand by"?

I'm just curious what the explanation would be - Trump just giving a shout out to a group who had membership around 2,000 at the time of the debate?

(Hint: when called out on it, Trump even said later he didn't know what the Proud Boys were about - so maybe you can plead ignorance, too).

[flockofseagulls104]

What is your benign explanation for Proud Boys - "stand back and stand by"?

I'm just curious what the explanation would be - Trump just giving a shout out to a group who had membership around 2,000 at the time of the debate?

(Hint: when called out on it, Trump even said later he didn't know what the Proud Boys were about - so maybe you can plead ignorance, too).

Oh, so I have proved my point on Charlottesville, so we are going on to Proud Boys now.

[silverscreenselect]

What is your benign explanation for Proud Boys - "stand back and stand by"?

I'm just curious what the explanation would be - Trump just giving a shout out to a group who had membership around 2,000 at the time of the debate?

(Hint: when called out on it, Trump even said later he didn't know what the Proud Boys were about - so maybe you can plead ignorance, too).

Oh, so I have proved my point on Charlottesville, so we are going on to Proud Boys now.

No, Weyoun helped prove my point. There were no "very fine people" in Charlottesville. Weyoun's sources knew it, and Trump and his handlers knew it. So, when Trump talked about the very fine people, he knew they weren't there, and what he said was a shoutout to the neo-Nazis and their assorted ilk who were there while leaving himself room for gullible tools like you to believe Dennis Prager's bogus mis-explanation of what went on. You must know it too since you keep tying yourself in knots to justify not providing an example of the non-existent "very fine people."

[flockofseagulls104]

What is your benign explanation for Proud Boys - "stand back and stand by"?

I'm just curious what the explanation would be - Trump just giving a shout out to a group who had membership around 2,000 at the time of the debate?

(Hint: when called out on it, Trump even said later he didn't know what the Proud Boys were about - so maybe you can plead ignorance, too).

Oh, so I have proved my point on Charlottesville, so we are going on to Proud Boys now.

No, Weyoun helped prove my point. There were no "very fine people" in Charlottesville. Weyoun's sources knew it, and Trump and his handlers knew it. So, when Trump talked about the very fine people, he knew they weren't there, and what he said was a shoutout to the neo-Nazis and their assorted ilk who were there while leaving himself room for gullible tools like you to believe Dennis Prager's bogus mis-explanation of what went on. You must know it too since you keep tying yourself in knots to justify not providing an example of the non-existent "very fine people."

What is your point, anyway?

[silverscreenselect]

What is your point, anyway?

There were no "very fine people." Trump knew that when he said it. He was pandering to the racists when he said it. All yours and Dennis Prager's attempts to justify that through the imaginary "very fine people" don't excuse the fact that Trump knew he was praising the white supremacists when he made the statement and that's how they took it, that he was one of them. Which he is.

[BackInTex]

What is your point, anyway?

There were no "very fine people." Trump knew that when he said it. He was pandering to the racists when he said it. All yours and Dennis Prager's attempts to justify that through the imaginary "very fine people" don't excuse the fact that Trump knew he was praising the white supremacists when he made the statement and that's how they took it, that he was one of them. Which he is.

I keep forgetting you can read minds. Thanks for the reminder.

[flockofseagulls104]

What is your point, anyway?

There were no "very fine people." Trump knew that when he said it. He was pandering to the racists when he said it. All yours and Dennis Prager's attempts to justify that through the imaginary "very fine people" don't excuse the fact that Trump knew he was praising the white supremacists when he made the statement and that's how they took it, that he was one of them. Which he is.

I keep forgetting you can read minds. Thanks for the reminder.

He already knew you'd forget about him being able to read people's minds and know their motivations.

[silverscreenselect]

People like you don't give a rat's ass that Biden's policies are destroying our country, as long as the Orange Man isn't in power. It would serve you well to spend a bit of time among the people of Wyoming; it might clear your head.

As frustrated as I know people get sometimes with policy disagreements you might have — and I certainly have policy disagreements with the Biden administration — I know the nation can survive bad policy. We can’t survive a president who is willing to torch the Constitution.

[flockofseagulls104]

There is a small group of people, indoctrinated by well-funded and powerful people who want to 'fundamentally change' this country, who have been thoroughly propagandized into believing that anyone who disagrees with any of their false narratives is a 'conspiracy mongering goon' or whatever label they come up with on any given day. Very hate-absorbed people.

I hesitate to use the word "hate" under any circumstances, but it truly bothers me that a man who is very open about his disdain for the norms that have served as the foundation of this republic, instilled doubt in the democratic process itself that led to the January 6 insurrection/riot/peaceful protest (pick your term), and poses an existential threat to the Constitution itself is not only tolerated but embraced by the majority of Republicans both in and out of power can still hold such sway. Call it Derangement Syndrome if you like, but to me, opposing the 45th President is just merely patriotism.

You left out something important. He has said in so many words that if elected he will act as a dictator. Given the preparations he's making, I believe him. --Bob

Right booby. Just like he said to inject bleach into your arm. It's very telling that you don't recognize that he's mocking people like you when he makes these sarcastic statements. And we all laugh at how you childishly react to them.

[flockofseagulls104]

People like you don't give a rat's ass that Biden's policies are destroying our country, as long as the Orange Man isn't in power. It would serve you well to spend a bit of time among the people of Wyoming; it might clear your head.

As frustrated as I know people get sometimes with policy disagreements you might have — and I certainly have policy disagreements with the Biden administration — I know the nation can survive bad policy. We can’t survive a president who is willing to torch the Constitution.

Which is exactly why we need to get rid of the biden/swamp administration. They rip up the Constitution every day, just like Pelosi ripped up the SOTU.

[jarnon]

Which is exactly why we need to get rid of the biden/swamp administration. They rip up the Constitution every day, just like Pelosi ripped up the SOTU.

I’m perceptive enough to recognize you’re using a metaphor, since Biden and Cheney haven’t torn up the parchment yet. Ironically, Dick Cheney was a pioneer in stretching the Constitution to its breaking point. Since then, every administration has exploited loopholes to enact constitutionally questionable policies. There are some lines they still haven’t crossed, such as ending the Senate filibuster, packing the Supreme Court and creating new states.

[Bob78164]

Ironically, Dick Cheney was a pioneer in stretching the Constitution to its breaking point. Since then, every administration has exploited loopholes to enact constitutionally questionable policies. There are some lines they still haven’t crossed, such as ending the Senate filibuster, packing the Supreme Court and creating new states.

I don't think this is an apt comparison. None of these actions are remotely controversial from a standpoint of constitutionality. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Ironically, Dick Cheney was a pioneer in stretching the Constitution to its breaking point. Since then, every administration has exploited loopholes to enact constitutionally questionable policies. There are some lines they still haven’t crossed, such as ending the Senate filibuster, packing the Supreme Court and creating new states.

I don't think this is an apt comparison. None of these actions are remotely controversial from a standpoint of constitutionality. --Bob

It certainly is. It is screwing with the balance of power between the three branches of government, booby. Not to mention arbitrarily using current political power to ensure one-party rule, which you have stated, on numerous occasions, is your and your party's goal. Franklin warned us we would have a republic only if we could keep it. Your party is desperate to dismantle our republic and transform it into a democracy where they control the majority. And they are no longer even subtle about it. They are using any means possible.