Re: BIDEN: "Trump Won't Denounce Political Violence!"

On 4/20/24 7:30 AM, trotsky wrote:

On 4/18/24 11:37 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <uvrgkh$2bcsg$2@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 4/17/24 3:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <uvog6v$1jt55$2@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 4/16/24 3:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <uvlpfs$u7hv$5@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 4/15/24 10:15 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 15, 2024 at 1:34:00 AM PDT, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On 4/14/24 2:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <uvgtgb$3n4e9$1@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Apr 9, 2024 at 6:15:20 PM PDT, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/9/24 12:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 9, 2024 at 6:53:43 AM PDT, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
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.

He's bitching about when Congress was Congress.  I don't get what any of that has to do with anything.  We were debating the credibility of Congress:

From House.gov (who have slightly more credibility than two ignorant fucks bitching and whining on Usenet.

Somehow that devolved into an excursion into the validity of dates.
--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC Bible  25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0
Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0