quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
i want him to walk back his words -- they are inflammatory --

if ANY conservative said the same words, CNN and libbies would be calling for a lynch mob

You are inflammatory. And you make false inferences.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

Hahahaha. When we claimed lawfare, you guys all made jokes and claim "rule of law"

Time to be on the other side of the table now.

It was no joke.

And you have helped make my point.

Hahahaha for one thing. Other side of the table for another.

Showing satisfaction for retribution is clear. What is the "other side" of the rule of law?

This farce is serial. Where it starts is hard to pin down, or trace. I'm sure it hides/lurks somewhere in each individual. But it's manifested in deeds and beliefs in-mass. But one interim place is Trump's lies, especially the BIG LIE. All the justifications flow from there. We are just witnessing the trajectory of fascism.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I think there's legal precedence protecting Schumer's speech on the floor of congress. Some lawyer will have to clarify that.

But if DOJ is doing this, and apparently is, I'm sure they have a plan to test the precedence. But the lawfare may be good enough to send the message. Bullies and monsters love shots across the bow.

You Rightist sickos always claimed, or parroted, that Biden was giving directions to DOJ, lawfare inferred with no evidence.

Now, it's obvious who is directing DOJ to lawfare and retribution. You think that's okay.

Hahahaha. When we claimed lawfare, you guys all made jokes and claim "rule of law"

Time to be on the other side of the table now.

quote:

I no longer consider you a fellow American.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I think there's legal precedence protecting Schumer's speech on the floor of congress. Some lawyer will have to clarify that.

But if DOJ is doing this, and apparently is, I'm sure they have a plan to test the precedence. But the lawfare may be good enough to send the message. Bullies and monsters love shots across the bow.

You Rightist sickos always claimed, or parroted, that Biden was giving directions to DOJ, lawfare inferred with no evidence.

Now, it's obvious who is directing DOJ to lawfare and retribution. You think that's okay.

Hahahaha. When we claimed lawfare, you guys all made jokes and claim "rule of law"

Time to be on the other side of the table now.

You're a sick, deranged person, and I no longer consider you a fellow American. Justice is not a matter of who gets the last laugh.

No real American would approve of using the law as a weapon of retribution, no matter which side does it.

quote:

Trump was blamed for inciting a riot for less inflammatory language than Jeffries used, there’s no denying that.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
So let me get this straight: Are you saying Trump was not guilty of the charges that were brought?

Me, I think a jury should have decided it. Why should Trump be treated differently from anyone else?

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

Hahahaha. When we claimed lawfare, you guys all made jokes and claim "rule of law"

Time to be on the other side of the table now.

It was no joke.

And you have helped make my point.

Hahahaha for one thing. Other side of the table for another.

Showing satisfaction for retribution is clear. What is the "other side" of the rule of law?

This farce is serial. Where it starts is hard to pin down, or trace. I'm sure it hides/lurks somewhere in each individual. But it's manifested in deeds and beliefs in-mass. But one interim place is Trump's lies, especially the BIG LIE. All the justifications flow from there. We are just witnessing the trajectory of fascism.

Not true. When “we” claimed lawfare, you guys gave it no credibility. But now, the levers of power have changed and so has the argument.

The only thing funny, is that nothing has changed, just the field of play has turned around.

To add; I really don't think what Jerreries or even Schumer said was a big deal. I just think there needs to be an honest way of dealing with it, from BOTH sides of the aisle.

quote:

When “we” claimed lawfare, you guys gave it no credibility. But now, the levers of power have changed and so has the argument.

I just think there needs to be an honest way of dealing with it, from BOTH sides

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

Hahahaha. When we claimed lawfare, you guys all made jokes and claim "rule of law"

Time to be on the other side of the table now.

It was no joke.

And you have helped make my point.

Hahahaha for one thing. Other side of the table for another.

Showing satisfaction for retribution is clear. What is the "other side" of the rule of law?

This farce is serial. Where it starts is hard to pin down, or trace. I'm sure it hides/lurks somewhere in each individual. But it's manifested in deeds and beliefs in-mass. But one interim place is Trump's lies, especially the BIG LIE. All the justifications flow from there. We are just witnessing the trajectory of fascism.

Not true. When “we” claimed lawfare, you guys gave it no credibility. But now, the levers of power have changed and so has the argument.

The only thing funny, is that nothing has changed, just the field of play has turned around.

To add; I really don't think what Jerreries or even Schumer said was a big deal. I just think there needs to be an honest way of dealing with it, from BOTH sides of the aisle.

Key sentences:

quote:

When “we” claimed lawfare, you guys gave it no credibility. But now, the levers of power have changed and so has the argument.

I just think there needs to be an honest way of dealing with it, from BOTH sides

We gave your lawfare claims credibility but not in the way you presented. The fact is that Trump said so, and you believed it. It was another Trump lie/spin, a big one, and it was taken as truth/fact by his supporters. You are credible insofar as parroting lies.

The argument has changed but the root remains. The argument now is about real lawfare with Trump's retribution. Inferred from your post is that it's justified because it was done to him, and you think that's okay to reciprocate likewise.

You say you want "an honest way of dealing with it". Yet you are dishonest to the core. Your claim of wanting honesty is a farce.

The nutshell is that the nation is dealing with massive dishonesty but magnified yugely through belief and simple failure to see truth right in front of you.