Politics MEULLER GRILLED

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
MarAzul said:
Nope, I declined to give them Lanny's name I did not want to cause him any more stress. I did not know you knew the name until much later when you admitted it.
But since and Oregon State Police detective read the thread as well as the DA. I suspect you might have been contacted. If I had known you knew who the dude was, that threaten to kill my wife, I sure as hell would have given your ass up in a heart beat.
I have no friends that would protect a person that threatened to kill anyone's wife. Friends have no place in protecting assholes of that ilk.



Well that about cover the issue! You really are the ass you seemed when you stated to the S2 gang that, I threaten to burn a house down. Damn! I had no idea where you got that notion!
The Oregon State Police sure did not, they placed the load right on your buddy. I knew he was Lanny's buddy. And he protected him directly when asked for his name. Shit, they want to bust him then.
I persuaded them that he might not deserve the hassle, I figured I could get the name from another of you guys. Nope! Not a man among you! You lied to me directly when I asked you for the his name. I did not find that out until much later. If I had it to do over, Lanny would have been answering to the OSP.

Btw, @dviss1 also called me a liar in the same thread you did. You did not delete it or edit it, with the cut him slack policy. So why isn't it in there? You guy both did it with in one page and it may well be that you did it implicitly and I inferred the same.
I think we did cover this more than once.
Click to expand...

I was called from a blocked number. The person claimed to be police. I did not know if they were. Since they would not give me a number to call them back and since I had no way of knowing who I was actually talking to I was not giving out personal information to people with a blocked number claiming to be police.

I gave the correct response for that situation, give me something in writing from a verifiable entity and I would give everything that I know.

He was not or has even been a buddy. I do remember him contacting me via email because he had made some sort of a flag display case for Lanny. I have never talked to him personally. He did come on here a few nights very drunk and post some BS then argued with me via private message when I deleted it and asked him to stop.
 
MarAzul said:
Nope, I declined to give them Lanny's name I did not want to cause him any more stress. I did not know you knew the name until much later when you admitted it.
But since and Oregon State Police detective read the thread as well as the DA. I suspect you might have been contacted. If I had known you knew who the dude was, that threaten to kill my wife, I sure as hell would have given your ass up in a heart beat.
I have no friends that would protect a person that threatened to kill anyone's wife. Friends have no place in protecting assholes of that ilk.



Well that about cover the issue! You really are the ass you seemed when you stated to the S2 gang that, I threaten to burn a house down. Damn! I had no idea where you got that notion!
The Oregon State Police sure did not, they placed the load right on your buddy. I knew he was Lanny's buddy. And he protected him directly when asked for his name. Shit, they want to bust him then.
I persuaded them that he might not deserve the hassle, I figured I could get the name from another of you guys. Nope! Not a man among you! You lied to me directly when I asked you for the his name. I did not find that out until much later. If I had it to do over, Lanny would have been answering to the OSP.

Btw, @dviss1 also called me a liar in the same thread you did. You did not delete it or edit it, with the cut him slack policy. So why isn't it in there? You guy both did it with in one page and it may well be that you did it implicitly and I inferred the same.
I think we did cover this more than once.
Click to expand...

Found the email.

We're both not remembering things correctly but it was almost 8 god damn years ago.

1. He didn't threaten to burn down your house. He threatened to burn down your boat, lol.

2. He also didn't threaten to rape your wife, I guess that was you. I mean if he had both threatened to burn your boat down and rape your wife I'm pretty sure you would have mentioned that in your email.

3. And now we clearly see why I didn't give any information out over the phone to a blocked number.

Here's the email.

8ZMzjvB.png


MarAzul said:
Btw, @dviss1 also called me a liar in the same thread you did.
Click to expand...

Again, I never called you a liar. I have proven that.

MarAzul said:
You did not delete it or edit it, with the cut him slack policy.
Click to expand...

Must have missed it. Actually it's good that I did miss it because now you know it wasn't me that called you a liar.

MarAzul said:
So why isn't it in there?
Click to expand...

Me calling you a liar isn't in there because I never called you a liar.
 
Last edited:
Chris Craig said:
Can't charge a sitting president. Mueller isn't running his "fuck" mouth, he restated the things he already wrote in his reports.
Click to expand...
He walked back on that statement at the end of his hearing yesterday. He literally recalled the question and said he wanted to rephrase it. Then spouted off some hazy line. He is totally mincing words to obscure any concrete findings (or lack therof) The only person on earth who thinks they have this all figured out is Rachel Maddow, and she’s gone completely batshit crazy at this point and is only cashing checks for ratings. We don’t even have names, faces or identities of the supposed “Russian attackers” that have been charged. We’ve just been told they exist by the same guy who told us WMDs existed in Iraq. This whole thing is public theatre at taxpayers expense, and all it will produce is more here-say without solid evidence.

Proceed with the circle jerk.
 
jonnyboy said:
He walked back on that statement at the end of his hearing yesterday. He literally recalled the question and said he wanted to rephrase it. Then spouted off some hazy line. He is totally mincing words to obscure any concrete findings (or lack therof) The only person on earth who thinks they have this all figured out is Rachel Maddow, and she’s gone completely batshit crazy at this point and is only cashing checks for ratings. We don’t even have names, faces or identities of the supposed “Russian attackers” that have been charged. We’ve just been told they exist by the same guy who told us WMDs existed in Iraq. This whole thing is public theatre at taxpayers expense, and all it will produce is more here-say without solid evidence.

Proceed with the circle jerk.
Click to expand...

I take your question
 
Shaboid said:
All I took from all this is, can America please just elect someone that isn't a narcissistic sociopath?
Click to expand...

Doubt it, since most of us are one or the other.
 
Republicans are hanging their hats on how Mueller looked old, stuttered and wasn’t strong at presenting. He only has about fifty years of information in that head of this he’s wading through and trying to answer perfectly in front of millions and millions of people. How about we stick with the actual statements he made. And by the way, people ridiculing Mueller for his presentation and communication skills but praising lord and savior Trump are theeeeeee dumbest.
 
calvin natt said:
Republicans are hanging their hats on how Mueller looked old, stuttered and wasn’t strong at presenting. He only has about fifty years of information in that head of this he’s wading through and trying to answer perfectly in front of millions and millions of people. How about we stick with the actual statements he made. And by the way, people ridiculing Mueller for his presentation and communication skills but praising lord and savior Trump are theeeeeee dumbest.
Click to expand...

It's a common practice to do that, especially when you're a con man. You spin things how you want it to be presented.
 
Something being missed in all this is that Trump just vetoed a bill that would have prevented Saudi Arabia and UAE arms sales. Page five news at this point, unfortunately.
 
Last edited:
Has anything in the Steele dossier been proven fake yet? Seems like most of it was true
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Found the email.

We're both not remembering things correctly but it was almost 8 god damn years ago.

1. He didn't threaten to burn down your house. He threatened to burn down your boat, lol.

2. He also didn't threaten to rape your wife, I guess that was you. I mean if he had both threatened to burn your boat down and rape your wife I'm pretty sure you would have mentioned that in your email.

3. And now we clearly see why I didn't give any information out over the phone to a blocked number.

Here's the email.

8ZMzjvB.png




Again, I never called you a liar. I have proven that.



Must have missed it. Actually it's good that I did miss it because now you know it wasn't me that called you a liar.

Me calling you a liar isn't in there because I never called you a liar.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, at least I know how you came to post on S2, that I once threatened to burn someones house down!
I had no clue where you got that idea.

I only copied the first bit of that dude's tripe post, to you in the email where I wanted his name. It was indeed the Killing of My wife that grabbed the attention of the Sheriff, OSP and DA.

Alright, forget the liar shit, Dvvis did it and I sure got enough from you in the same thread to infer you also did. Dvvis is not in the thread you posted. However, I do not want to waste another moment on it.

However, you see, sometimes a man does not need to write or mouth the word to communicate what is intended.
It seemed to me that we were at that point again, when you labeled my thread hate speech and closed the thread.
Not a thing untruthful in what I posted, there were verifiable facts and then logic deductions in my view as a result of those facts. This all suggested the need for a Constitutional Amendment, at least in my mind. But it did not develop that far.
Calling it hate speech, is implicitly also calling it a lie, punctuating the ruling by closing the thread. This must be true because truth can not be hate speech.

But, I will adjust my view, you were not alone in failing to get the point, no one else did either. I suppose that is my fault for not guiding it better. But then, it still is odd no one else can see the point. But then perhaps they just do not give a shit.

Carry on, I wish you no harm and see if you can let me know when you think I am harming your charge. Perhaps just a nudge instead of closing the thread, deleting the post, or just snark.
 
MarAzul said:
Thanks for that, at least I know how you came to post on S2, that I once threatened to burn someones house down!
I had no clue where you got that idea.

I only copied the first bit of that dude's tripe post, to you in the email where I wanted his name. It was indeed the Killing of My wife that grabbed the attention of the Sheriff, OSP and DA.

Alright, forget the liar shit, Dvvis did it and I sure got enough from you in the same thread to infer you also did. Dvvis is not in the thread you posted. However, I do not want to waste another moment on it.

However, you see, sometimes a man does not need to write or mouth the word to communicate what is intended.
It seemed to me that we were at that point again, when you labeled my thread hate speech and closed the thread.
Not a thing untruthful in what I posted, there were verifiable facts and then logic deductions in my view as a result of those facts. This all suggested the need for a Constitutional Amendment, at least in my mind. But it did not develop that far.
Calling it hate speech, is implicitly also calling it a lie, punctuating the ruling by closing the thread. This must be true because truth can not be hate speech.

But, I will adjust my view, you were not alone in failing to get the point, no one else did either. I suppose that is my fault for not guiding it better. But then, it still is odd no one else can see the point. But then perhaps they just do not give a shit.

Carry on, I wish you no harm and see if you can let me know when you think I am harming your charge. Perhaps just a nudge instead of closing the thread, deleting the post, or just snark.
Click to expand...

Yes, you can infer anything in anything, it doesn't mean it's true or correct but you know, infer away.

But nice to see you finally admit that I never called you a liar.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Yes, you can infer anything in anything, it doesn't mean it's true or correct but you know, infer away.

But nice to see you finally admit that I never called you a liar.
Click to expand...
What ever you say Sly.
Take your bone and go gnaw on it.
 
MarAzul said:
Calling it hate speech, is implicitly also calling it a lie, punctuating the ruling by closing the thread. This must be true because truth can not be hate speech.
Click to expand...
Just want to interject that there's a logical fallacy here, specifically the implication that all speech is either "truth" or a lie. Much speech is opinion, inference, misinterpretation, inaccurate belief, etc. Any of those can be both "hate speech" and also not a lie.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Just want to interject that there's a logical fallacy here, specifically the implication that all speech is either "truth" or a lie. Much speech is opinion, inference, misinterpretation, inaccurate belief, etc. Any of those can be both "hate speech" and also not a lie.
Click to expand...

I don't think I disagree. But I did not say anything, I think you interjected about. I said, Truth can not be Hate speech. Opinion sure can, intended or not.

Where I might have erred is in logical deductions, not the truths which are verifiable.
If I did then the logical deduction might then be reduced to opinion which might be invalid.
I don't thinks so though. However, sure would listen to a logical argument.
 
Last edited:
MarAzul said:
I don't think I disagree. But I did not say anything, I think you interjected about. I said, Truth can not be Hate speech. Opinion sure can, intended or not.

Where I might have erred is in logical deductions, not the truths which are verifiable.
If I did then the logical deduction might then be reduced to opinion which might be invalid.
I don't thinks so though. However, sure would listen to a logical argument.
Click to expand...
As I quoted, you claimed that calling something hate speech is implicitly calling it a lie, because truth cannot be hate speech. This is, as I said, a logical fallacy, because something can be not necessarily true, but also not necessarily a lie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top