Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Obviously, you didn't read what I wrote. Either that or your reading comprehension is worse than F Joe Biden's. That rabid Marxism devotion and TDS is eating your soul.
Maybe you don't know how to ask a logical question?
I was curious to ask them or find out why they and the House and Senate security turned down the Capitol Police request for 10,000 National Guard troops 2 weeks prior to the event based on warning from the FBI and Capitol Police.
^^ Has been debunked multiple times. Just because some idiot writes something on twitter doesn't make it true, it just makes it conspiracy fuel for the uneducated.
There are often little Devils in the little Details
Not sure which version of the Ministry of Truth you are using. Could you specify:
1.0 with Ms Janky?
2.0 with Michael Chertoff?
3.0 with Kamala Harris?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 69in2it69
Maybe you don't know how to ask a logical question?
I was curious to ask them or find out why they and the House and Senate security turned down the Capitol Police request for 10,000 National Guard troops 2 weeks prior to the event based on warning from the FBI and Capitol Police...
Hmm... not actually seeing a question mark there. Let's double check: is this '?' a question mark? <-- question. But if'n you crave logical questions, I'll be your Huckleberry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 69in2it69
...^^ Has been debunked multiple times. Just because some idiot writes something on twitter doesn't make it true, it just makes it conspiracy fuel for the uneducated....
So you are saying that Capitol Police intelligence expert John T. Nugent Jr. did not write in an e-mail on Dec. 21, 2020 @ 3:31 PM to a distribution list of the department's Intelligence and Interagency Coordination Division (IICD) warning them about detected extremists sharing maps of the Capital and tunnel systems below it, which was flagged by Alexandra Ferraro (HSEMA) on December 21, 2020 at 3:16 PM to him via email?
Because if that was what you are claiming, then there is no possible way that Capitol Police official, Matthew N. Hurtig, sent a series of attachments in an email summarizing recent “domestic terrorism” threats starting on December 23, 2020, warning about several "extremist" groups' chatter on thedonald.win website. Ammirite?
Oh, wait. Hold on a second, maybe you are saying that the above emails are true and that there are copies to prove it, but someone Ki-boshed the whole affair and said nevermind, nothing to see here. In that case, I actually do have a question: Whom? <-- notice the actual use of a question mark?
Or maybe you thought they, Capitol Officers et all, are either like Barney Fife or the Texas Rangers and sent just one officer because hey, they only had one riot to contend with.
Those seem like logical questions to me. How's by you?
PS: Not to heap too many question on ya and all, besides it's only a small, teensy even, question. But would you happen to know whom made the command decision to not inform the President of the United States, their Commander in Chief, who was about to speak at that rally about the above security issues?
Maybe you don't know how to ask a logical question?
I was curious to ask them or find out why they and the House and Senate security turned down the Capitol Police request for 10,000 National Guard troops 2 weeks prior to the event based on warning from the FBI and Capitol Police.
^^ Has been debunked multiple times. Just because some idiot writes something on twitter doesn't make it true, it just makes it conspiracy fuel for the uneducated.
I'm going to lead with a PSA, if your IQ isn't triple digits you'll probably not follow along well. If it is, feel free to follow along, you might find some cheap amusement if you're bored.
[/QUOTE]Because if that was what you are claiming, then there is no possible way that Capitol Police official, Matthew N. Hurtig, sent a series of attachments in an email summarizing recent “domestic terrorism” threats starting on December 23, 2020, warning about several "extremist" groups' chatter on thedonald.win website. Ammirite?
Oh, wait. Hold on a second, maybe you are saying that the above emails are true and that there are copies to prove it, but someone Ki-boshed the whole affair and said nevermind, nothing to see here. In that case, I actually do have a question: Whom? <-- notice the actual use of a question mark?
Those seem like logical questions to me. How's by you?
PS: Not to heap too many question on ya and all, besides it's only a small, teensy even, question. But would you happen to know whom made the command decision to not inform the President of the United States, their Commander in Chief, who was about to speak at that rally about the above security issues?[/QUOTE]
I use version 4.0(a).notanidiot of the Ministry of Truth, it functions much better than the beta version of 0.1(ae)gatewaydimwith.
Hmmm...so a search of this individual and story you reference "So you are saying that Capitol Police intelligence expert John T. Nugent Jr." comes up with nobody associated with the Capitol Police...almost. Is he James Bond or Jason Bourne? You can find a link to a story that seems to mirror your "claims" - quotes intentional.
It links to ussanews.com. So (from a sandbox TWACKO...that's a nod, take it) I bit. First thing is a pop-up looking for donations. BUT, just maybe they aren't here just for the grift, right? First clue here should be the actual name, not usa but ussa...not going to say that might have come from united states stupid asses but that's where I would have come up with it. But if you're on a budget here's a free clue.
Typosquatting, a form of cybersquatting, is based on Internet users mistyping the name of a popular Web site. A typosquatter will monitor how many clicks a "typo" domain name receives and use the information to sell advertising for the sites that receive a high volume of "accidental" traffic.[28]Many popular fake news websites like ABCnews.com.co attempted to impersonate a legitimate U.S. news publication, relying on readers not actually checking the address they typed or clicked on. They exploited common misspellings, slight misphrasings and abuse of top-level domains such as .com.co as opposed to .com. Many social media users were duped, believing they were going to an actual news publication's website.
Let's check their ratings before we make a snap judgement:
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
Overall, we rate USSA News Right Biased and Questionable based on the promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, lack of transparency, use of poor sources, and several failed fact checks.
USSA News Ussanews.com calls itself “the Tea Party’s front page” and says on its “About” page:
“This site is here directly because of the direction this country, the USA, is headed. Too much government!”
The site is registered through Tucows, a company that hides the identity and location of the owner of the website.
So, if it's a legitimate news site, why are they hiding the identity AND locations of the owners? < yes I put that there intentionally. So we have a hidden site with unknown owers, asking for donations and publishing propaganda and conspiracy theories among other things. That doesn't seem odd at all, right?
And now, just for one final question to you, if you would indulge me kind sir. Why haven't Matthew N. Hurtig and/or John T. Nugent Jr. been on FAUX news network? Surely you know Tucker Falseone would have tossed both those guys salads on the steps of the Washington Monument to get their story.
So, yeah, I'm going to leave the onus on you to provide some FACTUAL basis for what you claimed about these individuals.
Me, I'm going to pour myself a nice, smooth bourbon over rocks and call it an evening.
I'm going to lead with a PSA, if your IQ isn't triple digits you'll probably not follow along well. If it is, feel free to follow along, you might find some cheap amusement if you're bored.
Because if that was what you are claiming, then there is no possible way that Capitol Police official, Matthew N. Hurtig, sent a series of attachments in an email summarizing recent “domestic terrorism” threats starting on December 23, 2020, warning about several "extremist" groups' chatter on thedonald.win website. Ammirite?
Oh, wait. Hold on a second, maybe you are saying that the above emails are true and that there are copies to prove it, but someone Ki-boshed the whole affair and said nevermind, nothing to see here. In that case, I actually do have a question: Whom? <-- notice the actual use of a question mark?
Those seem like logical questions to me. How's by you?
PS: Not to heap too many question on ya and all, besides it's only a small, teensy even, question. But would you happen to know whom made the command decision to not inform the President of the United States, their Commander in Chief, who was about to speak at that rally about the above security issues?[/QUOTE]
I use version 4.0(a).notanidiot of the Ministry of Truth, it functions much better than the beta version of 0.1(ae)gatewaydimwith.
Hmmm...so a search of this individual and story you reference "So you are saying that Capitol Police intelligence expert John T. Nugent Jr." comes up with nobody associated with the Capitol Police...almost. Is he James Bond or Jason Bourne? You can find a link to a story that seems to mirror your "claims" - quotes intentional.
It links to ussanews.com. So (from a sandbox TWACKO...that's a nod, take it) I bit. First thing is a pop-up looking for donations. BUT, just maybe they aren't here just for the grift, right? First clue here should be the actual name, not usa but ussa...not going to say that might have come from united states stupid asses but that's where I would have come up with it. But if you're on a budget here's a free clue.
Typosquatting, a form of cybersquatting, is based on Internet users mistyping the name of a popular Web site. A typosquatter will monitor how many clicks a "typo" domain name receives and use the information to sell advertising for the sites that receive a high volume of "accidental" traffic.[28]Many popular fake news websites like ABCnews.com.co attempted to impersonate a legitimate U.S. news publication, relying on readers not actually checking the address they typed or clicked on. They exploited common misspellings, slight misphrasings and abuse of top-level domains such as .com.co as opposed to .com. Many social media users were duped, believing they were going to an actual news publication's website.
Let's check their ratings before we make a snap judgement:
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
Overall, we rate USSA News Right Biased and Questionable based on the promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, lack of transparency, use of poor sources, and several failed fact checks.
USSA News Ussanews.com calls itself “the Tea Party’s front page” and says on its “About” page:
“This site is here directly because of the direction this country, the USA, is headed. Too much government!”
The site is registered through Tucows, a company that hides the identity and location of the owner of the website.
So, if it's a legitimate news site, why are they hiding the identity AND locations of the owners? < yes I put that there intentionally. So we have a hidden site with unknown owers, asking for donations and publishing propaganda and conspiracy theories among other things. That doesn't seem odd at all, right?
And now, just for one final question to you, if you would indulge me kind sir. Why haven't Matthew N. Hurtig and/or John T. Nugent Jr. been on FAUX news network? Surely you know Tucker Falseone would have tossed both those guys salads on the steps of the Washington Monument to get their story.
So, yeah, I'm going to leave the onus on you to provide some FACTUAL basis for what you claimed about these individuals.
Me, I'm going to pour myself a nice, smooth bourbon over rocks and call it an evening.[/QUOTE]
Too long. Almost read everything. If under other than ideal conditions, I would have read the whole thing. I am in awe. Just from the little I read, a nod to you. Sir.
I'm going to lead with a PSA, if your IQ isn't triple digits you'll probably not follow along well. If it is, feel free to follow along, you might find some cheap amusement if you're bored.
Because if that was what you are claiming, then there is no possible way that Capitol Police official, Matthew N. Hurtig, sent a series of attachments in an email summarizing recent “domestic terrorism” threats starting on December 23, 2020, warning about several "extremist" groups' chatter on thedonald.win website. Ammirite?
Oh, wait. Hold on a second, maybe you are saying that the above emails are true and that there are copies to prove it, but someone Ki-boshed the whole affair and said nevermind, nothing to see here. In that case, I actually do have a question: Whom? <-- notice the actual use of a question mark?
Those seem like logical questions to me. How's by you?
PS: Not to heap too many question on ya and all, besides it's only a small, teensy even, question. But would you happen to know whom made the command decision to not inform the President of the United States, their Commander in Chief, who was about to speak at that rally about the above security issues?
I use version 4.0(a).notanidiot of the Ministry of Truth, it functions much better than the beta version of 0.1(ae)gatewaydimwith.
Hmmm...so a search of this individual and story you reference "So you are saying that Capitol Police intelligence expert John T. Nugent Jr." comes up with nobody associated with the Capitol Police...almost. Is he James Bond or Jason Bourne? You can find a link to a story that seems to mirror your "claims" - quotes intentional.
It links to ussanews.com. So (from a sandbox TWACKO...that's a nod, take it) I bit. First thing is a pop-up looking for donations. BUT, just maybe they aren't here just for the grift, right? First clue here should be the actual name, not usa but ussa...not going to say that might have come from united states stupid asses but that's where I would have come up with it. But if you're on a budget here's a free clue.
Typosquatting, a form of cybersquatting, is based on Internet users mistyping the name of a popular Web site. A typosquatter will monitor how many clicks a "typo" domain name receives and use the information to sell advertising for the sites that receive a high volume of "accidental" traffic.[28]Many popular fake news websites like ABCnews.com.co attempted to impersonate a legitimate U.S. news publication, relying on readers not actually checking the address they typed or clicked on. They exploited common misspellings, slight misphrasings and abuse of top-level domains such as .com.co as opposed to .com. Many social media users were duped, believing they were going to an actual news publication's website.
Let's check their ratings before we make a snap judgement:
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
Overall, we rate USSA News Right Biased and Questionable based on the promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, lack of transparency, use of poor sources, and several failed fact checks.
USSA News Ussanews.com calls itself “the Tea Party’s front page” and says on its “About” page:
“This site is here directly because of the direction this country, the USA, is headed. Too much government!”
The site is registered through Tucows, a company that hides the identity and location of the owner of the website.
So, if it's a legitimate news site, why are they hiding the identity AND locations of the owners? < yes I put that there intentionally. So we have a hidden site with unknown owers, asking for donations and publishing propaganda and conspiracy theories among other things. That doesn't seem odd at all, right?
And now, just for one final question to you, if you would indulge me kind sir. Why haven't Matthew N. Hurtig and/or John T. Nugent Jr. been on FAUX news network? Surely you know Tucker Falseone would have tossed both those guys salads on the steps of the Washington Monument to get their story.
So, yeah, I'm going to leave the onus on you to provide some FACTUAL basis for what you claimed about these individuals.
Me, I'm going to pour myself a nice, smooth bourbon over rocks and call it an evening.
Great job, man.
But, sadly, it's another case of pearls before swine.
They'll never read it. Of those who do, 75% won't understand it and the other 30% won't believe it.
Also Carlson isn’t news, he’s entertainment. By his own admission no reasonable viewer would believe anything he says.
Well that really isn't the point. The point was very few people tuned into these Hearings. January 6th is old news and nobody really gives a fuck any more. Ok Biden is President the Liberals got their Potato, time to move on now to more important things.
According to live-plus-same-day data from Nielsen, The Five averaged the most total viewers of any cable news show during the opening quarter of 2022, marking back-to-back quarters at No. 1. That’s no small feat for a show that airs at 5 p.m. ET.
Cable news’ most-watched show hauled in an average of 3.68 million total viewers per original broadcast in Q1. That’s growth from Q4 2021, when Fox’s 5 p.m. panel talk news program averaged roughly 3.2 million total viewers.
Tucker Carlson Tonight took second place, averaging 3.62 million total viewers in Q1. Jesse Watters Primetime (3.12 million) moved past Hannity (3.06 million) and into 3rd place in total viewers. Special Report with Bret Baier rounds out the top five in average total viewers (2.72 million)
The 10-most-watched shows of the quarter were all Fox News shows. MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show (which featured guest hosts for much of the quarter) came in at No. 11, averaging 1.84 million viewers at 9 p.m.
Anderson Cooper 360 was CNN’s most-watched show in Q1, averaging 1.015 million total viewers at 8 p.m. (No. 22 overall).
According to live-plus-same-day data from Nielsen, The Five averaged the most total viewers of any cable news show during the opening quarter of 2022, marking back-to-back quarters at No. 1. That’s no small feat for a show that airs at 5 p.m. ET.
Cable news’ most-watched show hauled in an average of 3.68 million total viewers per original broadcast in Q1. That’s growth from Q4 2021, when Fox’s 5 p.m. panel talk news program averaged roughly 3.2 million total viewers.
Tucker Carlson Tonight took second place, averaging 3.62 million total viewers in Q1. Jesse Watters Primetime (3.12 million) moved past Hannity (3.06 million) and into 3rd place in total viewers. Special Report with Bret Baier rounds out the top five in average total viewers (2.72 million)
The 10-most-watched shows of the quarter were all Fox News shows. MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show (which featured guest hosts for much of the quarter) came in at No. 11, averaging 1.84 million viewers at 9 p.m.
Anderson Cooper 360 was CNN’s most-watched show in Q1, averaging 1.015 million total viewers at 8 p.m. (No. 22 overall).
Well that really isn't the point. The point was very few people tuned into these Hearings. January 6th is old news and nobody really gives a fuck any more. Ok Biden is President the Liberals got their Potato, time to move on now to more important things.
This is the problem with the Trumpist.
Like Teumpler himself, when faced with the prospect of unraveling the lies upon lies upon lies of his own making, it’s so much simpler to flush the whole shifty mess down the toilet.
Trump will never be president gain, and the enthralled Trumpist will soon have to think for themselves. Or not. Either way, the world is changing with or without their participation.
Jan 6 proves what they did before and what they’ll do again.
Old news? Nobody really gives a fuck? You’ve gotta be joking, deluded or otherwise impaired, LeviQanon.
And as long as you think TV ratings measure success anywhere but on TV, you’re also stupid.
