JDVance: 'MTGreene said nothing wrong'

Your problem is obvious.

 

I don't agree with Ben Smith, and as Ronan Farrow pointed out in a number of tweets, he's not always right, but it doesn't negate my point, anyway.

Besides, in that link you provided, Smith writes:

I'm still not sure this represents actual belief, as opposed to a kind of trash talk about a president you hate.

In that comment he just undermined his premise of the article. In other words, given how the survey was framed (to dems), you really cannot come to any solid conclusion about what the survey means.

I take whatever the nypost writes with a grain of salt.

Yes, I'm rolling with 'that', whatever that means.

 

All a matter of opinion. In DC bat **** crazy is basically defined as not believing it is the federal government's job to be the one ring...

 

My I suggest acquiring a 'Starlink'? It's that invention by Elon Musk, gets some good reviews by rural folks.

In the meantime, sorry, I don't have the time to provide transcriptions on every video I post (though I do, on occasion, on some of my posts regarding UFOs in the Science forum). My suggestion is just to ignore posts that contain videos. And, if you can, find a solution. Good luck.

 

No, batshit crazy is believing that there was no plane hitting the pentagon on 9/11, or stating on more than one occasion that Pelosi needs to be executed, and I could go on, but why bother.

 

Is Whoopi Goldberg a nutjob, too? She's a 9/11 truther.

 

Hollywood sir is up to it's ass in crazy people and dingbats. Too much money and too little responsibility produced that effect on some people.

 

Starlink was the first satellite service. I used it. It disappeared years ago. At the moment I use HughesNet. Doesn't matter. Streaming with satellite service is pretty much a non starter. The speed is too slow and the bandwidth is metered. Those of us in the country can't stream effectively. It is what it is. But I appreciate the suggestion.

 

She's not a Congresswoman. Please understand what 'on point' means.

 

I like her. She seems a bit crazy, but more in a 'crystals and aliens' sort of way, which is vastly preferable to me than the usual 'I AM YOUR MASTER' sort of crazy that seems to be the trend in politics these days.

 

You know I've been hearing awhile about MTG and space lasers, specifically Jewish ones, but I have never seen a quote as to what she actually said about them. Do you know what exactly she said?

 

I think it takes one to know one.

 

Irrelevant

 

Your criticism of MTG is hysterical. Read and weep, laugh or throw a fit:

"hysterical
hĭ-stĕr′ĭ-kəl
adjective

1. Laughing or crying for a prolonged period of time.
2. Extremely funny.
3. Of, characterized by, or arising from hysteria. No longer in clinical use.
4. Extremely funny.
5. Of, or arising from hysteria.
6. Having, or prone to having hysterics.
7. Provoking uncontrollablelaughter.
8. marked by excessive or uncontrollable emotion

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
More at Wordnik"

It is also partisan and rather petty, but that is common and to be expected in an election cycle.
Note that I am not saying you should stop.

 

Too bad, I'm getting 100mbps on Cox, and in my Firestick TV, it does over 250mbps, and I can surf the net on my TV.

See if this little trick doesn't help, but you need to play close attention to the instructions, it's nerdy.

 

She (Greene) asserted that Pelosi should be executed for treason, on more than one occasion.

That simply is unacceptable for a person holding an office of public trust to be saying, publicly.

 

She doesn't actually use the phrase "Jewish Space Lasers" but she does make the absurd assertion lasers in space missing their targets could be responsible for wildfires, and she alluded that a well known Jewish dynasty ( Rothschild Inc.) are behind the technology, so that's where the "Jewish Space Lasers" accusation came from. Whether that's a fair charge or not, but reading her letter most certainly indicates her wild ignorance on the subject, very CT-esque, and that, for me, given that she is a congressperson, is problematic, and I won't even mention the occasions she asserted Pelosi committed treason and noted additionally that should be executed for it.

 

Yes, and it takes a 9 year old to say 'it takes one to know one'.

Looks like the sandbox becomes you. How nice.

 

That you are not on point is an accurate statement, and relevant.

Why? because if you are not on point, YOU are asserting an irrelevant fact.

My indicating your irrelevance, not being on point, therefore, cannot be irrelevant.

It's similar to how alerting someone of their bigotry isn't bigotry by alerting it.

WTFU.

 

The definition does not accurately characterize my criticism of MTG. In fact, it's inaccurate on every level, but it does
indicate wishful thinking on your part.

Criticism, valid criticism, does not equal hysterics.

She said 'there is no evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon'.

Criticizing that statement for it's falseness, especially when a cursory internet search proves there is evidence, does not equal hysterics.

She said: "Satan is controlling the church".

Criticizing that statement does not equal 'hysterics'

She implied that Dems were responsible for shooters shooting into crowds so that they could get gun legislation passed, and so if I criticize her for that offensive and absurd batshit crazy allegation, which is a fair characterization, that doesn't equal hysterics.

She said, on more than one occasion, that Pelosi has committed treason and deserves execution. Criticizing such a statement, especially done more than once, a statement wholly unnacceptable and irresponsibile for a congresswoman, does not equal hysterics.

I repeat, criticism is not hysterics.

Accusing someone of hysterics when none was committed, is hysterics, and thus you are projecting.

Shouting, over and over again, 'I am right", which is essentially what you are doing, (your "read and weep, laugh or throw a fit" etc.,) thus foolishly believing it supports your argument is actually is a pseudo debate trick called 'posturing' and is not a merity worthy counter argument. It is a 'non argument', in point of fact.

Moreover, your providing the definition of 'hysterics' doesn't prove your point, it disproves it.

Additionally, your last line is more posturing.

 

Vacuous allegations are not a merit worthy argument.

 

I give you props for tracking down the actual post and exposing the "Jewish space lasers" line was a lie. In fact this seems more of a screed against PG &E. I even see what space lasers she's talking about. Using lasers to beam solar energy collected in orbit to beam to receiving stations on earth, an idea that goes back to the 1970's.

It's truly amazing that this started the whole Jewish space lasers thing. All the more reason to demand quotes whenever one of you guys go off on something you claim she said.

 

How old do you have to be to toss out the "I know you are but what am I" response?

 

I spose thats not an unreasonable expectation (tho I dont share it with you). Is that your position on all the folks who made the same assertion about Trump?

 

So? The more salient point is her mindboggling accusations that dems were behind the shooters shooting into crowds to get gun legislation passed, her stating on more than one occasion that Pelosi committed treason and should be executed, but, of course, those more important points do not bother you, and you focus on a minor slightly inaccurate charge, that she didn't say 'jewish space lasers', though she did assert that space lasers missing their targets could cause wildfires (which is nonsense), and she did allude to them being owned by the Rothschilds, who are Jewish, so the modest , but fair, extrapolation, 'Jewish Space Lasers' therefrom, is not a stretch, especially considering the twistings of facts she evacuates from her lips so often is much worse, none of which seems to bother you, eh? .

See, what you're doing is pettifogging the argument.