Ah. so it wasn't an insult when you said i was 'proven' to be full of shit? Ah. a Hypocrite. how typical. you asserted that you had legal expertise and that everyone else needed to get on your level so they could understand legal terms like you do. you did that, first. but you don't have to back up THAT claim, only i have to back up the claim that there are experts out there who disagree with you. I see. how typical.
no bitch, because i can say the same thing about YOU, and i just did. here's a key phrase from the first post of yours i replied to: "people learn how to interpret things from a legal standpoint"
you're clearly trying to assert that other people aren't as smart or knowledgeable about how to "interpret things from a legal standpoint" as if you have some background in that field. YOU were the first one to try to directly claim some kind of expertise. and then you did again the follow up. yet without simply saying something like 'i've been to law school', which makes me think you haven't. all you had to do was simply say you had. and i probably would've believed you.
so it's really ironic that you want to gloat over my not sharing some link, which wouldn't even be ME or MY argument, but someone elses. i merely pointed out that those other opinions ARE out there, they DO exist. they aren't MINE though. i didn't claim them as mine. YOU claimed YOUR expertise, without ANY description of what it is.
so how about if i throw your own bullshit that actually applies to you more than it does to me, right back in your face: I thought so, random people like you who pretend to be an expert, can't prove it when called out, and you're full of shit.
how about that bitch.
the article is shit because it doesn't address the fact that she once claimed to welcome a suit from dominion because it would give her a chance to prove her accusations against them in court, and yet now, suddenly, for some reason, she's trying to get out her 'day in court' by filing to dismiss. and it also doesn't actually address the real key issue which is that in her filing to dismiss, to get out of what she once claimed to welcome, she uses a 'legal strategy' of insisting that only unreasonable people ever believed her.
just simply calling something a 'legal strategy' doesn't counter-act it being shitty. she's literally saying that only dumbasses ever believed her bullshit. and i agree.
people here only thought that because of people like sidney powell.
you can go find them yourself, or don't you have the expertise to use a simple search? i mean, what IS your 'expertise' anyway?
does it involve you understanding basic logic such as, sidney once claimed publicly to want to be sued, so she could prove her accusations in court, and now she's trying to run from them by filing motions to dismiss? for some reason? and her filing includes the 'legal strategy' of saying that only unreasonable people ever took her seriously to begin with when she accused dominion of all those things?
why would you continue taking her seriously, or ever take her seriously again in the future? when someone openly says only unreasonable people ever believed them, i'm smart enough to not believe them. i was smart enough to not believe her bullshit back then, which puts me in a minority around here. maybe that makes ME the expert? according to her, i'm one of the few 'reasonable' people around here.
ahur durrrrrr. all you do is say 'do you want someone to hold your hand baby?' over and over like a complete moron. and the hilarious thing is that you think it's somehow an intelligent argument or debate strategy. you just look pathetic and imbecilic.
it's not my fucking opinion that she said she wanted to be sued so she could prove dominion stole the election in court. it's a FACT. she said that, numerous times.
and this generic defense of her of just saying 'its a legal strategy'- no shit it's a legal strategy. it's her legal strategy that she's using to try to DISMISS the case that she once claimed publicly to welcome. because she claimed publicly to have evidence that would let her prove dominion stole everything. now she's using a 'legal strategy' to try to 'get out of it', a 'legal strategy' that involves saying that no reasonable person would've believed her public statements.
i tend to agree with her. no reasonable person should have believed them. but those unreasonable people who didn't think critically and tend to believe snake oil salesmen types who make big claims with no proof, will probably continue being unreasonable (her words) and follow her and support her to the ends of the earth.
who give a fuck how many dummies 'liked your reply?'
guess what, dipshit? i was one of the people in here trying to warn people to be prepared for a biden presidency through december and january, while the overwhelming sentiment was that, somehow, even though trump had had no legal victories, no momentum of any kind, somehow everyone believed he absolutely WAS going to remain in office. with no proof, no reasons, no anything, just emotions. and they'd call you a 'DOOMER!!!!' 'fake trump supporter!!!' 'SHILL!!!' 'DOOOMER' etc.
so i was downvoted a lot back then, and faggots like you probably got lots of likes back then too. and guess what, you were all WRONG, and i was RIGHT. sometimes, if not many times, being right is unpopular. but guess what? it still has the benefit of being RIGHT. no matter how many emotional idiots who like to follow con artist bullshit might not 'like' it.
it's more than just a 'big L'
she claimed she had the goods, then she claimed she wanted to go to court and defend herself against dominion, because she'd be able to prove they stole the election there. NOW all of a sudden she's trying to get their case dismissed, and she's doing it by saying that, i guess, only unreasonable people ever would've believed her in the first place. it's kind of like... she's calling you and everyone else who believed her.. unreasonable? i dunno man i'd have more words for that than simply a 'big L'. how about betrayal? how about con artist? how about she made us all look like fools, even those of us like myself who actually noticed that she was saying some really crazy shit and not producing any real proof of it? even the, in her own words, 'reasonable' people like me who thought she was full of shit, but still support trump, have had a shadow cast over us and our legit feelings that there was various forms of fraud, a shadow cast by her and her crazy wild claims.
do we ignore HER bluster and bullshit from now on too?
how about all the times she went on fox and claimed dominion stole the election and she had proof? how about when she insinuated that some servers in germany were captured and may be held 'by the good guys'?
or how about when SHE HERSELF said she welcomed the lawsuit against her because it would give her a chance to prove her accusations against dominion in the court of law with discovery? now she's trying to avoid the fight and get it dismissed? so i guess she was full of shit when she said that, and it was all bluster?
and she's trying to get it dismissed to avoid the court case she herself claimed to welcome, by making the argument that no reasonable person would believe her... so when do we all just finally start ignoring HER 'bluster and bullshit'? because her legal defense to get out of the case she once claimed she'd use to take down dominion, is by literally saying that only unreasonable people would believe her claims at face value...
but you don't seem to be picking up on any of this...
but she herself said she WOULD gladly go to court and prove that they did in fact steal the election. now she's trying to get out of it...
ok but why is she stating that no reasonable person would've took her claims seriously... in a FILE FOR DISMISSAL, after having ran her mouth, saying she welcomed a lawsuit and would use discovery to prove her accusations against dominion in court? now she's trying to get it dismissed and get out of court? by saying nobody reasonable would've believed her when she went on air and accused them of stealing the election?
and in your mind none of that seems fishy. ok gotcha.
you're making the most retarded arguments i've ever seen.
jesus christ you just don't get it.
she herself has said that she WANTED to be sued, that she welcomed a law suit, because that would finally give her a chance to prove that dominion stole the election in court. she claimed she would get even more proof of it when the dominion suit went to discovery phase. this was going to be her big chance to take down the beast.
and simps like you just gobble up everything she says, forever, and now that she's running scared, NOT wanting to go to court, not wanting to 'prove dominion stole the election', you're STILL defending her.
this 'bullshit lawsuit' was supposed to be her 'kill shot' and now she's trying to 'get out of' it. and you see no issue with that. no contradiction in your mind. one has to wonder if you even have a mind.
you must be slow.
a) back then she said she had proof that dominion stole the election. she stated that they stole this election and others, as a fact, not as her opinion. again, she said she had proof. she said she was going to blow the lid off of it.
b) now she's saying it was merely her opinion and apparently, that only unreasonable people would have taken her words as statement of fact.
c) here you are defending all of these (contradictory) statements, while apparently also admitting you believed her and took her seriously. so you are saying that you, in her own words, are an unreasonable person, for having believed her.
but the statements she made were 100% statements of fact. she said they absolutely stole the election. she said dominion was created to steal elections in venezuela and she even had people who were there when that happened. she said they stole our election. she didn't say 'it's my opinion', she stated it as fact and also said she had the evidence. i guess you have 'alternate' memories of what happened.
there are lawyers on youtube who were sympathetic to her, following her case, and are saying this filing looks bad on her. are you a lawyer?
but she said she welcomed the case because it would give her a chance to prove the fraud in court through discovery...
why did you even bother posting this reply? you didn't address the point of the post you were replying to at all.
the point made was asking why would she WANT it dismissed, when she talked all this shit about WANTING to be sued so she can use discovery and finally get her case proven in court, by defending herself against the suit.
of COURSE being in court is expensive, stressful, and time consuming. she already knew that when she claimed she welcomed it and looked forward to discovery. now all of a sudden she's trying to get it dismissed. if she was being honest about wanting to be sued and that she'd use it to prove her case, why would she want the easy way out through dismissal?
ok look dummy, i ALREADY SAID that we MAY be outliers, you dumb son of a bitch, but that statistically, the odds are, we are a normal, average example. and i'm 100% correct about that. that those are the odds. because being the outlier would be less common, and less likely. you're just too stupid to understand this simple fact i guess.
and if you really want to fucking think that all the aliens in the world are smarter, wiser, less racist, less evil, less warlike, more peaceful and all around superior to us in every way including morals and ethics, be my guest you fucking piece of shit. i suppose you agree with liberals that whites are the most evil race too. and that the united states is the most evil country. because it's THE SAME FUCKING LOGIC. fuck you, i despise people like you. you fucking disgust me. leave me the fuck alone. if you want to think we're so fucking bad, maybe you're just speaking for yourself. maybe YOU'RE a liar, racist, evil, hateful, violent piece of human garbage, or even a child molester, which is why you so desperately want to see the human race in such a light collectively. it would make sense.
no it's not 'moot'. my main point was about violence being entirely natural, and even war being natural and normal. it's all just an extension of the overall violent nature of the universe and life itself. so if there's some super rare set of variables that produce a non-violent race of intelligent beings somewhere, that doesn't take away from my point, they're the exception. and it wouldn't make them morally superior to us. the only reason they'd be non-violent is because of the place that spawned them being a freakish anomaly. the whole idea is that libs love to act like ANY aliens that might discover us would stay away because of how violent, racist, and dumb we are, and that's fucking stupid, because it's just the person saying that trying to virtue signal when they say it. and you're just too dumb to understand a point. truthfully i think you fully understood what i was getting at but you're just playing dumb now.
why oh why would you forget to mention forming the original (worst) kkk, and fighting to prevent desegregation of schools?
for sure! i've talked about this for years and on other occasions i've mentioned star explosions etc, the entire universe is super violent.
if you argue with a liberal about this and try to get them to admit that violence is a very inherent part of nature, chances are they will say 'stars are inanimate so that doesn't count', or they'll even try to differentiate between a lion being violent and a human. 'its not the same'. i've had that argument a bunch. it's a real kind of scientific sticking point with me, the whole idea that violence or war "is bad", when nature produced us with the capacity to do those things, so those things are entirely natural, and we descended from countless violent species, and exist in a hyper violent universe.
and my favorite irony is that if you believe in evolution, as most liberals do, and if you have a brain, you'd have to acknowledge that violence was probably the KEY driving force behind it, and especially for humans, to develop their superior brains. without violence there would've been no motzart, einstein, or basically anyone with any brains to do anything at all. and that includes to argue with someone that violence is 'bad' and not 'inherent in nature'. they couldn't even argue against you about it without violence having produced their capacity to argue. but try to get a liberal, irl or online somewhere, to accept this point about violence or even war. i'd shit myself if you managed to. the whole concept goes against all of their retarded platitudes. which is why i love debating/arguing it with them.
ok but my overlying point all along has been that statements like "aliens wouldn't like us because we're morally inferior due to pollution, violence, war, racism, etc etc etc" really say more about the person saying it than it does about aliens. because the aliens they're talking about aren't here so we don't really know what they'd do or why. it's just some jackass person talking out their ass and virtue signalling about how THEY think all those things are bad and asserting how they are themselves above those things. it's just some virtue signal by proxy through hypothetical aliens bullshit, is what it is.
yeah but see retard, the possibilities you mentioned are RARE. of course there COULD be, in all of the possibly endless universe, some form of life that developed into intelligence but had no violence in their background. it would likely be really fucking rare though. and there would have to be a stack of weird variables in play, such as maybe the animal-like life there can move around with muscles but also can use something like photo-synthesis to get energy from their sun, and it gives them enough energy to actually move around without requiring eat other beings.
and you know what? them evolving on a planet like that wouldn't make them morally superior to us for not being violent. it would just make them freaks of nature, outliers. you fucking moron.
you're not debating anyone. you don't have the brainpower to. all you can do is say things like 'do you want someone to hold your hand?' without any substance or thought.