Originally posted by MadHatter
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Ol Turncoat Ted
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by 100%TtId View PostNone of this makes any sense. Neither his retraction nor the original statement. If he's concerned about the dems pursuing 18 US Code 2383 violations, he's not going to escape it by labeling J6 protesters as terrorists. Something tells me we're not seeing the full picture here. If he was pressured to call it terrorism, then why walk it back on Tucker's show? Cruz has done some good things (Cavanaugh, ACB confirms, etc) but this is a strange blunder to make by someone who normally chooses words carefully.
Comment
-
Originally posted by jer_james View PostHas nothing to do with msm. Facts and legal challenges have nothing to do with msm.
Facts are not being put out...
Legal is only what the DOJ wants it to be.
If the truth ever comes to light, there is no hole deep enough for anyone to hide in...it will all be burned down.
Comment
-
The country is built on free and fair elections.
Was the election fair? Many people were upset. Few took any action.
I dont think anyone here wanted Q to storm the capital and stop the slim chance we had of Pence rejecting the votes and at least put the idiot on record affirming. But the majority of the protestors were not Q, and many let in for a stroll.
So its ok to send a bullet to Ashli?
What about mysterious Daniel Epps?
Why not release the tapes to the public?
Treatment of the detainees is fair and equal punishment as compared with the arsonists in Utah?
Rejecting the National Guard?
Sorry the whole thing stinks setup, the dems tooled Q to be their pansies.
The real perpetrators are not charged with anything yes lets keep pounding the pansies.
Cruz can't walk that back, as Tucker mentioned he's way to smart for the verbiage he used.Last edited by txhunt7; 01-10-2022, 11:13 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by SmTx View PostThe guy that videoed Babbitt getting shot used to work for me.
This wasn't a day tour.
But Capitol police didn't shoot everyone down. If it was an insurrection they should've all been shot on sight. They weren't.
Isn't that the requirement for use of deadly force?
If not, what requirement was met to justify the use?
Anxiously waiting for an answer to this...
Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Comment
-
Originally posted by rolylane6 View PostI keep asking, "who's life was she threatening?"
Isn't that the requirement for use of deadly force?
If not, what requirement was met to justify the use?
Anxiously waiting for an answer to this...
Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
That's all that was needed.
The two standing next to her did not feel threatened so they did not shoot her.
He did, so he did.
Case closed.
Comment
-
Originally posted by texansfan View PostThe officer that pulled the trigger felt threatened.
That's all that was needed.
The two standing next to her did not feel threatened so they did not shoot her.
He did, so he did.
Case closed.
So that’s the standard? I just have to “feel”threatened? Even if it’s an unarmed female that I “feel” threatened by?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Comment
Comment