Paul Pelosi attack

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by wdmso

It is necessary. Wrong is wrong. I don’t mind having spirited arguments but I really don’t like going down the road of throwing insults like playing tennis.

I’ve never found anyone here not to be courteous it’s just sometimes the meaning of the message gets confused like in a text message Sometimes it’s hard to read peoples intent. Hell even my kids sometimes say I talk like a fortune cookie. And my writing is far worse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I disagree
Jim consistently repeats unfounded accusations, with no basis in fact.

The Pelosi thing has been rebutted by everyone involved, it’s every bit as true as what I posted.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I disagree
Jim consistently repeats unfounded accusations, with no basis in fact.

The Pelosi thing has been rebutted by everyone involved, it’s every bit as true as what I posted.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The NBC affiliate in San Francisco reported that those who saw the bodycam footage, say it really didn't look like Pelosi was acting like these was a home invasion.

That's not from Foxnews, but from the NBC affiliate out there.

Releasing the bodycam footage would put an end to it. Someone obviously doesn't want that to happen.

I'm no conspiracy nut, I said the most likely explanation is a home invasion by a raving lunatic who may well have had political motives that made sense to his insane mind. But the fact is, NBC has reported some contradictory information. More than once. If you don't like that, take it up with NBC.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The NBC affiliate in San Francisco reported that those who saw the bodycam footage, say it really didn't look like Pelosi was acting like these was a home invasion.

That's not from Foxnews, but from the NBC affiliate out there.

Releasing the bodycam footage would put an end to it. Someone obviously doesn't want that to happen.

I'm no conspiracy nut, I said the most likely explanation is a home invasion by a raving lunatic who may well have had political motives that made sense to his insane mind. But the fact is, NBC has reported some contradictory information. More than once. If you don't like that, take it up with NBC.

You’re either lying or willfully blind to the facts.

Those pushing the "gay lover" theory have pointed to a handful of purported pieces of evidence based on falsehoods and twisted storylines. They say that DePape was in his underwear when police arrived at the scene -- but the local TV station that originally reported that has since corrected its story and removed the assertion. Others have suggested that a third person opened the door to Pelosi's house, but police have debunked that.

Many of the theorists have latched on to a recording of a 911 dispatcher saying that Pelosi referred to DePape as "a friend" and "sounded somewhat confused."

But Pelosi seemed to be speaking in coded language on the 911 call to make clear he needed help, a law enforcement source previously told CNN. And the complaint notes that Pelosi told officers he had never seen DePape before.

The complaint also included an interview police did with DePape in which he admitted breaking into the house and said he surprised Pelosi. According to the complaint, DePape said that he wanted to hold Nancy Pelosi hostage because he viewed her as the "'leader of the pack' of lies told by the Democratic Party," and claimed he was "fighting against tyranny without the option of surrender."

Scott, the San Francisco chief, called the conspiracies surrounding the attack "pathetic" and "disturbing."

"We've spent a lot of energy just pushing back, really ridiculous conspiracy theories, to make sure people stay focused on our team," he said. "These things are harmful to society, they're harmful to the victims involved -- it's really sad that we are here in this place, but we are."

So how’s your goat like it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I disagree
Jim consistently repeats unfounded accusations, with no basis in fact.

The Pelosi thing has been rebutted by everyone involved, it’s every bit as true as what I posted.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I Just don’t think the bestiality comments are helpful

I do agree . the rights infatuation with the gay relationship angle with pelosi

Now the drag queens shows or books don’t forget groomers Everything is about sexuality
Or sexualizing

And yes Jim does present many unfounded accusations, with no basis in fact.

I am Just suggesting we all show a little more restraint in our counter points

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I Just don’t think the bestiality comments are helpful

I do agree . the rights infatuation with the gay relationship angle with pelosi

Now the drag queens shows or books don’t forget groomers Everything is about sexuality
Or sexualizing

And yes Jim does present many unfounded accusations, with no basis in fact.

I am Just suggesting we all show a little more restraint in our counter points

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually I chose that because it was so exaggerated that it would not be taken as “true”.
Would it have been within the bounds to accuse him of a more acceptable fetish perhaps grooming, child abuse, sexual predation or any of the other typical Republican claims and/or behaviors?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device