NBC ( not fox) reported that Pelosi let the police in, then after he let them in, he walked over to dave.

is that what one does when one is being held captive by an intruder Bryan? i’m not making that up. NBC reported that.

all they have to do, is release the body cam video.

this is so beneath you...:jester:

"Those people said Almaguer was incorrect when he reported that the husband of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) gave police no indication he was in danger when he answered the door. In fact, San Francisco police have said that Pelosi was struggling with the intruder, David DePape, when they first saw him."

Yeah, my fault for sticking my nose back in to the snark here. back to hiding. :hidin:

"people"....that's a good one :kewl:

unnamed people said it was unreliable information from an unnamed source...these people are great!

I wonder how it made it to the broadcast?

The rush for a scoop has infected all media nowadays...

yeah, I'm sure they were in a rush to cast doubt on the narrative :rotf3:

this is a sincere question…if pelosi was struggling with intruder when police got there, how did the police get in? are they saying they let themselves in?

who are the “those people” who said Almaguer was wrong? and why are those people more credible?

look, the most likely scenario by far, is that it was an unknown crazy intruder. And my interest is really only that Pelosi recovers and the lunatic gets what’s coming to him.

But if the left is going to use it for political purposes ( which they obviously can’t do if it was a lovers quarrel gone wrong), THEN we all have the right to see the body cam footage, which would prove beyond doubt what it was.

Why not release the body cam footage? they do so all the time.

And i heard an audio of what was purported to be the police dispatcher relaying the call, where the dispatcher said the caller ( Pelosi) referred to the other person as “my friend dave”.

has that audio file been debunked? obviously some right wing jerk may have fabricated it. is that what happened?

Many people are saying that the man who pelted Ted Cruz with a beer can is actually his gay lover who’s jealous he hasn’t left Heidi

As Elon said, there’s a tiny possibility there might be more to this story than meets the eye
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ok
Answer 1 one points I made.
Where’s the home security video ?
Where’s the body cam video ?
How does a person break into a house and the glass shatters outward, he use a suction cup on the glass 🤔

Guess you never heard of laminated glass

It breaks but you need to pull it apart

And clearly he didn’t go in via the hole he just unlocked the door

The photo makes it’s quite obvious
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

thanks for clearing that up :rollem:

We know you would go for the Hole :btu:

nothing at yesterday's hearing about gay prostitutes, glass breaking from the inside or any of the other vile right wing insults/theories.

vile tightening theory that was supported by NBc. all they need to do is release the body can video, hat ends the speculation.

Calling someone gay is an insult to you? I thought the left was all about celebrating them, why is that an insult?

Many people are saying that the man who pelted Ted Cruz with a beer can is actually his gay lover who’s jealous he hasn’t left Heidi, but maybe it's Jim's (not that there's anything wrong with that........)

As Elon said, there’s a tiny possibility there might be more to this story than meets the eye

Couldn't understand that gibberish (isn't that the word you use when you're trying to insult someone) in the 1st sentence.

Did I ever say or insinuate calling someone gay was an insult?

Pls. post up where I said that or else you lied.

bump

you mentioned accusations of gay in the same sentence as right wing insults.

funny, when liberals are mad at Senator Lindsay Graham, they often fall back to the rumorst hat he’s gay. Again, using it as an insult.

I could care less if Paul Pelosi is gay or not and to the extent I care, i’d respect him more if he were, given who he’s married to. But the left used this for political gain, saying it was a right wing assassination attempt. The proof of that, is on the bodycam video. An NBC station in San Francisco, reported that those who saw the footage, said it looked like a lovers quarrel not an intruder. That’s a san francisco NBC affiliate, not fox news.

if they refuse to share the bodycam footage, , it’s natural to wonder why.

You're a scummy liar.

Did you not see the word prostitute?

i did. i also saw the word gay, before i saw the phrase that went something like “and other republican insults.”. i’ve also seen many liberals use Lindsay Graham’s rumored homosexuality as a club against him, which is interesting. that’s not scummy lying by me.

Sure it is. Admit what you did was scummy.

Bumping this up to show what a scummy liar Jim is.

your quote I responded to...

"nothing at yesterday's hearing about gay prostitutes, glass breaking from the inside or any of the other vile right wing insults/theories."

Paul, I don't think you are anti gay. I was teasing about a very legitimate interpretation of what you said. That the word "gay" is one of the right wing "insults".

And it is true, that when Senator Lindsay Graham angers liberals, they routinely attack him by resurrecting rumors that he's gay.

And I don't care if Paul Pelosi is gay, or if he was attacked by a random intruder. But the left chose to make this a political weapon, so we have the right to know the truth. All we need to do, is see the bodycam video. Obviously, those in control, don't want that bodycam video released. If the bodycam video showed the attacker beating Mr Pelosi while yelling "Trump paid me to do it!", obviously we'd have seen it. The logical conclusion is that we haven't seen the video, because those in charge don't like whats on there. That may well not be the case, but it's a logical conclusion.

And for scummy liars, I keep telling you that it was an NBC affiliate in San Francisco, who reported that those who saw the bodycam video, say it didn't look like an intruder. NBC, not foxnews.

So you are lying when you say it's only the rightwing perpetuating the myth. Unless you contend that the NBC affiliate in San Francisco is right wing. Is that what you're saying?

Make that wrong.

I don't have to make anything wrong. It's right there what you try to do
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bumping this up again to show what a scummy liar Jim is.

because you’re humiliating yourself on the other thread, so why not do it here too?

the right wing nuts at NBC have reported repeatedly, that this looks like it could have been a lovers quarrel. releasing the body cam, would end all the speculation.

you got caught here, saying that being accused of being gay, is a vile insult. that’s on you.

You're lying again. It shows what a scummy person you are. I never said being gay was an insult. I said being with a gay prostitute was the lie the scummy Rs were throwing out there.

You lied about what I said (look at 133). You are a scummy person

why is being with a gay prostitute a more vile lie, than being with a heterosexual prostitute?

and what proof do you have,,that this was certainly a home invasion and not a lover situation? home invasion is clearly the most likely scenario, but NBC ( are they scummy republican liars) reported at least twice, on some details that cast some doubt on the home invasion explanation.

why not release the body cam video? seems to me it benefits the left to not release it. they can continue to make claims that are POSSIBLY refuted by the body cam video?

paul, are the folks at the NBC affiliate in San Francisco, a bunch of scummy republican liars?

Accusing someone of being with a prostitute whether gay or heterosexual is an insult. That is the insult the Republicans threw around. If it wasn't meant to be an insult why did the Republicans all use the word gay?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Paul, I don't think for one second that you are anti gay.

The insult I hear, is that it was some kind of trist. It's not insane to believe that.

The GOP used the word gay in response to the unanimous initial reporting that teh GOP was responsible for the assault.

The attacker may have been motivated by politics. But NBC has reported evidence to the contrary, and it's interesting that you don't seem to want to comment on that.

Your side made this political. It's only fair to the GOP, then, if the truth comes out. The bodycam footage would end all debate once and for all. It's interesting that it hasn't been released.

If the democrats and the media are going to use this to smear the GOP, shouldn't they be required to reveal all the evidence? Why should the truth be kept secret while they make political attacks?

One could make a compelling case, that the left is afraid of the truth in this instance.

I'm old enough to remember when homosexuals were called homosexuals. It was a purely, biologically, psychologically, sociologically, descriptive word, but those who are called "gays" now objected then to being called homosexual because it somehow connoted an abnormal, devious, condition. So they chose to call themselves "gay" which used to be a word that denoted happiness, joy, good stuff, even better than just being normal such as heterosexuals supposedly were.

I'll never forget an incident when I was working behind the reference desk in our downtown library, a man asked for information on the subject. This was when "gay" had barely begun to make any headway at all as a term of use. So I gave him the file that was labeled homosexuality as a starter to peruse before finding him various books about it. He blew up in my face, and excoriated the library system for filing information under that title. He took it very personally as a homo--, er, "gay" person, claiming it was a derogatory word that painted a negative image of "gays." And went on and on about what bigots we were. I didn't engage in whatever debate he may have wanted to have or in whatever diatribe he wished to deliver. Just went about my business of getting him some more information. I doubted that any of it would use the label "gay" at that time. Hoped he wouldn't come back and call me out for discrimination and insensitivity for giving him such inflammatory literature--its all we had. The word "gay" in the manner he wanted to use it had not even begun to be the preferred term, (or the seemingly mandated term of today). One hardly ever, if ever, uses the word "gay" now to mean anything other than what used to be called homosexual. Just one of the many changes in the meanings of words that have "helped" to change our culture into becoming inclusive--and "nice."

Apparently, re Paul's post, even "gay" has reverted to being as insulting as "homosexual." Gotta keep changing these key words until we remake society into the "inclusion diversity and equity" model that will make us all happy. Though, if really nice and happy words, like "gay" used to be, still ain't good enough, one wonders even if we keep extending that peculiar sexual section of our vocabulary from homosexual, to gay, to perhaps "nice people," that will still be an insult for some reason or other.

Maybe homosexual is still homosexual, no matter what abuse we put language through. I don't consider homosexual to be derogatory. Why should it be, if its just a harmless matter of sexual choice?

Does Jim have sex with goats?
I’m not saying he does!
I’m just asking.
Maybe Jim can give us definitive proof that he’s not a goat f’er who huffs nitrous and shouts “mommy” while he’s f’n goats.
I’m just asking questions, maybe Tucker can look into this or is he also part of the goat cabal?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete. That’s a way below the belt and uncalled for you should delete it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

sincerely appreciated, but not necessary. his post doesn’t say anything about me, but says everything about him. and your response says everything about you, and that’s a sincere compliment. because i wasn’t always as courteous to you ( god knows) as i could have been, which makes your response even better.

have a great new year to you and your family wayne!

I don't consider homosexual to be derogatory. Why should it be, if its just a harmless matter of sexual choice?

See Jim that’s the problem it’s not about what you consider to be derogatory or offensive.

whether it’s derogatory or not, can only be decided by the person it’s being used against or towards

Not the speaker determination, that it’s not derogatory

I’ll give you an example my wife was trying to remember a girl she worked with temporarily on the floor with the oncoming nurse who’s black she couldn’t remember the girls name but she knew the girl was black but my wife referred to her as colored .

And the black nurse who is relieving her tore, her new one for using the term colored, basically telling her refer to her is black it’s offensive the color colored

If my wife’s mistake was unconscious one, and a lesson was learned

but there are people who use terms to incite intimidate, or embarrass others. It happened here a few days ago.

forced to bake queers cakes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“That may well not be the case, but it’s a logical conclusion.”

“And I don't care if Paul Pelosi is gay, or if he was attacked by a random intruder. But the left chose to make this a political weapon, so we have the right to know the truth. All we need to do, is see the bodycam video. Obviously, those in control, don't want that bodycam video released. If the bodycam video showed the attacker beating Mr Pelosi while yelling "Trump paid me to do it!", obviously we'd have seen it. The logical conclusion is that we haven't seen the video, because those in charge don't like whats on there. That may well not be the case, but And I don't care if Paul Pelosi is gay, or if he was attacked by a random intruder. But the left chose to make this a political weapon, so we have the right to know the truth. All we need to do, is see the bodycam video. Obviously, those in control, don't want that bodycam video released. If the bodycam video showed the attacker beating Mr Pelosi while yelling "Trump paid me to do it!", obviously we'd have seen it. The logical conclusion is that we haven't seen the video, because those in charge don't like whats on there. That may well not be the case, but it's a logical conclusion.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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

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.

We know you don't consider homosexuality to be derogatory. I also don't consider homosexual to be derogatory (I was in favor of gay marriage when Obama was against it, Hilary was against it, and when the state of CA of all places voted against it). But the left has also used Lindsay Graham's rumored homosexuality as a club against him repeatedly. I didn't use anyones sexuality against them. In a poorly worded joke, I accused Paul of doing that, even though I also know he didn't mean it that way.

Very funny what you say about "colored". I have a white coworker who found someone else's car keys in our office kitchen, and he knew that a black woman had just been in there. He gave the keys to the secretary, and said "I think that colored girl left these in the break room".

The guy was obviously just trying to help. He's an older guy, in his late 60's, and that was the terminology he grew up with. They made him go to sensitivity training, poor guy.

Not everyone has skin as thick as yours is!