Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jan 16, 2023 - 10:41am
kurtster wrote:
Several things. . . .
Several members of the Oath Keepers recently were found guilty of seditious conspiracy for their plans for and actions on January 6. A trial of several members of the Proud Boys on the same charge is ongoing.
I will keep it simple: What were those who forcibly entered the Capitol and searched for members of Congress trying to achieve? What was their goal?
I didn't say the Capitol Policeman that shot the
protestor was wrong, just that he did and the protestor shot was the
only person who actually died that day during the protest. And that the
protestor was unarmed. Is this not factually correct ? And that it
needed to be investigated along with everything else.
Your argument is a bit like saying "only a few dozen people were killed when the planes crashed into the twin towers on 9/11".
Factually correct.... as long as you're willing to ignore the damage inflicted by those actions that killed another 2,700 or so people.
Well, that's because he's never acknowledged the insurrection as being such. Things there were never as bad as others have made them to be. A relatively innocent protester lost their life as a result of an overzealous and unnecessarily deadly Capitol Security person's response which has never been properly investigated.
These aren't my thoughts mind you... just "channeling" the dark side.
Several things.
Yes it was a riot as far as I am concerned. To call it an insurrection is a far fetched fantasy in that there is no way it would have succeeded even if it was the way it went down. Hardly anyone was armed and while it slowed things down, there is no way I can see where it would have either worked or lasted longer than it did if this was an actual attempt to nullify the vote, take over the government or any part of it.
You want to talk about a real insurrection ? How about the raid on Harper's Ferry ? You do know about Harper's Ferry or should. It was taught in our HS in 11th grade and for all I know, we probably had the same history teacher with the school being as small as it was.
The label "raid" was not used at the time. A month after the attack, a Baltimore newspaper listed 26 terms used, including "insurrection", "rebellion", "treason", and "crusade". "Raid" was not among them.[3]:â4â
In this context, tell me why the assault on the Federal Courthouse in Portland was not an attempted "Insurrection" ? You refuse to call that an insurrection. What is the difference between that and Harper's Ferry ? Both are federal government structures and part of the federal government.
Moving on, I have never condoned this riot in any way, shape or form. I have always said that the rioters should be prosecuted and the procedures involving security at the Capitol be investigated. It may be just me, but considering what was going on inside, it would warrant a much higher level of security than was present.
I didn't say the Capitol Policeman that shot the protestor was wrong, just that he did and the protestor shot was the only person who actually died that day during the protest. And that the protestor was unarmed. Is this not factually correct ? And that it needed to be investigated along with everything else.
This is pretty much all that I have ever said about January 6, 2021.
The good thing about all this is that he shouldn't run again - and this will seal the deal. Exactly what the Demoncrats need. (And it doesn't at all stop the investigation into TFG)
So, who are the Dems gonna stand up? Elizabeth Warren? Cory Booker?
The good thing about all this is that he shouldn't run again - and this will seal the deal. Exactly what the Demoncrats need. (And it doesn't at all stop the investigation into TFG)
Well, that's because he's never acknowledged the insurrection as being such. Things there were never as bad as others have made them to be. A relatively innocent protester lost their life as a result of an overzealous and unnecessarily deadly Capitol Security person's response which has never been properly investigated.
Don't forget, all of this happened following the BLM summer when "y'all" supported the destruction of property and looting by the woke mob and Antifa.
To appreciate the similarities, you just need to normalize all riots.
It's more of you failing to make the connection. I was okay with the toy-gun-guy getting shot (right up until the coup de grace, when it became murder). I was also 100% okay with capitol guards opening fire and to this day I don't understand how or why more (100s more) weren't dropped before they had a chance to even break in. When I see an armed police officer, I assume I will be shot in the face if I attack him or whatever he's protecting. That's why they carry guns. If they're going to carry guns, they have to back it up. But here you are, cheerleading a guy who unloaded on a thug, but not cheerleading a guy who unloaded on a thug.
Well, that's because he's never acknowledged the insurrection as being such. Things there were never as bad as others have made them to be. A relatively innocent protester lost their life as a result of an overzealous and unnecessarily deadly Capitol Security person's response which has never been properly investigated.
These aren't my thoughts mind you... just "channeling" the dark side.
It's more of you failing to make the connection. I was okay with the toy-gun-guy getting shot (right up until the coup de grace, when it became murder). I was also 100% okay with capitol guards opening fire and to this day I don't understand how or why more (100s more) weren't dropped before they had a chance to even break in. When I see an armed police officer, I assume I will be shot in the face if I attack him or whatever he's protecting. That's why they carry guns. If they're going to carry guns, they have to back it up. But here you are, cheerleading a guy who unloaded on a thug, but not cheerleading a guy who unloaded on a thug.
No, this is a response to Scott's comments in another thread where he made this connection. I inquired to what he meant but never got a reply. So I said this as an assumption to the point he was trying to make.
I've had enough excitement for today. Time for a nap.
It's more of you failing to make the connection. I was okay with the toy-gun-guy getting shot (right up until the coup de grace, when it became murder). I was also 100% okay with capitol guards opening fire and to this day I don't understand how or why more (100s more) weren't dropped before they had a chance to even break in. When I see an armed police officer, I assume I will be shot in the face if I attack him or whatever he's protecting. That's why they carry guns. If they're going to carry guns, they have to back it up. But here you are, cheerleading a guy who unloaded on a thug, but not cheerleading a guy who unloaded on a thug.
You mean by not having protesters storm the capital right? And calling them protesters after they broke windows/doors, assaulted guards, and went into the nations capitol causing havoc and vandalism is VERY generous. At the point they were breaking into the capitol, more of them deserved harsher treatment.
If only they had lined up to go through the metal detectors
You keep bringing up in several contexts this âunarmed protesterâ shot on January 6. She and others were attempting to break through a substantial barricade to gain entry to an area where members of Congress were located. The Capitol Police officer who shot her after she ignored warnings viewed it as a âlast resortâ to save lives of those members. He was not aware she was unarmed. Threats had been made by those seeking to break through. It was an unfortunate tragedy, and, in hindsight, it could have been avoided, but, under the circumstances, she was not an innocent murdered by the Capitol Police.
You mean by not having protesters storm the capital right? And calling them protesters after they broke windows/doors, assaulted guards, and went into the nations capitol causing havoc and vandalism is VERY generous. At the point they were breaking into the capitol, more of them deserved harsher treatment.
There seems be plenty of "pretzel logic" (funny, I heard that term quite frequently from the trumpsters the past few days) from both parties.
Trumptsters jumping on this file case, after defending trump last year (i recall when the trump story broke, that many politicians will have these documents after serving...which neither side seemed willing to admit, depending on which story broke).
The right attacks against the Cap police officer who shot the invader, while defending cops who kill citizens who resist arrest.
It would be a big step towards getting the people of this country back on a better track, if we could all just admit the obvious flaws from whichever team you're on., rather than defending them,. And step away from the sole focus on what's wrong with their side, rather than how do we fix the problems at hand. ..of course by providing solutions that are negotiable, with give and take.
For the record, Biden is not 'my team' (and neither is trump!). Also for the record: anyone found improperly holding classified documents should be investigated and probably punished. So far* what Biden (and cohorts yet to be determined) is nowhere near what trump did in scale/severity or audacity. Now, let's investigate them both and let the cards fall where they may.
*- Long way to go and all, but until Biden is in court fighting subpoenas this is still 100:1 Trump: Biden.
No, this is a response to Scott's comments in another thread where he made this connection. I inquired to what he meant but never got a reply. So I said this as an assumption to the point he was trying to make.
Kyle Rittenhouse is a rising star for shooting people while defending himself and the property of others 20 miles from home in another state while the woman who is part of a group that trampled fencing and smashed windows to trespass at the Capital is innocent while climbing through a chamber barricaded by the Capital Police. The ability to completely ignore previous statements to support the new tribe rhetoric is exhausting. Pretzel logic concedes far too much mental dexterity.
As to not being seen as a card-carrying Communist by Kurt et al, I agree that the guy shot while carrying a plastic gun had it coming. I'm against handguns, and think any carry (open or concealed ) is F*#&ing stupid...but you gotta know the rules for the home field if you're gonna play the game. When you point something at people that looks like a gun and tell them to give you their money, you'd better be prepared for the response.
I'm going to break the rules here, and agree with you.
The right attacks against the Cap police officer who shot the invader, while defending cops who kill citizens who resist arrest.
Kyle Rittenhouse is a rising star for shooting people while defending himself and the property of others 20 miles from home in another state while the woman who is part of a group that trampled fencing and smashed windows to trespass at the Capital is innocent while climbing through a chamber barricaded by the Capital Police. The ability to completely ignore previous statements to support the new tribe rhetoric is exhausting. Pretzel logic concedes far too much mental dexterity.
As to not being seen as a card-carrying Communist by Kurt et al, I agree that the guy shot while carrying a plastic gun had it coming. I'm against handguns, and think any carry (open or concealed ) is F*#&ing stupid...but you gotta know the rules for the home field if you're gonna play the game. When you point something at people that looks like a gun and tell them to give you their money, you'd better be prepared for the response.
Yeah, laugh. I'll laugh at you trying to equate the shooting of a robber with a toy gun as being just as unarmed as the actually unarmed protester shot on January 6.
You keep bringing up in several contexts this “unarmed protester” shot on January 6. She and others were attempting to break through a substantial barricade to gain entry to an area where members of Congress were located. The Capitol Police officer who shot her after she ignored warnings viewed it as a “last resort” to save lives of those members. He was not aware she was unarmed. Threats had been made by those seeking to break through. It was an unfortunate tragedy, and, in hindsight, it could have been avoided, but, under the circumstances, she was not an innocent murdered by the Capitol Police.
No, this is a response to Scott's comments in another thread where he made this connection. I inquired to what he meant but never got a reply. So I said this as an assumption to the point he was trying to make.
