Oldbear83 said:

---

You work on your own logs, Porteroso. My honesty beats yours by a mile any day.

---

It's not an honesty contest. It's prove your point and you have not.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Actually no, you are providing no proof at all, and ignoring the actual definition of the words you use. Sitting at Pelosi's desk is not insurrection, nor is walking around dressed like a cartoon character. With no firearms or explosives, no evidence of strategy or direction, your claims start as specious and only stink worse over time.

---

The insurrectionists broke into the House to sit in Pelosi's chair? Call and make appointment to sit there.
Intent matters which was overturn a government

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You work on your own logs, Porteroso. My honesty beats yours by a mile any day.

---

It's not an honesty contest. It's prove your point and you have not.

---

Porteroso made the honesty claim, and like you,tried to twist my words. And like you, he failed.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You work on your own logs, Porteroso. My honesty beats yours by a mile any day.

---

It's not an honesty contest. It's prove your point and you have not.

---

Porteroso made the honesty claim, and like you,tried to twist my words. And like you, he failed.

---

No, you started with saying people were lying. That is an honesty claim.

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You work on your own logs, Porteroso. My honesty beats yours by a mile any day.

---

It's not an honesty contest. It's prove your point and you have not.

---

Porteroso made the honesty claim, and like you,tried to twist my words. And like you, he failed.

---

No, you started with saying people were lying. That is an honesty claim.

---

You don't know Porteroso or his tactics, I perceive.

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You work on your own logs, Porteroso. My honesty beats yours by a mile any day.

---

It's not an honesty contest. It's prove your point and you have not.

---

The claim was that Jan 6 was an insurrection. It is your side which has utterly failed to support that claim.

Small wonder you try to change the point.

Oldbear83 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You work on your own logs, Porteroso. My honesty beats yours by a mile any day.

---

It's not an honesty contest. It's prove your point and you have not.

---

Porteroso made the honesty claim, and like you,tried to twist my words. And like you, he failed.

---

No, you started with saying people were lying. That is an honesty claim.

---

You don't know Porteroso or his tactics, I perceive.

---

That has nothing to do with what 90sbear said. Address the substance of his post.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You work on your own logs, Porteroso. My honesty beats yours by a mile any day.

---

It's not an honesty contest. It's prove your point and you have not.

---

Porteroso made the honesty claim, and like you,tried to twist my words. And like you, he failed.

---

No, you started with saying people were lying. That is an honesty claim.

---

You don't know Porteroso or his tactics, I perceive.

---

That has nothing to do with what 90sbear said. Address the substance of his post.

---

I have answered in substance. That you dislike my answer does not invalidate it.

I note the irony of quash demanding someone else answer in substance, given his personal aversion to substance.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You work on your own logs, Porteroso. My honesty beats yours by a mile any day.

---

It's not an honesty contest. It's prove your point and you have not.

---

Porteroso made the honesty claim, and like you,tried to twist my words. And like you, he failed.

---

No, you started with saying people were lying. That is an honesty claim.

---

You don't know Porteroso or his tactics, I perceive.

---

That has nothing to do with what 90sbear said. Address the substance of his post.

---

I have answered in substance. That you dislike my answer does not invalidate it.

I note the irony of quash demanding someone else answer in substance, given his personal aversion to substance.

---

No. You were called out for being the one who made the first honesty claim. You avoided the charge and attacked Porteroso.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You work on your own logs, Porteroso. My honesty beats yours by a mile any day.

---

It's not an honesty contest. It's prove your point and you have not.

---

Porteroso made the honesty claim, and like you,tried to twist my words. And like you, he failed.

---

No, you started with saying people were lying. That is an honesty claim.

---

You don't know Porteroso or his tactics, I perceive.

---

That has nothing to do with what 90sbear said. Address the substance of his post.

---

I have answered in substance. That you dislike my answer does not invalidate it.

I note the irony of quash demanding someone else answer in substance, given his personal aversion to substance.

---

No. You were called out for being the one who made the first honesty claim. You avoided the charge and attacked Porteroso.

---

You have a very unique version of 'reality,' q. And my point about your aversion to substance is more pertinent than ever.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You work on your own logs, Porteroso. My honesty beats yours by a mile any day.

---

It's not an honesty contest. It's prove your point and you have not.

---

Porteroso made the honesty claim, and like you,tried to twist my words. And like you, he failed.

---

No, you started with saying people were lying. That is an honesty claim.

---

You don't know Porteroso or his tactics, I perceive.

---

That has nothing to do with what 90sbear said. Address the substance of his post.

---

I have answered in substance. That you dislike my answer does not invalidate it.

I note the irony of quash demanding someone else answer in substance, given his personal aversion to substance.

---

No. You were called out for being the one who made the first honesty claim. You avoided the charge and attacked Porteroso.

---

You have a very unique version of 'reality,' q. And my point about your aversion to substance is more pertinent than ever.

---

Probably because I don't need scare quotes when I deal in reality.

The charge by 90sbear stands unrefuted.

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I think anyone who broke the law and committed violence on Jan. 6th needs to be held accountable. I've said that from day one. So, how is that "excusing" them?

Like you, I do wish Trump would go away. The difference between us is I don't let my personal dislike of the man make me nuts. I still have the ability to think rationally.

---

You're allegiance to your narrative determines your response

Video of mostly peaceful Jan 6 insurrection
HBO trailer 2 hours of mostly peaceful mob

---

I notice you didn't answer my question. Let me repeat it in case you missed it.

How is not believing this was a violent insurrection excusing the protestors who committed violence?

The only one married to a narrative here is you, bro.

---

Cool answer, Bro

---

Are you scared to answer my question? Too difficult for you?

Huh. Never figured you for a coward.

---

It's a fiction.
This was an insurrection trying to install the losing candidate as POTUS

You're spiinning Trump's narrative

Did I answer your question?

---

How could they have installed the losing candidate?

---

I don't think they could. They believed they could.
A stupid bank robber still tried to rob the bank

---

Harassing the tellers and the manager doesn't make you a bank robber.

---

This is what happens to a narrative when intent is excluded.

---

No, it's what happens when you stop looking for narratives and deal in the realities.

Some folks are vaccine deniers.

Quash is a fact-denier, or rather, he manufactures his own narratives he calls 'reality'.

Good luck with that son, that way went Hunter Biden.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You work on your own logs, Porteroso. My honesty beats yours by a mile any day.

---

It's not an honesty contest. It's prove your point and you have not.

---

Porteroso made the honesty claim, and like you,tried to twist my words. And like you, he failed.

---

You're ignorant, but true to societal form in 2021, you're not letting that stop you from putting your uninformed opinion on blast. I bet you're big on tiktok.

Porteroso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You work on your own logs, Porteroso. My honesty beats yours by a mile any day.

---

It's not an honesty contest. It's prove your point and you have not.

---

Porteroso made the honesty claim, and like you,tried to twist my words. And like you, he failed.

---

You're ignorant, but true to societal form in 2021, you're not letting that stop you from putting your uninformed opinion on blast. I bet you're big on tiktok.

---

Ahhh, Porteroso, I can always count on you to make absurd, laughable claims and assertions.

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I think anyone who broke the law and committed violence on Jan. 6th needs to be held accountable. I've said that from day one. So, how is that "excusing" them?

Like you, I do wish Trump would go away. The difference between us is I don't let my personal dislike of the man make me nuts. I still have the ability to think rationally.

---

You're allegiance to your narrative determines your response

Video of mostly peaceful Jan 6 insurrection
HBO trailer 2 hours of mostly peaceful mob

---

I notice you didn't answer my question. Let me repeat it in case you missed it.

How is not believing this was a violent insurrection excusing the protestors who committed violence?

The only one married to a narrative here is you, bro.

---

Cool answer, Bro

---

Are you scared to answer my question? Too difficult for you?

Huh. Never figured you for a coward.

---

It's a fiction.
This was an insurrection trying to install the losing candidate as POTUS

You're spiinning Trump's narrative

Did I answer your question?

---

How could they have installed the losing candidate?

---

I don't think they could. They believed they could.
A stupid bank robber still tried to rob the bank

---

Harassing the tellers and the manager doesn't make you a bank robber.

---

This is what happens to a narrative when intent is excluded.

---

No, it's what happens when you stop looking for narratives and deal in the realities.

---

The reality is that those people stormed the capital to interfere with a valid election. Some of them with the expressed intent to use violence against the Vice President. You leave that reality out of your narrative. Why?

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I think anyone who broke the law and committed violence on Jan. 6th needs to be held accountable. I've said that from day one. So, how is that "excusing" them?

Like you, I do wish Trump would go away. The difference between us is I don't let my personal dislike of the man make me nuts. I still have the ability to think rationally.

---

You're allegiance to your narrative determines your response

Video of mostly peaceful Jan 6 insurrection
HBO trailer 2 hours of mostly peaceful mob

---

I notice you didn't answer my question. Let me repeat it in case you missed it.

How is not believing this was a violent insurrection excusing the protestors who committed violence?

The only one married to a narrative here is you, bro.

---

Cool answer, Bro

---

Are you scared to answer my question? Too difficult for you?

Huh. Never figured you for a coward.

---

It's a fiction.
This was an insurrection trying to install the losing candidate as POTUS

You're spiinning Trump's narrative

Did I answer your question?

---

How could they have installed the losing candidate?

---

I don't think they could. They believed they could.
A stupid bank robber still tried to rob the bank

---

Harassing the tellers and the manager doesn't make you a bank robber.

---

This is what happens to a narrative when intent is excluded.

---

No, it's what happens when you stop looking for narratives and deal in the realities.

---

The reality is that those people stormed the capital to interfere with a valid election. Some of them with the expressed intent to use violence against the Vice President. You leave that reality out of your narrative. Why?

---

quash: the election wasn't stolen because no court of law has determined it so

also quash: is was insurrection despite that a court of law hasn't determined it so

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I think anyone who broke the law and committed violence on Jan. 6th needs to be held accountable. I've said that from day one. So, how is that "excusing" them?

Like you, I do wish Trump would go away. The difference between us is I don't let my personal dislike of the man make me nuts. I still have the ability to think rationally.

---

You're allegiance to your narrative determines your response

Video of mostly peaceful Jan 6 insurrection
HBO trailer 2 hours of mostly peaceful mob

---

I notice you didn't answer my question. Let me repeat it in case you missed it.

How is not believing this was a violent insurrection excusing the protestors who committed violence?

The only one married to a narrative here is you, bro.

---

Cool answer, Bro

---

Are you scared to answer my question? Too difficult for you?

Huh. Never figured you for a coward.

---

It's a fiction.
This was an insurrection trying to install the losing candidate as POTUS

You're spiinning Trump's narrative

Did I answer your question?

---

How could they have installed the losing candidate?

---

I don't think they could. They believed they could.
A stupid bank robber still tried to rob the bank

---

Harassing the tellers and the manager doesn't make you a bank robber.

---

This is what happens to a narrative when intent is excluded.

---

No, it's what happens when you stop looking for narratives and deal in the realities.

---

The reality is that those people stormed the capital to interfere with a valid election. Some of them with the expressed intent to use violence against the Vice President. You leave that reality out of your narrative. Why?

---

Name the people who made that threat, please.

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I think anyone who broke the law and committed violence on Jan. 6th needs to be held accountable. I've said that from day one. So, how is that "excusing" them?

Like you, I do wish Trump would go away. The difference between us is I don't let my personal dislike of the man make me nuts. I still have the ability to think rationally.

---

You're allegiance to your narrative determines your response

Video of mostly peaceful Jan 6 insurrection
HBO trailer 2 hours of mostly peaceful mob

---

I notice you didn't answer my question. Let me repeat it in case you missed it.

How is not believing this was a violent insurrection excusing the protestors who committed violence?

The only one married to a narrative here is you, bro.

---

Cool answer, Bro

---

Are you scared to answer my question? Too difficult for you?

Huh. Never figured you for a coward.

---

It's a fiction.
This was an insurrection trying to install the losing candidate as POTUS

You're spiinning Trump's narrative

Did I answer your question?

---

How could they have installed the losing candidate?

---

I don't think they could. They believed they could.
A stupid bank robber still tried to rob the bank

---

Harassing the tellers and the manager doesn't make you a bank robber.

---

This is what happens to a narrative when intent is excluded.

---

No, it's what happens when you stop looking for narratives and deal in the realities.

---

The reality is that those people stormed the capital to interfere with a valid election. Some of them with the expressed intent to use violence against the Vice President. You leave that reality out of your narrative. Why?

---

If requiring a narrative is necessary to make something an insurrection, that should be your first clue it isn't. Their protest of an election they felt was unfair and/or fraudulent (regardless of whether you and I agree with it) didn't turn into an insurrection because their protest got out of hand with a riot breaking out. Even people saying dumb **** doesn't instantly turn it into an insurrection. You and others are playing this game in reverse. "Oh, this happened so the riot is an insurrection". That's not the way insurrections work. The damn guy they were insurrecting for was heading off to safety and telling them to "be peaceful", "we love the police", "leave the Capitol", etc. But we need to ignore that because "it wasn't soon enough", "he was forced to say that" etc. Build the narrative you want. I know what an insurrection is, and this wasn't one.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I think anyone who broke the law and committed violence on Jan. 6th needs to be held accountable. I've said that from day one. So, how is that "excusing" them?

Like you, I do wish Trump would go away. The difference between us is I don't let my personal dislike of the man make me nuts. I still have the ability to think rationally.

---

You're allegiance to your narrative determines your response

Video of mostly peaceful Jan 6 insurrection
HBO trailer 2 hours of mostly peaceful mob

---

I notice you didn't answer my question. Let me repeat it in case you missed it.

How is not believing this was a violent insurrection excusing the protestors who committed violence?

The only one married to a narrative here is you, bro.

---

Cool answer, Bro

---

Are you scared to answer my question? Too difficult for you?

Huh. Never figured you for a coward.

---

It's a fiction.
This was an insurrection trying to install the losing candidate as POTUS

You're spiinning Trump's narrative

Did I answer your question?

---

How could they have installed the losing candidate?

---

I don't think they could. They believed they could.
A stupid bank robber still tried to rob the bank

---

Harassing the tellers and the manager doesn't make you a bank robber.

---

This is what happens to a narrative when intent is excluded.

---

No, it's what happens when you stop looking for narratives and deal in the realities.

---

The reality is that those people stormed the capital to interfere with a valid election. Some of them with the expressed intent to use violence against the Vice President. You leave that reality out of your narrative. Why?

---

Name the people who made that threat, please.

---

"Do your own homework."

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I think anyone who broke the law and committed violence on Jan. 6th needs to be held accountable. I've said that from day one. So, how is that "excusing" them?

Like you, I do wish Trump would go away. The difference between us is I don't let my personal dislike of the man make me nuts. I still have the ability to think rationally.

---

You're allegiance to your narrative determines your response

Video of mostly peaceful Jan 6 insurrection
HBO trailer 2 hours of mostly peaceful mob

---

I notice you didn't answer my question. Let me repeat it in case you missed it.

How is not believing this was a violent insurrection excusing the protestors who committed violence?

The only one married to a narrative here is you, bro.

---

Cool answer, Bro

---

Are you scared to answer my question? Too difficult for you?

Huh. Never figured you for a coward.

---

It's a fiction.
This was an insurrection trying to install the losing candidate as POTUS

You're spiinning Trump's narrative

Did I answer your question?

---

How could they have installed the losing candidate?

---

I don't think they could. They believed they could.
A stupid bank robber still tried to rob the bank

---

Harassing the tellers and the manager doesn't make you a bank robber.

---

This is what happens to a narrative when intent is excluded.

---

No, it's what happens when you stop looking for narratives and deal in the realities.

---

The reality is that those people stormed the capital to interfere with a valid election. Some of them with the expressed intent to use violence against the Vice President. You leave that reality out of your narrative. Why?

---

Armed with selfie sticks and MAGA flags in hand. LOL!!! The next "Insurrection" should bring some firearms. Just a suggestion.

81 million people? Bless your heart.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I think anyone who broke the law and committed violence on Jan. 6th needs to be held accountable. I've said that from day one. So, how is that "excusing" them?

Like you, I do wish Trump would go away. The difference between us is I don't let my personal dislike of the man make me nuts. I still have the ability to think rationally.

---

You're allegiance to your narrative determines your response

Video of mostly peaceful Jan 6 insurrection
HBO trailer 2 hours of mostly peaceful mob

---

I notice you didn't answer my question. Let me repeat it in case you missed it.

How is not believing this was a violent insurrection excusing the protestors who committed violence?

The only one married to a narrative here is you, bro.

---

Cool answer, Bro

---

Are you scared to answer my question? Too difficult for you?

Huh. Never figured you for a coward.

---

It's a fiction.
This was an insurrection trying to install the losing candidate as POTUS

You're spiinning Trump's narrative

Did I answer your question?

---

How could they have installed the losing candidate?

---

I don't think they could. They believed they could.
A stupid bank robber still tried to rob the bank

---

Harassing the tellers and the manager doesn't make you a bank robber.

---

This is what happens to a narrative when intent is excluded.

---

No, it's what happens when you stop looking for narratives and deal in the realities.

---

The reality is that those people stormed the capital to interfere with a valid election. Some of them with the expressed intent to use violence against the Vice President. You leave that reality out of your narrative. Why?

---

Name the people who made that threat, please.

---

"Do your own homework."

---

Which in English means no one was ever charged with that crime, because that claim is just one of many lies about that day.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I think anyone who broke the law and committed violence on Jan. 6th needs to be held accountable. I've said that from day one. So, how is that "excusing" them?

Like you, I do wish Trump would go away. The difference between us is I don't let my personal dislike of the man make me nuts. I still have the ability to think rationally.

---

You're allegiance to your narrative determines your response

Video of mostly peaceful Jan 6 insurrection
HBO trailer 2 hours of mostly peaceful mob

---

I notice you didn't answer my question. Let me repeat it in case you missed it.

How is not believing this was a violent insurrection excusing the protestors who committed violence?

The only one married to a narrative here is you, bro.

---

Cool answer, Bro

---

Are you scared to answer my question? Too difficult for you?

Huh. Never figured you for a coward.

---

It's a fiction.
This was an insurrection trying to install the losing candidate as POTUS

You're spiinning Trump's narrative

Did I answer your question?

---

How could they have installed the losing candidate?

---

I don't think they could. They believed they could.
A stupid bank robber still tried to rob the bank

---

Harassing the tellers and the manager doesn't make you a bank robber.

---

This is what happens to a narrative when intent is excluded.

---

No, it's what happens when you stop looking for narratives and deal in the realities.

---

The reality is that those people stormed the capital to interfere with a valid election. Some of them with the expressed intent to use violence against the Vice President. You leave that reality out of your narrative. Why?

---

Armed with selfie sticks and MAGA flags in hand. LOL!!! The next "Insurrection" should bring some firearms. Just a suggestion.

81 million people? Bless your heart.

---

Over a hundred injured, five dead, **** smeared on the walls. Just strayed a little from the tour.

The 81 million votes has solid evidence to support it. Your belief that basements and small rallies counters all that evidence is weak at best, a like on average, and an attack on democracy at worst.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I think anyone who broke the law and committed violence on Jan. 6th needs to be held accountable. I've said that from day one. So, how is that "excusing" them?

Like you, I do wish Trump would go away. The difference between us is I don't let my personal dislike of the man make me nuts. I still have the ability to think rationally.

---

You're allegiance to your narrative determines your response

Video of mostly peaceful Jan 6 insurrection
HBO trailer 2 hours of mostly peaceful mob

---

I notice you didn't answer my question. Let me repeat it in case you missed it.

How is not believing this was a violent insurrection excusing the protestors who committed violence?

The only one married to a narrative here is you, bro.

---

Cool answer, Bro

---

Are you scared to answer my question? Too difficult for you?

Huh. Never figured you for a coward.

---

It's a fiction.
This was an insurrection trying to install the losing candidate as POTUS

You're spiinning Trump's narrative

Did I answer your question?

---

How could they have installed the losing candidate?

---

I don't think they could. They believed they could.
A stupid bank robber still tried to rob the bank

---

Harassing the tellers and the manager doesn't make you a bank robber.

---

This is what happens to a narrative when intent is excluded.

---

No, it's what happens when you stop looking for narratives and deal in the realities.

---

The reality is that those people stormed the capital to interfere with a valid election. Some of them with the expressed intent to use violence against the Vice President. You leave that reality out of your narrative. Why?

---

Name the people who made that threat, please.

---

"Do your own homework."

---

Which in English means no one was ever charged with that crime, because that claim is just one of many lies about that day.

---

Arrests are still being made but if you had done your homework you'd have turned up Rachel Myers among others.

quash said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I think anyone who broke the law and committed violence on Jan. 6th needs to be held accountable. I've said that from day one. So, how is that "excusing" them?

Like you, I do wish Trump would go away. The difference between us is I don't let my personal dislike of the man make me nuts. I still have the ability to think rationally.

---

You're allegiance to your narrative determines your response

Video of mostly peaceful Jan 6 insurrection
HBO trailer 2 hours of mostly peaceful mob

---

I notice you didn't answer my question. Let me repeat it in case you missed it.

How is not believing this was a violent insurrection excusing the protestors who committed violence?

The only one married to a narrative here is you, bro.

---

Cool answer, Bro

---

Are you scared to answer my question? Too difficult for you?

Huh. Never figured you for a coward.

---

It's a fiction.
This was an insurrection trying to install the losing candidate as POTUS

You're spiinning Trump's narrative

Did I answer your question?

---

How could they have installed the losing candidate?

---

I don't think they could. They believed they could.
A stupid bank robber still tried to rob the bank

---

Harassing the tellers and the manager doesn't make you a bank robber.

---

This is what happens to a narrative when intent is excluded.

---

No, it's what happens when you stop looking for narratives and deal in the realities.

---

The reality is that those people stormed the capital to interfere with a valid election. Some of them with the expressed intent to use violence against the Vice President. You leave that reality out of your narrative. Why?

---

Armed with selfie sticks and MAGA flags in hand. LOL!!! The next "Insurrection" should bring some firearms. Just a suggestion.

81 million people? Bless your heart.

---

Over a hundred injured, five dead, **** smeared on the walls. Just strayed a little from the tour.

---

1 dead

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I think anyone who broke the law and committed violence on Jan. 6th needs to be held accountable. I've said that from day one. So, how is that "excusing" them?

Like you, I do wish Trump would go away. The difference between us is I don't let my personal dislike of the man make me nuts. I still have the ability to think rationally.

---

You're allegiance to your narrative determines your response

Video of mostly peaceful Jan 6 insurrection
HBO trailer 2 hours of mostly peaceful mob

---

I notice you didn't answer my question. Let me repeat it in case you missed it.

How is not believing this was a violent insurrection excusing the protestors who committed violence?

The only one married to a narrative here is you, bro.

---

Cool answer, Bro

---

Are you scared to answer my question? Too difficult for you?

Huh. Never figured you for a coward.

---

It's a fiction.
This was an insurrection trying to install the losing candidate as POTUS

You're spiinning Trump's narrative

Did I answer your question?

---

How could they have installed the losing candidate?

---

I don't think they could. They believed they could.
A stupid bank robber still tried to rob the bank

---

Harassing the tellers and the manager doesn't make you a bank robber.

---

This is what happens to a narrative when intent is excluded.

---

No, it's what happens when you stop looking for narratives and deal in the realities.

---

The reality is that those people stormed the capital to interfere with a valid election. Some of them with the expressed intent to use violence against the Vice President. You leave that reality out of your narrative. Why?

---

Name the people who made that threat, please.

---

"Do your own homework."

---

Which in English means no one was ever charged with that crime, because that claim is just one of many lies about that day.

---

Arrests are still being made but if you had done your homework you'd have turned up Rachel Myers among others.

---

Fact is, over a year since the day in question zero people have been charged with that specific crime.

Keep believing the lies or sort out the facts from the fiction, your choice, but you don't look good clinging to this one.

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Why is anyone adding the "violent" insurrection qualifier? Some attempt to muddy the waters?

It was definitely an insurrection. The mob had the stated purpose of overthrowing the election, arresting Pelosi, a few wanted to hang the Vice President. That's just what insurrections are.

---

Everyone in that crowd wanted to overthrow the election? Interesting. Link?

---

It's a bit late for you to start wanting details from Jan 6. I've been over this on this forum several times. You can Google what the crowd chanted, you can Google what they posted on Facebook during the insurrection, you can Google who they hunted around the Capitol for, what they said in their court hearings of their motivation, I mean you could inform yourself any number of ways, but in the end, they wanted to breach the Capitol at that specific time to prevent Congress from accepting the States' certified results, and instead accept the alternate group of electors Trump wanted, or revote in states he lost.

---

I suspect I am more informed than you on the events of Jan. 6th. I was just curious if you could answer the question, which would help fit your square peg in the round hole.

Apparently not.

---

If you can't find the answer to your question in my post you need some new readers. Round, square, they just need to work for your eye balls.

---

It's humorous that you think what the crowd chanted, and what a few defendants said in court hearings evidences a meeting of the minds on an organized insurrection with stated goals.

In truth, we need look no further than the charges brought to see the fiction you are perpetuating. I understand your motivations for perpetuating that fiction.

---

You have a serious lack of honesty. You know what the motivation for the mob was, overthrowing the election, and yet you decide that doesn't matter because it wasn't organized enough?

And I've only said it dozens of times, but the state rarely charges anyone with treason or insurrection, due to how the law defines both, and the power of the First Amendment. That doesn't mean insurrection never happens, just that the state normally has plenty other things they can get an insurrectionist on.

If you are bringing up court proceedings, guess how many judges called it an insurrection?

---

The only person being dishonest here is you. The protest revolved around a demand that Pence and Congress reject Biden's victory, due to perceived voter fraud. I've given you the definition of insurrection, and this protest doesn't come close to falling within that definition.

If it's not an insurrection under the law, it's not an insurrection.

---

Words have meaning. This was an attempt to unseat a legitimate government. It can rightfully be called an insurrection, as it meets the standard set by the dictionary.

You might think it wasn't a particularly violent insurrection, even though you admit there was violence.... Or that it wasn't organized enough, even though right wing hate groups definitely planned on storming the Capitol..... But your opinion is just that. It's not sufficient to overthrow the dictionary.

You're pretty obviously contesting the dictionary because you feel adhering to it would hurt conservatives. You actually said that. That's what I mean by lack of honesty.

Honest people don't save reason for when it's convenient. They don't filter their facts through what makes their side look like it's winning.

---

I have provided the dictionary definition of "insurrection" in this very thread. It is you who is having a hard time making the protest fit within the definition. You've attempted to argue there was a meeting of the minds because of what the crowd chanted. That's extremely weak and flimsy evidence to support your position. Moreover, pointing to the actions or motivations of the few to support the idea that the entire protest was an insurrection is likewise weak. You are essentially attempting to apply a guilt by association standard to the large crowd of protestors, which I think we both know is intellectually dishonest.

I agree with you, words have meaning, which is why it's important we get those words right, regardless of the political costs. Your allegation I am disputing the dictionary definition for political reasons is simply a false. Instead, I was chiding a purported "conservative" for perpetuating a narrative any reasonable person knows to be false. The fact that he has let himself be used as a pawn for political purposes is a different issue entirely. Stop conflating the two.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I think anyone who broke the law and committed violence on Jan. 6th needs to be held accountable. I've said that from day one. So, how is that "excusing" them?

Like you, I do wish Trump would go away. The difference between us is I don't let my personal dislike of the man make me nuts. I still have the ability to think rationally.

---

You're allegiance to your narrative determines your response

Video of mostly peaceful Jan 6 insurrection
HBO trailer 2 hours of mostly peaceful mob

---

I notice you didn't answer my question. Let me repeat it in case you missed it.

How is not believing this was a violent insurrection excusing the protestors who committed violence?

The only one married to a narrative here is you, bro.

---

Cool answer, Bro

---

Are you scared to answer my question? Too difficult for you?

Huh. Never figured you for a coward.

---

It's a fiction.
This was an insurrection trying to install the losing candidate as POTUS

You're spiinning Trump's narrative

Did I answer your question?

---

How could they have installed the losing candidate?

---

I don't think they could. They believed they could.
A stupid bank robber still tried to rob the bank

---

Harassing the tellers and the manager doesn't make you a bank robber.

---

This is what happens to a narrative when intent is excluded.

---

No, it's what happens when you stop looking for narratives and deal in the realities.

---

The reality is that those people stormed the capital to interfere with a valid election. Some of them with the expressed intent to use violence against the Vice President. You leave that reality out of your narrative. Why?

---

Name the people who made that threat, please.

---

"Do your own homework."

---

Which in English means no one was ever charged with that crime, because that claim is just one of many lies about that day.

---

Arrests are still being made but if you had done your homework you'd have turned up Rachel Myers among others.

---

Fact is, over a year since the day in question zero people have been charged with that specific crime.

Keep believing the lies or sort out the facts from the fiction, your choice, but you don't look good clinging to this one.

---

The truth is threats were made against the Vice President. That was my point.

After I made my point you moved be goalposts from "threat" to "arrest". You are correct that no had ye been charged with assault by threat against Pence. But n Texas such a crime has to be committed by being in such proximity as to be able to carry out the threat, so you have chosen an absolutely safe position to defend: the starman zone. Congrats.

Canon said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I think anyone who broke the law and committed violence on Jan. 6th needs to be held accountable. I've said that from day one. So, how is that "excusing" them?

Like you, I do wish Trump would go away. The difference between us is I don't let my personal dislike of the man make me nuts. I still have the ability to think rationally.

---

You're allegiance to your narrative determines your response

Video of mostly peaceful Jan 6 insurrection
HBO trailer 2 hours of mostly peaceful mob

---

I notice you didn't answer my question. Let me repeat it in case you missed it.

How is not believing this was a violent insurrection excusing the protestors who committed violence?

The only one married to a narrative here is you, bro.

---

Cool answer, Bro

---

Are you scared to answer my question? Too difficult for you?

Huh. Never figured you for a coward.

---

It's a fiction.
This was an insurrection trying to install the losing candidate as POTUS

You're spiinning Trump's narrative

Did I answer your question?

---

How could they have installed the losing candidate?

---

I don't think they could. They believed they could.
A stupid bank robber still tried to rob the bank

---

Harassing the tellers and the manager doesn't make you a bank robber.

---

This is what happens to a narrative when intent is excluded.

---

No, it's what happens when you stop looking for narratives and deal in the realities.

---

The reality is that those people stormed the capital to interfere with a valid election. Some of them with the expressed intent to use violence against the Vice President. You leave that reality out of your narrative. Why?

---

Armed with selfie sticks and MAGA flags in hand. LOL!!! The next "Insurrection" should bring some firearms. Just a suggestion.

81 million people? Bless your heart.

---

Over a hundred injured, five dead, **** smeared on the walls. Just strayed a little from the tour.

---

1 dead

---

Quash is a liar. He knows he lies.

---

"Ashli Babbitt, an Air Force veteran, was fatally shot by a Capitol Police officer as rioters tried to breach the House chamber.

Kevin D. Greeson died of a heart attack, collapsing on the sidewalk west of the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Rosanne Boyland appeared to have been crushed in a stampede of fellow rioters as they surged against the police.

Benjamin Philips, the founder of a pro-Trump website called Trumparoo, died of a stroke.
Officer Brian D. Sicknick of the Capitol Police, who was attacked by the mob, died on Jan. 7.

Officer Jeffrey Smith of the Metropolitan Police Department killed himself after the attack.

Officer Howard S. Liebengood of the Capitol Police also died by suicide four days afterward."

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Canon said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I think anyone who broke the law and committed violence on Jan. 6th needs to be held accountable. I've said that from day one. So, how is that "excusing" them?

Like you, I do wish Trump would go away. The difference between us is I don't let my personal dislike of the man make me nuts. I still have the ability to think rationally.

---

You're allegiance to your narrative determines your response

Video of mostly peaceful Jan 6 insurrection
HBO trailer 2 hours of mostly peaceful mob

---

I notice you didn't answer my question. Let me repeat it in case you missed it.

How is not believing this was a violent insurrection excusing the protestors who committed violence?

The only one married to a narrative here is you, bro.

---

Cool answer, Bro

---

Are you scared to answer my question? Too difficult for you?

Huh. Never figured you for a coward.

---

It's a fiction.
This was an insurrection trying to install the losing candidate as POTUS

You're spiinning Trump's narrative

Did I answer your question?

---

How could they have installed the losing candidate?

---

I don't think they could. They believed they could.
A stupid bank robber still tried to rob the bank

---

Harassing the tellers and the manager doesn't make you a bank robber.

---

This is what happens to a narrative when intent is excluded.

---

No, it's what happens when you stop looking for narratives and deal in the realities.

---

The reality is that those people stormed the capital to interfere with a valid election. Some of them with the expressed intent to use violence against the Vice President. You leave that reality out of your narrative. Why?

---

Armed with selfie sticks and MAGA flags in hand. LOL!!! The next "Insurrection" should bring some firearms. Just a suggestion.

81 million people? Bless your heart.

---

Over a hundred injured, five dead, **** smeared on the walls. Just strayed a little from the tour.

---

1 dead

---

Quash is a liar. He knows he lies.

---

"Ashli Babbitt, an Air Force veteran, was fatally shot by a Capitol Police officer as rioters tried to breach the House chamber.

Kevin D. Greeson died of a heart attack, collapsing on the sidewalk west of the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Rosanne Boyland appeared to have been crushed in a stampede of fellow rioters as they surged against the police.

Benjamin Philips, the founder of a pro-Trump website called Trumparoo, died of a stroke.
Officer Brian D. Sicknick of the Capitol Police, who was attacked by the mob, died on Jan. 7.

Officer Jeffrey Smith of the Metropolitan Police Department killed himself after the attack.

Officer Howard S. Liebengood of the Capitol Police also died by suicide four days afterward."

---

Thanks for cataloging your lies.

---

Funny way to say "Thanks for setting out the facts" but you do you big fella.

quash said:

---

Canon said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I think anyone who broke the law and committed violence on Jan. 6th needs to be held accountable. I've said that from day one. So, how is that "excusing" them?

Like you, I do wish Trump would go away. The difference between us is I don't let my personal dislike of the man make me nuts. I still have the ability to think rationally.

---

You're allegiance to your narrative determines your response

Video of mostly peaceful Jan 6 insurrection
HBO trailer 2 hours of mostly peaceful mob

---

I notice you didn't answer my question. Let me repeat it in case you missed it.

How is not believing this was a violent insurrection excusing the protestors who committed violence?

The only one married to a narrative here is you, bro.

---

Cool answer, Bro

---

Are you scared to answer my question? Too difficult for you?

Huh. Never figured you for a coward.

---

It's a fiction.
This was an insurrection trying to install the losing candidate as POTUS

You're spiinning Trump's narrative

Did I answer your question?

---

How could they have installed the losing candidate?

---

I don't think they could. They believed they could.
A stupid bank robber still tried to rob the bank

---

Harassing the tellers and the manager doesn't make you a bank robber.

---

This is what happens to a narrative when intent is excluded.

---

No, it's what happens when you stop looking for narratives and deal in the realities.

---

The reality is that those people stormed the capital to interfere with a valid election. Some of them with the expressed intent to use violence against the Vice President. You leave that reality out of your narrative. Why?

---

Armed with selfie sticks and MAGA flags in hand. LOL!!! The next "Insurrection" should bring some firearms. Just a suggestion.

81 million people? Bless your heart.

---

Over a hundred injured, five dead, **** smeared on the walls. Just strayed a little from the tour.

---

1 dead

---

Quash is a liar. He knows he lies.

---

"Ashli Babbitt, an Air Force veteran, was fatally shot by a Capitol Police officer as rioters tried to breach the House chamber.

Kevin D. Greeson died of a heart attack, collapsing on the sidewalk west of the Capitol on Jan. 6. (So natural causes)

Rosanne Boyland appeared to have been crushed in a stampede of fellow rioters as they surged against the police. (Coroner said she died of a drug overdose)

Benjamin Philips, the founder of a pro-Trump website called Trumparoo, died of a stroke. (Natural causes)
Officer Brian D. Sicknick of the Capitol Police, who was attacked by the mob, died on Jan. 7. (Died of stroke. Natural causes)

Officer Jeffrey Smith of the Metropolitan Police Department killed himself after the attack. (Self inflicted. Why even mention this?)

Officer Howard S. Liebengood of the Capitol Police also died by suicide four days afterward. ." (Again, self inflicted)

---

So only one person died due to the protest? Thanks for backing us up.

Wangchung said:

---

quash said:

---

Canon said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I think anyone who broke the law and committed violence on Jan. 6th needs to be held accountable. I've said that from day one. So, how is that "excusing" them?

Like you, I do wish Trump would go away. The difference between us is I don't let my personal dislike of the man make me nuts. I still have the ability to think rationally.

---

You're allegiance to your narrative determines your response

Video of mostly peaceful Jan 6 insurrection
HBO trailer 2 hours of mostly peaceful mob

---

I notice you didn't answer my question. Let me repeat it in case you missed it.

How is not believing this was a violent insurrection excusing the protestors who committed violence?

The only one married to a narrative here is you, bro.

---

Cool answer, Bro

---

Are you scared to answer my question? Too difficult for you?

Huh. Never figured you for a coward.

---

It's a fiction.
This was an insurrection trying to install the losing candidate as POTUS

You're spiinning Trump's narrative

Did I answer your question?

---

How could they have installed the losing candidate?

---

I don't think they could. They believed they could.
A stupid bank robber still tried to rob the bank

---

Harassing the tellers and the manager doesn't make you a bank robber.

---

This is what happens to a narrative when intent is excluded.

---

No, it's what happens when you stop looking for narratives and deal in the realities.

---

The reality is that those people stormed the capital to interfere with a valid election. Some of them with the expressed intent to use violence against the Vice President. You leave that reality out of your narrative. Why?

---

Armed with selfie sticks and MAGA flags in hand. LOL!!! The next "Insurrection" should bring some firearms. Just a suggestion.

81 million people? Bless your heart.

---

Over a hundred injured, five dead, **** smeared on the walls. Just strayed a little from the tour.

---

1 dead

---

Quash is a liar. He knows he lies.

---

"Ashli Babbitt, an Air Force veteran, was fatally shot by a Capitol Police officer as rioters tried to breach the House chamber.

Kevin D. Greeson died of a heart attack, collapsing on the sidewalk west of the Capitol on Jan. 6. (So natural causes)

Rosanne Boyland appeared to have been crushed in a stampede of fellow rioters as they surged against the police. (Coroner said she died of a drug overdose)

Benjamin Philips, the founder of a pro-Trump website called Trumparoo, died of a stroke. (Natural causes)
Officer Brian D. Sicknick of the Capitol Police, who was attacked by the mob, died on Jan. 7. (Died of stroke. Natural causes)

Officer Jeffrey Smith of the Metropolitan Police Department killed himself after the attack. (Self inflicted. Why even mention this?)

Officer Howard S. Liebengood of the Capitol Police also died by suicide four days afterward. ." (Again, self inflicted)

---

So only one person died due to the protest? Thanks for backing us up.

---

I thought they were just rowdy tourists