Well said.Porteroso said:Canon said:Sam Lowry said:It discredits those who excuse it, and denial is a form of excuse. I mention it only because you seemed fairly credible until recently.whiterock said:Res Ipsa Loquitur. The allegation of insurrection is so patently absurd that it discredits those who utter it.Sam Lowry said:You obviously don't believe this. Curious why you post it.whiterock said:That stumbles at ontology. For a few dozens, it was a poorly conceived and organized effort to disrupt a process. For the other 99.99% of those present, it was less than a BLM protest. And even then, not even the instigators made the merest attempted to wrest power from the established order, which is the sine qua non of an insurrection.TexasScientist said:It's a classic example, although it was poorly conceived and organized. For some it was planned, and others spontaneous.whiterock said:The problem with your reasoning is in the first sentence. Nobody staged an insurrection on Jan 6th.Aliceinbubbleland said:
I just keep saying and most far right deny but if BLM's had staged the insurrection on Jan 6th you would be ****ting all over yourselves.
At least Liz has the courage to try and remain constant unlike other Senate and House leaders flip flopping all over themselves in condemning Trump, then turning around and denying anything happened.
I don't like the hearings. We have enough of those. But anyone who thinks we were justified in storming the Capital is bat **** crazy.
The unseriousness of the allegation is so outlandish it justifies removing from positions of responsibility those who propagate such nonsense. Ergo the decision to move Cheney to the backbenches.
You exemplify the discredit he cites. No thinking person would honestly and seriously attempt to characterize 6 Jan as anything other than a band of morons walking their protest into a public building and taking selfie's with police or in offices in which they didn't belong.
Anyone who claims an insurrection took place against the most powerful nation on earth, perpetrated by random, disorganized protesters with zero firearms, where the only killing was that of a protester by an unnamed policeman, is either a partisan liar or an imbecile.
Bringing up the label of moron isn't going to work out for you.
The stated purpose of the insurrection was to stop the validation of the American vote, and Trump was asking Pence to declare alternate electors. Pence refused, so hanging Pence was another stated goal of some of the protesters.
If they had accomplished these goals, we would have our first dictator presently, so in what world is that not an insurrection? Sure, most weren't armed, and only a few people died, so this isn't like the French Revolution.
But how else do you describe a scenario where had they succeeded, the protesters would have ended democracy?
It says a lot about you radicals, that you refuse to condemn such an open attempt to burn the Constitution and hang the Vice President.
Liz Cheney: The GOP is at a turning point. History is watching us
57,480 Views |
1080 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by Oldbear83
Just like a liberal, over-playing events to fit their narrative and agenda while ignoring what happened all summer long.Porteroso said:Canon said:Sam Lowry said:It discredits those who excuse it, and denial is a form of excuse. I mention it only because you seemed fairly credible until recently.whiterock said:Res Ipsa Loquitur. The allegation of insurrection is so patently absurd that it discredits those who utter it.Sam Lowry said:You obviously don't believe this. Curious why you post it.whiterock said:That stumbles at ontology. For a few dozens, it was a poorly conceived and organized effort to disrupt a process. For the other 99.99% of those present, it was less than a BLM protest. And even then, not even the instigators made the merest attempted to wrest power from the established order, which is the sine qua non of an insurrection.TexasScientist said:It's a classic example, although it was poorly conceived and organized. For some it was planned, and others spontaneous.whiterock said:The problem with your reasoning is in the first sentence. Nobody staged an insurrection on Jan 6th.Aliceinbubbleland said:
I just keep saying and most far right deny but if BLM's had staged the insurrection on Jan 6th you would be ****ting all over yourselves.
At least Liz has the courage to try and remain constant unlike other Senate and House leaders flip flopping all over themselves in condemning Trump, then turning around and denying anything happened.
I don't like the hearings. We have enough of those. But anyone who thinks we were justified in storming the Capital is bat **** crazy.
The unseriousness of the allegation is so outlandish it justifies removing from positions of responsibility those who propagate such nonsense. Ergo the decision to move Cheney to the backbenches.
You exemplify the discredit he cites. No thinking person would honestly and seriously attempt to characterize 6 Jan as anything other than a band of morons walking their protest into a public building and taking selfie's with police or in offices in which they didn't belong.
Anyone who claims an insurrection took place against the most powerful nation on earth, perpetrated by random, disorganized protesters with zero firearms, where the only killing was that of a protester by an unnamed policeman, is either a partisan liar or an imbecile.
Bringing up the label of moron isn't going to work out for you.
The stated purpose of the insurrection was to stop the validation of the American vote, and Trump was asking Pence to declare alternate electors. Pence refused, so hanging Pence was another stated goal of some of the protesters.
If they had accomplished these goals, we would have our first dictator presently, so in what world is that not an insurrection? Sure, most weren't armed, and only a few people died, so this isn't like the French Revolution.
But how else do you describe a scenario where had they succeeded, the protesters would have ended democracy?
It says a lot about you radicals, that you refuse to condemn such an open attempt to burn the Constitution and hang the Vice President.
What occurred in various cities over the summer comes closer to an insurrection than the band of dumbasses that entered the capitol building
Porteroso said:Canon said:Sam Lowry said:It discredits those who excuse it, and denial is a form of excuse. I mention it only because you seemed fairly credible until recently.whiterock said:Res Ipsa Loquitur. The allegation of insurrection is so patently absurd that it discredits those who utter it.Sam Lowry said:You obviously don't believe this. Curious why you post it.whiterock said:That stumbles at ontology. For a few dozens, it was a poorly conceived and organized effort to disrupt a process. For the other 99.99% of those present, it was less than a BLM protest. And even then, not even the instigators made the merest attempted to wrest power from the established order, which is the sine qua non of an insurrection.TexasScientist said:It's a classic example, although it was poorly conceived and organized. For some it was planned, and others spontaneous.whiterock said:The problem with your reasoning is in the first sentence. Nobody staged an insurrection on Jan 6th.Aliceinbubbleland said:
I just keep saying and most far right deny but if BLM's had staged the insurrection on Jan 6th you would be ****ting all over yourselves.
At least Liz has the courage to try and remain constant unlike other Senate and House leaders flip flopping all over themselves in condemning Trump, then turning around and denying anything happened.
I don't like the hearings. We have enough of those. But anyone who thinks we were justified in storming the Capital is bat **** crazy.
The unseriousness of the allegation is so outlandish it justifies removing from positions of responsibility those who propagate such nonsense. Ergo the decision to move Cheney to the backbenches.
You exemplify the discredit he cites. No thinking person would honestly and seriously attempt to characterize 6 Jan as anything other than a band of morons walking their protest into a public building and taking selfie's with police or in offices in which they didn't belong.
Anyone who claims an insurrection took place against the most powerful nation on earth, perpetrated by random, disorganized protesters with zero firearms, where the only killing was that of a protester by an unnamed policeman, is either a partisan liar or an imbecile.
Bringing up the label of moron isn't going to work out for you.
The stated purpose of the insurrection was to stop the validation of the American vote, and Trump was asking Pence to declare alternate electors. Pence refused, so hanging Pence was another stated goal of some of the protesters.
If they had accomplished these goals, we would have our first dictator presently, so in what world is that not an insurrection? Sure, most weren't armed, and only a few people died, so this isn't like the French Revolution.
But how else do you describe a scenario where had they succeeded, the protesters would have ended democracy?
It says a lot about you radicals, that you refuse to condemn such an open attempt to burn the Constitution and hang the Vice President.
"Ended Democracy"? LOLOLOLOLOL!!!
Join the rest of us in reality.
It gets down to what's believable and probable based upon objective analyisis.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:Critical scholars and historians tell us what they did. It's evidenced in their early writings, including the gospels.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:That's why disillusioned early Christians latched onto anything they could try to rationalize into an explanation for what happened.curtpenn said:The whole approach of the Borgs and Crossans (and their Continental forbearers) of the world is their work is based on a priori reasoning and nothing truly empirical. Short version - their conclusions are just opinions based on their inherent presuppositions and biases.TexasScientist said:Well, in that sense we don't. But we can be reasonably sure by critical and historical biblical scholarship.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:We don't reallly know what Jesus said. We know what Paul said in his authentic letters. Paul didn't know what Jesus said. He knows what he may have been told Jesus said. I'm sure one of the reasons Paul visited with James, Jesus brother was to hear what James had to say about Jesus. There is no way to know how much Jesus message was embellished by others over a few years of oral retelling.curtpenn said:So, if Paul said that Jesus said something, then Jesus must have said that then?TexasScientist said:I didn't say Paul. I said what Jesus said. We know some of what Paul said from his letters, the ones he actually wrote. (not the ones attributed to him that he didn't write)curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:The message formulated in time, and there were differing teachings from the start. It's plain in the ealiest writings of Paul. There is no way to know what Jesus actually said, or taught, other than by supposition, speculation, and conjecture.Oldbear83 said:My point is that essentially from the start, Christianity had a popular and clear message. The arguments and division only showed up later, after the Church began to enjoy earthly wealth and influence among nobles.TexasScientist said:Early fourth century. My point is there were many aspects of Christianity, the nature and divinity of Christ, and even God that were unsettlled for centuries, all the way to Nicaea. Constantine wanted to resolve the conflicts. Even the council couldn't obtain complete resolution and uniformity. And yet, and even today there isn't uniformity of belief.Oldbear83 said:When exactly do you think Constantine was Emperor, TS?TexasScientist said:No need for the Constantine's First Council of Nicaea then. I guess he was wrong about the need.Oldbear83 said:
We do know that within a generation of the execution of Christ, the Christian movement was growing fast enough to concern both Jewish and Roman authorities.
I leave it to the reader to decide what caused that rapid growth, but I doubt it was confusion or a vague message.
That is, Christ's message was clear from the start, it has always been humans who changed the message to suit their personal ambition that muddied the waters.
If you can only know by conjecture, the you cannot know there were differing teachings or even what Paul said since you say it is all conjecture.
How do we know what Paul said without actually having his original writings complete with verifiable provenance? You assume writings attributed to Paul are somehow accurate whereas those attributed to others are not. Odd.
I rely on the consensus settled work of critical biblical scholars and historians. Scholars who make their historical judgments apart from what they would personally like to believe about the Bible from a religious standpoint.
I don't believe Paul wrote all of the letters attributed to Paul. There are numerous writings attributed to Paul and other christian leaders i.e. Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, 1st and 2nd Peter etc. that are obviously forgeries written in their names by other christians. A lot of the books considered for inclusion but omitted from the Bible were excluded in part due to questions of authenticity. Revelations almost didn't make it into the Bible in part for this reason. Obviously, some made it in that clearly have authenticity of the author in doubt.
How can you know what early Christians "latched onto"?
Critical scholars and historians tell us what they believe they did. Still amounts to using something viewed as flawed or in error in some way to evaluate that same presumed flawed or in error information. What could possibly go wrong?
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
It wasn't a random gathering. It was an insurection of morons, called to Washington, whipped up, and mobilized by a moron.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:It discredits those who excuse it, and denial is a form of excuse. I mention it only because you seemed fairly credible until recently.whiterock said:Res Ipsa Loquitur. The allegation of insurrection is so patently absurd that it discredits those who utter it.Sam Lowry said:You obviously don't believe this. Curious why you post it.whiterock said:That stumbles at ontology. For a few dozens, it was a poorly conceived and organized effort to disrupt a process. For the other 99.99% of those present, it was less than a BLM protest. And even then, not even the instigators made the merest attempted to wrest power from the established order, which is the sine qua non of an insurrection.TexasScientist said:It's a classic example, although it was poorly conceived and organized. For some it was planned, and others spontaneous.whiterock said:The problem with your reasoning is in the first sentence. Nobody staged an insurrection on Jan 6th.Aliceinbubbleland said:
I just keep saying and most far right deny but if BLM's had staged the insurrection on Jan 6th you would be ****ting all over yourselves.
At least Liz has the courage to try and remain constant unlike other Senate and House leaders flip flopping all over themselves in condemning Trump, then turning around and denying anything happened.
I don't like the hearings. We have enough of those. But anyone who thinks we were justified in storming the Capital is bat **** crazy.
The unseriousness of the allegation is so outlandish it justifies removing from positions of responsibility those who propagate such nonsense. Ergo the decision to move Cheney to the backbenches.
You exemplify the discredit he cites. No thinking person would honestly and seriously attempt to characterize 6 Jan as anything other than a band of morons walking their protest into a public building and taking selfie's with police or in offices in which they didn't belong.
Anyone who claims an insurrection took place against the most powerful nation on earth, perpetrated by random, disorganized protesters with zero firearms, where the only killing was that of a protester by an unnamed policeman, is either a partisan liar or an imbecile.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
If it was an insurrection, they would've been armed, they all would've entered the building and they probably would've burned it to the ground. You know, exhibited the same behavior took place over the summer after politicians like maxine waters and the media like CNN whipped you libs into a frenzy.TexasScientist said:It wasn't a random gathering. It was an insurection of morons, called to Washington, whipped up, and mobilized by a moron.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:It discredits those who excuse it, and denial is a form of excuse. I mention it only because you seemed fairly credible until recently.whiterock said:Res Ipsa Loquitur. The allegation of insurrection is so patently absurd that it discredits those who utter it.Sam Lowry said:You obviously don't believe this. Curious why you post it.whiterock said:That stumbles at ontology. For a few dozens, it was a poorly conceived and organized effort to disrupt a process. For the other 99.99% of those present, it was less than a BLM protest. And even then, not even the instigators made the merest attempted to wrest power from the established order, which is the sine qua non of an insurrection.TexasScientist said:It's a classic example, although it was poorly conceived and organized. For some it was planned, and others spontaneous.whiterock said:The problem with your reasoning is in the first sentence. Nobody staged an insurrection on Jan 6th.Aliceinbubbleland said:
I just keep saying and most far right deny but if BLM's had staged the insurrection on Jan 6th you would be ****ting all over yourselves.
At least Liz has the courage to try and remain constant unlike other Senate and House leaders flip flopping all over themselves in condemning Trump, then turning around and denying anything happened.
I don't like the hearings. We have enough of those. But anyone who thinks we were justified in storming the Capital is bat **** crazy.
The unseriousness of the allegation is so outlandish it justifies removing from positions of responsibility those who propagate such nonsense. Ergo the decision to move Cheney to the backbenches.
You exemplify the discredit he cites. No thinking person would honestly and seriously attempt to characterize 6 Jan as anything other than a band of morons walking their protest into a public building and taking selfie's with police or in offices in which they didn't belong.
Anyone who claims an insurrection took place against the most powerful nation on earth, perpetrated by random, disorganized protesters with zero firearms, where the only killing was that of a protester by an unnamed policeman, is either a partisan liar or an imbecile.
The libs know it wasn't an insurrection, but you keep going with that narrative because your handlers tell you to, plus it helps execuse egregious behavior by democrats and liberals last year.
Insurrection doesn't require being armed. Some were armed with weapons. Your leader the Shaman was armed with spear. Although I'm not a liberal (opposing the 1/6 insurrection fits with being a pro-democracy coservative), I suspect you're a fascist.Rawhide said:If it was an insurrection, they would've been armed, they all would've entered the building and they probably would've burned it to the ground. You know, exhibited the same behavior took place over the summer after politicians like maxine waters and the media like CNN whipped you libs into a frenzy.TexasScientist said:It wasn't a random gathering. It was an insurection of morons, called to Washington, whipped up, and mobilized by a moron.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:It discredits those who excuse it, and denial is a form of excuse. I mention it only because you seemed fairly credible until recently.whiterock said:Res Ipsa Loquitur. The allegation of insurrection is so patently absurd that it discredits those who utter it.Sam Lowry said:You obviously don't believe this. Curious why you post it.whiterock said:That stumbles at ontology. For a few dozens, it was a poorly conceived and organized effort to disrupt a process. For the other 99.99% of those present, it was less than a BLM protest. And even then, not even the instigators made the merest attempted to wrest power from the established order, which is the sine qua non of an insurrection.TexasScientist said:It's a classic example, although it was poorly conceived and organized. For some it was planned, and others spontaneous.whiterock said:The problem with your reasoning is in the first sentence. Nobody staged an insurrection on Jan 6th.Aliceinbubbleland said:
I just keep saying and most far right deny but if BLM's had staged the insurrection on Jan 6th you would be ****ting all over yourselves.
At least Liz has the courage to try and remain constant unlike other Senate and House leaders flip flopping all over themselves in condemning Trump, then turning around and denying anything happened.
I don't like the hearings. We have enough of those. But anyone who thinks we were justified in storming the Capital is bat **** crazy.
The unseriousness of the allegation is so outlandish it justifies removing from positions of responsibility those who propagate such nonsense. Ergo the decision to move Cheney to the backbenches.
You exemplify the discredit he cites. No thinking person would honestly and seriously attempt to characterize 6 Jan as anything other than a band of morons walking their protest into a public building and taking selfie's with police or in offices in which they didn't belong.
Anyone who claims an insurrection took place against the most powerful nation on earth, perpetrated by random, disorganized protesters with zero firearms, where the only killing was that of a protester by an unnamed policeman, is either a partisan liar or an imbecile.
The libs know it wasn't an insurrection, but you keep going with that narrative because your handlers tell you to, plus it helps execuse egregious behavior by democrats and liberals last year.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
TexasScientist said:Insurrection doesn't require being armed. Some were armed with weapons. Your leader the Shaman was armed with spear. Although I'm not a liberal (opposing the 1/6 insurrection fits with being a pro-democracy coservative), I suspect you're a fascist.Rawhide said:If it was an insurrection, they would've been armed, they all would've entered the building and they probably would've burned it to the ground. You know, exhibited the same behavior took place over the summer after politicians like maxine waters and the media like CNN whipped you libs into a frenzy.TexasScientist said:It wasn't a random gathering. It was an insurection of morons, called to Washington, whipped up, and mobilized by a moron.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:It discredits those who excuse it, and denial is a form of excuse. I mention it only because you seemed fairly credible until recently.whiterock said:Res Ipsa Loquitur. The allegation of insurrection is so patently absurd that it discredits those who utter it.Sam Lowry said:You obviously don't believe this. Curious why you post it.whiterock said:That stumbles at ontology. For a few dozens, it was a poorly conceived and organized effort to disrupt a process. For the other 99.99% of those present, it was less than a BLM protest. And even then, not even the instigators made the merest attempted to wrest power from the established order, which is the sine qua non of an insurrection.TexasScientist said:It's a classic example, although it was poorly conceived and organized. For some it was planned, and others spontaneous.whiterock said:The problem with your reasoning is in the first sentence. Nobody staged an insurrection on Jan 6th.Aliceinbubbleland said:
I just keep saying and most far right deny but if BLM's had staged the insurrection on Jan 6th you would be ****ting all over yourselves.
At least Liz has the courage to try and remain constant unlike other Senate and House leaders flip flopping all over themselves in condemning Trump, then turning around and denying anything happened.
I don't like the hearings. We have enough of those. But anyone who thinks we were justified in storming the Capital is bat **** crazy.
The unseriousness of the allegation is so outlandish it justifies removing from positions of responsibility those who propagate such nonsense. Ergo the decision to move Cheney to the backbenches.
You exemplify the discredit he cites. No thinking person would honestly and seriously attempt to characterize 6 Jan as anything other than a band of morons walking their protest into a public building and taking selfie's with police or in offices in which they didn't belong.
Anyone who claims an insurrection took place against the most powerful nation on earth, perpetrated by random, disorganized protesters with zero firearms, where the only killing was that of a protester by an unnamed policeman, is either a partisan liar or an imbecile.
The libs know it wasn't an insurrection, but you keep going with that narrative because your handlers tell you to, plus it helps execuse egregious behavior by democrats and liberals last year.
Yours is one of the most ridiculous, fantastical posts that has ever been posted here. Congratulations!
Perhaps you should look up the definition for insurrection:Canon said:TexasScientist said:Insurrection doesn't require being armed. Some were armed with weapons. Your leader the Shaman was armed with spear. Although I'm not a liberal (opposing the 1/6 insurrection fits with being a pro-democracy coservative), I suspect you're a fascist.Rawhide said:If it was an insurrection, they would've been armed, they all would've entered the building and they probably would've burned it to the ground. You know, exhibited the same behavior took place over the summer after politicians like maxine waters and the media like CNN whipped you libs into a frenzy.TexasScientist said:It wasn't a random gathering. It was an insurection of morons, called to Washington, whipped up, and mobilized by a moron.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:It discredits those who excuse it, and denial is a form of excuse. I mention it only because you seemed fairly credible until recently.whiterock said:Res Ipsa Loquitur. The allegation of insurrection is so patently absurd that it discredits those who utter it.Sam Lowry said:You obviously don't believe this. Curious why you post it.whiterock said:That stumbles at ontology. For a few dozens, it was a poorly conceived and organized effort to disrupt a process. For the other 99.99% of those present, it was less than a BLM protest. And even then, not even the instigators made the merest attempted to wrest power from the established order, which is the sine qua non of an insurrection.TexasScientist said:It's a classic example, although it was poorly conceived and organized. For some it was planned, and others spontaneous.whiterock said:The problem with your reasoning is in the first sentence. Nobody staged an insurrection on Jan 6th.Aliceinbubbleland said:
I just keep saying and most far right deny but if BLM's had staged the insurrection on Jan 6th you would be ****ting all over yourselves.
At least Liz has the courage to try and remain constant unlike other Senate and House leaders flip flopping all over themselves in condemning Trump, then turning around and denying anything happened.
I don't like the hearings. We have enough of those. But anyone who thinks we were justified in storming the Capital is bat **** crazy.
The unseriousness of the allegation is so outlandish it justifies removing from positions of responsibility those who propagate such nonsense. Ergo the decision to move Cheney to the backbenches.
You exemplify the discredit he cites. No thinking person would honestly and seriously attempt to characterize 6 Jan as anything other than a band of morons walking their protest into a public building and taking selfie's with police or in offices in which they didn't belong.
Anyone who claims an insurrection took place against the most powerful nation on earth, perpetrated by random, disorganized protesters with zero firearms, where the only killing was that of a protester by an unnamed policeman, is either a partisan liar or an imbecile.
The libs know it wasn't an insurrection, but you keep going with that narrative because your handlers tell you to, plus it helps execuse egregious behavior by democrats and liberals last year.
Yours is one of the most ridiculous, fantastical posts that has ever been posted here. Congratulations!
a violent uprising against an authority or government: "the insurrection was savagely put down"
The video I saw showed some violent activity. There was some breaking doors and windows. A Policeman died as the result of the activity. The action was against the US Senate which could be classified as a governmental body.
Canon said:TexasScientist said:Insurrection doesn't require being armed. Some were armed with weapons. Your leader the Shaman was armed with spear. Although I'm not a liberal (opposing the 1/6 insurrection fits with being a pro-democracy coservative), I suspect you're a fascist.Rawhide said:If it was an insurrection, they would've been armed, they all would've entered the building and they probably would've burned it to the ground. You know, exhibited the same behavior took place over the summer after politicians like maxine waters and the media like CNN whipped you libs into a frenzy.TexasScientist said:It wasn't a random gathering. It was an insurection of morons, called to Washington, whipped up, and mobilized by a moron.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:It discredits those who excuse it, and denial is a form of excuse. I mention it only because you seemed fairly credible until recently.whiterock said:Res Ipsa Loquitur. The allegation of insurrection is so patently absurd that it discredits those who utter it.Sam Lowry said:You obviously don't believe this. Curious why you post it.whiterock said:That stumbles at ontology. For a few dozens, it was a poorly conceived and organized effort to disrupt a process. For the other 99.99% of those present, it was less than a BLM protest. And even then, not even the instigators made the merest attempted to wrest power from the established order, which is the sine qua non of an insurrection.TexasScientist said:It's a classic example, although it was poorly conceived and organized. For some it was planned, and others spontaneous.whiterock said:The problem with your reasoning is in the first sentence. Nobody staged an insurrection on Jan 6th.Aliceinbubbleland said:
I just keep saying and most far right deny but if BLM's had staged the insurrection on Jan 6th you would be ****ting all over yourselves.
At least Liz has the courage to try and remain constant unlike other Senate and House leaders flip flopping all over themselves in condemning Trump, then turning around and denying anything happened.
I don't like the hearings. We have enough of those. But anyone who thinks we were justified in storming the Capital is bat **** crazy.
The unseriousness of the allegation is so outlandish it justifies removing from positions of responsibility those who propagate such nonsense. Ergo the decision to move Cheney to the backbenches.
You exemplify the discredit he cites. No thinking person would honestly and seriously attempt to characterize 6 Jan as anything other than a band of morons walking their protest into a public building and taking selfie's with police or in offices in which they didn't belong.
Anyone who claims an insurrection took place against the most powerful nation on earth, perpetrated by random, disorganized protesters with zero firearms, where the only killing was that of a protester by an unnamed policeman, is either a partisan liar or an imbecile.
The libs know it wasn't an insurrection, but you keep going with that narrative because your handlers tell you to, plus it helps execuse egregious behavior by democrats and liberals last year.
Yours is one of the most ridiculous, fantastical posts that has ever been posted here. Congratulations!
Are you thinking that if you post often enough, you can through sheer volume of posts change reality?
Porteroso said:Canon said:TexasScientist said:Insurrection doesn't require being armed. Some were armed with weapons. Your leader the Shaman was armed with spear. Although I'm not a liberal (opposing the 1/6 insurrection fits with being a pro-democracy coservative), I suspect you're a fascist.Rawhide said:If it was an insurrection, they would've been armed, they all would've entered the building and they probably would've burned it to the ground. You know, exhibited the same behavior took place over the summer after politicians like maxine waters and the media like CNN whipped you libs into a frenzy.TexasScientist said:It wasn't a random gathering. It was an insurection of morons, called to Washington, whipped up, and mobilized by a moron.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:It discredits those who excuse it, and denial is a form of excuse. I mention it only because you seemed fairly credible until recently.whiterock said:Res Ipsa Loquitur. The allegation of insurrection is so patently absurd that it discredits those who utter it.Sam Lowry said:You obviously don't believe this. Curious why you post it.whiterock said:That stumbles at ontology. For a few dozens, it was a poorly conceived and organized effort to disrupt a process. For the other 99.99% of those present, it was less than a BLM protest. And even then, not even the instigators made the merest attempted to wrest power from the established order, which is the sine qua non of an insurrection.TexasScientist said:It's a classic example, although it was poorly conceived and organized. For some it was planned, and others spontaneous.whiterock said:The problem with your reasoning is in the first sentence. Nobody staged an insurrection on Jan 6th.Aliceinbubbleland said:
I just keep saying and most far right deny but if BLM's had staged the insurrection on Jan 6th you would be ****ting all over yourselves.
At least Liz has the courage to try and remain constant unlike other Senate and House leaders flip flopping all over themselves in condemning Trump, then turning around and denying anything happened.
I don't like the hearings. We have enough of those. But anyone who thinks we were justified in storming the Capital is bat **** crazy.
The unseriousness of the allegation is so outlandish it justifies removing from positions of responsibility those who propagate such nonsense. Ergo the decision to move Cheney to the backbenches.
You exemplify the discredit he cites. No thinking person would honestly and seriously attempt to characterize 6 Jan as anything other than a band of morons walking their protest into a public building and taking selfie's with police or in offices in which they didn't belong.
Anyone who claims an insurrection took place against the most powerful nation on earth, perpetrated by random, disorganized protesters with zero firearms, where the only killing was that of a protester by an unnamed policeman, is either a partisan liar or an imbecile.
The libs know it wasn't an insurrection, but you keep going with that narrative because your handlers tell you to, plus it helps execuse egregious behavior by democrats and liberals last year.
Yours is one of the most ridiculous, fantastical posts that has ever been posted here. Congratulations!
Are you thinking that if you post often enough, you can through sheer volume of posts change reality?
You are projecting again. You should be embarrassed of yourself.
TexasScientist said:It wasn't a random gathering. It was an insurection of morons, called to Washington, whipped up, and mobilized by a moron.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:It discredits those who excuse it, and denial is a form of excuse. I mention it only because you seemed fairly credible until recently.whiterock said:Res Ipsa Loquitur. The allegation of insurrection is so patently absurd that it discredits those who utter it.Sam Lowry said:You obviously don't believe this. Curious why you post it.whiterock said:That stumbles at ontology. For a few dozens, it was a poorly conceived and organized effort to disrupt a process. For the other 99.99% of those present, it was less than a BLM protest. And even then, not even the instigators made the merest attempted to wrest power from the established order, which is the sine qua non of an insurrection.TexasScientist said:It's a classic example, although it was poorly conceived and organized. For some it was planned, and others spontaneous.whiterock said:The problem with your reasoning is in the first sentence. Nobody staged an insurrection on Jan 6th.Aliceinbubbleland said:
I just keep saying and most far right deny but if BLM's had staged the insurrection on Jan 6th you would be ****ting all over yourselves.
At least Liz has the courage to try and remain constant unlike other Senate and House leaders flip flopping all over themselves in condemning Trump, then turning around and denying anything happened.
I don't like the hearings. We have enough of those. But anyone who thinks we were justified in storming the Capital is bat **** crazy.
The unseriousness of the allegation is so outlandish it justifies removing from positions of responsibility those who propagate such nonsense. Ergo the decision to move Cheney to the backbenches.
You exemplify the discredit he cites. No thinking person would honestly and seriously attempt to characterize 6 Jan as anything other than a band of morons walking their protest into a public building and taking selfie's with police or in offices in which they didn't belong.
Anyone who claims an insurrection took place against the most powerful nation on earth, perpetrated by random, disorganized protesters with zero firearms, where the only killing was that of a protester by an unnamed policeman, is either a partisan liar or an imbecile.
I gave the choice of partisan liar or an imbecile, but in your case, we may not need to choose.
Seems pretty obvious to mostGuy Noir said:Perhaps you should look up the definition for insurrection:Canon said:TexasScientist said:Insurrection doesn't require being armed. Some were armed with weapons. Your leader the Shaman was armed with spear. Although I'm not a liberal (opposing the 1/6 insurrection fits with being a pro-democracy coservative), I suspect you're a fascist.Rawhide said:If it was an insurrection, they would've been armed, they all would've entered the building and they probably would've burned it to the ground. You know, exhibited the same behavior took place over the summer after politicians like maxine waters and the media like CNN whipped you libs into a frenzy.TexasScientist said:It wasn't a random gathering. It was an insurection of morons, called to Washington, whipped up, and mobilized by a moron.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:It discredits those who excuse it, and denial is a form of excuse. I mention it only because you seemed fairly credible until recently.whiterock said:Res Ipsa Loquitur. The allegation of insurrection is so patently absurd that it discredits those who utter it.Sam Lowry said:You obviously don't believe this. Curious why you post it.whiterock said:That stumbles at ontology. For a few dozens, it was a poorly conceived and organized effort to disrupt a process. For the other 99.99% of those present, it was less than a BLM protest. And even then, not even the instigators made the merest attempted to wrest power from the established order, which is the sine qua non of an insurrection.TexasScientist said:It's a classic example, although it was poorly conceived and organized. For some it was planned, and others spontaneous.whiterock said:The problem with your reasoning is in the first sentence. Nobody staged an insurrection on Jan 6th.Aliceinbubbleland said:
I just keep saying and most far right deny but if BLM's had staged the insurrection on Jan 6th you would be ****ting all over yourselves.
At least Liz has the courage to try and remain constant unlike other Senate and House leaders flip flopping all over themselves in condemning Trump, then turning around and denying anything happened.
I don't like the hearings. We have enough of those. But anyone who thinks we were justified in storming the Capital is bat **** crazy.
The unseriousness of the allegation is so outlandish it justifies removing from positions of responsibility those who propagate such nonsense. Ergo the decision to move Cheney to the backbenches.
You exemplify the discredit he cites. No thinking person would honestly and seriously attempt to characterize 6 Jan as anything other than a band of morons walking their protest into a public building and taking selfie's with police or in offices in which they didn't belong.
Anyone who claims an insurrection took place against the most powerful nation on earth, perpetrated by random, disorganized protesters with zero firearms, where the only killing was that of a protester by an unnamed policeman, is either a partisan liar or an imbecile.
The libs know it wasn't an insurrection, but you keep going with that narrative because your handlers tell you to, plus it helps execuse egregious behavior by democrats and liberals last year.
Yours is one of the most ridiculous, fantastical posts that has ever been posted here. Congratulations!
a violent uprising against an authority or government: "the insurrection was savagely put down"
The video I saw showed some violent activity. There was some breaking doors and windows. A Policeman died as the result of the activity. The action was against the US Senate which could be classified as a governmental body.
TexasScientist said:Insurrection doesn't require being armed. Some were armed with weapons. Your leader the Shaman was armed with spear. Although I'm not a liberal (opposing the 1/6 insurrection fits with being a pro-democracy coservative), I suspect you're a fascist.Rawhide said:If it was an insurrection, they would've been armed, they all would've entered the building and they probably would've burned it to the ground. You know, exhibited the same behavior took place over the summer after politicians like maxine waters and the media like CNN whipped you libs into a frenzy.TexasScientist said:It wasn't a random gathering. It was an insurection of morons, called to Washington, whipped up, and mobilized by a moron.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:It discredits those who excuse it, and denial is a form of excuse. I mention it only because you seemed fairly credible until recently.whiterock said:Res Ipsa Loquitur. The allegation of insurrection is so patently absurd that it discredits those who utter it.Sam Lowry said:You obviously don't believe this. Curious why you post it.whiterock said:That stumbles at ontology. For a few dozens, it was a poorly conceived and organized effort to disrupt a process. For the other 99.99% of those present, it was less than a BLM protest. And even then, not even the instigators made the merest attempted to wrest power from the established order, which is the sine qua non of an insurrection.TexasScientist said:It's a classic example, although it was poorly conceived and organized. For some it was planned, and others spontaneous.whiterock said:The problem with your reasoning is in the first sentence. Nobody staged an insurrection on Jan 6th.Aliceinbubbleland said:
I just keep saying and most far right deny but if BLM's had staged the insurrection on Jan 6th you would be ****ting all over yourselves.
At least Liz has the courage to try and remain constant unlike other Senate and House leaders flip flopping all over themselves in condemning Trump, then turning around and denying anything happened.
I don't like the hearings. We have enough of those. But anyone who thinks we were justified in storming the Capital is bat **** crazy.
The unseriousness of the allegation is so outlandish it justifies removing from positions of responsibility those who propagate such nonsense. Ergo the decision to move Cheney to the backbenches.
You exemplify the discredit he cites. No thinking person would honestly and seriously attempt to characterize 6 Jan as anything other than a band of morons walking their protest into a public building and taking selfie's with police or in offices in which they didn't belong.
Anyone who claims an insurrection took place against the most powerful nation on earth, perpetrated by random, disorganized protesters with zero firearms, where the only killing was that of a protester by an unnamed policeman, is either a partisan liar or an imbecile.
The libs know it wasn't an insurrection, but you keep going with that narrative because your handlers tell you to, plus it helps execuse egregious behavior by democrats and liberals last year.
The fascists are the Democrats under the cover of democracy. There's the problem.
TexasScientist said:It gets down to what's believable and probable based upon objective analyisis.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:Critical scholars and historians tell us what they did. It's evidenced in their early writings, including the gospels.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:That's why disillusioned early Christians latched onto anything they could try to rationalize into an explanation for what happened.curtpenn said:The whole approach of the Borgs and Crossans (and their Continental forbearers) of the world is their work is based on a priori reasoning and nothing truly empirical. Short version - their conclusions are just opinions based on their inherent presuppositions and biases.TexasScientist said:Well, in that sense we don't. But we can be reasonably sure by critical and historical biblical scholarship.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:We don't reallly know what Jesus said. We know what Paul said in his authentic letters. Paul didn't know what Jesus said. He knows what he may have been told Jesus said. I'm sure one of the reasons Paul visited with James, Jesus brother was to hear what James had to say about Jesus. There is no way to know how much Jesus message was embellished by others over a few years of oral retelling.curtpenn said:So, if Paul said that Jesus said something, then Jesus must have said that then?TexasScientist said:I didn't say Paul. I said what Jesus said. We know some of what Paul said from his letters, the ones he actually wrote. (not the ones attributed to him that he didn't write)curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:The message formulated in time, and there were differing teachings from the start. It's plain in the ealiest writings of Paul. There is no way to know what Jesus actually said, or taught, other than by supposition, speculation, and conjecture.Oldbear83 said:My point is that essentially from the start, Christianity had a popular and clear message. The arguments and division only showed up later, after the Church began to enjoy earthly wealth and influence among nobles.TexasScientist said:Early fourth century. My point is there were many aspects of Christianity, the nature and divinity of Christ, and even God that were unsettlled for centuries, all the way to Nicaea. Constantine wanted to resolve the conflicts. Even the council couldn't obtain complete resolution and uniformity. And yet, and even today there isn't uniformity of belief.Oldbear83 said:When exactly do you think Constantine was Emperor, TS?TexasScientist said:No need for the Constantine's First Council of Nicaea then. I guess he was wrong about the need.Oldbear83 said:
We do know that within a generation of the execution of Christ, the Christian movement was growing fast enough to concern both Jewish and Roman authorities.
I leave it to the reader to decide what caused that rapid growth, but I doubt it was confusion or a vague message.
That is, Christ's message was clear from the start, it has always been humans who changed the message to suit their personal ambition that muddied the waters.
If you can only know by conjecture, the you cannot know there were differing teachings or even what Paul said since you say it is all conjecture.
How do we know what Paul said without actually having his original writings complete with verifiable provenance? You assume writings attributed to Paul are somehow accurate whereas those attributed to others are not. Odd.
I rely on the consensus settled work of critical biblical scholars and historians. Scholars who make their historical judgments apart from what they would personally like to believe about the Bible from a religious standpoint.
I don't believe Paul wrote all of the letters attributed to Paul. There are numerous writings attributed to Paul and other christian leaders i.e. Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, 1st and 2nd Peter etc. that are obviously forgeries written in their names by other christians. A lot of the books considered for inclusion but omitted from the Bible were excluded in part due to questions of authenticity. Revelations almost didn't make it into the Bible in part for this reason. Obviously, some made it in that clearly have authenticity of the author in doubt.
How can you know what early Christians "latched onto"?
Critical scholars and historians tell us what they believe they did. Still amounts to using something viewed as flawed or in error in some way to evaluate that same presumed flawed or in error information. What could possibly go wrong?
There is no such thing as "objective analysis" in any truly empirical sense in this matter.
Canon said:Porteroso said:Canon said:TexasScientist said:Insurrection doesn't require being armed. Some were armed with weapons. Your leader the Shaman was armed with spear. Although I'm not a liberal (opposing the 1/6 insurrection fits with being a pro-democracy coservative), I suspect you're a fascist.Rawhide said:If it was an insurrection, they would've been armed, they all would've entered the building and they probably would've burned it to the ground. You know, exhibited the same behavior took place over the summer after politicians like maxine waters and the media like CNN whipped you libs into a frenzy.TexasScientist said:It wasn't a random gathering. It was an insurection of morons, called to Washington, whipped up, and mobilized by a moron.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:It discredits those who excuse it, and denial is a form of excuse. I mention it only because you seemed fairly credible until recently.whiterock said:Res Ipsa Loquitur. The allegation of insurrection is so patently absurd that it discredits those who utter it.Sam Lowry said:You obviously don't believe this. Curious why you post it.whiterock said:That stumbles at ontology. For a few dozens, it was a poorly conceived and organized effort to disrupt a process. For the other 99.99% of those present, it was less than a BLM protest. And even then, not even the instigators made the merest attempted to wrest power from the established order, which is the sine qua non of an insurrection.TexasScientist said:It's a classic example, although it was poorly conceived and organized. For some it was planned, and others spontaneous.whiterock said:The problem with your reasoning is in the first sentence. Nobody staged an insurrection on Jan 6th.Aliceinbubbleland said:
I just keep saying and most far right deny but if BLM's had staged the insurrection on Jan 6th you would be ****ting all over yourselves.
At least Liz has the courage to try and remain constant unlike other Senate and House leaders flip flopping all over themselves in condemning Trump, then turning around and denying anything happened.
I don't like the hearings. We have enough of those. But anyone who thinks we were justified in storming the Capital is bat **** crazy.
The unseriousness of the allegation is so outlandish it justifies removing from positions of responsibility those who propagate such nonsense. Ergo the decision to move Cheney to the backbenches.
You exemplify the discredit he cites. No thinking person would honestly and seriously attempt to characterize 6 Jan as anything other than a band of morons walking their protest into a public building and taking selfie's with police or in offices in which they didn't belong.
Anyone who claims an insurrection took place against the most powerful nation on earth, perpetrated by random, disorganized protesters with zero firearms, where the only killing was that of a protester by an unnamed policeman, is either a partisan liar or an imbecile.
The libs know it wasn't an insurrection, but you keep going with that narrative because your handlers tell you to, plus it helps execuse egregious behavior by democrats and liberals last year.
Yours is one of the most ridiculous, fantastical posts that has ever been posted here. Congratulations!
Are you thinking that if you post often enough, you can through sheer volume of posts change reality?
You are projecting again. You should be embarrassed of yourself.
It's actually pretty easy to not be embarrassed when you're just stating facts in front of reality deniers. I'm not really having a hard time with my emotions, but thanks for checking on me.
on the contrary, I support VERY limited gov't and have been consistent on that. You on the other hand, happen to be just another triggered snowflake pretending to be a RepublicanTexasScientist said:Insurrection doesn't require being armed. Some were armed with weapons. Your leader the Shaman was armed with spear. Although I'm not a liberal (opposing the 1/6 insurrection fits with being a pro-democracy coservative), I suspect you're a fascist.Rawhide said:If it was an insurrection, they would've been armed, they all would've entered the building and they probably would've burned it to the ground. You know, exhibited the same behavior took place over the summer after politicians like maxine waters and the media like CNN whipped you libs into a frenzy.TexasScientist said:It wasn't a random gathering. It was an insurection of morons, called to Washington, whipped up, and mobilized by a moron.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:It discredits those who excuse it, and denial is a form of excuse. I mention it only because you seemed fairly credible until recently.whiterock said:Res Ipsa Loquitur. The allegation of insurrection is so patently absurd that it discredits those who utter it.Sam Lowry said:You obviously don't believe this. Curious why you post it.whiterock said:That stumbles at ontology. For a few dozens, it was a poorly conceived and organized effort to disrupt a process. For the other 99.99% of those present, it was less than a BLM protest. And even then, not even the instigators made the merest attempted to wrest power from the established order, which is the sine qua non of an insurrection.TexasScientist said:It's a classic example, although it was poorly conceived and organized. For some it was planned, and others spontaneous.whiterock said:The problem with your reasoning is in the first sentence. Nobody staged an insurrection on Jan 6th.Aliceinbubbleland said:
I just keep saying and most far right deny but if BLM's had staged the insurrection on Jan 6th you would be ****ting all over yourselves.
At least Liz has the courage to try and remain constant unlike other Senate and House leaders flip flopping all over themselves in condemning Trump, then turning around and denying anything happened.
I don't like the hearings. We have enough of those. But anyone who thinks we were justified in storming the Capital is bat **** crazy.
The unseriousness of the allegation is so outlandish it justifies removing from positions of responsibility those who propagate such nonsense. Ergo the decision to move Cheney to the backbenches.
You exemplify the discredit he cites. No thinking person would honestly and seriously attempt to characterize 6 Jan as anything other than a band of morons walking their protest into a public building and taking selfie's with police or in offices in which they didn't belong.
Anyone who claims an insurrection took place against the most powerful nation on earth, perpetrated by random, disorganized protesters with zero firearms, where the only killing was that of a protester by an unnamed policeman, is either a partisan liar or an imbecile.
The libs know it wasn't an insurrection, but you keep going with that narrative because your handlers tell you to, plus it helps execuse egregious behavior by democrats and liberals last year.
So, kind of like the insurrections that took place this summer in various cities across America?Guy Noir said:Perhaps you should look up the definition for insurrection:Canon said:TexasScientist said:Insurrection doesn't require being armed. Some were armed with weapons. Your leader the Shaman was armed with spear. Although I'm not a liberal (opposing the 1/6 insurrection fits with being a pro-democracy coservative), I suspect you're a fascist.Rawhide said:If it was an insurrection, they would've been armed, they all would've entered the building and they probably would've burned it to the ground. You know, exhibited the same behavior took place over the summer after politicians like maxine waters and the media like CNN whipped you libs into a frenzy.TexasScientist said:It wasn't a random gathering. It was an insurection of morons, called to Washington, whipped up, and mobilized by a moron.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:It discredits those who excuse it, and denial is a form of excuse. I mention it only because you seemed fairly credible until recently.whiterock said:Res Ipsa Loquitur. The allegation of insurrection is so patently absurd that it discredits those who utter it.Sam Lowry said:You obviously don't believe this. Curious why you post it.whiterock said:That stumbles at ontology. For a few dozens, it was a poorly conceived and organized effort to disrupt a process. For the other 99.99% of those present, it was less than a BLM protest. And even then, not even the instigators made the merest attempted to wrest power from the established order, which is the sine qua non of an insurrection.TexasScientist said:It's a classic example, although it was poorly conceived and organized. For some it was planned, and others spontaneous.whiterock said:The problem with your reasoning is in the first sentence. Nobody staged an insurrection on Jan 6th.Aliceinbubbleland said:
I just keep saying and most far right deny but if BLM's had staged the insurrection on Jan 6th you would be ****ting all over yourselves.
At least Liz has the courage to try and remain constant unlike other Senate and House leaders flip flopping all over themselves in condemning Trump, then turning around and denying anything happened.
I don't like the hearings. We have enough of those. But anyone who thinks we were justified in storming the Capital is bat **** crazy.
The unseriousness of the allegation is so outlandish it justifies removing from positions of responsibility those who propagate such nonsense. Ergo the decision to move Cheney to the backbenches.
You exemplify the discredit he cites. No thinking person would honestly and seriously attempt to characterize 6 Jan as anything other than a band of morons walking their protest into a public building and taking selfie's with police or in offices in which they didn't belong.
Anyone who claims an insurrection took place against the most powerful nation on earth, perpetrated by random, disorganized protesters with zero firearms, where the only killing was that of a protester by an unnamed policeman, is either a partisan liar or an imbecile.
The libs know it wasn't an insurrection, but you keep going with that narrative because your handlers tell you to, plus it helps execuse egregious behavior by democrats and liberals last year.
Yours is one of the most ridiculous, fantastical posts that has ever been posted here. Congratulations!
a violent uprising against an authority or government: "the insurrection was savagely put down"
The video I saw showed some violent activity. There was some breaking doors and windows. A Policeman died as the result of the activity. The action was against the US Senate which could be classified as a governmental body.
Careful what you say. It might happen to be true.Rawhide said:So, kind of like the insurrections that took place this summer in various cities across America?Guy Noir said:Perhaps you should look up the definition for insurrection:Canon said:TexasScientist said:Insurrection doesn't require being armed. Some were armed with weapons. Your leader the Shaman was armed with spear. Although I'm not a liberal (opposing the 1/6 insurrection fits with being a pro-democracy coservative), I suspect you're a fascist.Rawhide said:If it was an insurrection, they would've been armed, they all would've entered the building and they probably would've burned it to the ground. You know, exhibited the same behavior took place over the summer after politicians like maxine waters and the media like CNN whipped you libs into a frenzy.TexasScientist said:It wasn't a random gathering. It was an insurection of morons, called to Washington, whipped up, and mobilized by a moron.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:It discredits those who excuse it, and denial is a form of excuse. I mention it only because you seemed fairly credible until recently.whiterock said:Res Ipsa Loquitur. The allegation of insurrection is so patently absurd that it discredits those who utter it.Sam Lowry said:You obviously don't believe this. Curious why you post it.whiterock said:That stumbles at ontology. For a few dozens, it was a poorly conceived and organized effort to disrupt a process. For the other 99.99% of those present, it was less than a BLM protest. And even then, not even the instigators made the merest attempted to wrest power from the established order, which is the sine qua non of an insurrection.TexasScientist said:It's a classic example, although it was poorly conceived and organized. For some it was planned, and others spontaneous.whiterock said:The problem with your reasoning is in the first sentence. Nobody staged an insurrection on Jan 6th.Aliceinbubbleland said:
I just keep saying and most far right deny but if BLM's had staged the insurrection on Jan 6th you would be ****ting all over yourselves.
At least Liz has the courage to try and remain constant unlike other Senate and House leaders flip flopping all over themselves in condemning Trump, then turning around and denying anything happened.
I don't like the hearings. We have enough of those. But anyone who thinks we were justified in storming the Capital is bat **** crazy.
The unseriousness of the allegation is so outlandish it justifies removing from positions of responsibility those who propagate such nonsense. Ergo the decision to move Cheney to the backbenches.
You exemplify the discredit he cites. No thinking person would honestly and seriously attempt to characterize 6 Jan as anything other than a band of morons walking their protest into a public building and taking selfie's with police or in offices in which they didn't belong.
Anyone who claims an insurrection took place against the most powerful nation on earth, perpetrated by random, disorganized protesters with zero firearms, where the only killing was that of a protester by an unnamed policeman, is either a partisan liar or an imbecile.
The libs know it wasn't an insurrection, but you keep going with that narrative because your handlers tell you to, plus it helps execuse egregious behavior by democrats and liberals last year.
Yours is one of the most ridiculous, fantastical posts that has ever been posted here. Congratulations!
a violent uprising against an authority or government: "the insurrection was savagely put down"
The video I saw showed some violent activity. There was some breaking doors and windows. A Policeman died as the result of the activity. The action was against the US Senate which could be classified as a governmental body.
Except the reality is the cop you mentioned was killed at the "insurrection" actually wasn't killed. You libs keep pushing that lie hoping people will buy your BSPorteroso said:Canon said:Porteroso said:Canon said:TexasScientist said:Insurrection doesn't require being armed. Some were armed with weapons. Your leader the Shaman was armed with spear. Although I'm not a liberal (opposing the 1/6 insurrection fits with being a pro-democracy coservative), I suspect you're a fascist.Rawhide said:If it was an insurrection, they would've been armed, they all would've entered the building and they probably would've burned it to the ground. You know, exhibited the same behavior took place over the summer after politicians like maxine waters and the media like CNN whipped you libs into a frenzy.TexasScientist said:It wasn't a random gathering. It was an insurection of morons, called to Washington, whipped up, and mobilized by a moron.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:It discredits those who excuse it, and denial is a form of excuse. I mention it only because you seemed fairly credible until recently.whiterock said:Res Ipsa Loquitur. The allegation of insurrection is so patently absurd that it discredits those who utter it.Sam Lowry said:You obviously don't believe this. Curious why you post it.whiterock said:That stumbles at ontology. For a few dozens, it was a poorly conceived and organized effort to disrupt a process. For the other 99.99% of those present, it was less than a BLM protest. And even then, not even the instigators made the merest attempted to wrest power from the established order, which is the sine qua non of an insurrection.TexasScientist said:It's a classic example, although it was poorly conceived and organized. For some it was planned, and others spontaneous.whiterock said:The problem with your reasoning is in the first sentence. Nobody staged an insurrection on Jan 6th.Aliceinbubbleland said:
I just keep saying and most far right deny but if BLM's had staged the insurrection on Jan 6th you would be ****ting all over yourselves.
At least Liz has the courage to try and remain constant unlike other Senate and House leaders flip flopping all over themselves in condemning Trump, then turning around and denying anything happened.
I don't like the hearings. We have enough of those. But anyone who thinks we were justified in storming the Capital is bat **** crazy.
The unseriousness of the allegation is so outlandish it justifies removing from positions of responsibility those who propagate such nonsense. Ergo the decision to move Cheney to the backbenches.
You exemplify the discredit he cites. No thinking person would honestly and seriously attempt to characterize 6 Jan as anything other than a band of morons walking their protest into a public building and taking selfie's with police or in offices in which they didn't belong.
Anyone who claims an insurrection took place against the most powerful nation on earth, perpetrated by random, disorganized protesters with zero firearms, where the only killing was that of a protester by an unnamed policeman, is either a partisan liar or an imbecile.
The libs know it wasn't an insurrection, but you keep going with that narrative because your handlers tell you to, plus it helps execuse egregious behavior by democrats and liberals last year.
Yours is one of the most ridiculous, fantastical posts that has ever been posted here. Congratulations!
Are you thinking that if you post often enough, you can through sheer volume of posts change reality?
You are projecting again. You should be embarrassed of yourself.
It's actually pretty easy to not be embarrassed when you're just stating facts in front of reality deniers. I'm not really having a hard time with my emotions, but thanks for checking on me.
Rawhide said:I don't recall asking you the question.quash said:I saw Rick Carlisle take his daughter into the women's restroom. Nobody freaked.Rawhide said:You think men should be allowed in the little girls room?TexasScientist said:
How many instances are you aware of where a transgender person assaulted a male or female in a restroom?
Now about those transgender assault numbers...
I also don't recall saying anything about transgender or assault. My questions was simple and not directed at you.
You're like a little gnat
Internet much? If you only want the response of one person use PM. Otherwise you're in for more butthurtedness.
Now, back to the question TS asked, do you have numbers for your alleged ****** bathroom assaults?
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Trump critics NEED it to be insurrection to justify the way they feel about Trump. That does not change the clear facts about what happened, which did not remotely approach insurrection.Sam Lowry said:It discredits those who excuse it, and denial is a form of excuse. I mention it only because you seemed fairly credible until recently.whiterock said:Res Ipsa Loquitur. The allegation of insurrection is so patently absurd that it discredits those who utter it.Sam Lowry said:You obviously don't believe this. Curious why you post it.whiterock said:That stumbles at ontology. For a few dozens, it was a poorly conceived and organized effort to disrupt a process. For the other 99.99% of those present, it was less than a BLM protest. And even then, not even the instigators made the merest attempted to wrest power from the established order, which is the sine qua non of an insurrection.TexasScientist said:It's a classic example, although it was poorly conceived and organized. For some it was planned, and others spontaneous.whiterock said:The problem with your reasoning is in the first sentence. Nobody staged an insurrection on Jan 6th.Aliceinbubbleland said:
I just keep saying and most far right deny but if BLM's had staged the insurrection on Jan 6th you would be ****ting all over yourselves.
At least Liz has the courage to try and remain constant unlike other Senate and House leaders flip flopping all over themselves in condemning Trump, then turning around and denying anything happened.
I don't like the hearings. We have enough of those. But anyone who thinks we were justified in storming the Capital is bat **** crazy.
The unseriousness of the allegation is so outlandish it justifies removing from positions of responsibility those who propagate such nonsense. Ergo the decision to move Cheney to the backbenches.
Dude. I know a bit about insurrection, arms length & such. The suggestion of insurrection is silliness only exceeded by the allegation that it was incited.
Adopting the rhetorical nonsense of one's opponents does not a statesman make. Quite the inverse, in fact.
Exactly. With utmost gravity, they conflate a riot with a coup and then get genuinely offended when we laugh at them for failing to understand the basic meaning of things. Just hilarious.Canon said:TexasScientist said:Insurrection doesn't require being armed. Some were armed with weapons. Your leader the Shaman was armed with spear. Although I'm not a liberal (opposing the 1/6 insurrection fits with being a pro-democracy coservative), I suspect you're a fascist.Rawhide said:If it was an insurrection, they would've been armed, they all would've entered the building and they probably would've burned it to the ground. You know, exhibited the same behavior took place over the summer after politicians like maxine waters and the media like CNN whipped you libs into a frenzy.TexasScientist said:It wasn't a random gathering. It was an insurection of morons, called to Washington, whipped up, and mobilized by a moron.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:It discredits those who excuse it, and denial is a form of excuse. I mention it only because you seemed fairly credible until recently.whiterock said:Res Ipsa Loquitur. The allegation of insurrection is so patently absurd that it discredits those who utter it.Sam Lowry said:You obviously don't believe this. Curious why you post it.whiterock said:That stumbles at ontology. For a few dozens, it was a poorly conceived and organized effort to disrupt a process. For the other 99.99% of those present, it was less than a BLM protest. And even then, not even the instigators made the merest attempted to wrest power from the established order, which is the sine qua non of an insurrection.TexasScientist said:It's a classic example, although it was poorly conceived and organized. For some it was planned, and others spontaneous.whiterock said:The problem with your reasoning is in the first sentence. Nobody staged an insurrection on Jan 6th.Aliceinbubbleland said:
I just keep saying and most far right deny but if BLM's had staged the insurrection on Jan 6th you would be ****ting all over yourselves.
At least Liz has the courage to try and remain constant unlike other Senate and House leaders flip flopping all over themselves in condemning Trump, then turning around and denying anything happened.
I don't like the hearings. We have enough of those. But anyone who thinks we were justified in storming the Capital is bat **** crazy.
The unseriousness of the allegation is so outlandish it justifies removing from positions of responsibility those who propagate such nonsense. Ergo the decision to move Cheney to the backbenches.
You exemplify the discredit he cites. No thinking person would honestly and seriously attempt to characterize 6 Jan as anything other than a band of morons walking their protest into a public building and taking selfie's with police or in offices in which they didn't belong.
Anyone who claims an insurrection took place against the most powerful nation on earth, perpetrated by random, disorganized protesters with zero firearms, where the only killing was that of a protester by an unnamed policeman, is either a partisan liar or an imbecile.
The libs know it wasn't an insurrection, but you keep going with that narrative because your handlers tell you to, plus it helps execuse egregious behavior by democrats and liberals last year.
Yours is one of the most ridiculous, fantastical posts that has ever been posted here. Congratulations!
What happened does not remotely meet the definition of insurrection, except that they need it to, so it does. It's a virtue posture wrapped with a circular fallacy.
I never said anything about bathroom assaults, you dip***** Learn to read, clown.quash said:Rawhide said:I don't recall asking you the question.quash said:I saw Rick Carlisle take his daughter into the women's restroom. Nobody freaked.Rawhide said:You think men should be allowed in the little girls room?TexasScientist said:
How many instances are you aware of where a transgender person assaulted a male or female in a restroom?
Now about those transgender assault numbers...
I also don't recall saying anything about transgender or assault. My questions was simple and not directed at you.
You're like a little gnat
Internet much? If you only want the response of one person use PM. Otherwise you're in for more butthurtedness.
Now, back to the question TS asked, do you have numbers for your alleged ****** bathroom assaults?
whiterock said:Trump critics NEED it to be insurrection to justify the way they feel about Trump. That does not change the clear facts about what happened, which did not remotely approach insurrection.Sam Lowry said:It discredits those who excuse it, and denial is a form of excuse. I mention it only because you seemed fairly credible until recently.whiterock said:Res Ipsa Loquitur. The allegation of insurrection is so patently absurd that it discredits those who utter it.Sam Lowry said:You obviously don't believe this. Curious why you post it.whiterock said:That stumbles at ontology. For a few dozens, it was a poorly conceived and organized effort to disrupt a process. For the other 99.99% of those present, it was less than a BLM protest. And even then, not even the instigators made the merest attempted to wrest power from the established order, which is the sine qua non of an insurrection.TexasScientist said:It's a classic example, although it was poorly conceived and organized. For some it was planned, and others spontaneous.whiterock said:The problem with your reasoning is in the first sentence. Nobody staged an insurrection on Jan 6th.Aliceinbubbleland said:
I just keep saying and most far right deny but if BLM's had staged the insurrection on Jan 6th you would be ****ting all over yourselves.
At least Liz has the courage to try and remain constant unlike other Senate and House leaders flip flopping all over themselves in condemning Trump, then turning around and denying anything happened.
I don't like the hearings. We have enough of those. But anyone who thinks we were justified in storming the Capital is bat **** crazy.
The unseriousness of the allegation is so outlandish it justifies removing from positions of responsibility those who propagate such nonsense. Ergo the decision to move Cheney to the backbenches.
Dude. I know a bit about insurrection, arms length & such. The suggestion of insurrection is silliness only exceeded by the allegation that it was incited.
Adopting the rhetorical nonsense of one's opponents does not a statesman make. Quite the inverse, in fact.
You obviously know nothing. Trump earned hatred from the left far before he told his supporters he wanted to be dictator, under the thin guise of "well they cheated."
It was an insurrection because had the rioters achieved their goals, they would have invalidated the American vote and hung the Vice President. I'm sure your response will be they were just joking, but jokes about burning The Constitution Americans don't make.
I couldn't care less what Trump critics need. Nor should you. An insurrection without fireworks is still what it is, an attempt to wrest power from the established order.whiterock said:Trump critics NEED it to be insurrection to justify the way they feel about Trump. That does not change the clear facts about what happened, which did not remotely approach insurrection.Sam Lowry said:It discredits those who excuse it, and denial is a form of excuse. I mention it only because you seemed fairly credible until recently.whiterock said:Res Ipsa Loquitur. The allegation of insurrection is so patently absurd that it discredits those who utter it.Sam Lowry said:You obviously don't believe this. Curious why you post it.whiterock said:That stumbles at ontology. For a few dozens, it was a poorly conceived and organized effort to disrupt a process. For the other 99.99% of those present, it was less than a BLM protest. And even then, not even the instigators made the merest attempted to wrest power from the established order, which is the sine qua non of an insurrection.TexasScientist said:It's a classic example, although it was poorly conceived and organized. For some it was planned, and others spontaneous.whiterock said:The problem with your reasoning is in the first sentence. Nobody staged an insurrection on Jan 6th.Aliceinbubbleland said:
I just keep saying and most far right deny but if BLM's had staged the insurrection on Jan 6th you would be ****ting all over yourselves.
At least Liz has the courage to try and remain constant unlike other Senate and House leaders flip flopping all over themselves in condemning Trump, then turning around and denying anything happened.
I don't like the hearings. We have enough of those. But anyone who thinks we were justified in storming the Capital is bat **** crazy.
The unseriousness of the allegation is so outlandish it justifies removing from positions of responsibility those who propagate such nonsense. Ergo the decision to move Cheney to the backbenches.
Dude. I know a bit about insurrection, arms length & such. The suggestion of insurrection is silliness only exceeded by the allegation that it was incited.
Adopting the rhetorical nonsense of one's opponents does not a statesman make. Quite the inverse, in fact.
If he posts it often enough with confidence it becomes proof ...Porteroso said:Canon said:TexasScientist said:Insurrection doesn't require being armed. Some were armed with weapons. Your leader the Shaman was armed with spear. Although I'm not a liberal (opposing the 1/6 insurrection fits with being a pro-democracy coservative), I suspect you're a fascist.Rawhide said:If it was an insurrection, they would've been armed, they all would've entered the building and they probably would've burned it to the ground. You know, exhibited the same behavior took place over the summer after politicians like maxine waters and the media like CNN whipped you libs into a frenzy.TexasScientist said:It wasn't a random gathering. It was an insurection of morons, called to Washington, whipped up, and mobilized by a moron.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:It discredits those who excuse it, and denial is a form of excuse. I mention it only because you seemed fairly credible until recently.whiterock said:Res Ipsa Loquitur. The allegation of insurrection is so patently absurd that it discredits those who utter it.Sam Lowry said:You obviously don't believe this. Curious why you post it.whiterock said:That stumbles at ontology. For a few dozens, it was a poorly conceived and organized effort to disrupt a process. For the other 99.99% of those present, it was less than a BLM protest. And even then, not even the instigators made the merest attempted to wrest power from the established order, which is the sine qua non of an insurrection.TexasScientist said:It's a classic example, although it was poorly conceived and organized. For some it was planned, and others spontaneous.whiterock said:The problem with your reasoning is in the first sentence. Nobody staged an insurrection on Jan 6th.Aliceinbubbleland said:
I just keep saying and most far right deny but if BLM's had staged the insurrection on Jan 6th you would be ****ting all over yourselves.
At least Liz has the courage to try and remain constant unlike other Senate and House leaders flip flopping all over themselves in condemning Trump, then turning around and denying anything happened.
I don't like the hearings. We have enough of those. But anyone who thinks we were justified in storming the Capital is bat **** crazy.
The unseriousness of the allegation is so outlandish it justifies removing from positions of responsibility those who propagate such nonsense. Ergo the decision to move Cheney to the backbenches.
You exemplify the discredit he cites. No thinking person would honestly and seriously attempt to characterize 6 Jan as anything other than a band of morons walking their protest into a public building and taking selfie's with police or in offices in which they didn't belong.
Anyone who claims an insurrection took place against the most powerful nation on earth, perpetrated by random, disorganized protesters with zero firearms, where the only killing was that of a protester by an unnamed policeman, is either a partisan liar or an imbecile.
The libs know it wasn't an insurrection, but you keep going with that narrative because your handlers tell you to, plus it helps execuse egregious behavior by democrats and liberals last year.
Yours is one of the most ridiculous, fantastical posts that has ever been posted here. Congratulations!
Are you thinking that if you post often enough, you can through sheer volume of posts change reality?
Yet you support the biggest deficit spending, large government, and most authoritarian president in history - so far.Rawhide said:on the contrary, I support VERY limited gov't and have been consistent on that. You on the other hand, happen to be just another triggered snowflake pretending to be a RepublicanTexasScientist said:Insurrection doesn't require being armed. Some were armed with weapons. Your leader the Shaman was armed with spear. Although I'm not a liberal (opposing the 1/6 insurrection fits with being a pro-democracy coservative), I suspect you're a fascist.Rawhide said:If it was an insurrection, they would've been armed, they all would've entered the building and they probably would've burned it to the ground. You know, exhibited the same behavior took place over the summer after politicians like maxine waters and the media like CNN whipped you libs into a frenzy.TexasScientist said:It wasn't a random gathering. It was an insurection of morons, called to Washington, whipped up, and mobilized by a moron.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:It discredits those who excuse it, and denial is a form of excuse. I mention it only because you seemed fairly credible until recently.whiterock said:Res Ipsa Loquitur. The allegation of insurrection is so patently absurd that it discredits those who utter it.Sam Lowry said:You obviously don't believe this. Curious why you post it.whiterock said:That stumbles at ontology. For a few dozens, it was a poorly conceived and organized effort to disrupt a process. For the other 99.99% of those present, it was less than a BLM protest. And even then, not even the instigators made the merest attempted to wrest power from the established order, which is the sine qua non of an insurrection.TexasScientist said:It's a classic example, although it was poorly conceived and organized. For some it was planned, and others spontaneous.whiterock said:The problem with your reasoning is in the first sentence. Nobody staged an insurrection on Jan 6th.Aliceinbubbleland said:
I just keep saying and most far right deny but if BLM's had staged the insurrection on Jan 6th you would be ****ting all over yourselves.
At least Liz has the courage to try and remain constant unlike other Senate and House leaders flip flopping all over themselves in condemning Trump, then turning around and denying anything happened.
I don't like the hearings. We have enough of those. But anyone who thinks we were justified in storming the Capital is bat **** crazy.
The unseriousness of the allegation is so outlandish it justifies removing from positions of responsibility those who propagate such nonsense. Ergo the decision to move Cheney to the backbenches.
You exemplify the discredit he cites. No thinking person would honestly and seriously attempt to characterize 6 Jan as anything other than a band of morons walking their protest into a public building and taking selfie's with police or in offices in which they didn't belong.
Anyone who claims an insurrection took place against the most powerful nation on earth, perpetrated by random, disorganized protesters with zero firearms, where the only killing was that of a protester by an unnamed policeman, is either a partisan liar or an imbecile.
The libs know it wasn't an insurrection, but you keep going with that narrative because your handlers tell you to, plus it helps execuse egregious behavior by democrats and liberals last year.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
It's pretty clear the partisan lies about the insurrection originate from the fact ignoring Trumplicans.Canon said:TexasScientist said:It wasn't a random gathering. It was an insurection of morons, called to Washington, whipped up, and mobilized by a moron.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:It discredits those who excuse it, and denial is a form of excuse. I mention it only because you seemed fairly credible until recently.whiterock said:Res Ipsa Loquitur. The allegation of insurrection is so patently absurd that it discredits those who utter it.Sam Lowry said:You obviously don't believe this. Curious why you post it.whiterock said:That stumbles at ontology. For a few dozens, it was a poorly conceived and organized effort to disrupt a process. For the other 99.99% of those present, it was less than a BLM protest. And even then, not even the instigators made the merest attempted to wrest power from the established order, which is the sine qua non of an insurrection.TexasScientist said:It's a classic example, although it was poorly conceived and organized. For some it was planned, and others spontaneous.whiterock said:The problem with your reasoning is in the first sentence. Nobody staged an insurrection on Jan 6th.Aliceinbubbleland said:
I just keep saying and most far right deny but if BLM's had staged the insurrection on Jan 6th you would be ****ting all over yourselves.
At least Liz has the courage to try and remain constant unlike other Senate and House leaders flip flopping all over themselves in condemning Trump, then turning around and denying anything happened.
I don't like the hearings. We have enough of those. But anyone who thinks we were justified in storming the Capital is bat **** crazy.
The unseriousness of the allegation is so outlandish it justifies removing from positions of responsibility those who propagate such nonsense. Ergo the decision to move Cheney to the backbenches.
You exemplify the discredit he cites. No thinking person would honestly and seriously attempt to characterize 6 Jan as anything other than a band of morons walking their protest into a public building and taking selfie's with police or in offices in which they didn't belong.
Anyone who claims an insurrection took place against the most powerful nation on earth, perpetrated by random, disorganized protesters with zero firearms, where the only killing was that of a protester by an unnamed policeman, is either a partisan liar or an imbecile.
I gave the choice of partisan liar or an imbecile, but in your case, we may not need to choose.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
There are hours of video to sho that it was an insurrection. There is video of one insurrectionist using a baton to beat a police officer, and video of another insurrectionist using brass knuckles to hit a police officer.Rawhide said:Except the reality is the cop you mentioned was killed at the "insurrection" actually wasn't killed. You libs keep pushing that lie hoping people will buy your BSPorteroso said:Canon said:Porteroso said:Canon said:TexasScientist said:Insurrection doesn't require being armed. Some were armed with weapons. Your leader the Shaman was armed with spear. Although I'm not a liberal (opposing the 1/6 insurrection fits with being a pro-democracy coservative), I suspect you're a fascist.Rawhide said:If it was an insurrection, they would've been armed, they all would've entered the building and they probably would've burned it to the ground. You know, exhibited the same behavior took place over the summer after politicians like maxine waters and the media like CNN whipped you libs into a frenzy.TexasScientist said:It wasn't a random gathering. It was an insurection of morons, called to Washington, whipped up, and mobilized by a moron.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:It discredits those who excuse it, and denial is a form of excuse. I mention it only because you seemed fairly credible until recently.whiterock said:Res Ipsa Loquitur. The allegation of insurrection is so patently absurd that it discredits those who utter it.Sam Lowry said:You obviously don't believe this. Curious why you post it.whiterock said:That stumbles at ontology. For a few dozens, it was a poorly conceived and organized effort to disrupt a process. For the other 99.99% of those present, it was less than a BLM protest. And even then, not even the instigators made the merest attempted to wrest power from the established order, which is the sine qua non of an insurrection.TexasScientist said:It's a classic example, although it was poorly conceived and organized. For some it was planned, and others spontaneous.whiterock said:The problem with your reasoning is in the first sentence. Nobody staged an insurrection on Jan 6th.Aliceinbubbleland said:
I just keep saying and most far right deny but if BLM's had staged the insurrection on Jan 6th you would be ****ting all over yourselves.
At least Liz has the courage to try and remain constant unlike other Senate and House leaders flip flopping all over themselves in condemning Trump, then turning around and denying anything happened.
I don't like the hearings. We have enough of those. But anyone who thinks we were justified in storming the Capital is bat **** crazy.
The unseriousness of the allegation is so outlandish it justifies removing from positions of responsibility those who propagate such nonsense. Ergo the decision to move Cheney to the backbenches.
You exemplify the discredit he cites. No thinking person would honestly and seriously attempt to characterize 6 Jan as anything other than a band of morons walking their protest into a public building and taking selfie's with police or in offices in which they didn't belong.
Anyone who claims an insurrection took place against the most powerful nation on earth, perpetrated by random, disorganized protesters with zero firearms, where the only killing was that of a protester by an unnamed policeman, is either a partisan liar or an imbecile.
The libs know it wasn't an insurrection, but you keep going with that narrative because your handlers tell you to, plus it helps execuse egregious behavior by democrats and liberals last year.
Yours is one of the most ridiculous, fantastical posts that has ever been posted here. Congratulations!
Are you thinking that if you post often enough, you can through sheer volume of posts change reality?
You are projecting again. You should be embarrassed of yourself.
It's actually pretty easy to not be embarrassed when you're just stating facts in front of reality deniers. I'm not really having a hard time with my emotions, but thanks for checking on me.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
Sam Lowry said:I couldn't care less what Trump critics need. Nor should you. An insurrection without fireworks is still what it is, an attempt to wrest power from the established order.whiterock said:Trump critics NEED it to be insurrection to justify the way they feel about Trump. That does not change the clear facts about what happened, which did not remotely approach insurrection.Sam Lowry said:It discredits those who excuse it, and denial is a form of excuse. I mention it only because you seemed fairly credible until recently.whiterock said:Res Ipsa Loquitur. The allegation of insurrection is so patently absurd that it discredits those who utter it.Sam Lowry said:You obviously don't believe this. Curious why you post it.whiterock said:That stumbles at ontology. For a few dozens, it was a poorly conceived and organized effort to disrupt a process. For the other 99.99% of those present, it was less than a BLM protest. And even then, not even the instigators made the merest attempted to wrest power from the established order, which is the sine qua non of an insurrection.TexasScientist said:It's a classic example, although it was poorly conceived and organized. For some it was planned, and others spontaneous.whiterock said:The problem with your reasoning is in the first sentence. Nobody staged an insurrection on Jan 6th.Aliceinbubbleland said:
I just keep saying and most far right deny but if BLM's had staged the insurrection on Jan 6th you would be ****ting all over yourselves.
At least Liz has the courage to try and remain constant unlike other Senate and House leaders flip flopping all over themselves in condemning Trump, then turning around and denying anything happened.
I don't like the hearings. We have enough of those. But anyone who thinks we were justified in storming the Capital is bat **** crazy.
The unseriousness of the allegation is so outlandish it justifies removing from positions of responsibility those who propagate such nonsense. Ergo the decision to move Cheney to the backbenches.
Dude. I know a bit about insurrection, arms length & such. The suggestion of insurrection is silliness only exceeded by the allegation that it was incited.
Adopting the rhetorical nonsense of one's opponents does not a statesman make. Quite the inverse, in fact.
Wasn't much of an attempt to wrest power though was it? Pretty much a non event to any rational observer.
That aside, there may come a time when the "established order" needs to be overthrown. A little insurrection may be just the thing that's needed.
I wonder how much Venn-diagram overlap exists of people who refuse to call 1/6 an insurrection, but called the impeachment a "coup"?
you live in an alternate world. First, Biden is throwing money around like he's a drunken sailor on liberty. Second, the most deficit spending award goes to FDR. Hell, obummer is #3 on the list - try again *******.TexasScientist said:Yet you support the biggest deficit spending, large government, and most authoritarian president in history - so farRawhide said:on the contrary, I support VERY limited gov't and have been consistent on that. You on the other hand, happen to be just another triggered snowflake pretending to be a RepublicanTexasScientist said:Insurrection doesn't require being armed. Some were armed with weapons. Your leader the Shaman was armed with spear. Although I'm not a liberal (opposing the 1/6 insurrection fits with being a pro-democracy coservative), I suspect you're a fascist.Rawhide said:If it was an insurrection, they would've been armed, they all would've entered the building and they probably would've burned it to the ground. You know, exhibited the same behavior took place over the summer after politicians like maxine waters and the media like CNN whipped you libs into a frenzy.TexasScientist said:It wasn't a random gathering. It was an insurection of morons, called to Washington, whipped up, and mobilized by a moron.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:It discredits those who excuse it, and denial is a form of excuse. I mention it only because you seemed fairly credible until recently.whiterock said:Res Ipsa Loquitur. The allegation of insurrection is so patently absurd that it discredits those who utter it.Sam Lowry said:You obviously don't believe this. Curious why you post it.whiterock said:That stumbles at ontology. For a few dozens, it was a poorly conceived and organized effort to disrupt a process. For the other 99.99% of those present, it was less than a BLM protest. And even then, not even the instigators made the merest attempted to wrest power from the established order, which is the sine qua non of an insurrection.TexasScientist said:It's a classic example, although it was poorly conceived and organized. For some it was planned, and others spontaneous.whiterock said:The problem with your reasoning is in the first sentence. Nobody staged an insurrection on Jan 6th.Aliceinbubbleland said:
I just keep saying and most far right deny but if BLM's had staged the insurrection on Jan 6th you would be ****ting all over yourselves.
At least Liz has the courage to try and remain constant unlike other Senate and House leaders flip flopping all over themselves in condemning Trump, then turning around and denying anything happened.
I don't like the hearings. We have enough of those. But anyone who thinks we were justified in storming the Capital is bat **** crazy.
The unseriousness of the allegation is so outlandish it justifies removing from positions of responsibility those who propagate such nonsense. Ergo the decision to move Cheney to the backbenches.
You exemplify the discredit he cites. No thinking person would honestly and seriously attempt to characterize 6 Jan as anything other than a band of morons walking their protest into a public building and taking selfie's with police or in offices in which they didn't belong.
Anyone who claims an insurrection took place against the most powerful nation on earth, perpetrated by random, disorganized protesters with zero firearms, where the only killing was that of a protester by an unnamed policeman, is either a partisan liar or an imbecile.
The libs know it wasn't an insurrection, but you keep going with that narrative because your handlers tell you to, plus it helps execuse egregious behavior by democrats and liberals last year.
Third, so what makes Trump the most authoritarian president in history? The fact that he got the personal mandate, you know when obama forced people to buy a produc (or be fined), eliminated? Did he force people to give the gov't money for a promise that they would get it back upon retirement? Did he jail gay people for being gay, black people for being black?
Protecting America's border isn't authoritarian, it's the #1 job (or should be) of the gov't.
Get over yourself. You're just a triggered clown that can't get off Trump's dick. You're a broken record. Time for some new material
When the liberal mob decided to burn cities, occupy government buildings, demand that gov't authority be defunded....when they decided forrm a new "country", threaten and harm innocent Americans, kill Trump supporters, beat white people, terrorize folks eating at restaurants..... what the hell was that? If THAT wasn't an insurrection, then what happened at the capitol building was f-u-c-k-i-n-g akin to an out-of-control kegger.TexasScientist said:There are hours of video to sho that it was an insurrection. There is video of one insurrectionist using a baton to beat a police officer, and video of another insurrectionist using brass knuckles to hit a police officer.Rawhide said:Except the reality is the cop you mentioned was killed at the "insurrection" actually wasn't killed. You libs keep pushing that lie hoping people will buy your BSPorteroso said:Canon said:Porteroso said:Canon said:TexasScientist said:Insurrection doesn't require being armed. Some were armed with weapons. Your leader the Shaman was armed with spear. Although I'm not a liberal (opposing the 1/6 insurrection fits with being a pro-democracy coservative), I suspect you're a fascist.Rawhide said:If it was an insurrection, they would've been armed, they all would've entered the building and they probably would've burned it to the ground. You know, exhibited the same behavior took place over the summer after politicians like maxine waters and the media like CNN whipped you libs into a frenzy.TexasScientist said:It wasn't a random gathering. It was an insurection of morons, called to Washington, whipped up, and mobilized by a moron.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:It discredits those who excuse it, and denial is a form of excuse. I mention it only because you seemed fairly credible until recently.whiterock said:Res Ipsa Loquitur. The allegation of insurrection is so patently absurd that it discredits those who utter it.Sam Lowry said:You obviously don't believe this. Curious why you post it.whiterock said:That stumbles at ontology. For a few dozens, it was a poorly conceived and organized effort to disrupt a process. For the other 99.99% of those present, it was less than a BLM protest. And even then, not even the instigators made the merest attempted to wrest power from the established order, which is the sine qua non of an insurrection.TexasScientist said:It's a classic example, although it was poorly conceived and organized. For some it was planned, and others spontaneous.whiterock said:The problem with your reasoning is in the first sentence. Nobody staged an insurrection on Jan 6th.Aliceinbubbleland said:
I just keep saying and most far right deny but if BLM's had staged the insurrection on Jan 6th you would be ****ting all over yourselves.
At least Liz has the courage to try and remain constant unlike other Senate and House leaders flip flopping all over themselves in condemning Trump, then turning around and denying anything happened.
I don't like the hearings. We have enough of those. But anyone who thinks we were justified in storming the Capital is bat **** crazy.
The unseriousness of the allegation is so outlandish it justifies removing from positions of responsibility those who propagate such nonsense. Ergo the decision to move Cheney to the backbenches.
You exemplify the discredit he cites. No thinking person would honestly and seriously attempt to characterize 6 Jan as anything other than a band of morons walking their protest into a public building and taking selfie's with police or in offices in which they didn't belong.
Anyone who claims an insurrection took place against the most powerful nation on earth, perpetrated by random, disorganized protesters with zero firearms, where the only killing was that of a protester by an unnamed policeman, is either a partisan liar or an imbecile.
The libs know it wasn't an insurrection, but you keep going with that narrative because your handlers tell you to, plus it helps execuse egregious behavior by democrats and liberals last year.
Yours is one of the most ridiculous, fantastical posts that has ever been posted here. Congratulations!
Are you thinking that if you post often enough, you can through sheer volume of posts change reality?
You are projecting again. You should be embarrassed of yourself.
It's actually pretty easy to not be embarrassed when you're just stating facts in front of reality deniers. I'm not really having a hard time with my emotions, but thanks for checking on me.
I'm curious about the same thing from people that call the capitol building incident an insurrection but the summer insurrection a peaceful protestHuMcK said:
I wonder how much Venn-diagram overlap exists of people who refuse to call 1/6 an insurrection, but called the impeachment a "coup"?