|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1673006772 Message started by WebsterMark on 01/06/23 at 04:06:12 |
|
Title: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by WebsterMark on 01/06/23 at 04:06:12 How’s everyone celebrating? It’s a new holiday so there aren’t historical traditions established yet, but that’s not a problem. Just pretend! All you gotta do is imagine years of family tradition and it’s real. Decorate your house with wiffleball bats, rolled up newspapers and write out a list of todos after you and a few of your friends and neighbors take over the country. Be sure to pickup a few of those horned hats before they’re all gone. Oh, and if you’re really into it, get a bunch of people together, take your niece out back, and shoot her. No worries! You won’t get prosecuted. In fact, no one will ever really know who pulled the trigger! So Happy Pretend Insurrection Day America! |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by Eegore on 01/06/23 at 05:12:07 Only day of the year you can strike another human with a hockey stick, use bear spray on humans, hit them with a flagpole, and be considered "unarmed". Unarmed assault with a hockey stick day. Pretend Insurrection Day is also Pretend No Weapon was Involved Day. |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by WebsterMark on 01/06/23 at 06:29:13 If only the Germans knew all it took was few broken hockey sticks to take over the nation they could have saved a lot of lives…. |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by Serowbot on 01/06/23 at 07:23:47 It's America's Guy Fawkes day. Righty's can hang Mike Pence in effigy, and Lib's can burn tRump at the stake. Not sure what you'll rhyme with January :-? "Remember, remember the 5th of November" |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by WebsterMark on 01/06/23 at 09:06:30 2606040C1106630 wrote:
Eegore, I never one time heard of antifa’s riot on Trump’s Inauguration Day described as an armed insurrection despite the fact they were trying to stop it but were held back by police. Same with the protest at The White House fence again where a left-wing army with sticks, stones, bats etc… were held back by police. The left wing media doing the work for the Democratic Party pushed the armed insurrection nonsense and you feel along in lockstep. Now, you can claim you don’t get your news from corporate sites, but show me where you called the protests at Trump’s inauguration an armed insurrection because the only difference was the police then didn’t let them pass |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by WebsterMark on 01/06/23 at 09:07:10 786E79647C69647F0B0 wrote:
No, it’s just January 6th. |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by Serowbot on 01/06/23 at 09:17:43 You brought it up |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by Eegore on 01/06/23 at 13:10:36 "Eegore, I never one time heard of antifa’s riot on Trump’s Inauguration Day described as an armed insurrection despite the fact they were trying to stop it but were held back by police. Same with the protest at The White House fence again where a left-wing army with sticks, stones, bats etc… were held back by police." I remember you saying that. "The left wing media doing the work for the Democratic Party pushed the armed insurrection nonsense and you feel along in lockstep. Now, you can claim you don’t get your news from corporate sites, but show me where you called the protests at Trump’s inauguration an armed insurrection because the only difference was the police then didn’t let them pass" I never called Jan 6th an armed insurrection or agreed to that, I said a human being armed does not require a gun. Humans that had objects foreign to their physical body enacting in physical contact with others were armed. A man with a hockey stick is armed with a hockey stick. You claim he is unarmed because an armed insurrection must use guns so "nobody was armed" on Jan 6th. In order for a human to be armed on Jan 6th at The Capitol they must have a gun? I don't agree. I think if you hit someone with a hockey stick, you are armed with a hockey stick, what "the news" calls the event it is irrelevant. Nobody should be able to assault another person with an object and be considered "unarmed" by a court of law, or any other standard, because they were at The Capitol on Jan 6th and the news is trash. You really think I should consider that man unarmed because the garbage news inaccurately called it an insurrection? It wasn't an "insurrection" so that means as you put it: "nobody was armed"? Some humans were armed at the Capitol on Jan 6th and there is no reason there must be a gun in their possession for this to be true. Calling another event an armed insurrection still will not magically make a human with a hockey stick unarmed. |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by Serowbot on 01/06/23 at 13:44:23 Guy Fawkes tried to blow up Parliament. There were two bombs found on Jan 6 at rep and dem headquarters. Fortunately they were found (still looking for the bomber) Is a bomb armed? :-? |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by Eegore on 01/06/23 at 14:21:45 "Is a bomb armed?" Not on Jan 6th specifically at The Capitol. The bomb would need to have a gun to be armed. |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by Serowbot on 01/06/23 at 15:22:29 Let's start with the gun charges. In April, 72-year-old Lonnie Coffman of Falkville, Alabama, was sentenced to four years in prison for bringing loaded guns, ammunition and Molotov cocktail ingredients to Washington on Jan. 6. The weapons were found in his truck—parked less than half a mile from the Capitol building—which he left to attend a rally at the National Mall. A statement by the Department of Justice said Coffman "also carried a loaded handgun and a loaded revolver as he walked around the area that day." In March 2022, 49-year-old Texan Guy Reffitt, was convicted (among other charges) for being unlawfully present on Capitol grounds while possessing a firearm and transporting firearms during civil disorder. A Department of Justice indictment from January 2021 also states that Christopher Alberts, Maryland, was found carrying a Taurus G2C semi-automatic handgun on Capitol grounds on January 6. Off-duty Drug Enforcement Administration agent Mark Sami Ibrahim, 32, was also indicted by a grand jury for bringing a firearm within the United States Capitol and its grounds. In an article for Newsweek, Nick Suplina and Justin Wagner of Everytown for Gun Safety said they had identified "12 individuals allegedly tied to the events of Jan. 6 who were arrested in Washington, D.C., and charged with firearms offenses." A U.S. Capitol Police intelligence division report also found posts on now defunct blog thedonald.win in the lead-up to Jan. 6, which, the report said, contained "several comments [that] promote confronting members of Congress and carrying firearms during the protest." Further comments on the site included "Bring guns. It's now or never" and "Don't cuck out. This is do or die. Bring your guns." But while there is clear evidence showing that firearms were indeed brought into the January 6 march, the underlying claim itself is somewhat of a red herring, because it implies that possession of firearms is somehow a condition for an insurrection. American politics expert Professor Angelia Wilson of the University of Manchester, told Newsweek that insurrection is an act of violent resistance against a civil authority or government, that may involve any weapon or hand-to-hand combat. "On January 6th, the act of using a crowd-control railing to hit those charged with defending the Capitol building is an act of insurrection," Wilson said. "Had the protesters reached Vice President Pence, it would not have mattered if they used a gun or a noose, attacking the Vice-President is an act of insurrection. "There is no doubt that protesters who violently attacked those defending the Capitol on January 6th were committing acts of insurrection." On this count, there is also plenty of evidence that protesters were carrying other weapons and acted violently towards authorities. Among the more than 800 people charged in connection with the Jan. 6 riot, more than 85 have been accused of using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer. There were also the reports of pipe bombs found near the Capitol before January 6, though the investigation into who was behind them is still ongoing. |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by Serowbot on 01/06/23 at 15:27:07 And it's not over... Shootings reported at homes, workplace of 4 New Mexico politicians https://www.yahoo.com/news/shootings-reported-homes-workplace-4-083411893.html All are Democrats. Police are investigating whether they are linked. |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by MnSpring on 01/06/23 at 16:20:18 6B4B49415C4B2E0 wrote:
What would you call a person shooting and KILLING another person, when their was ABSOLUTELY NO THREAT to the Killers life? Put someone in Jail because they had guns in a truck in the parking lot. And talk about it 24/7 for a YEAR now. Yet ignore a person killing another person in cold blood. A-Yep. Got it ! |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by pg on 01/06/23 at 17:09:33 Among the more than 800 people charged in connection with the Jan. 6 riot Excluding Ray Epps of course.................... Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by WebsterMark on 01/06/23 at 17:14:15 2C3A2D30283D302B5F0 wrote:
Your defenders of freedom, I think that’s what you’ve called antifa and BLM, have killed dozens. You tried to set a police station on fire after blocking the exits. Fuxking sit this one out. |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by WebsterMark on 01/06/23 at 17:18:53 0F2F2D25382F4A0 wrote:
I said the phrased armed insurrection is a lie by the media intended to paint a false picture. I said when the typical person hears a person was armed, they assume it to be guns. And I said, when antifa or BLM attack people with items other than guns, they are not referred to as being armed. That’s on purpose to mislead the public. By arguing they were “armed”, you’ve fallen for the false narrative to make JAN 6 like it was an genuine threat to the Republic which is a fuxking joke. |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by pg on 01/06/23 at 17:35:21 https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/police-officers-killed-dallas-shooting 5 Police Officers Killed By Snipers At Scene Of Dallas BLM Protest Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by Eegore on 01/06/23 at 18:58:13 "I said the phrased armed insurrection is a lie by the media intended to paint a false picture. I said when the typical person hears a person was armed, they assume it to be guns. And I said, when antifa or BLM attack people with items other than guns, they are not referred to as being armed. That’s on purpose to mislead the public." I still agree with all that. You left out the part where you said "nobody was armed". That statement is by definition incorrect. By arguing they were “armed”, you’ve fallen for the false narrative to make JAN 6 like it was an genuine threat to the Republic which is a fuxking joke. I disagree. By saying a man with a hockey stick is armed with a hockey stick I am falling into the honest and verifiable narrative that he was armed with a hockey stick. You saying he was not armed is falling into a false narrative that somehow garbage media makes that guy unarmed. Do you realize how it sounds to say "nobody was armed" because "the media intended to paint a false picture"? Saying nobody was armed is painting a false picture that no human there had an object they used as a weapon. That's false - there's video of it, some people there were armed. Garbage manipulative news doesn't change that fact. Why try to argue false information with more false information? When there is video of a man swinging a hockey stick how can you say that man is "not armed"? Because people "assume" armed means guns? So if I assault somebody with a shovel, can I be considered unarmed because the public would "assume" that armed means I used a gun? That guy swinging a hockey stick is "not armed" because "the media" is painting a false picture? That's your logic? 1: It was not an armed insurrection on Jan 6th. 2: The statement: "Nobody was armed" is incorrect. Some humans were armed on Jan 6th 3: Nothing "the media" says changes the definition of "armed", or "insurrection" or "armed insurrection". Nothing changes about those words or their definitions because the media is garbage. Just toss aside the politics and call it what it is. Insurrections do not require guns to be considered an armed insurrection no matter what "the media" says or what people "assume". |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by WebsterMark on 01/07/23 at 04:16:44 7A6D6B6768780A0 wrote:
Quiet pg….. that didn’t happen. Remember. Jan 6 was the day a policeman was brutally murdered trying to protect us against the only domestic terrorist that exists, right wing Maga types. Stop spreading disinformation…. |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by WebsterMark on 01/07/23 at 04:24:06 Just toss aside the politics and call it what it is. Insurrections do not require guns to be considered an armed insurrection no matter what "the media" says or what people "assume". Insurrection against a Third World country might not require guns, but an insurrection against the United States government in the US Capitol would require a tremendous amount of guns. That did not happen. This was no insurrection. If you wanna say they were armed rioters who got out of control, fine, I’ll even say that. But I’m not calling this an armed insurrection because that implies this was a legitimate, armed insurrection and it was not. This was an out-of-control riot with a few bad players who thought about it for a couple of days and the Democratic politicians working in conjunction with the corporate news and entertainment culture jumped on this gift that was given to them by a very foolish Donald Trump and have been playing this card for two years. |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by Eegore on 01/07/23 at 07:39:10 Insurrection against a Third World country might not require guns, but an insurrection against the United States government in the US Capitol would require a tremendous amount of guns. That did not happen. This was no insurrection. If you wanna say they were armed rioters who got out of control, fine, I’ll even say that. But I’m not calling this an armed insurrection because that implies this was a legitimate, armed insurrection and it was not. A successful insurrection against the US would require guns but success is not required in order to be armed. An insurrection with people using bananas at the end of foam batons would still be an "armed insurrection" by definition, that is simply poorly equipped and never capable of succeeding. Armed by definition does not require guns. Saying an insurrection in the US requires guns in order to be called an armed insurrection is not correct. They can exist and fail. Jan 6th was not an insurrection, or an armed insurrection. Saying guns have to be present for anyone to be considered "armed" is wrong. "If you wanna say they were armed rioters who got out of control, fine, I’ll even say that." Up until now you have said "nobody was armed" - there is a significant difference there. That means the bear spray guy was unarmed. It sounded like you were ignoring the weapons present on Jan 6th, or saying the humans with weapons can not be considered "armed" specifically on Jan 6th because the media is trash. Jan 6th was not an armed insurrection. No armed insurrection anywhere on the planet requires guns to be present for the words "armed" and "insurrection" to be used to describe it. Probability of success is not a factor for defining a weapon in a human's hands. If I attack a group of 100 riot gear laden Capitol Police by myself with a hockey stick - I am armed. The fact I could never succeed means nothing. If 30 of my associates joined me so we could kill Biden and re-instate Obama, it would be an armed insurrection. 30 dead guys with used hockey sticks wouldn't change the definition - even if the garbage biased Media spun it to make it sound like Trump paid us to do it. None of this conversation applies to trash media. The media has nothing to do with how the words "armed" and "insurrection" are properly used. Trump has nothing to do with this. The definition of armed insurrection doesn't change because people don't like Trump. |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by WebsterMark on 01/08/23 at 06:18:12 None of this conversation applies to trash media. The media has nothing to do with how the words "armed" and "insurrection" are properly used. Trump has nothing to do with this. The definition of armed insurrection doesn't change because people don't like Trump. No, you’re wrong. Your Switzerland persona doesn’t allow you to see language is being used selectively, manipulated, to paint a picture that benefits the chosen political party of the left-wing dominated news and entertainment culture. There was no insurrection and as such, there was no armed insurrection. If the media had called the battles on Trump’s inauguration or when antifa, BLM, and other useful idiots tried to breach the White House fence, an armed insurrection, then I’d be onboard with you. The fact they didn’t call this an armed insurrection when the events were identical with the exception in the Capitol case, police stepped aside but in the other cases, they didn’t. Success or likely success isn’t the primary driver of defining an insurrection. I’m sure I heard that from someone….. |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by Eegore on 01/08/23 at 06:46:02 "No, you’re wrong. Your Switzerland persona doesn’t allow you to see language is being used selectively, manipulated, to paint a picture that benefits the chosen political party of the left-wing dominated news and entertainment culture." I fully understand that. I do not think that because trash media is misusing a word, that the definition of that word changes. A human is armed if they hit someone with a hockey stick no matter what the garbage media says about it. The bear spray guy was armed no matter what "the news" says about Trump. To claim they are unarmed because "the media" is manipulative is also being manipulative. Why do you need to lie to fight their lies? "There was no insurrection and as such, there was no armed insurrection. If the media had called the battles on Trump’s inauguration or when antifa, BLM, and other useful idiots tried to breach the White House fence, an armed insurrection, then I’d be onboard with you. The fact they didn’t call this an armed insurrection when the events were identical with the exception in the Capitol case, police stepped aside but in the other cases, they didn’t." I agree, again, and will continue to agree, that there was no armed insurrection or insurrection at all. Guns are not required for there to be an armed insurrection within the geographical confines of the US. You are only saying this because "the media" is trash and manipulating the event. Why do you need "the media" to use specific language and viewpoints on order for you to use the words "armed" and "insurrection" correctly? Guns are not required for humans at an insurrection to be armed, end of story. "Success or likely success isn’t the primary driver of defining an insurrection. I’m sure I heard that from someone….." This is correct. Guns do not define an "armed" insurrection, and success is also not required. "Armed" requires only a weapon separate from the physical human body - unless that human is considered trained or in the process of training in activities that are designed with the intent of causing harm to other humans (for instance a boxer). You are upset over lying media so you are manipulating the definition of armed insurrection in return, instead of being accurate about it. The only reason you are saying guns are required for there to be "armed" humans at an insurrection is because you don't like what the trash media said. Why do they have that power? Humans can be armed at an insurrection without guns anywhere on the planet. 1: There was not an insurrection or armed insurrection on Jan 6th. 2: Guns are not required for humans to be "armed" or "armed" at an "insurrection" anywhere on the planet. 3: Nothing "the media" says changes the definition of "armed insurrection". |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by WebsterMark on 01/08/23 at 07:39:40 I agree with 1 and 2 but not 3. The media often decides the definition of words. Educators have lost their jobs because they said men can’t get pregnant. The media drives that. Not exactly sure what you do but if you’re in any type of capacity which could be deemed as a representative of The US Government, this administration could force you to face consequences if you use the historical definition of words or phrases incorrectly. Illegal alien is a phrase that is grammatically correct for those who cross the border illegally but try putting that phrase into a public report if you are in a certain capacity. I’m not even sure what the approved phrase is any longer but I’m sure it’s not an accurate description |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by Eegore on 01/08/23 at 08:05:18 "Educators have lost their jobs because they said men can’t get pregnant. The media drives that." That doesn't mean men can get pregnant. It means people lose jobs. Illegal Alien versus Undocumented Immigrant is more like saying Armed Insurrection versus Foreign Object Equipped Insurrection. They are accurate, but utilizing different synonyms. Your example would be more like me saying "The Media" lies and manipulates, so there are no Illegal Aliens now, this means nobody is in the US illegally. The logic being the news is trash, and since they won't use the term Illegal Alien everyone in the US is now a legal citizen. The news being trash and refusing to use the term "illegal" doesn't mean humans in the US are here legally. It certainly doesn't mean we should be saying nobody is in the US illegally. The news being trash and calling Jan 6th an "armed" insurrection doesn't mean all insurrections in the US require guns. Nothing about the term "armed" requires guns anywhere on the planet. Claiming nobody was armed on Jan 6th is just fighting lies with more lies. |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by MnSpring on 01/08/23 at 13:48:18 4B6B69617C6B0E0 wrote:
Eegore does not want to answer this question. I wonder if Bot will ? Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by Eegore on 01/08/23 at 15:21:08 Eegore does not want to answer this question. Incorrect, we discussed the killing of Babbit in this exact context. Anyone can sit on a computer from the safety of their home and tell people what should have happened. You are intentionally leaving out other human lives in the equation. What do you call a man who kills another man who is ABSOLUTELY NO THREAT to the Killers life? A murderer or killer. What if the victim was threatening to rape his daughter and came in through a broken window? What if the victim was entering through a window while 3 men armed men were protecting politicians? Being honest about what happened doesn't make the killing of Babbit right, it's just more difficult to discuss than spinning the facts. Spin makes it easy and these situations are already easy from the safety of that computer screen. MnSpring's question is no different than when it was stated that the shot was fired "through a door" implying the shooter had no line of sight to the target. Why not be straight about it and say he shot her through a broken window on a door? Spin, that's why. |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by WebsterMark on 01/09/23 at 04:09:57 Nothing about the term "armed" requires guns anywhere on the planet. Claiming nobody was armed on Jan 6th is just fighting lies with more lies. No, it is not. It’s pointing out the manipulation going on. In two years when Republicans retake the White House and their are riots across DC by antifa, I won’t see the phrase armed insurrection anywhere. What does that tell you? |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by WebsterMark on 01/09/23 at 04:19:38 6040424A5740250 wrote:
I don’t object to the killing of Ashley Babbitt. They were let into the capital but this was an area that was closed off. They broke a window and were climbing through. I remember the video and you could see politicians down the hallway within sight. The night antifa and BLM assembled and attacked the White House fence, had one of them broken through, I would’ve expected them to be shot. But, the officer who shot them would have been adjudicated in public, not private. And at any point where this episode was mentioned in the press, it would’ve been repeatedly pointed out that the only person who died, was killed by an officer. The difference with the January 6 was the investigation was done quietly to protect the identity of the officer. Also, and I just saw this the other day, it’s constantly repeated that there were multiple deaths that day including a police officer, which is not true. Ashley Babbitt was no different than Michael Brown, Travon Martin, Brennona Taylor for example. They put themselves in a position and they were the one most responsible for their death. That’s the truth. But with the other three, we had a very public trial and enthusiasm for a public hanging. With Ashley Babbitt, the politicians, including all Democrats as well as a few Republicans along with the Washington elite, demanded it be kept quiet. That was wrong. That’s the power of the liberal media. |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by Eegore on 01/09/23 at 06:36:43 No, it is not. It’s pointing out the manipulation going on. In two years when Republicans retake the White House and their are riots across DC by antifa, I won’t see the phrase armed insurrection anywhere. What does that tell you? That those sources are trash. Stop using them, and definitely stop using them to alter the English language in Your personal speech. You claim that left wing media "pushed the armed insurrection nonsense and you feel along in lockstep" even though I literally have said the entire time no insurrection happened and have provided only definition-based literature and case law examples on the term insurrection. How is that following along when i am saying the exact opposite? I am using evidence and facts to describe humans on Jan 6th, not "the media" and as such I am not compelled to pretend nobody there was armed while I watch video of people hitting others with objects foreign to their physical body. If the information you are using is trash, stop using it. |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by WebsterMark on 01/09/23 at 09:10:04 That those sources are trash. Stop using them, This is what you don’t seem to ever grasp. Of course they’re trash but they have unbelievable influential power over policy in the US government. That’s a fact. I am saying that in the popular lexicon of American society, the word armed in a news story almost always implies a firearm. This is evidenced by the fact that I don’t recall hearing any stories about BLM rioters being armed. Now you can say stop listening to the trash and like I said I agree it’s trash but it’s influential trash. I’m not going to participate in it by pretending January 6 was an insurrection or that it was an armed insurrection. I understand and appreciate the fact that you agree January 6 was not an insurrection. You’re applying your scientific mind to the definition of the word armed. I’m saying in the lexicon of American society you can’t do that in this particular situation. They’re doing it to create a false narrative and I’m not going to participate in it. |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by Serowbot on 01/09/23 at 09:24:21 Legislators and judges say it was an insurrection. ... and tRump was the instigator |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by WebsterMark on 01/09/23 at 11:14:07 4355425F47525F44300 wrote:
Well that settles it because legislators and judges are never, ever wrong and never let personal bias or political ambition interfere with their analysis. |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by Eegore on 01/09/23 at 14:24:56 "This is what you don’t seem to ever grasp. Of course they’re trash but they have unbelievable influential power over policy in the US government. That’s a fact." I understand that, but I don't personally use it to prove points, or create counter arguments when addressing local government. I certainly don't use garbage media to justify altering truth. "I understand and appreciate the fact that you agree January 6 was not an insurrection. You’re applying your scientific mind to the definition of the word armed. I’m saying in the lexicon of American society you can’t do that in this particular situation. They’re doing it to create a false narrative and I’m not going to participate in it." I'd say you do participate in it when you counter false narrative with different false narrative. What value is there in saying that insurrections in the US must have guns present to be considered armed? To counter trash reporting? That makes no sense to me. |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by Serowbot on 01/09/23 at 15:14:19 645651404756417E524158330 wrote:
Well that settles it because legislators and judges are never, ever wrong and never let personal bias or political ambition interfere with their analysis.[/quote] Judges interpret the law, legislators make laws. Their opinion carries a little more weight than ours. If they deem it insurrection, it is by definition insurrection, because they define the law. If you commit a robbery that you don't define as robbery, it's still a robbery if the judge says so. |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by WebsterMark on 01/09/23 at 15:29:44 7660776A72676A71050 wrote:
Well that settles it because legislators and judges are never, ever wrong and never let personal bias or political ambition interfere with their analysis.[/quote] Judges interpret the law, legislators make laws. Their opinion carries a little more weight than ours. If they deem it insurrection, it is by definition insurrection, because they define the law. If you commit a robbery that you don't define as robbery, it's still a robbery if the judge says so. [/quote] You don’t really believe that. |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by Serowbot on 01/09/23 at 15:52:23 427077666170675874677E150 wrote:
So if a woman has an illegal abortion, but she thinks all abortion should be legal, she didn't have an abortion? Legislation and jurisprudence don't matter? Why vote? I think I'm starting to get the Right Wing. F**k laws!... F**k votes!... F**k facts!... F**k science!... |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by MnSpring on 01/09/23 at 15:53:28 4565676F7265000 wrote:
OK, Got it !!!!!!! |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by MnSpring on 01/09/23 at 16:09:09 4751465B43565B40340 wrote:
Once and for all.... Babbitt wasn't killed because of her personal threat,...(if she had been alone, I doubt she would have been shot), she was the unfortunate spearhead of the hundreds of raging protesters behind her. If she had broken through, it would have released the floodgate of brainwashed dupes out for blood behind her. Behind that last line of defense were duly elected representatives rightfully in fear of their lives. Not that she was innocent, but she didn't deserve to die. Neither did anyone else. But that blood is on the hands of the insurrectionists not the guards. You commit crime... and someone dies... it's your responsibility... That's the law. |
|
Title: Re: Happy Pretend Insurrection Day! Post by Eegore on 01/09/23 at 16:23:54 So why when someone, shoots and kills someone else, IN COLD BLOOD, with absolutely NO FEAR of their life, those same DFI FDS Socialists totally IGNORE it ? I don't think it was ignored. I see evidence all over that the shooting was acknowledged on both sides. Considering Law Enforcement doesn't have to be in fear for their own life to use deadly force, this sounds like spin. But then again you also said they have a duty to retreat. Cops that have a duty to retreat, that's real helpful. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |