To define them as unarmed is to deny 3.000 years of history.
Rome concurred the world with the spear.

Serowbot wrote on 07/17/21 at 08:36:07:

conquer --- voice to text failure  

Eegore wrote on 07/17/21 at 10:58:11:


Here’s the reality, you like to point out that you’re not influenced or your agenda is not dictated by news media or entertainment culture but the reality is…it absolutely is.  Saying you don’t rely on Fox News or CNN the base decisions on is ridiculous because they drive the conversation. Like it or not.

Again, change the parties 180° and what happened at the capital would be recorded in history as something entirely different. That’s the truth and it’s the undeniable truth.

You cannot fight City Hall and you cannot go against the main stream media and entertainment culture. You can, but it requires somebody like Donald Trump.

And it’s worse now because the current administration is using tech Giants to censor speech they don’t agree with. And many Democrats are going along with it.

I remember when I first read the diary of Anne Frank, how could anybody turn that family into the Nazis. Now I understand. We have tens of millions of people shaking their head in agreement and saying yes those people can’t put their opinion out into the public space. “Disinformation“ is a definition that’s in the hands of a few.

We got to find a way to turn this nonsense around or we really will go over a cliff that we can’t recover from.

Your opinions and actions are academic, they don’t matter big picture. The armed insurrection narrative was publicized repeatedly so there is no national debate among 95% of those in position to influence the national discussion.

We have no real national debate and few honest answers on almost every major topic today because our media and the Democratic Party are essentially one and the same. Given other violent protest lately can you honestly refer to Jan 6 as an armed insurrection and hold some participants without bail, did the 2020 election procedures result in fraud, did we count Covid deaths accurately, are you protected from Covid equally via vaccination or recovery, did social media giants collude and change the 2020 Presidential election, did Biden sell access to his v.p. office, is climate change really the number one issue, do gun laws really change murder rates, whoever said black lives don’t matter except young black men who kill other blacks regularly, is the constant black/white narrative on every topic helpful to the country, why are blacks committing most of the crimes against Asians and why are we pretending that’s not true, why are we letting illegal immigration across the southern border but threatening Cuba refugees?

The Democratically controlled media uses the phrase “armed insurrection” because they know the impression it leaves is guns were used. They are knowingly doing that to exaggerate  the violence of the event. They are not giving a second’s thought to a technical definition as you say you’re using. So when you object to using the phrase an unarmed insurrection because a stick can be a weapon, you are inadvertently playing along with them and exaggerating, even if that’s not your intention.

And our fair and balanced moderator can make jokes about Roman spears not qualifying as being armed, but tomorrow, if a white cop shoots a black man coming at him with a baseball bat, that cop will have shot an unarmed man. And our fair and balanced moderator will pretend to be all upset at the injustice of another white cop shooting an unarmed black man. The cop in Columbus shot and killed an unarmed woman. She had a knife about to stab another woman, but she was unarmed.

"The Democratically controlled media uses the phrase “armed insurrection” because they know the impression it leaves is guns were used."

 I agree.

 So the way to combat this is to say guns must be present only on Jan 6th at the Capitol for the term "armed" to be used?  That's the ideal choice here?  That somehow makes the person's argument who is saying this the one I should agree with?

 Why is that?



"So when you object to using the phrase an unarmed insurrection because a stick can be a weapon, you are inadvertently playing along with them and exaggerating, even if that’s not your intention."

 And saying firearms are required on Jan 6th to be armed is what exactly?  More truthful and accurate?  How is saying people with objects, like hockey sticks, or stolen police shields, and Bear Spray are armed an "exaggeration"?  If your wife was sprayed with Bear Spray would you want an armed assault charge on the guy?  Would you accept "Well CNN is over doing their reporting so for your wife's assault we will consider the guy unarmed."?

 If I have the choice of using proven academic definitions of words and applying them to the empirical evidence of Jan 6th, or choosing to alter the word's meanings to fit a narrative, which one should I choose?

 I was referring to the manipulation of information.  I agree that BLM/ANTIFA etc. have public destructive impact on a larger scale.

We have no real national debate and few honest answers on almost every major topic today because our media and the Democratic Party are essentially one and the same.

 By using this section of words that I quoted I would assume you are referring to "national debate" in regards to "honest answers on almost every major topic today" when assessing "media and the Democratic Party".

 The Republican party also propagandizes and influences national debate to skew information where one would reasonably expect honest answers when utilizing media.  

 The metrics of social media are astounding.  Anyone that thinks, (after actually looking at the information) that Republicans are less manipulative with the dispersal of information is simply unable to do basic math.

The metrics of social media are astounding.  Anyone that thinks, (after actually looking at the information) that Republicans are less manipulative with the dispersal of information is simply unable to do basic math.

Bull$hit. That’s like when people say more people have died in the name of religion than anything else. OK fine, World War I and World War II (neither of which had anything to do with religion ) killed 70 million people. Start there, beat that number before I bring in other wars.

So when you talk about manipulation, start with the three major networks for the last 20 years plus CNN plus MS NBC plus the entire entertainment culture, television shows and movies. That’s your starting point. Do some basic math and show me where republican manipulation over that time period is equal.

Good luck.