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.


 I'm willing to get a team started on that.

 What are the 3 networks and what timeframe are you thinking?

 We would need to develop a parameter for what is accepted as "entire entertainment culture" and break that down into categories that are easier to input information into.

 What suggestions do you have?  

 One thing also is we need to come to an agreement on how to analyze the political affiliation, if any, of every movie, TV show ever made.  UCS and CU in Boulder are willing to run these inputs through their supercomps once we have a way to decide.

"It’s like porn, you know it when you see it….."

 This again.  Let's say its true unless it's climate related, than only your anecdotal walk to a lake is applicable.  My references of crop changes over 25 years require empirical evidence that have a direct nexus to the topic, I can't know it when I see it right?

 Can I get the name of that movie/TV show?  I know two analysts that work at IMDB that could get a spreadsheet of similar movies.

 We could then categorize the first 500 or so based off our opinion of what political influence they have, create an average and use that to create a temporary scale.  None of this would help though because your argument is "Billy got away with it!" and my argument is "How does it apply in law and culture in this circumstance and no other circumstance?"


 Also from before:

 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?

If you can’t even acknowledge the obvious like the media and entertainment culture’s default position is left of center, you’re blinded by a desire to see everything as equally balanced.

 I agreed with you.  Multiple times already.

 My question, again, is why is the strategy to combat this left of center media nonsense becoming this method of saying things like firearms are "required" on this one day, at this one event, for a human to be considered armed?  

 That's the appropriate strategy to gain an advantage?  Stack more inaccuracy on top of the initial inaccuracy.  Why on earth would someone spraying Bear Spray be considered "unarmed" in any situation?

 The only answer I get is ANTIFA didn't get in trouble!  

 Bottom line is "the media" is exaggerating one way, (again agreeing with you) and you are appearing to downplay the instances of violence the other way.  There's no way I am going to watch those videos and think people only took selfies.  There's no way I am going to watch those videos and say everyone there was an insurrectionist.

"Just like a person who makes Pillows,
any ‘discovery’ he makes
it totally worthless.
NOT, the information."


 I agree with your point that Lindell's information should be looked at prior to judgement being made.

 Predictions of public statement however I am ok with.  Lindell's software investigation I can not see how an accurate prediction could be made given the lack of available information.  The following statement however I feel we have enough information to accurately predict it is very unlikely to happen:

"We have a clear path to pull this election down. And it's a fact we have evidence that will be not 8-1, remember, it will be 9-0, down comes election.  In August, here comes Donald Trump, our real president who won this election by 80 million to 68 million."


 How much credibility are we to give Lindell on this?

 The same amount we give to climate change predictions that never come true.

"It is incorrect to refer to the Jan 6th participants as armed. When arguments against the 2nd Amendment are put forth, the right to keep and bear arms isn’t confusing, arms means firearms, not hockey sticks or flagpoles."

 I see what you are saying in regards to the 2nd Amendment, however this isn't a 2nd Amendment issue.  This is an issue of having two choices: Armed, or Unarmed.  Insurrection, by definition, does not require firearms.  I will gladly pay for any consultation you need to find a practicing legal firm that would agree that Jan 6th participants were not armed.  I will offer financial assistance on this for one year, or a maximum value we can discuss in private.

 It's about "armed" as legal definition.  Mass ignorance of the local populace because CNN is trash news is no defense in court, and is not a reason for anyone to start changing the definitions of words, or making exceptions to criminal behavior.  

 Armed does not require firearms by definition, in any situation.  If a man uses Bear Spray on anyone at any time in any area of the US, he is armed.  That's it.  Jan 6th, or any other day ever, that man is armed with  Bear Spray, and if he uses it illegally he has committed an armed assault.

 If you are legally carrying a firearm - you are armed.  If you are legally carrying a hockey stick - you are armed.  We don't remove the "armed" part when debating things like self-defense, or right to carry.  If you defend your wife from two men using a hockey stick, you were armed, and within your rights to do so.  Nobody will go to court and say you were "unarmed" since that is obviously untrue, and unnecessary.  You simply use Affirmative Defense, that's part of why this exists, so we don't have to go around making up lies to defend against lies.

 I agree, again, that we should not call every person an armed insurrectionist.  I do not agree that we should change the definition of being armed because the news is inaccurately labeling everyone as an insurrectionist, or because BLM is not being appropriately prosecuted.


"You can be part of the club and call Jan 6th an armed insurrection if you want, go ahead."

 Again I never said Jan 6th was an insurrection.  I said some people, who acted within the guidelines of US law, and provided legal reference for this (Not news reports) are possibly insurrectionists, by definition.  I won't change the definitions of words to fit the actions of others, even if I agree with their actions.  This is why, without motivation from "the media" I came to the conclusion, on my own, that sedition is a more accurate term for some actions, and treason is not really applicable at all.  

 
"If Jan 6th had been an actual armed insurrection, it would have looked nothing like that."

 I'd be willing to hear your assessment but so far all I hear is "ANTIFA got away with it" as your reasoning.  Using the US legal definition of insurrection, why would it not apply to anyone there?

Quote:


Why do you want to,
Move The Goal Post ?????????

Serowbot wrote on 07/21/21 at 11:29:52:

Not even remotely close.

The 'center', has been moved by the Winy ultra Left FDS, for YEARS.
And now you want to move the goalposts, again !

Serowbot wrote on 07/21/21 at 11:29:52:


Serowbot, I think it’s possible you have the narrowest perspective of any regular on here, which is saying something.