Anyone watching this? It's a complete farce. The democrats are making absolute fools of themselves. Barr has my sympathies for having to deal with this childishness. They refuse to allow him to answer a question. Every time he makes an attempt they talk over him. It's nothing more than a tantrum.
(07-28-2020, 03:53 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Anyone watching this? It's a complete farce. The democrats are making absolute fools of themselves. Barr has my sympathies for having to deal with this childishness. They refuse to allow him to answer a question. Every time he makes an attempt they talk over him. It's nothing more than a tantrum.
Haven't watched, only seen comments on Twitter, but not surprised that the obese slob Jerry Nadler continues to embarrass himself. Bill Barr is calm, cool, and collected. I like his style.
I'm watching Biden take questions from reporters. He says he knows how to get things done internationally. Yeah, like getting graft dollars for his son.
The hardest part about these hearings is you get to see first hand who's salaries your hard earned tax dollars are paying, and it is quite depressing.
(07-28-2020, 04:23 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]The hardest part about these hearings is you get to see first hand who's salaries your hard earned tax dollars are paying, and it is quite depressing.
That's exactly what I told my daughter.
Just watched the clip of Barr verbally kicking Eric "Farts" Swalwell in his nads.
It's always entertaining watching smart people pick apart dumb people.
There are legitimate questions to ask about the photo op on June 1st.
The protesters were peaceful, and nobody tried to ask them to move.
Barr had no intent of answering those questions. He was asked why chemical irritants were used, and his answer was, "tear gas was not used." That's transparent bull.
He is right that It's not okay to try to burn down a federal courthouse, but it was also not okay to storm the office of a wildlife refuge. 27 armed rioters storms that office in January of 2016, and occupied it illegally for 5 weeks. yet they all eventually surrendered, they were all arrested, and nobody was injured.
This could all be handled differently, with less violence.
A dude was shot and killed during that arrest. What are you talking about?
Nadler's rudeness and unprofessional is indefensible. Anyone that would try has to be a complete moron.
(07-28-2020, 07:06 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]There are legitimate questions to ask about the photo op on June 1st.
The protesters were peaceful, and nobody tried to ask them to move.
Barr had no intent of answering those questions. He was asked why chemical irritants were used, and his answer was, "tear gas was not used." That's transparent bull.
He is right that It's not okay to try to burn down a federal courthouse, but it was also not okay to storm the office of a wildlife refuge. 27 armed rioters storms that office in January of 2016, and occupied it illegally for 5 weeks. yet they all eventually surrendered, they were all arrested, and nobody was injured.
This could all be handled differently, with less violence.
John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry was an effort by abolitionist John Brown, from October 16 to 18, 1859, to initiate a slave revolt in Southern states by taking over a United States arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia. It has been called the dress rehearsal for the Civil War.
Brown's party of 22 was defeated by a company of U.S. Marines, led by First Lieutenant Israel Greene.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown...pers_Ferry
Nadler wouldn't even let Barr take 5 for lunch. Nadler lives for lunch!
(07-28-2020, 07:52 PM)Jagwired Wrote: [ -> ]
Nadler's rudeness and unprofessional is indefensible. Anyone that would try has to be a complete moron.
Sadly this won't change anyone's mind. It was all grandstanding. Barr should have taken out his phone and played some games or started having conversations with people. When he answers the question they ignore it and say he isn't answering so he show have just sat there.
(07-28-2020, 09:11 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (07-28-2020, 07:06 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]There are legitimate questions to ask about the photo op on June 1st.
The protesters were peaceful, and nobody tried to ask them to move.
Barr had no intent of answering those questions. He was asked why chemical irritants were used, and his answer was, "tear gas was not used." That's transparent bull.
He is right that It's not okay to try to burn down a federal courthouse, but it was also not okay to storm the office of a wildlife refuge. 27 armed rioters storms that office in January of 2016, and occupied it illegally for 5 weeks. yet they all eventually surrendered, they were all arrested, and nobody was injured.
This could all be handled differently, with less violence.
John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry was an effort by abolitionist John Brown, from October 16 to 18, 1859, to initiate a slave revolt in Southern states by taking over a United States arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia. It has been called the dress rehearsal for the Civil War.
Brown's party of 22 was defeated by a company of U.S. Marines, led by First Lieutenant Israel Greene.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown...pers_Ferry
I'm comparing what's going on today to something that went on 4 years ago.
You're saying it would be better to compare it to something that happened 161 years ago?
Seriously, though, why is it OK for Barr to correct his questioner over pepper balls or pepper bombs or pepper spray, and avoid answering the bigger question?
"Do you beat your wife?"
"I reject your suggestion that I hit my wife with a rubber mallet. There is no rubber mallet in my house and there never was. You don't know what you're talking about and I'm insulted."
"But do you beat your wife?"
It's kind of like when I point out that your analogy was flawed because a dude was killed while being arrested, but you ignore it.
(07-28-2020, 09:40 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-28-2020, 09:11 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry was an effort by abolitionist John Brown, from October 16 to 18, 1859, to initiate a slave revolt in Southern states by taking over a United States arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia. It has been called the dress rehearsal for the Civil War.
Brown's party of 22 was defeated by a company of U.S. Marines, led by First Lieutenant Israel Greene.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown...pers_Ferry
I'm comparing what's going on today to something that went on 4 years ago.
You're saying it would be better to compare it to something that happened 161 years ago?
The point being that neither is analogous to what’s happening in Portland.
(07-29-2020, 01:06 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]It's kind of like when I point out that your analogy was flawed because a dude was killed while being arrested, but you ignore it.
The analogy doesn't have to be perfect.
The dude who died was (a) part of a group that was allowed to take over a federal building, (b) decided to be part of a smaller group to go on a little trip, © that smaller group was cornered on the road by a joint operation of FBI and Oregon State Police, (d) then he swore that he would die rather than be arrested. He attempted to run, and he told the officers to shoot them. All of the other people he was traveling with gave themselves up peacefully. Obviously his decision to run and die says more about him than it does about FBI tactics on that day.
none of those four things are immediately relevant to what's going on in Portland, because nothing like that has been allowed to happen, yet.
All I'm saying is that there is precedent to allow protesters to have the building they want, and then more or less lock them in it.
(07-29-2020, 07:57 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2020, 01:06 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]It's kind of like when I point out that your analogy was flawed because a dude was killed while being arrested, but you ignore it.
The analogy doesn't have to be perfect.
The dude who died was (a) part of a group that was allowed to take over a federal building, (b) decided to be part of a smaller group to go on a little trip, © that smaller group was cornered on the road by a joint operation of FBI and Oregon State Police, (d) then he swore that he would die rather than be arrested. He attempted to run, and he told the officers to shoot them. All of the other people he was traveling with gave themselves up peacefully. Obviously his decision to run and die says more about him than it does about FBI tactics on that day.
none of those four things are immediately relevant to what's going on in Portland, because nothing like that has been allowed to happen, yet.
All I'm saying is that there is precedent to allow protesters to have the building they want, and then more or less lock them in it.
They don’t want to be in it. They want to destroy it.
(07-28-2020, 07:06 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]There are legitimate questions to ask about the photo op on June 1st.
The protesters were peaceful, and nobody tried to ask them to move.
Barr had no intent of answering those questions. He was asked why chemical irritants were used, and his answer was, "tear gas was not used." That's transparent bull.
He is right that It's not okay to try to burn down a federal courthouse, but it was also not okay to storm the office of a wildlife refuge. 27 armed rioters storms that office in January of 2016, and occupied it illegally for 5 weeks. yet they all eventually surrendered, they were all arrested, and nobody was injured.
This could all be handled differently, with less violence.
I finally understand the true meaning of "gaslighting"
(07-29-2020, 07:57 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2020, 01:06 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]It's kind of like when I point out that your analogy was flawed because a dude was killed while being arrested, but you ignore it.
The analogy doesn't have to be perfect.
The dude who died was (a) part of a group that was allowed to take over a federal building, (b) decided to be part of a smaller group to go on a little trip, © that smaller group was cornered on the road by a joint operation of FBI and Oregon State Police, (d) then he swore that he would die rather than be arrested. He attempted to run, and he told the officers to shoot them. All of the other people he was traveling with gave themselves up peacefully. Obviously his decision to run and die says more about him than it does about FBI tactics on that day.
none of those four things are immediately relevant to what's going on in Portland, because nothing like that has been allowed to happen, yet.
All I'm saying is that there is precedent to allow protesters to have the building they want, and then more or less lock them in it.
did those people burn down the wild life office?