(01-15-2024, 07:23 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2024, 07:00 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Well I can try however your preconceived notions will undermine anything and everything I put forth. We can start with what actually happened leading up Jan 6 which you moderates and leftists will never acknowledge.
Due to a foreign governments negligence (and I am being generous using that word) a worldwide pandemic was brought upon the globe. It happened to coincide with an election in the country of the leader of the free world which also lead to a lot of “temporary” changes in our voting laws. The legality of many of these changes were and are still in question.
On election night many of these changes appeared to have directly affected the outcome of the election on what no doubt can be described as a Lighting Rod of a sitting president. When questions arose about perceived irregularities in the opposing parties strongholds the official response from the people in charge was “We looked into it and it was all legit”. A lack of transparency into those investigations lead to frustration and many were left still questioning the legitimacy of the outcome.
The aforementioned firebrand of a president, being a narcissist of the absolute extreme refused to accept his defeat along with his staunchest supporters which lead to a protest on the day of the transfer of power. A few bad apples got out of hand which is typical in a large scale demonstration.
There was no insurrection regardless of what you tell yourself.
Granted that is an oversimplification of the topic at hand but more often than not the simplest answer proves to be most correct.
On a side note, many of the concerns raised after the election are being revisited 3 years later. I do find it interesting that many of those initial concerns after being legitimately scrutinized appear to be legitimate.
OK, I'm just going to focus on this "few bad apples" thing, and flesh that out. Please confirm or deny each additional fact I present.
1) The "few bad apples" numbered over 2000 who not only passed the barricades outside but also entered the building.
You did see the video of DC’s finest pulling barricades and waving people in right?
2) These "few bad apples" got within 100 feet of members of Congress and the Vice President.
And did what?
3) These "few bad apples" intended to reach those officials and intended to harm them or prevent them from doing their jobs.
100% conjecture on your part
4) This was one of only three days of the entire 4 year cycle of our Constitution that required all of those members to be present and sign off on who would be in power for the Constitution to continue. The other two days like that in the 4 year cycle are New Year's Day of any odd numbered year.
And?
Now questions:
Q1) You insist that none of these 2000 people are insurrectionists. What does the word insurrection mean? What is an additional act, that if they had done it that day, would make it an insurrection in your mind? That's addressing the contrapositive. No declaration can be true if the contrapositive is false.
Nope never said that at all. I’m sure there were a few with ill intent. That does not make the protest an insurrection something you have declared. In fact we have observed one individual inciting violence and calling for people to storm the capitol building. Curiously he got a slap on the wrist for his involvement.
Q2) Do we apply the law equally? If a Democrat mob had done all of these things above, and left you doubting for 4 hours if the Constitution would remain in effect or not, that would be OK? Those Democrats could all run for office again?
We observed democrats assaulting police, storming police stations, fire bombing buildings, looting, rioting and burning all in the name of protest. Allegedly some of the leaders of those protests rode their notoriety all the way to elected office. You tell me, is the law being applied equally?
It’s painfully obvious to everyone, well almost everyone here that you don’t care about the law or justice as long as Trump is stopped. Anything standing in the way of that is just an inconvenience.
(01-15-2024, 08:13 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Rice University unveils 'Afrochemistry' class that will 'explore the intersection of racial justice and chemistry' - dubbing it 'the study of black-life matter' (msn.com)
Rice University is offering an 'Afrochemistry' class that promises to analyze science through a 'contemporary African-American lens'.
Marketed as 'the study of black-life matter', a play on words merging science jargon with the Black Lives Matter movement, the course begins this semester.
The course description on the university's website explains students will 'apply chemical tools and analysis to understand black life in the US' and 'implement African American sensibilities to analyze chemistry'.
'Diverse historical and contemporary scientists, intellectuals, and chemical discoveries will inform personal reflections and proposals for addressing inequities in chemistry and chemical education,' it read...
...The class does not give any credits for a chemistry major, but does court towards an African and African-American studies minor. The description noted 'no prior knowledge of chemistry or African American studies is required' and there is no final exam....
This is the problem. True African-Americans, the ones who actually came here from Africa in their lifetime, probably don't care.
Black Americans are a different story. It may have more white liberals than black Americans in attendance to be honest. Another way to put black folks back in a box.
I watched a video last year that discussed the difference between actual African-Americans, black Americans, and all others that are black (Haitians, etc., who call themselves black Islanders). It, and the comments, were extremely insightful as to the mindset of each group. Most of the comments were from African Americans and black Islanders, the latter of which get tired of being called African.
(01-16-2024, 03:49 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2024, 07:23 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]OK, I'm just going to focus on this "few bad apples" thing, and flesh that out. Please confirm or deny each additional fact I present.
1) The "few bad apples" numbered over 2000 who not only passed the barricades outside but also entered the building.
You did see the video of DC’s finest pulling barricades and waving people in right?
2) These "few bad apples" got within 100 feet of members of Congress and the Vice President.
And did what?
3) These "few bad apples" intended to reach those officials and intended to harm them or prevent them from doing their jobs.
100% conjecture on your part
4) This was one of only three days of the entire 4 year cycle of our Constitution that required all of those members to be present and sign off on who would be in power for the Constitution to continue. The other two days like that in the 4 year cycle are New Year's Day of any odd numbered year.
And?
Now questions:
Q15) You insist that none of these 2000 people are insurrectionists. What does the word insurrection mean? What is an additional act, that if they had done it that day, would make it an insurrection in your mind? That's addressing the contrapositive. No declaration can be true if the contrapositive is false.
Nope never said that at all. I’m sure there were a few with ill intent. That does not make the protest an insurrection something you have declared. In fact we have observed one individual inciting violence and calling for people to storm the capitol building. Curiously he got a slap on the wrist for his involvement.
Q26) Do we apply the law equally? If a Democrat mob had done all of these things above, and left you doubting for 4 hours if the Constitution would remain in effect or not, that would be OK? Those Democrats could all run for office again?
We observed democrats assaulting police, storming police stations, fire bombing buildings, looting, rioting and burning all in the name of protest. Allegedly some of the leaders of those protests rode their notoriety all the way to elected office. You tell me, is the law being applied equally?
It’s painfully obvious to everyone, well almost everyone here that you don’t care about the law or justice as long as Trump is stopped. Anything standing in the way of that is just an inconvenience.
I want Trump stopped because I see him as a threat to law and justice based on his repeated attempts to use the powers of the presidency to stifle his political opponents and even overturn an election.
- "The police let me in" does not excuse anyone for crimes committed while inside.
- The insurrectionists were verbally threatening Pence and Pelosi and others.
- "These people will follow through on their angry threats" is not conjecture. It's common sense.
- Just making sure you understand the time and place are important. Don't try to compare this to a protest at a different place at a different time.
- If even one of the people present was an insurrectionist, the event is an insurrection, and anyone else present who did not try to hinder that insurrectionist should be suspected of insurrection as well. Punishment usually depends on level of cooperation with prosecutors.
- Name these Democrats who broke the law during protests and ended up winning office afterwards. I would love to know.
(01-16-2024, 06:42 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]https://twitter.com/gatewaypundit/status...ctecw&s=19
Twitter sued the special counsel saying that they should be allowed to tell a user (in this case Trump) that a prosecutor was searching their private data. The court completely rejected that claim. A minority of judges said that they should have made an exception for a sitting President or former President, but they were outvoted.
If a President wants a communication to be secret, he should use one of the many government owned tools he has available for that.
(01-17-2024, 06:06 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/stat...QaOXg&s=19
Disgusting piece of [BLEEP]..
It's about trust. Legislation has worked this way from the beginning. If you're going to make a deal, all elements of the deal have to pass as a package. "Do my part first" means "actually I'm tricking you and I'm going to leave before we get to your part."
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media4.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExcDR3c3piNmpvdG93c3VreG05YTU5eWpqYTZ2OWVnejM4NTk2MDhxciZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/ujBhf2c49OTHW/giphy.gif)
![[Image: S0cri.gif]](https://s13.gifyu.com/images/S0cri.gif)
![[Image: S06oH.gif]](https://s13.gifyu.com/images/S06oH.gif)