(03-18-2024, 01:19 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (03-18-2024, 11:47 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Don't compare a 9 minute decision to a split second decision. Don't compare a strip mall parking lot to the US House chamber while both Houses are in session. Don't be that guy.
Just answer the question. Did Ashli Babbit deserve to be shot, and if so, why?
I'll answer the question. NO. It wasn't a "split second" decision. The so-called "officer" had plenty of time and plenty of other options rather than pulling the trigger on an unarmed woman. Just watch the video(s) of when it happened.
Now answer this question. Is there any proof that some of the mostly peaceful protestors were carrying concealed weapons on Jan. 6th? After all, you are the one that said "some of them had concealed firearms". How many people were arrested for carrying a concealed firearm?
Anyone with a CCP knows a couple of things.
1. It is illegal to CC in Washington DC.
2. It is illegal to CC on Federal Property (which includes even a post office).
"Other options" don't come into play when you are defending yourself or your home. Why would they come into play for a law enforcement officer defending a space that at the moment was housing the entirety of the elected federal government minus one person?
To answer your question, a man was found guilty in federal court of carrying a handgun while in the Capitol that day. Do you think he was the only one? Do you think everyone who breaks the law gets caught?
I wish they'd shot more of them.
(03-18-2024, 02:50 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]I wish they'd shot more of them.
What a sub-human piece of [BLEEP] thing to say..
Not surprised at all.
Have some more rope..
(03-18-2024, 02:50 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]I wish they'd shot more of them.
I hope that cop gets shot.
Still just as terrible as what you said.
(03-18-2024, 02:37 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (03-18-2024, 01:19 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]I'll answer the question. NO. It wasn't a "split second" decision. The so-called "officer" had plenty of time and plenty of other options rather than pulling the trigger on an unarmed woman. Just watch the video(s) of when it happened.
Now answer this question. Is there any proof that some of the mostly peaceful protestors were carrying concealed weapons on Jan. 6th? After all, you are the one that said "some of them had concealed firearms". How many people were arrested for carrying a concealed firearm?
Anyone with a CCP knows a couple of things.
1. It is illegal to CC in Washington DC.
2. It is illegal to CC on Federal Property (which includes even a post office).
"Other options" don't come into play when you are defending yourself or your home. Why would they come into play for a law enforcement officer defending a space that at the moment was housing the entirety of the elected federal government minus one person?
To answer your question, a man was found guilty in federal court of carrying a handgun while in the Capitol that day. Do you think he was the only one? Do you think everyone who breaks the law gets caught?
One guy. Lol. That dude broke the law. Still doesn't make January 6th an armed insurrection. Is there an army at the southern border invading us? This guy was leading a caravan with a rifle. Mikey logic, folks.
https://www.expressnews.com/news/border-...279145.php
(03-18-2024, 04:30 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (03-18-2024, 02:37 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]"Other options" don't come into play when you are defending yourself or your home. Why would they come into play for a law enforcement officer defending a space that at the moment was housing the entirety of the elected federal government minus one person?
To answer your question, a man was found guilty in federal court of carrying a handgun while in the Capitol that day. Do you think he was the only one? Do you think everyone who breaks the law gets caught?
One guy. Lol. That dude broke the law. Still doesn't make January 6th an armed insurrection. Is there an army at the southern border invading us? This guy was leading a caravan with a rifle. Mikey logic, folks.
https://www.expressnews.com/news/border-...279145.php
There can be more than one problem at the same time.
Based on the pic, yes there is a dude armed and invading the country. I hope they caught him.
Now, which piece of real estate is more important to secure?
A swampy patch along the Rio Grande with no bridges or dwellings,
or,
The United States Capitol building while Congress is in a joint session
They're both important.
Which is more important?
Which is more germane to the original point, "I don't blame the media for exaggerating what Trump says, given what his followers have already done."
(03-18-2024, 02:37 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (03-18-2024, 01:19 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]I'll answer the question. NO. It wasn't a "split second" decision. The so-called "officer" had plenty of time and plenty of other options rather than pulling the trigger on an unarmed woman. Just watch the video(s) of when it happened.
Now answer this question. Is there any proof that some of the mostly peaceful protestors were carrying concealed weapons on Jan. 6th? After all, you are the one that said "some of them had concealed firearms". How many people were arrested for carrying a concealed firearm?
Anyone with a CCP knows a couple of things.
1. It is illegal to CC in Washington DC.
2. It is illegal to CC on Federal Property (which includes even a post office).
"Other options" don't come into play when you are defending yourself or your home. Why would they come into play for a law enforcement officer defending a space that at the moment was housing the entirety of the elected federal government minus one person?
To answer your question, a man was found guilty in federal court of carrying a handgun while in the Capitol that day. Do you think he was the only one? Do you think everyone who breaks the law gets caught?
"Other options" most certainly comes into play. Was the "police officer" afraid that the woman would overpower him? Could she not have been stopped and detained? What about the use of a taser?
The "police officer" escalated to deadly force when he shouldn't have.
Deadly force is and always should be the last option for a law enforcement officer.
So one man found guilty of carrying a handgun in the Capitol that day means that "some of them had concealed firearms, and with those armories, it wasn't going to stay unarmed for long"?
1. So one man found guilty of carrying a handgun means that "
some of them had concealed firearms"? Since you like to play word games, does some=1 or does some= >1?
2. Does one man with a firearm=an "armory"?
3. You yourself admit that the mostly peaceful protest was done by people unarmed when you said "it wasn't going to stay unarmed for long". So since the people doing the mostly peaceful protest were unarmed (not for long in your words) was it really an "insurrection" as you and other far left democrats like to call it?
They pushed through police barricades, fought with the police, injured some of the police, smashed windows, forced their way into the United States Capitol, and tried to stop the United States Congress from doing its Constitutionally mandated duty. The police have a duty to stop an invasion of the US Capitol building, which it was- a violent invasion of the seat of our government. Don't tell me it wasn't that. I saw it live on TV.
Yes, I wish they had shot a lot more of them. They deserved it.
(03-18-2024, 04:38 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (03-18-2024, 04:30 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]One guy. Lol. That dude broke the law. Still doesn't make January 6th an armed insurrection. Is there an army at the southern border invading us? This guy was leading a caravan with a rifle. Mikey logic, folks.
https://www.expressnews.com/news/border-...279145.php
There can be more than one problem at the same time.
Based on the pic, yes there is a dude armed and invading the country. I hope they caught him.
Now, which piece of real estate is more important to secure?
A swampy patch along the Rio Grande with no bridges or dwellings,
or,
The United States Capitol building while Congress is in a joint session
They're both important.
Which is more important?
Which is more germane to the original point, "I don't blame the media for exaggerating what Trump says, given what his followers have already done."
As usual, you miss the point. It's not an army at the southern border just because one guy has a gun any more than it was an insurrection on January 6th, just because a guy had one gun. Yes. It was violent. Yes. People were angry. Yes. Some of them were bad actors. But also, Yes. The Capitol police let them in. Yes. There were insiders stirring up the crowd. Yes. Most people were arrested and jailed for "Trespassing." The only person that went where they weren't allowed was shot.
(03-18-2024, 05:23 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (03-18-2024, 02:37 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]"Other options" don't come into play when you are defending yourself or your home. Why would they come into play for a law enforcement officer defending a space that at the moment was housing the entirety of the elected federal government minus one person?
To answer your question, a man was found guilty in federal court of carrying a handgun while in the Capitol that day. Do you think he was the only one? Do you think everyone who breaks the law gets caught?
"Other options" most certainly comes into play. Was the "police officer" afraid that the woman would overpower him? Could she not have been stopped and detained? What about the use of a taser?
The "police officer" escalated to deadly force when he shouldn't have.
Deadly force is and always should be the last option for a law enforcement officer.
So one man found guilty of carrying a handgun in the Capitol that day means that "some of them had concealed firearms, and with those armories, it wasn't going to stay unarmed for long"?
1. So one man found guilty of carrying a handgun means that "some of them had concealed firearms"? Since you like to play word games, does some=1 or does some= >1?
2. Does one man with a firearm=an "armory"?
3. You yourself admit that the mostly peaceful protest was done by people unarmed when you said "it wasn't going to stay unarmed for long". So since the people doing the mostly peaceful protest were unarmed (not for long in your words) was it really an "insurrection" as you and other far left democrats like to call it?
The armories were different, they were in northern Virginia if memory serves. The Proud Boys and Oath Keepers had them.
(03-18-2024, 04:38 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (03-18-2024, 04:30 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]One guy. Lol. That dude broke the law. Still doesn't make January 6th an armed insurrection. Is there an army at the southern border invading us? This guy was leading a caravan with a rifle. Mikey logic, folks.
https://www.expressnews.com/news/border-...279145.php
There can be more than one problem at the same time.
Based on the pic, yes there is a dude armed and invading the country. I hope they caught him.
Now, which piece of real estate is more important to secure?
A swampy patch along the Rio Grande with no bridges or dwellings,
or,
The United States Capitol building while Congress is in a joint session
They're both important.
Which is more important?
Which is more germane to the original point, "I don't blame the media for exaggerating what Trump says, given what his followers have already done."
So, kinda like don't give the Dems a political victory on the border in an election year when we know who they are, what they do and what their end game is?
(03-18-2024, 09:28 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ] (03-18-2024, 04:38 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]There can be more than one problem at the same time.
Based on the pic, yes there is a dude armed and invading the country. I hope they caught him.
Now, which piece of real estate is more important to secure?
A swampy patch along the Rio Grande with no bridges or dwellings,
or,
The United States Capitol building while Congress is in a joint session
They're both important.
Which is more important?
Which is more germane to the original point, "I don't blame the media for exaggerating what Trump says, given what his followers have already done."
So, kinda like don't give the Dems a political victory on the border in an election year when we know who they are, what they do and what their end game is?
"Who they are" - vague - who really knows anyone else anyways?
"What they do" - vague again. They do a lot of things. Which things and why?
"Their end game" - not only is this vague, it claims to know secrets and predict the future.
This is religious language. It could mean anything and yet it draws you in.
I gave a very specific example of a single incident by a well defined group of people. You did not.
To recap, allowing that border bill to pass would only be handing the Dems a victory if you allowed them to spin it that way. There are two ways the Republicans could have spun it, "this is a band-aid, elect us for the full treatment (a wall, suppose)", or "all Joe Biden is doing is what we've been telling him to do for three years. He doesn't get credit for stealing our ideas. Elect us so you don't have to wait three years for common sense policy!"
If you're a politician and you don't think you can spin things in your favor, you got into the wrong line of work.
(03-18-2024, 09:52 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (03-18-2024, 09:28 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ]So, kinda like don't give the Dems a political victory on the border in an election year when we know who they are, what they do and what their end game is?
"Who they are" - vague - who really knows anyone else anyways?
"What they do" - vague again. They do a lot of things. Which things and why?
"Their end game" - not only is this vague, it claims to know secrets and predict the future.
This is religious language. It could mean anything and yet it draws you in.
I gave a very specific example of a single incident by a well defined group of people. You did not.
To recap, allowing that border bill to pass would only be handing the Dems a victory if you allowed them to spin it that way. There are two ways the Republicans could have spun it, "this is a band-aid, elect us for the full treatment (a wall, suppose)", or "all Joe Biden is doing is what we've been telling him to do for three years. He doesn't get credit for stealing our ideas. Elect us so you don't have to wait three years for common sense policy!"
If you're a politician and you don't think you can spin things in your favor, you got into the wrong line of work.
The logic behind each is the same, the difference is one example is politicians playing politics, the other is the media carrying water for a political party. I get the media does this for the left pretty much out in the open now, but as a citizenry we collectively should want a truly impartial media, right? I mean, I don't want softballs being lobbed at my candidate. I want him/her to knock it out of the park with the tough questions. I don't want them carrying my candidate's or party's water. You can't in good conscience be defending the media being impartial, can you? It just strikes me as an example of arguing your other stance in bad faith. In the span of just a couple of weeks it might as well have been in the same breath.
(03-18-2024, 11:32 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ] (03-18-2024, 09:52 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]"Who they are" - vague - who really knows anyone else anyways?
"What they do" - vague again. They do a lot of things. Which things and why?
"Their end game" - not only is this vague, it claims to know secrets and predict the future.
This is religious language. It could mean anything and yet it draws you in.
I gave a very specific example of a single incident by a well defined group of people. You did not.
To recap, allowing that border bill to pass would only be handing the Dems a victory if you allowed them to spin it that way. There are two ways the Republicans could have spun it, "this is a band-aid, elect us for the full treatment (a wall, suppose)", or "all Joe Biden is doing is what we've been telling him to do for three years. He doesn't get credit for stealing our ideas. Elect us so you don't have to wait three years for common sense policy!"
If you're a politician and you don't think you can spin things in your favor, you got into the wrong line of work.
The logic behind each is the same, the difference is one example is politicians playing politics, the other is the media carrying water for a political party. I get the media does this for the left pretty much out in the open now, but as a citizenry we collectively should want a truly impartial media, right? I mean, I don't want softballs being lobbed at my candidate. I want him/her to knock it out of the park with the tough questions. I don't want them carrying my candidate's or party's water. You can't in good conscience be defending the media being impartial, can you? It just strikes me as an example of arguing your other stance in bad faith. In the span of just a couple of weeks it might as well have been in the same breath.
I'm not defending the media as impartial. Not at all. I'm saying in this instance they have good reason to treat Trump harshly.
They used to treat him much better than he deserved, back in 2015 and 2016.
![[Image: SUoJr.gif]](https://s9.gifyu.com/images/SUoJr.gif)