(08-01-2022, 11:47 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Does breaking into the Capitol have to be pre-requisite? Because one need look no further than the Bernie bro who tried to assassinate multiple GOP members of Congress for an example of a far leftist trying to assassinate politicians. Or the BLM member who tried to kill the mayoral candidate in Kentucky. And that's just two examples off the top of my head. So let's please not pretend that political violence is confined to the far right.
Find me one ANTIFA **** who broke into the Capitol with the intention of killing a politician.
(08-01-2022, 12:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's interesting to see the different takes on the false flag operative based on the nature of the protest. Essentially, both sides firmly believe that glowies are sabotaging their protests and fomenting violence but equally scoff at the assertion when made by the other side.
True, but I'd still say this is another area where the GOP is more on-point with their messaging and the legitimization of the conspiracies. When you see the messages the Fox News hosts sent and how quickly they went from "stop your followers" to "he won't stop them...time to say they're not his followers" you have to admit their spin machine is scarily effective.
It's all so legitimized on the surface and if you even care to look below said surface....well, believing this is what is expected of you so just play along until you get it.
(08-01-2022, 12:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As to your second point, I don't think I can agree. Dem politicians have absolutely called for violence, they're just more surreptitious about it. Maxine Waters is a good starting point for this. Plausible deniability doesn't impress me, at all.
I can see that, it's not a black or white argument. I would say that Trump world was the most brazenly open about their intentions, and one might argue that this is even worse, and more dangerous, than being surreptitious. But that's a tricky point for sure. That being said, I have my opinion about Maxine Waters (I find her horrible), but could you share a quick example of her covertly endorsing violence?
The maybe clearer difference I would see is that most Democratic politicians (at least I perceive it that way) say that violence is not acceptable, including from Antifa or BLM. I know Biden did so time and again. A scary big part of the GOP can not bring themselves to say that about the Capitol storm.
(08-01-2022, 01:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As I stated in my reply, why is breaking into the Capitol a prerequisite? Are you ok with political violence as long as it's not done at the Capitol?
In a January 6th thread? Try not diverting all of the time and answer the question that was asked in the proper thread. You seem scared to discuss this topic or incapable of staying on topic.
(08-01-2022, 01:15 PM)Nately120 Wrote: True, but I'd still say this is another area where the GOP is more on-point with their messaging and the legitimization of the conspiracies. When you see the messages the Fox News hosts sent and how quickly they went from "stop your followers" to "he won't stop them...time to say they're not his followers" you have to admit their spin machine is scarily effective.
It's all so legitimized on the surface and if you even care to look below said surface....well, believing this is what is expected of you so just play along until you get it.
Yes, it is more likely to appear on Fox than it is MSNBC. Of course, that doesn't stop shows like The View making blatantly false claims about organizations supporting Nazis.
(08-01-2022, 01:16 PM)hollodero Wrote: I can see that, it's not a black or white argument. I would say that Trump world was the most brazenly open about their intentions, and one might argue that this is even worse, and more dangerous, than being surreptitious. But that's a tricky point for sure. That being said, I have my opinion about Maxine Waters (I find her horrible), but could you share a quick example of her covertly endorsing violence?
Absolutely, as I said, Trump is much more blatant about it, probably because subtlety is a characteristic he entirely lacks. As for Maxine Waters;
I don't think that calling for protestors to get "more confrontational" after a summer of arson, looting, murder and assault is anything less than a call for more violence. As I said, she's maintaining the plausible deniability, but that means less than nothing to me.
Quote:The maybe clearer difference I would see is that most Democratic politicians (at least I perceive it that way) say that violence is not acceptable, including from Antifa or BLM. I know Biden did so time and again. A scary big part of the GOP can not bring themselves to say that about the Capitol storm.
Eh, they say it out the side of their mouths while simultaneously minimizing and excusing it with mealy mouth statements like "people are upset". I put up with endless excusing of violence, and flat out lies from Dem politicians here in Los Angeles about protests being peaceful when they were anything but. Hard for me to accept this claim as true when I have witnessed the exact opposite first hand. Also, it's hard for me to accept when the DOJ is dropping federal charges against left wing rioters left and right, while two lawyers get a slap on the wrist for firebombing a police car.
The two attorneys appeared at a U.S. courthouse in Brooklyn Thursday to withdraw earlier guilty pleas to a charge of unlawfully possessing Molotov cocktails, and plead guilty to conspiracy charges punishable by no more than five years imprisonment.
The reduced charges represent a remarkable change from the tough approach initially taken by federal prosecutors, who had initially hit the attorneys, both 33, with serious charges that could have landed them in prison for decades.
If that isn't excusing and encouraging more violence then I don't know what is. There are far more ways to encourage behavior than to flat out say you endorse it.
(08-01-2022, 01:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As I stated in my reply, why is breaking into the Capitol a prerequisite? Are you ok with political violence as long as it's not done at the Capitol?
Find me one ANTIFA **** who broke into the Capitol with the intention of killing a politician.
(08-01-2022, 01:32 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Find me one ANTIFA **** who broke into the Capitol with the intention of killing a politician.
Regardless, it's hilarious to think that there are people who were defying the law under what they thought were Trump's orders only to have him and the fox news crowd convince their fellow GOP nuts that they are really secret ultra liberals the whole time.
You've failed me...I declare you the opposite political alignment. A scathing scarlet letter, indeed.
It reminds me of when Jeremy Hill fumbled in that 2015 playoff game and Bengals fans were like "Pretty sure he's actually a member of the Steelers."
(08-01-2022, 01:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As for Maxine Waters;
I don't think that calling for protestors to get "more confrontational" after a summer of arson, looting, murder and assault is anything less than a call for more violence. As I said, she's maintaining the plausible deniability, but that means less than nothing to me.
Well, I watched the entire 6 minutes of the first video and while I am certainly not in favour of confronting admin members in restaurants and other places I do not really see anything that I can objectively depict as a call for violence. Maybe I overheard it. Not that it matters much, because your second example is valid enough. Or say it would stretch my own willingness to apply benefit of the doubt over the limit were I to say a call for being more confrontational is not a subtle call for being more violent. At the very least, she must have been aware that quite some people will interpret it that way. I say that not for you so much, but rather in regard to those that think this is totally harmless and righteous.
I would, however, argue that Trump was even worse, and not just because he was less subtle. But that is not meant as a defense. It's just, this debate started from whataboutism in respect to the Capitol storm.
(08-01-2022, 01:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Eh, they say it out the side of their mouths while simultaneously minimizing and excusing it with mealy mouth statements like "people are upset". I put up with endless excusing of violence, and flat out lies from Dem politicians here in Los Angeles about protests being peaceful when they were anything but. Hard for me to accept this claim as true when I have witnessed the exact opposite first hand.
That is understandable, I share that view. I was astonished how the protests were painted as pretty much harmless and righteous, when it was clear that they often are not. I always attributed this to a shyness to critizise anyone that is perceived to be on one's own side.
(08-01-2022, 01:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Also, it's hard for me to accept when the DOJ is dropping federal charges against left wing rioters left and right, while two lawyers get a slap on the wrist for firebombing a police car.
The two attorneys appeared at a U.S. courthouse in Brooklyn Thursday to withdraw earlier guilty pleas to a charge of unlawfully possessing Molotov cocktails, and plead guilty to conspiracy charges punishable by no more than five years imprisonment.
The reduced charges represent a remarkable change from the tough approach initially taken by federal prosecutors, who had initially hit the attorneys, both 33, with serious charges that could have landed them in prison for decades.
If that isn't excusing and encouraging more violence then I don't know what is. There are far more ways to encourage behavior than to flat out say you endorse it.
Hm, yeah, maybe this is true. I am a bit uncertain for I do not know what the appropriate sentence for setting an empty car on fire would be. There might be a point that it is "merely" property damage and that a sentence exceeding 10 years/one decade would seem too high. But I don't know the precedents on this kind of deed and yeah, a few months sure seems too low. But I lack some information, eg. what was part of that plea deal, did they hand out more names in return, was there doubt that the case would have been airtight in court etc. These are lawyers, mabe they had a sly legal course in mind that would not be applicable for everyday folk.
(08-01-2022, 01:59 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, I watched the entire 6 minutes of the first video and while I am certainly not in favour of confronting admin members in restaurants and other places I do not really see anything that I can objectively depict as a call for violence. Maybe I overheard it. Not that it matters much, because your second example is valid enough. Or say it would stretch my own willingness to apply benefit of the doubt over the limit were I to say a call for being more confrontational is not a subtle call for being more violent. At the very least, she must have been aware that quite some people will interpret it that way. I say that not for you so much, but rather in regard to those that think this is totally harmless and righteous.
Yes, I would agree with your take on the first clip, if it was an isolated incident. However, those kind of veiled threats are a big part of her repertoire as the later clip shows. Given her history I don't think you can look at the first clip in a vacuum. Also, she's a horrible person and utterly corrupt. Read up on her hiring Damian "Football" Williams.
I'll point out that this is an obvious hit piece on her and the title is hyperbolic in the extreme. But the facts they present are just that, facts. Waters is infamous in Los Angeles, and honestly, most people absolutely loathe her. But she is excellent at feeding her district just enough scraps to keep getting elected.
Quote:I would, however, argue that Trump was even worse, and not just because he was less subtle. But that is not meant as a defense. It's just, this debate started from whataboutism in respect to the Capitol storm.
I totally agree, there's certainly a difference in degree. I also completely get your point about "whataboutism". However, I would counter that right wing violence gets much more MSM coverage than left wing, hence those comparison are frequently made to bring some balance to the topic. Note, I do not think that is the case in this thread, as the people making that point aren't exactly credible in that regard. But outside of here, in the general public, I do think that this point is made largely to add balance, or to address the imbalance.
Quote:That is understandable, I share that view. I was astonished how the protests were painted as pretty much harmless and righteous, when it was clear that they often are not. I always attributed this to a shyness to critizise anyone that is perceived to be on one's own side.
Which I normally get, but not when it involves property destruction and injury, including death, on the scale that we witnessed. As another example of the extreme leaning towards leftist causes, look at the Covid restrictions that were being enforced at that time. People were told to quarantine as much as possible. Oh, unless you want to gather in huge crowds to protest, then Covid isn't a big deal at all.
Quote:Hm, yeah, maybe this is true. I am a bit uncertain for I do not know what the appropriate sentence for setting an empty car on fire would be. There might be a point that it is "merely" property damage and that a sentence exceeding 10 years/one decade would seem too high. But I don't know the precedents on this kind of deed and yeah, a few months sure seems too low. But I lack some information, eg. what was part of that plea deal, did they hand out more names in return, was there doubt that the case would have been airtight in court etc. These are lawyers, mabe they had a sly legal course in mind that would not be applicable for everyday folk.
A large part of the sentence was due to the conspiracy charges. Conspiracy on its own is a big deal, but you throw in domestic terrorism, which this certainly was, and you're in big trouble. I do agree that decades would have been excessive. I'd be good with eight years, meaning they'd serve about five.
(08-01-2022, 05:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm not aware of one. I'm also not making any excuses for the Capitol rioters, so I'm not sure what point you think you're proving.
That the whataboutism someone pulled earlier was absolute bullshit.
I was honestly just looking for someone to admit it.
(08-01-2022, 05:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, I would agree with your take on the first clip, if it was an isolated incident. However, those kind of veiled threats are a big part of her repertoire as the later clip shows. Given her history I don't think you can look at the first clip in a vacuum.
Maybe not. But on the other hand, not doing it in a vacuum more or less unaovoidably lets expectations factor into the judgment, and that's a fine line.
(08-01-2022, 05:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Also, she's a horrible person and utterly corrupt.
I will not found a fan club.
(08-01-2022, 05:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I totally agree, there's certainly a difference in degree. I also completely get your point about "whataboutism". However, I would counter that right wing violence gets much more MSM coverage than left wing, hence those comparison are frequently made to bring some balance to the topic. Note, I do not think that is the case in this thread, as the people making that point aren't exactly credible in that regard. But outside of here, in the general public, I do think that this point is made largely to add balance, or to address the imbalance.
OK, I get this thought, but imho that's also a fine line. In short, if one has an issue with the media's one-sided coverage, one can complain about it, or one can mimic that behaviour in the name of balance. I find it tough to do both. In the end, this will always lead to escalatory means and a chicken vs. egg debate on who's to blame. And I would be especially opposed to the idea when it's about downplaying the Capitol storm through false equivalencies in the name of balance. I get it, but I'm not buying it.
(08-01-2022, 05:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Which I normally get, but not when it involves property destruction and injury, including death, on the scale that we witnessed. As another example of the extreme leaning towards leftist causes, look at the Covid restrictions that were being enforced at that time. People were told to quarantine as much as possible. Oh, unless you want to gather in huge crowds to protest, then Covid isn't a big deal at all.
Yeah, I recognized that too. The defense for that I came up with would be that enforcing restrictions is a tough call to make even for a supporter of covid measures. If you insist on quarantine laws, maybe forcibly disperse protesters even, it's adding fuel to the fire. These people were angry and at least in my perspective, they had plenty reason to be. Now authorities forbid black protests? Imho a difficult position.
(08-01-2022, 05:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A large part of the sentence was due to the conspiracy charges. Conspiracy on its own is a big deal, but you throw in domestic terrorism, which this certainly was, and you're in big trouble.
Was it though? I really am uncertain about the definition of that term, but in my own interpretation, I always believed that to be terrorism, a deed must in any case include a distinct plan to potentially kill people. Which, not to diminish burning police cars, these guys possibly did not have. But yeah, just my definition.
(08-01-2022, 09:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm sorry I offended you. Do try and enhance your calm.
Whose offended? I posed a question to someone else, you butted in and couldn't provide a direct answer, so I prompted you until you answered it successfully and without subterfuge. If anything, I feel a swelling of pride.
(08-01-2022, 09:37 PM)hollodero Wrote: Maybe not. But on the other hand, not doing it in a vacuum more or less unaovoidably lets expectations factor into the judgment, and that's a fine line.
I would counter that a person's pattern of behavior eventually leads to them not getting the benefit of the doubt. Is that not an argument that we've heard used against Trump on numerous occasions? I certainly think Waters qualifies in this regard.
Quote:I will not found a fan club.
Nor will anyone else.
Quote:OK, I get this thought, but imho that's also a fine line. In short, if one has an issue with the media's one-sided coverage, one can complain about it, or one can mimic that behaviour in the name of balance. I find it tough to do both. In the end, this will always lead to escalatory means and a chicken vs. egg debate on who's to blame. And I would be especially opposed to the idea when it's about downplaying the Capitol storm through false equivalencies in the name of balance. I get it, but I'm not buying it.
Here I cannot agree. You cannot discount a valid criticism simply because others will use that criticism to minimize or excuse unacceptable behavior. This line of thinking is why trust in the media is in the toilet. Bad faith actors will always conduct themselves in that regard. You only push more people into their camp when you deny the evidence of people's own two eyes. The ideal solution would be for the media to actually conduct themselves in a fair and impartial manner. This strikes me as a less than likely outcome. The less palatable solution is to acknowledge when the media is being biased, e.g. the following pic;
An even better example is the coverage of the Rittenhouse incident and trial. The media was near universal in condemning the kid, some going so far as to label him a white supremacist. Hell, someone on this very board, the day after the shooting, posted a picture of the kid in a police explorer uniform like it was some gotcha proof of his ill intent. Meanwhile you have myself and Bel pointing out that it's as clear a case of self defense as we've ever seen, and we are not on the same ends of the political spectrum by any means. But, aside from Fox, the media has been full square behind the BLM protests, regardless of the damage caused, or the people injured or killed and equally opposed to anyone who dares to point that out. Respectfully, when you defend this, or rather dislike it being pointed out, because to not do so only gives ammunition to people who would act in the same fashion for right wing protests, you're only adding fuel to the fire. Either we can acknowledge what is fair or we contribute to what is unfair. We cannot control those who would act in bad faith, we can only act in good faith ourselves. I think Bill Maher is a good example of a far left liberal who has realized this and is speaking out accordingly.
Quote:Yeah, I recognized that too. The defense for that I came up with would be that enforcing restrictions is a tough call to make even for a supporter of covid measures. If you insist on quarantine laws, maybe forcibly disperse protesters even, it's adding fuel to the fire. These people were angry and at least in my perspective, they had plenty reason to be. Now authorities forbid black protests? Imho a difficult position.
Oh, I get why it was done. But all it did was show that the restrictions were largely bullshit. Either this was a public health emergency or it was not. I got to see my mother for exactly ten minutes, while she lay dying in the hospital for five days. My father didn't get to sit with her in her dying moments after being married to her for over fifty years. But the protestors can run around in public elbow to elbow, in dense groups thousand strong, because enforcing the mandates we were all told we had to live by would be seen as racist? All while some of them loot businesses, commit arson and assault and, in some extreme cases, murder people? Seriously, eff that argument with a rake.
Quote:Was it though? I really am uncertain about the definition of that term, but in my own interpretation, I always believed that to be terrorism, a deed must in any case include a distinct plan to potentially kill people. Which, not to diminish burning police cars, these guys possibly did not have. But yeah, just my definition.
Well, technically terrorism is any criminal act used to try and effect political change. Setting a police car on fire with Molotov cocktails may not have directly injured anyone, in this instance, but the intent behind doing so is rather obvious. I don't think you have to cross the line to actual murder to make it a very serious crime.
Quote:I posed a question to someone else, you butted in and couldn't provide a direct answer, so I prompted you until you answered it successfully and without subterfuge.
Again, I'm sorry if I interfered with your harvesting of low hanging fruit. I can comprehend, but cannot condone, that need to bully. I see it in the criminal community every work day.
(08-01-2022, 10:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You appeared to be.
Something something is a stinky cologne something something.
Quote:Again, I'm sorry if I interfered with your harvesting of low hanging fruit. I can comprehend, but cannot condone, that need to bully. I see it in the criminal community every work day.
Rich coming from the guy always demanding honesty from everyone else here. High standards for everyone, none for yourself. Glad to see your job bleeds into your personal life.
Quote:You can get a cream to treat that.
I'll take medical advice from LEOs when they decide that everything isn't a target thank you very much.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: CNN-Headline-Fiery-2.jpg]](https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2020/08/CNN-Headline-Fiery-2.jpg)
