The January 6th Commission To Investigate The Insurrection

[BillsFanNC]

14 hours ago, daz28 said:

LOL.  I defined it using a dictionary(like most people define things by), not "dem media" as you claim.  Why were they wandering inside the Capital, and who invited them in?  Was violence involved? Hopefully you're past the delusion that the police, Antifa, and FBI did.  You know that Colorado case(I believe you brought up), where the judge said he never took a Constitutional oath, but instead a presidential oath, and that's why he can't be disqualified?  That judge said not only was there an insurrection, but affirmed the petitioners' claims that Trump had incited and engaged in it.  That judge was appointed by a guy who was on the House Liberty Caucus(the rightest of the right).  Outside of 2 or 3 whacko commentaries from The Washington examiner and the likes, you're hard pressed to find anyone claiming it wasn't.  I'll guess the world will just have to ignore dictionaries, and take your word for it.  Takes a big man to call someone a complete moron on the internet.  

 

I'd call you a moron to your face. That's because you clearly are when it comes to J6.

 

Any person on J6  whether they committed violence (some)  or acted as trespassing tourists (most) should be held accountable. Nobody here has ever said otherwise.

 

However, more and more video is coming out that clearly shows people being allowed inside by Capitol police, doors being unlocked from the inside, Capitol police escorting the qanon shaman into the senate chamber , people walking in orderly fashion inside the velvet ropes, testimony that not a single firearm was confiscated at the Capitol and on and on.

 

There's 14k hours of video, and we've seen only a tiny fraction of it. Even from what we've seen already you again have to be a moron to characterize it as an insurrection / rebellion. You seem disinterested in having any further transparency because you've bought the security reasons nsrrative.

 

Let's go storm the Capitol (as per Ray Epps),to overthrow the government with a bunch of middle aged unarmed morons, then against alll odds successfully breach the Capitol of the most powerful nation the world has ever known. It was all so easy!

 

Then simply leave and go home.

 

That carefully planned insurrection and coup we worked so hard for? Meh...nevermind.

 

 

Yes indeed, you're a moron.

[BillsFanNC]

Insurrection daz28 or nah?  Even if you decide to be consistent and condemn this as insurrection, why do you never hear it characterized as such by the legacy media or elected officials I wonder?

 

 

Insurrection or nah?  Again I'm assuming that you'll stick to your highly principled view here and condemn this as insurrection as well since you're only concerned with  definitions.  These attacks on a federal court house went on for weeks.  But again, why do you think that the rest of the principled media and government officials lack consistency when it comes to insurrection narratives?  

 

The very same people who constantly trumpet the J6 as an insurrection, would never dare do the same with these two examples.  Why is that?

 

 

 

[Doc]

If (prior to J6) you were to tell a lib "I'm going to overthrow the Government with 1,000 unarmed people," they'd have laughed in your face.  Now it's "insurrection."

[daz28]

5 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

I'd call you a moron to your face. That's because you clearly are when it comes to J6.

 

 

Sure you would.  

 

If you want to argue with the Mirriam brothers and Webster(or Oxford or Cambridge) be my guest.  

[BillsFanNC]

7 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Sure you would.  

 

If you insist on spewing the same nonsense in person that you do here?

 

Then I absolutely would.

 

Because you absolutely are being a moron on this issue.

 

 

7 minutes ago, daz28 said:

 

If you want to argue with the Mirriam brothers and Webster(or Oxford or Cambridge) be my guest.  

 

Why don't you argue with the dictionary on the White House or Portland federal court house "insurrections."

 

Do you believe in the dictionary definition of words when an orange President says:

 

"Peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard"

 

Or do the definition of those words, taken together really mean go do an insurrection?

 

You're a clown.

[daz28]

24 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

If you insist on spewing the same nonsense in person that you do here?

 

Then I absolutely would.

 

Because you absolutely are being a moron on this issue.

 

 

 

Why don't you argue with the dictionary on the White House or Portland federal court house "insurrections."

 

Do you believe in the dictionary definition of words when an orange President says:

 

"Peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard"

 

Or do the definition of those words, taken together really mean go do an insurrection?

 

You're a clown.

You can call me that to my face, too.  I ain't gonna do my bullying online.  He also said this:  "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long."    This is exactly the same thing as saying fire is what happens when you throw a match on gasoline, even though I suggested not to.  Now you know why we have warnings on Tide pods, because we all know what stupid people will do.  

[BillsFanNC]

36 minutes ago, daz28 said:

You can call me that to my face, too.  I ain't gonna do my bullying online.  He also said this:  "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long."    This is exactly the same thing as saying fire is what happens when you throw a match on gasoline, even though I suggested not to.  Now you know why we have warnings on Tide pods, because we all know what stupid people will do.  

 

Bullying? 

 

When you have moronic takes, expect to be called a moron. 

 

Quit whining.

 

And it's exactly the same thing is it?

 

Does that meet the definition of the term exactly in Websters?

 

 

Was it an insurrection when leftists stormed the white house, attacking and injuring members of the secret service?  

 

Was it an insurrection when leftists attacked a federal courthouse in Portland for a month?

 

Or nah?

 

Quit dodging.

 

 

[daz28]

45 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Bullying? 

 

When you have moronic takes, expect to be called a moron. 

 

Quit whining.

 

And it's exactly the same thing is it?

 

Does that meet the definition of the term exactly in Websters?

 

 

Was it an insurrection when leftists stormed the white house, attacking and injuring members of the secret service?  

 

Was it an insurrection when leftists attacked a federal courthouse in Portland for a month?

 

Or nah?

 

Quit dodging.

 

 

What exactly am I whining about?  Definitions from the dictionary?  I was pointing out you do your bullying online, because it don't work out so well irl.  Call me a moron/clown there, and you'll get a different result. I don't remember the actual rioters trying to steal a presidency, so no.  

[BillsFanNC]

1 hour ago, daz28 said:

What exactly am I whining about?  Definitions from the dictionary?  I was pointing out you do your bullying online, because it don't work out so well irl.  Call me a moron/clown there, and you'll get a different result. I don't remember the actual rioters trying to steal a presidency, so no.  

 

So the Websters definition of an insurrection requires an attempt to 'steal' a Presidency?

 

Is that the Websters edition  published exclusively for 1/6/2021?

 

 

Keep digging moron.

 

And sure it would end differently in person. Internet tough guy.

[daz28]

3 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

So the Websters definition of an insurrection requires an attempt to 'steal' a Presidency?

 

Is that the Websters edition  published exclusively for 1/6/2021?

 

 

Keep digging moron.

 

And sure it would end differently in person. Internet tough guy.

It probably wouldn't even take a tough guy to get you to be respectable to other irl.  Seeing the dictionary doesn't work in the echo chamber, let's look at history.  The American idea of insurrection is based mostly on slave revolt.  ie: an attempt to capture power.  No one in the 'riots' were doing that. 

[BillsFanNC]

11 minutes ago, daz28 said:

It probably wouldn't even take a tough guy to get you to be respectable to other irl.  Seeing the dictionary doesn't work in the echo chamber, let's look at history.  The American idea of insurrection is based mostly on slave revolt.  ie: an attempt to capture power.  No one in the 'riots' were doing that. 

 

So it's the dictionary come hell or high water with J6...until it's not when leftist violent uprisings against the government are pointed out.

 

Got it.

 

Then it's time eschew the dictionary in favor of the 'American idea of insurrection.'

 

 

Clown world dude.

[Doc]

5 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

So it's the dictionary come hell or high water with J6...until it's not when leftist violent uprisings against the government are pointed out.

 

Got it.

 

Then it's time eschew the dictionary in favor of the 'American Democrats' idea of insurrection.'

 

 

Clown world dude.

 

FIFY

[BillsFanNC]

The 12/11/23 insurrection.

 

Straight to the DC gulag with them.

 

Leave them there until trial 2+ years from now.

 

 

[Tommy Callahan]

jack seems a bit desperate

 

"This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin," reads the filing.

In his Supreme Court brief, Mr. Smith conceded that the trial would most likely have to be paused because of the appeal of the immunity issue. That position reversed the one his prosecutors took over the weekend in court papers, in which they argued that Judge Chutkan should not have to stay the case pending appeal.

Winning the appeal of the immunity decision was only one of Mr. Trump’s goals in challenging the decision. All along, he and his lawyers have had an alterative strategy: to delay the election interference trial for as long as possible. -NY Times

The filing comes after Judge Tanya S. Chutkan - who worked at the law firm which repped Fusion GPS, the company that helped orchestrate the Russia collusion hoax - rejected Trump's sweeping claims of "absolute immunity" from an election interference indictment because it was based on actions taken while in office.

 

 

[BillStime]

 

 

[BillStime]

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[BillStime]

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

7 hours ago, BillStime said:

 

Maybe they can re-investigate Pearl Harbor and say we weren't prepared because the Japanese didn't tell us about their secret attack plan.  I mean seriously, didn't they get a hint of things to come from those 100's of government assets and informants embedded in the groups organizing and participating in the protest?  It screams of an intelligence failure rather than some paperwork problem.  Or more likely they knew what was going to happen, let it happen, and afterward they could make a big deal out of it for 3 or 4 years into the next election cycle which is what we've got.  

[BillStime]

3 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Maybe they can re-investigate Pearl Harbor and say we weren't prepared because the Japanese didn't tell us about their secret attack plan.  I mean seriously, didn't they get a hint of things to come from those 100's of government assets and informants embedded in the groups organizing and participating in the protest?  It screams of an intelligence failure rather than some paperwork problem.  Or more likely they knew what was going to happen, let it happen, and afterward they could make a big deal out of it for 3 or 4 years into the next election cycle which is what we've got.  

You try so hard.