- Joined
- Dec 18, 2019
- Messages
- 4,292
- Reaction score
- 634
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Communist
just keep positing conspiracy theories
Of all the cockeyed attempts to deflect from the outrageous actions by the alt.right and the Trump cult at the Capitol, this is the most common, probably because it's the most simple-minded. It pops immediately into otherwise empty heads.
Actually, it looks to me like this was just like some BLM protest.
Mostly peaceful, with a few acting out. Vandalism, looting.
Don't be mad at the left because they are reluctant to let y'all take this out when you steadfastly refused to allow it when it was someone you didn't like protesting.
That thing they called the Civil Rights Movement is quite popular. There were hundreds of riots.
Protests of police brutality
Vs.
Literal attempt to take members of congress hostage to overthrow an election.
Yeah, totally can’t see the difference.
Nothing of what you imagine (doubke standards).
The socialist Democrats at the time were defeding the BLM message of the vast majority of the peaceful protesters aftert Trumpist assholes tried to use the violence of few to discredit it. . The message of "the elections are stolen" has been discredited by an indepedent branch of the goverment (judiciary) and no social Democrat is using the storming of the Capitol as an excuse th discredit this message. This is STRICTLY about the violence of the mob.
If there are any double standards, it is coming from your side which continues to support the same message despite the fact that there was violence.
So stop making stupid comments!
So, fire bombing a Federal Court House and scattering papers around inside the Federal Capital are completely different?
They seem to me to be very similar.
Were any legislators or staff members taken hostage?
well Trump is nothing but a little crybaby and don't little crybaby's do that some time when they are mad?And why did they smear their own shit on the walls?
Mostly peaceful protests are still popular. And I suspect had nothing more happened than the rabid trump fans dislodging the barriers and trespassing onto the perimeter of the Capitol, there likely would have been no arrests.
But hundreds of Trumpers crashing through windows, doors, looting, pilfering and injuring Capitol police does not fit into any definition of "mostly peaceful." So give up on that one.
And yet "mostly peaceful protest" was the label applied to the "mostly peaceful protests" that produced assault, looting, arson, vandalism and murder starting in Minneapolis and running throughout the Summer.
Reporting on the previous "mostly peaceful protests" seemed to excuse the various crimes committed because they were a part of protests that were "mostly peaceful".
In this case, though, condemnation of all of the crimes seems to have been amplified and the label "mostly peaceful protest" discarded.
Makes a thinking person wonder what caused the change.
Listen carefully. I will not argue with words you put in my mouth. I don't play stupid games.So, then, it's not the crime you detest. It is the people with whom you disagree that you detest.
To me, folks committing crimes are criminals. It seems likely that frustrations they felt, in all cases, were the cause. There is no difference in the frustrations felt. Only in the factors causing the frustrations.
Are you seriously excusing all of the various crimes committed BEFORE Tuesday, but suddenly condemning the same crimes now? The crimes and causes are identical. Only the actors have changed.
Why do you excuse the crime if committed by one but not if the same crime was committed by another? Seems odd.
You seem to be saying that if one group is frustrated by what they perceive to be injustice, no action they perform can be illegal.
However, if another group is frustrated by what they perceive to be injustice, that IS a criminal departure from civil behavior.
Is a person a criminal only because pemak disagrees with that person's political position?
Pemak disagreeing with the political position of any person seems to be the ONLY consideration pemak makes in determining criminality.
To me, a person who commits a crime is a criminal. Political position is irrelevant.
Kind of like calling a guy who drives a truck a "Truck Driver". Doesn't matter what belief he holds dear. Driving a truck is only identifier important in applying that label.
Then why did they break down doors and smash windows? Why did they steal papers from Pelosi's office? Why did they steal podiums? The only patriots involved here were the Capitol police.
And he brought his mother along.The one dude alone was carrying at least 10 wire ties. I would argue that they were going to kidnap and/or kill as many as they could.
And if you look at the faces of most of the officers, they look pissed, as if they were just ordered by someone or a few of them made that decision for them to open those doors. There absolutely needs to be an investigation into that, but those people knew they were not supposed to be inside. This is like claiming that if you work out a deal with a security guard to let you into a bank to rob it, that means you can't get charged with illegally breaking into the bank because someone of authority let you in.
So, then, it's not the crime you detest. It is the people with whom you disagree that you detest.
To me, folks committing crimes are criminals. It seems likely that frustrations they felt, in all cases, were the cause. There is no difference in the frustrations felt. Only in the factors causing the frustrations.
Are you seriously excusing all of the various crimes committed BEFORE Tuesday, but suddenly condemning the same crimes now? The crimes and causes are identical. Only the actors have changed.
Why do you excuse the crime if committed by one but not if the same crime was committed by another? Seems odd.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?