Why do liberals think the police shooting Philando Castile is unjust, but think the police shooting Ashli Babbitt was fine?

[Ouroboros]

As I said I wasn't lecturing you. Your inability to comprehend English is pretty astounding

You have confused my freedom to call BS on your falsehoods as the inability to understand what you claim you mean. No doubt you will double down on this insipid rhetoric anyway, because you not only don’t know grammar, you don’t even understand the argument on this thread.

 

[Ouroboros]

You haven't asked any hard questions.

Then why haven’t you been able to answer any of them? Because you imagine that deflection shields you from your inadequacy in this debate.

 

[Ouroboros]

I can't find any reference where the FBI stated those involved in the insurrection were not insurrectionists. And since you never posted a citation for that claim I naturally assumed you were just spreading some gossip you heard.

Yes, I’m sure you looked long and hard.

 

[Ouroboros]

How old are you?

How long will you keep lying?

 

[Ouroboros]

I didnt lie and I asked you to provide the post # or quote where I said everyone in the mob was dangerous.

Now...look at you lying...and turn your comment around to yourself. You are arguing in bad faith. (Actually, you are no longer arguing...now you're just treading water attempting to defend yourself and making it about me, not the topic)



Nah, you are just mad that you follow shitty, deceptive, heavily-biased media and I exposed that. You fell for it, for days apparently. If you'd had a more open minded and well-rounded view, you'd have had a better list of sources to seek info.

LOL but you dont...you pick the ones that lead you down the garden path feeding your biases and fealty to The Donald.


Heh, well if you want to write that, cool. If you want to declare that your position is wrong, I'm good with that. LOLOLOL

I already provided the number of the post in which you characterized the mob as dangerous as a whole, and there were no parsings of that meaning when I stated that we were not in agreement. I’m sorry you can’t retain information over such a short period of time.

You exposed nothing but your own ignorance of the media’s manipulation of facts. That’s why
I’m fine with you imagining that you’re in the right, because you have no knowledge of the subject, and probably never will.

 

[Ouroboros]

What is your point?

That the continued characterization of the riot as an insurrection is not borne out by Biden’s own FBI.

 

[Lursa]

I already provided the number of the post in which you characterized the mob as dangerous as a whole, and there were no parsings of that meaning when I stated that we were not in agreement. I’m sorry you can’t retain information over such a short period of time.

Yes, the mob was dangerous. You tried to spin that into 'every person in the mob was violent' and I easily refuted that.

So...you failed on that...again. Why do you keep highlighting your failures? Do you need a dictionary to define 'mob' and 'individuals' for you?

You exposed nothing but your own ignorance of the media’s manipulation of facts. That’s why
I’m fine with you imagining that you’re in the right, because you have no knowledge of the subject, and probably never will.

Hardly, since you are the one that was relying on inaccurate and/or intentionally deceptive media and not me. We've established that already, did you forget? You bought into it and I corrected you.

I'm correct...and you havent remotely demonstrated any lack of knowledge on my part. You just typing that doesnt make it true. What supports me however, is our entire conversation, easily followed by anyone who's interested.

Next time, come back with counter arguments or facts...not made up defenses against me.

 

[NolanVoyd]

That the continued characterization of the riot as an insurrection is not borne out by Biden’s own FBI.

It was an insurection by definition.

Words mean things. Try a dictionary.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

Then why haven’t you been able to answer any of them? Because you imagine that deflection shields you from your inadequacy in this debate.

Can't you read? I just said you haven't adk d any hard questions.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

Yes, I’m sure you looked long and hard.

And yet you still haven't cited proof of your contention.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

How long will you keep lying?

It's just your sophomoric responses are indicative of someone who has a great economy with logic and comprehension. ..... That's the nicest way I can put it while still abiding by forum rules.

 

[Quag]

You have confused my freedom to call BS on your falsehoods as the inability to understand what you claim you mean. No doubt you will double down on this insipid rhetoric anyway, because you not only don’t know grammar, you don’t even understand the argument on this thread.

More nonsense from a guy who has no clue what people are saying

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes, the mob was dangerous. You tried to spin that into 'every person in the mob was violent' and I easily refuted that.

So...you failed on that...again. Why do you keep highlighting your failures? Do you need a dictionary to define 'mob' and 'individuals' for you?


Hardly, since you are the one that was relying on inaccurate and/or intentionally deceptive media and not me. We've established that already, did you forget? You bought into it and I corrected you.

I'm correct...and you havent remotely demonstrated any lack of knowledge on my part. You just typing that doesnt make it true. What supports me however, is our entire conversation, easily followed by anyone who's interested.

Next time, come back with counter arguments or facts...not made up defenses against me.

You’re living in a dream world. If anyone did care to review the way this began, that person would find that what I was refuting, prior to you sticking in your oar, was the idea that the rioters fully intended to hang Mike Pence because they were caught up in their emotional rants. Not surprisingly, you deflected from that point to get off on this oversimplified characterization of the rioters. That’s your privilege here even if you accomplished nothing, but it was really lame when you tried to prove that I was in agreement with you. Thanks for demonstrating your complete dishonesty.

 

[Ouroboros]

It was an insurection by definition.

Words mean things. Try a dictionary.

Words mean things but context is king.

 

[Ouroboros]

Can't you read? I just said you haven't adk d any hard questions.

Then they must have been easy questions from your POV, and you STILL could not answer them. You’re just running yourself into the ground here.

 

[Ouroboros]

And yet you still haven't cited proof of your contention.

I correctly predicted that if I did give you a citation you would ignore it. The proof of that is irrefutable.

 

[Ouroboros]

It's just your sophomoric responses are indicative of someone who has a great economy with logic and comprehension. ..... That's the nicest way I can put it while still abiding by forum rules.

Why don’t you trust Biden’s FBI?

 

[Ouroboros]

More nonsense from a guy who has no clue what people are saying

 

[Crakhobarbie]

Then they must have been easy questions from your POV, and you STILL could not answer them. You’re just running yourself into the ground here.

Did you have a question? I mean, a question that's not absurd or moronic? Are you still clinging to your "the insurrectionists aren't insurrectionists because the FBI said so" bit? The FBI didn't state that the insurrectionists aren't insurrectionists. And that, I believe, was your invalid point.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

I correctly predicted that if I did give you a citation you would ignore it. The proof of that is irrefutable.

No contentions that you've made are irrefutable. If you did post a citation it's now long lost in a flurry of your nonsensical statements. Tell me the post # or cite it again. Is that to much for you?

 

[Crakhobarbie]

Why don’t you trust Biden’s FBI?

The FBI never stated the Insurrectionists weren't insurrectionists. The FBI only stated they weren't organized. A statement I agree with.

Okay, since you unlike others answered one of my questions, here's that much desired (hah) link.

Exclusive: FBI finds scant evidence U.S. Capitol attack was coordinated - sources

The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.

www.reuters.com

Please point out where, in the article cited, it says the FBI stated the Insurrectionists are not Insurrectionists. The insurrectionists may not if been organized, being a haphazard collection of cosplay MAGA dimwits. But they certainly did intend to stop the legal transfer of power. And, they did succeed, albeit for a very short amount of time.

 

[Citizen]

Why do liberals think the police shooting Philando Castile is unjust, but think the police shooting Ashli Babbitt was fine?

Ashlee Babbit was coming to attack, Philando Castile was just driving home

 

[NolanVoyd]

Words mean things but context is king.

Yes, in the context of a bunch of supporters of the losing presidential candidate storming the capital to prevent the congress from certifying the election results it is even more apparent that it was an insurection.

 

[Ouroboros]

Did you have a question? I mean, a question that's not absurd or moronic? Are you still clinging to your "the insurrectionists aren't insurrectionists because the FBI said so" bit? The FBI didn't state that the insurrectionists aren't insurrectionists. And that, I believe, was your invalid point.

According to Reuters' paraphrase:

FBI investigators did find that cells of protesters, including followers of the far-right Oath Keepers and Proud Boys groups, had aimed to break into the Capitol. But they found no evidence that the groups had serious plans about what to do if they made it inside, the sources said.

That means that the rioters had not the slightest real-world idea about how to keep Trump in power, and so there was no insurrection, only a riot.

Here's the legal definition of a riot from Cornell's Legal Information Institute:

A concerted action: (1) made in furtherance of an express common purpose; (2) through the use or threat of violence, disorder, or terror to the public; and (3) resulting in a disturbance of the peace. Under common law, the crime of riot requires the assemblage of three or more actors. The concerted acts may be unlawful in themselves, or they may be lawful acts that are done in a violent or turbulent manner. Among the different forms that riots may take include escalated labor disputes or political demonstrations

That definition fits the circumstances of Jan 6 as well or better than your self-serving citation of one insurrection definition. Let's see you argue otherwise.

 

[Ouroboros]

No contentions that you've made are irrefutable. If you did post a citation it's now long lost in a flurry of your nonsensical statements. Tell me the post # or cite it again. Is that to much for you?

Go check NolanVoyd's posts and maybe you can find it. You ought to have to do that much work given all the phony baloney fuss you made about getting a citation. Or don't, because I know you won't evaluate the information even handedly.