About the Ads

Matty44

CAA
10+ Year Member
Oct 2, 2007
1,492
308
Status
  1. Non-Student
Like “defending” (attacking) the place of democracy?
I was thinking of how to reply to your inane comments and strained logic in your previous response to me, but I'm gonna save (most of) my breath. You and Vec can just stroke eachother's egos and lol til the cows come home. I find it quite funny and ironic that I (again....so tired) get labeled disingenuous by Vec after simply asking for what specifically was said to incite a riot, yet you keep posting EXTREMELY disingenuous, or just idiotic I suppose, things purporting that anyone is defending what happened at the capitol. FFP, good luck. Going back to the sidelines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

RadOncDoc21

10+ Year Member
Oct 24, 2010
1,897
2,093
Status
  1. Attending Physician
I was thinking of how to reply to your inane comments and strained logic in your previous response to me, but I'm gonna save (most of) my breath. You and Vec can just stroke eachother's egos and lol til the cows come home. I find it quite funny and ironic that I (again....so tired) get labeled disingenuous by Vec after simply asking for what specifically was said to incite a riot, yet you keep posting EXTREMELY disingenuous, or just idiotic I suppose, things purporting that anyone is defending what happened at the capitol. FFP, good luck. Going back to the sidelines.
Bye Felicia!
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 1 users

FFP

Spending my time
Gold Donor
10+ Year Member
Oct 17, 2007
9,902
12,214
Status
  1. Attending Physician
I was thinking of how to reply to your inane comments and strained logic in your previous response to me, but I'm gonna save (most of) my breath. You and Vec can just stroke eachother's egos and lol til the cows come home. I find it quite funny and ironic that I (again....so tired) get labeled disingenuous by Vec after simply asking for what specifically was said to incite a riot, yet you keep posting EXTREMELY disingenuous, or just idiotic I suppose, things purporting that anyone is defending what happened at the capitol. FFP, good luck. Going back to the sidelines.
Didn't I tell you that you were smarter than me?

Though I keep using that Ignore button, once I am convinced one is just a troll, and there is nothing to be learned from one.

There are tons of more productive ways of spending time, even just reading a good book.
 
Last edited:

vector2

It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.
Lifetime Donor
10+ Year Member
Dec 26, 2006
5,225
8,779
Status
  1. Attending Physician
I was thinking of how to reply to your inane comments and strained logic in your previous response to me, but I'm gonna save (most of) my breath. You and Vec can just stroke eachother's egos and lol til the cows come home. I find it quite funny and ironic that I (again....so tired) get labeled disingenuous by Vec after simply asking for what specifically was said to incite a riot, yet you keep posting EXTREMELY disingenuous, or just idiotic I suppose, things purporting that anyone is defending what happened at the capitol. FFP, good luck. Going back to the sidelines.

lol, I posted a 20 minute video that explains in painful detail the historical and judicial context behind incitement and why trump’s impeachable behavior is not necessarily synonymous with statutory violations.....and you, in typical fashion, conveniently ignored it and cried foul because you’re forever the king of sdn trump trolls.
 
  • Love
Reactions: 1 user

doctalaughs

Member
15+ Year Member
Jul 9, 2003
1,157
1,431
Visit site
Status
So I’ll say it.

Even though I never voted for Trump (went Biden), I had posted a year ago that if the dems nominated Bernie I would vote Trump.

I’ll admit that even that was wrong thinking at this point. Bernie would be better for this nation (even though I vehemently disagree with his policies).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
About the Ads

RadOncDoc21

10+ Year Member
Oct 24, 2010
1,897
2,093
Status
  1. Attending Physician
So I’ll say it.

Even though I never voted for Trump (went Biden), I had posted a year ago that if the dems nominated Bernie I would vote Trump.

I’ll admit that even that was wrong thinking at this point. Bernie would be better for this nation (even though I vehemently disagree with his policies).
I would vote for Covid-19 over Trump.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user

Mad Jack

Critically Caring
7+ Year Member
Jul 27, 2013
37,048
69,454
4th Dimension
I was thinking of how to reply to your inane comments and strained logic in your previous response to me, but I'm gonna save (most of) my breath. You and Vec can just stroke eachother's egos and lol til the cows come home. I find it quite funny and ironic that I (again....so tired) get labeled disingenuous by Vec after simply asking for what specifically was said to incite a riot, yet you keep posting EXTREMELY disingenuous, or just idiotic I suppose, things purporting that anyone is defending what happened at the capitol. FFP, good luck. Going back to the sidelines.
139092188_260178175606915_8055008755303564685_o.jpg
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 2 users

vector2

It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.
Lifetime Donor
10+ Year Member
Dec 26, 2006
5,225
8,779
Status
  1. Attending Physician

Matty44

CAA
10+ Year Member
Oct 2, 2007
1,492
308
Status
  1. Non-Student
lol, I posted a 20 minute video that explains in painful detail the historical and judicial context behind incitement and why trump’s impeachable behavior is not necessarily synonymous with statutory violations.....and you, in typical fashion, conveniently ignored it and cried foul because you’re forever the king of sdn trump trolls.
LOL, I watched your 20 minute video, and NO WHERE in that video did the guy call out any phrase uttered by Trump as anywhere near incitement. To the contrary, he pretty much cleared everything that was even questionable as fine and completely protected things to say. The worst thing he quoted him on was " lets go to the capitol" and be "bold." That's why I asked RadOnc, and you feel free to answer, what was even one thing that was encouraging of violence or lawbreaking? (I'll wait for you not to answer.....)

Your guy did point out the multiple times that he called for peace and order, and then after his speech again tweeted and encouraged peace and non-violence. So he goes through the whole events of the day, not able to point to anything Trump said or did that could be considered inciting of violence and then he wraps it up with "Welp, this one could go either way." Ha.

And yes, he does say that congress can impeach Trump cause they don't like how he acted politically, and obviously him encouraging (wrongly) Pence to overturn the election or whatever is idiotic and wrongheaded, and causes dolts across the country to think the election was stolen. That is all wrong by Trump, and I've already said that. But that doesn't mean he did anything that is worthy of being called incitement of violence. Which, is a very bold and harsh accusation, one not to be made lightly and without facts to back it up......kinda like calling someone a racist.....anyways.

Go back to calling me disingenuous for whatever reason.

Cheers.
 

vector2

It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.
Lifetime Donor
10+ Year Member
Dec 26, 2006
5,225
8,779
Status
  1. Attending Physician
.And yes, he does say that congress can impeach Trump cause they don't like how he acted politically, and obviously him encouraging (wrongly) Pence to overturn the election or whatever is idiotic and wrongheaded, and causes dolts across the country to think the election was stolen. That is all wrong by Trump, and I've already said that. But that doesn't mean he did anything that is worthy of being called incitement of violence.

Heh, head in the sand, per usual.

-trump sets precedent for insurrection and storming a Capitol last year when he tweets “LIBERATE MICHIGAN!” ultimately leading to a foiled kidnapping of the governor
-trump repeats lies upon lies for months before the election that massive voter fraud is going to take place
-trump literally tells states to stop counting votes on election night
-trump continues to repeat the voter fraud lie for months, inflaming his supporters to the point where over half them believe the lie
-trump leads a “STOP THE STEAL” rally where various speeches by his diehard supporters include phrases like “take names and kick ass” and “trial by combat.” trump uses the word fight 20 times and then says he’s going to lead them to the Capitol
-trump proceeds to watch the riot on tv and ignores calls from even people in his own party to put an end to it
-trump finally makes a teleprompter speech which repeats the fraud lie and which also contains the phrase “we love you all” ...addressed to people who were chanting “Hang Mike Pence” as they marched around a life size gallows


....

Disingenuous Matty: He didn’t literally shout the word “RIOT!” so he is innocent
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 8 users
About the Ads

Matty44

CAA
10+ Year Member
Oct 2, 2007
1,492
308
Status
  1. Non-Student
Heh, head in the sand, per usual.

-trump sets precedent for insurrection and storming a Capitol last year when he tweets “LIBERATE MICHIGAN!” ultimately leading to a foiled kidnapping of the governor
Ummmm......just......no.

-trump repeats lies upon lies for months before the election that massive voter fraud is going to take place
-trump literally tells states to stop counting votes on election night
-trump continues to repeat the voter fraud lie for months, inflaming his supporters to the point where over half them believe the lie
Yeah, I've called out his idiocy with the stolen election crap. Not incitement of violence. As I stated in my original post, he for sure raised the political temperature. Those are two different things though.

-trump leads a rally where various speeches by his diehard supporters include phrases like “take names and kick ass” and “trial by combat.” trump uses the word fight 20 times and then says he’s going to lead them to the Capitol
So you're pointing to things that other people said now, but not Trump. The only thing you can attribute to Trump is the word 'fight'???? How many times in any political campaign ever does the candidate use the word fight in a political context? Listen to the dude in your video. He addresses the use of that word by a politician and definitely doesn't say it is an incitement of violence kind of usage.

-trump proceeds to watch the riot on tv and ignores calls from even people in his own party to put an end to it
-trump finally makes a teleprompter speech which repeats the fraud lie and which also contains the phrase “we love you all” ...addressed to people who were chanting “Hang Mike Pence” as they marched around a life size gallows
Again, refer to your own video for the timeline of Trumps calls for peace. He called for peace in the speech shortly before people stormed the capitol, tweeted out to be peaceful and non violent and called for law and order shortly after people entered the capitol. And then he appeared on TV later in the day to again call for peace.

....

Disingenuous Matty: He didn’t literally shout the word “RIOT!” so he is innocent
You proved nothing.


And again, don't misconstrue my stance as any kind of support for what he said about the election or how he's handled himself recently. But it's just like specious cries of racism. I don't like when people are accused of heinous, horrible things when the evidence just ain't there. You don't get to apply those kind of labels just cause you hate someone personally or politically. Its a bad precedent to do that, and that's why I get on here and confront and demand evidence when such claims are made.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

nimbus

Member
15+ Year Member
Jan 14, 2006
6,851
8,828
Status
Ummmm......just......no.


Yeah, I've called out his idiocy with the stolen election crap. Not incitement of violence. As I stated in my original post, he for sure raised the political temperature. Those are two different things though.


So you're pointing to things that other people said now, but not Trump. The only thing you can attribute to Trump is the word 'fight'???? How many times in any political campaign ever does the candidate use the word fight in a political context? Listen to the dude in your video. He addresses the use of that word by a politician and definitely doesn't say it is an incitement of violence kind of usage.


Again, refer to your own video for the timeline of Trumps calls for peace. He called for peace in the speech shortly before people stormed the capitol, tweeted out to be peaceful and non violent and called for law and order shortly after people entered the capitol. And then he appeared on TV later in the day to again call for peace.


You proved nothing.


And again, don't misconstrue my stance as any kind of support for what he said about the election or how he's handled himself recently. But it's just like specious cries of racism. I don't like when people are accused of heinous, horrible things when the evidence just ain't there. You don't get to apply those kind of labels just cause you hate someone personally or politically. Its a bad precedent to do that, and that's why I get on here and confront and demand evidence when such claims are made.

Then Pence and McConnell are angry for no reason. Babies.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user

vector2

It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.
Lifetime Donor
10+ Year Member
Dec 26, 2006
5,225
8,779
Status
  1. Attending Physician
. And again, don't misconstrue my stance as any kind of support for what he said about the election or how he's handled himself recently.

Yawn. Your defense is so transparently disingenuous it’s laughable.

2019 matty: “trump uses some poorly chosen words here and there but he’s not a pathological narcissist”
2020 matty: “trump is a pathological narcissist but none of his actions have been wrong”
2021 matty: “ok, well, trump’s actions were wrong but they’re not impeachable cause he didn’t literally yell the word “RIOT” but accccttuuuaallllllyyyyy he yelled “PEACE!” wink wink”

At this point it’s so bad that your brand of “pleading to the lesser charge” trumpist excuse-making probably won’t even fool the new people who you try to suck in by taking a trolling hiatus.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Love
Reactions: 6 users
Jan 22, 2019
2,879
2,688
Status
  1. Resident [Any Field]
Yawn. Your defense is so transparently disingenuous it’s laughable.

2019 matty: “trump uses some poorly chosen words here and there but he’s not a pathological narcissist”
2020 matty: “trump is a pathological narcissist but none of his actions have been wrong”
2021 matty: “ok, well, trump’s actions were wrong but they’re not impeachable”

At this point it’s so bad that your brand of “pleading to the lesser charge” trumpist excuse-making probably won’t even fool the new people who you try to suck in by taking a trolling hiatus.
Savage!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Matty44

CAA
10+ Year Member
Oct 2, 2007
1,492
308
Status
  1. Non-Student
SO Savage!

Just make up fake quotes to make a point, is that the game now?

You guys are simply being obtuse if you can't see the point I'm making. Anytime I ask for proof of incitement of violence, like, what was said that actually was a call to violence ya know, all you do is anything BUT point to any evidence. You can mock, and fake quote me, and whatever ya gotta do to avoid an answer, but in the end you just resort to pedantic name calling. Troll this, disingenuous that. Such a tired game.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

doctalaughs

Member
15+ Year Member
Jul 9, 2003
1,157
1,431
Visit site
Status
SO Savage!

Just make up fake quotes to make a point, is that the game now?

You guys are simply being obtuse if you can't see the point I'm making. Anytime I ask for proof of incitement of violence, like, what was said that actually was a call to violence ya know, all you do is anything BUT point to any evidence. You can mock, and fake quote me, and whatever ya gotta do to avoid an answer, but in the end you just resort to pedantic name calling. Troll this, disingenuous that. Such a tired game.

I would say you are probably right LEGALLY he didn’t reach the bar of inciting violence or insurrection (ie you couldn’t technically convict him successfully in court).

That being said, it would be hard to argue his whole rhetoric (even going back years) didn’t play a huge role in inflaming passions and led directly to the violence. If you repeatedly tell blatant lies to gullible + angry people there’s no other logical conclusion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
About the Ads

RadOncDoc21

10+ Year Member
Oct 24, 2010
1,897
2,093
Status
  1. Attending Physician
Didn't I tell you that you were smarter than me?

Though I keep using that Ignore button, once I am convinced one is just a troll, and there is nothing to be learned from one.

There are tons of more productive ways of spending time, even just reading a good book.
Oh snap there’s an ignore button? You’re wrong, I just learned something valuable from a troll!

I love how the tough talking Trump sympathizers are able to conveniently pull out their victim card whenever they are challenged or proven to be hypocrites.

If those were ISIS flags instead of confederate flags in the capitol, I’m sure this would be a very different discussion. This was about white supremacy and the fact that this is a “political” argument says a lot about our country. What is the “political” argument? That Trump won the election? Are we now saying it’s ok that if a presidential candidate loses an election, the losing side can storm into the capitol building and kill people, including a police officer?

Even the ones who realize that Trump didn’t win the election are still making excuses for Trump instead of condemning his involvement.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Jan 22, 2019
2,879
2,688
Status
  1. Resident [Any Field]
Before Trump, both parties were garbage.

The democratic party is still garbage. I just cant find a word to describe the republican party now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

FFP

Spending my time
Gold Donor
10+ Year Member
Oct 17, 2007
9,902
12,214
Status
  1. Attending Physician

"Trump has instructed aides not to pay Giuliani's legal fees, two officials said, and has demanded that he personally approve any reimbursements for the expenses Giuliani incurred while traveling on the president's behalf to challenge election results in key states. They said Trump has privately expressed concern with some of Giuliani's moves and did not appreciate a demand from Giuliani for $20,000 a day in fees for his work attempting to overturn the election. [The Washington Post]"

:rofl:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

BLADEMDA

10+ Year Member
Apr 22, 2007
19,600
5,668
Southeast
Status
  1. Attending Physician
Born in the Internet's fever swamps, QAnon played an unmistakable role in energizing rioters during the real-world attack on Jan. 6. A man in a "Q" T-shirt led the breach of the Senate, while a shirtless, fur-clad believer known as the "Q Shaman" posed for photographers in the Senate chamber. Twitter later purged more than 70,000 accounts associated with the conspiracy theory, in an acknowledgment of the online potency of QAnon.

The baseless conspiracy theory, which imagines Trump in a battle with a cabal of deep-state saboteurs who worship Satan and traffic children for sex, helped drive the day's events and facilitate organized attacks. A pro-Trump mob overwhelmed Capitol Police officers, injuring dozens and one officer later died as a result. One woman was fatally shot by police inside the Capitol. Three others in the crowd died of medical emergencies.

 

vector2

It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.
Lifetime Donor
10+ Year Member
Dec 26, 2006
5,225
8,779
Status
  1. Attending Physician
SO Savage!

Just make up fake quotes to make a point, is that the game now?

You guys are simply being obtuse if you can't see the point I'm making. Anytime I ask for proof of incitement of violence, like, what was said that actually was a call to violence ya know, all you do is anything BUT point to any evidence. You can mock, and fake quote me, and whatever ya gotta do to avoid an answer, but in the end you just resort to pedantic name calling. Troll this, disingenuous that. Such a tired game.

For the 10th time, the standard for removing a president is not "proof" in a court of law.

P.s.You and the rest of the cult - who continue to make excuses and downplay trump's behavior and who can't acknowledge that trump's lies are the mechanism by which we got here - are destroying the country. HTH.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

RadOncDoc21

10+ Year Member
Oct 24, 2010
1,897
2,093
Status
  1. Attending Physician
For the 10th time, the standard for removing a president is not "proof" in a court of law.

P.s.You and the rest of the cult - who continue to make excuses and downplay trump's behavior and who can't acknowledge that trump's lies are the mechanism by which we got here - are destroying the country. HTH.
He wants “proof” of this (despite videos, audios, etc) but in a court of law, there was no “proof” of “election fraud”, yet he’s ok with his people believing all of that.

It’s up to us to convince him that the president lied and told his people to raid the capitol due to “election fraud.” At the same time, he doesn’t believe there needs to be proof for there to be any “election fraud.” If he did, then he would be asking for “proof” and would be against the purpose of raiding the capitol over “election fraud.”

There is no rational argument to be had here man, move on.

Stand back and stand by.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users

Mad Jack

Critically Caring
7+ Year Member
Jul 27, 2013
37,048
69,454
4th Dimension
Ummmm......just......no.


Yeah, I've called out his idiocy with the stolen election crap. Not incitement of violence. As I stated in my original post, he for sure raised the political temperature. Those are two different things though.


So you're pointing to things that other people said now, but not Trump. The only thing you can attribute to Trump is the word 'fight'???? How many times in any political campaign ever does the candidate use the word fight in a political context? Listen to the dude in your video. He addresses the use of that word by a politician and definitely doesn't say it is an incitement of violence kind of usage.


Again, refer to your own video for the timeline of Trumps calls for peace. He called for peace in the speech shortly before people stormed the capitol, tweeted out to be peaceful and non violent and called for law and order shortly after people entered the capitol. And then he appeared on TV later in the day to again call for peace.


You proved nothing.


And again, don't misconstrue my stance as any kind of support for what he said about the election or how he's handled himself recently. But it's just like specious cries of racism. I don't like when people are accused of heinous, horrible things when the evidence just ain't there. You don't get to apply those kind of labels just cause you hate someone personally or politically. Its a bad precedent to do that, and that's why I get on here and confront and demand evidence when such claims are made.
Most of the legal experts I've heard discuss it (on conservative talk news radio no less) have stated that his words meet the standard, as he dispatched a crowd at a specific time with a specific illegal goal, that being to stop the counting of electoral votes. Whether he incited violence or not is unnecessary, as he incited a mob to commit a federal felony.


Will he reach the bar for incitement? I think that's going to come down to some supporting evidence agencies are looking into. His failure to respond early on when he knew he was the only person that could stop a violent mob speaks volumes, and any warning he was given beforehand by the FBI about a security risk posed by individuals at his protest will work against him. It is a high bar, but we do have a guy repeatedly saying in his speech that Democrats have stolen an election and people need to fight like hell and never concede because they won by a landslide, which could very well be construed as a blatant call for the subversion of a democratic process.

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

He set on foot an insurrection to subvert the law. Whether or not he incited is one thing, but this is an OR clause. He gave them good reason to go and sent them on their way. If he subsequently pardons anyone involved it'll be check mate, so I'm really hoping we get a presidential pardon out of this to get rid of any plausible denial under the law, however I don't think he's that stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users

VA Hopeful Dr

Senior Member
15+ Year Member
Jul 28, 2004
23,782
37,788
Status
  1. Attending Physician
He wants “proof” of this (despite videos, audios, etc) but in a court of law, there was no “proof” of “election fraud”, yet he’s ok with his people believing all of that.

It’s up to us to convince him that the president lied and told his people to raid the capitol due to “election fraud.” At the same time, he doesn’t believe there needs to be proof for there to be any “election fraud.” If he did, then he would be asking for “proof” and would be against the purpose of raiding the capitol over “election fraud.”

There is no rational argument to be had here man, move on.

Stand back and stand by.
Yeah if its conservative that I've put on ignore, you know there's no hope
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

AMEHigh

10+ Year Member
Jul 25, 2008
2,217
2,588
Status
  1. Attending Physician
Born in the Internet's fever swamps, QAnon played an unmistakable role in energizing rioters during the real-world attack on Jan. 6. A man in a "Q" T-shirt led the breach of the Senate, while a shirtless, fur-clad believer known as the "Q Shaman" posed for photographers in the Senate chamber. Twitter later purged more than 70,000 accounts associated with the conspiracy theory, in an acknowledgment of the online potency of QAnon.

The baseless conspiracy theory, which imagines Trump in a battle with a cabal of deep-state saboteurs who worship Satan and traffic children for sex, helped drive the day's events and facilitate organized attacks. A pro-Trump mob overwhelmed Capitol Police officers, injuring dozens and one officer later died as a result. One woman was fatally shot by police inside the Capitol. Three others in the crowd died of medical emergencies.


At least 2 QAnon supporters are in congress and the president has been known to retweet QAnon accounts. I think we can’t underestimate that there are definitely more supporters in the government and it’ll continue to grow. Republicans in general don’t seem to condemn these people and now they’re government officials.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

DocMcCoy

SDN Gold Donor
Gold Donor
10+ Year Member
Sep 4, 2009
875
299
San Angelo, TX
Status
  1. Attending Physician
SO Savage!

Just make up fake quotes to make a point, is that the game now?

You guys are simply being obtuse if you can't see the point I'm making. Anytime I ask for proof of incitement of violence, like, what was said that actually was a call to violence ya know, all you do is anything BUT point to any evidence. You can mock, and fake quote me, and whatever ya gotta do to avoid an answer, but in the end you just resort to pedantic name calling. Troll this, disingenuous that. Such a tired game.
They don’t have any direct evidence. Some people are ok with hanging a man based on circumstance and because it’s not the standard and well TRUMP.

But rest assured, they will use the same exact argument to defend Biden when sadly he is impeached for no good reason.

BTW, yet to see anybody in this thread support or condone the actions at the capitol or Trumps rhetoric regarding the event.

That’s not enough though. We have to grovel and beg forgiveness and be re-educated to move forward SMH.

Our opinions are invalid until we present our detrumpification letter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

FFP

Spending my time
Gold Donor
10+ Year Member
Oct 17, 2007
9,902
12,214
Status
  1. Attending Physician

"Some argue that such concerns are misplaced and frivolous when far-right terrorism remains a clear and present danger. Adam Serwer, a writer for The Atlantic, summed up this view in a sarcastic tweet:


Yes Trump incited a mob attack on another branch of government. Yes their goal was overturning the presidential election. Yes it came within moments of lawmakers being killed by the mob.
But here’s why the libs’ hysterical reaction to this is far more dangerous
1/965
— Adam Serwer (@AdamSerwer) January 10, 2021

One could easily imagine a similarly snide response to concerns about civil liberties after September 11 ("Yes, nearly 3,000 Americans were murdered by terrorists. Yes, they came close to destroying the Capitol. But here's why the hysterical 'patriotic' reaction to this is far more dangerous"). Yet few people today would deny that our reaction to September 11 often put our liberties in jeopardy and chilled dissent. In the wake of January 6, perhaps we should heed that lesson."
 

FFP

Spending my time
Gold Donor
10+ Year Member
Oct 17, 2007
9,902
12,214
Status
  1. Attending Physician

I can't wait to hear the deep (i.e. out of their butt) thinking and excuses from the left. All those white supremacists from the Belgian police... Yes, that would definitely explain things and excuse attacking the King's car with rocks and setting buildings on fire.

In my book, all these violent rioters on the left, theirs and ours, have at least one thing in common: little if any respect and love for the respective country. One doesn't destroy one's country, the same way one doesn't set one's home on fire. Marxism is as much of a cancer on the left as white supremacy is on the right.

 
Last edited:

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.
About the Ads