For the weekend
5 Killed, 54 Wounded In Weekend Shootings Across Chicago – CBS Chicago (cbslocal.com) (https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2021/06/07/chicago-weekend-shootings-gun-violence-violent-crime-june/)

In one case a couple driving with a Puerto Rican flag were pulled from their car and executed by an African American male .

Video Captures Shooting That Left Young Father Gyovanni Arzuaga Dead, Woman Injured During Puerto Rican Pride Celebration In Humboldt Park – CBS Chicago (cbslocal.com) (https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2021/06/20/humboldt-park-shooting-puerto-rican-peoples-day-gyovanni-arzuaga/)

The headlines last week read that white supremist domestic terrorism is the greatest threat facing the country .

Merrick Garland domestic terrorism: Biden administration pushes plan to combat US terror - ABC7 Chicago (https://abc7chicago.com/merrick-garland-domestic-terrorism-joe-biden-terror/10796982/)

ummm no . The people of Chicago know better .

maybe instead of sending in defunded cops to investigate ,they can send in social workers .

Good thing that Chi-town has strict gun control laws .

The headlines last week read that white supremist domestic terrorism is the greatest threat facing the country .

Merrick Garland domestic terrorism: Biden administration pushes plan to combat US terror - ABC7 Chicago (https://abc7chicago.com/merrick-garland-domestic-terrorism-joe-biden-terror/10796982/)

Chicago crime (or any other area crime) is not the same as white supremacist domestic terrorism. Bad as crime is, it does not threaten a takeover of the nation.

neither does the few white extremist .

Gone are the days of KKK holding rallies in Madison Square Garden .

You and the Dems are living in the past ;and in fact the new woke doctrine would bring us back to the days or segregated blacks only institutions as students at many US campuses have proposed .

Racial Segregation On American Campuses: A Widespread Phenomenon (forbes.com) (https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardvedder/2018/11/15/racial-segregation-on-american-campuses-a-widespread-phenomenon/?sh=1ee536844552)

Ask the people of Chicago what the bigger concern is as mayor Beetlejuice blames racism for the violence.

Portland crime is up over 500% . None of that has anything to do with the insurrectionist Antifa terrorists ..... right ?

neither does the few white extremist .

Were you asleep for the last six months?

Did you miss the Jan 6 Trump insurrection where his followers invaded the Capitol and tried to take over the government by reversing the valid 2020 election? Some were killed, and over 500 have been arrested. It was the biggest story on the planet covered by every media in the world. But you missed it. You must be a very deep sleeper, Rip.

and over 500 have been arrested. mostly for trespassing . Many have been kept in solitary confinement without formal charges ..... like a pseudo fascist government would do . You really think that all the people (mostly peacefully ) protesting the election results were white supremist ? ? You really think that 74 million who voted for Trump are white supremist terrorists .

Crime is up in all those Democrat run cities by substantial numbers . NYC arrested hundreds of violent rioters ,looters ,arsonists ,muggers this summer during the BLM protests . Over 60 % of them had charges dropped . NYC murder rate is up 44 % in the last year . I'm sure the average person living in NYC is more concerned about crime in the street than crazy Democrat insurrection rhetoric.

Did you miss the Jan 6 Trump insurrection where his followers invaded the Capitol and tried to take over the government by reversing the valid 2020 election? Some were killed, and over 500 have been arrested. It was the biggest story on the planet covered by every media in the world. But you missed it. You must be a very deep sleeper, Rip.That would be a good point except for the rather critical fact that it was not a white supremacist event. Alas.

Kavanaugh protesters arrested (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kavanaugh-protesters-arrested-at-capitol-after-thousands-march-on-supreme-court)
Kavanaugh Protesters Beat on SCOTUS Doors (https://www.mrctv.org/blog/meltdown-kavanaugh-protesters-beat-scotus-doors-climb-statues-and-accost-elderly-trump)
Here's the Portland Courthouse After Night 61 (https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/07/30/video-the-devastation-of-portlands-federal-courthouse-after-61-nights-of-violent-riots-n734356)
Portland police release montage video of protest footage and images (https://dailyhive.com/portland/portland-police-protest-video)
Black Lives Matter protesters, cops clash again in DC overnight (https://heavy.com/news/2020/05/george-floyd-minneapolis-riots/"}Aerial Video Shows Damage In Minneapolis Protests[/url]
[url="https://nypost.com/2020/08/31/black-lives-matter-protesters-cops-clash-again-in-dc-overnight/)
‘Burn it down!’ Antifa, BLM protesters clash with police, threaten to torch DC (https://www.bizpacreview.com/2021/02/07/amid-biden-domestic-extremism-concerns-antifa-blm-protesters-clash-with-police-threaten-to-burn-down-dc-1026780/)
BLM protesters storm Oklahoma Capitol (https://www.foxnews.com/us/blm-protesters-oklahoma-capitol-gop-bills-drivers-riot-police-doxxing-transgender)

What's the difference between an insurrection and a protest?

The language used to describe it...because definitions don't matter to the liberal media.

Funny thing is, most of these stories were ignored, then the behavior by the "protestors" was applauded and downplayed by the liberal media when exposed, congratulated by the liberals in congress and across the country. There are a hundred more stories like these, and only one is an insurrection...the rest are "protests."

only one is an insurrection...the rest are "protests."
The definition of an insurrection is a rise against government authority or a revolt.

A protest (also called a demonstration, remonstration or remonstrance) is a public expression of objection, disapproval or dissent towards an idea or action, typically a political one.

The definition of an insurrection is a rise against government authority or a revolt.

A protest (also called a demonstration, remonstration or remonstrance) is a public expression of objection, disapproval or dissent towards an idea or action, typically a political one.


when dissent becomes violent it is no longer a demonstration, it is an insurrection, when this insurrection becomes widespread it is a revolt. Washington was an insurrection, Portland is an insurrection

Seems good enough to me wondergirl. The question remains, why all these protests are not insurrections. Every story mentioned is a revolt, yet, the headlines still read protest. We can clearly see how the 2 definition have a bit of gray area, overlap if you will. The actions taken by said "protestors" is not simply dissent, they definitely lean towards revolt. You certainly cannot attack the public institutions at large and call it a protest.

Just the media being polite and PC while politicians don't want to be seen to escalate

Nobody calls looting, assaults, and arson protests. That's clear criminal stuff and jail is the place for such actions.

You fringers refuse to recognize the difference between criminals and protestors. Why I wonder? Of course you guys have been know to make protestors look bad because you don't like what they protest. You'd protest somebody putting a knee on your neck for 10 minutes wouldn't you?

I could say the same about the main stream. A failure to recognize what is. Look at the stories I linked before. Its not that the protestors are bad, its the failure to call a riot a riot, and to condemn what is wrong.

https://www.mediaite.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/CNN-1-1-1200x679.jpg

Yep. Those "mostly peaceful" protests are pretty dramatic with buildings burning in the background.

10s of thousands went to DC to protest Jan 6 . A handful of them trespassed broke into the Capitol .Even fewer than that got violent . They should be charged appropriately . No way was that an insurrection .

No way was that an insurrection .I'd agree with that. Suggestions to the contrary are primarily for political consumption.

news update :

Ex cop and anti defund the police candidate Eric Adams has taken a commanding lead in the NYC Democrat primary . He will almost surely be the Dem candidate and as such almost assured to be the next Mayor of NY .

The Repub winner is the founder of the Guardian Angels Curtis Sliwa . You know where he stands on crime issues .

Clearly the people of NYC does not want to defund the police ;and want the police to do their jobs and protect the people from the marauders who have taken over the city streets and subways since Sandinista Bill became Mayor .

pps ranked choice voting is a joke .

10s of thousands went to DC to protest Jan 6 . A handful of them trespassed broke into the Capitol

Estimates are that "thousands" marched to the capitol. To date over 500 have been arrested. The FBI is looking for more that have not been apprehended yet. Anybody that has seen any of the many videos would choke on the claim that "a handful of them broke into the Capitol". Why are you being so untruthful, especially in light of all the evidence both visual and eye-witness testimony?


Even fewer than that got violent

500 so far is "fewer that got violent"? How can you write this stuff so blatantly?


No way was that an insurrection .

What would you call it when 500+ men (more like 1,000+ men), variously armed, attacked the United States Capitol while Congress was in session with the stated claim of overturning the election of the US President thereby overthrowing the elected government of the United State of America? What do you call it when these men screamed, "Hang Mile Pence! Hang Mike Pence!", the Vice-President of the US?

Nothing like it has been seen in the US since the Civil War. Yet, "no way" was that an insurrection, you say.

500 so far is "fewer that got violent"? How can you write this stuff so blatantly? most arrested will have trespassing charges at best .

most arrested will have trespassing charges at best .

You must be listening to Trump or OAN Cable.


Acting U.S. Attorney Sherwin said "almost all" of the cases charged in federal court have involved "significant federal felonies" with sentences between five and twenty years.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_charges_brought_in_the_2021_United_States _Capitol_attack#cite_note-Capitol_arrests-3) Many have been charged with assault on law enforcement officers; "violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol ground";[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_charges_brought_in_the_2021_United_States _Capitol_attack#cite_note-Capitol_arrests-3) trespassing; disrupting Congress; theft or other property crimes; weapons offenses; making threats; and conspiracy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime)).[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_charges_brought_in_the_2021_United_States _Capitol_attack#cite_note-Horde-11) Some criminal indictments are under seal. The majority of cases are in federal court (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_District_of_C olumbia), while others are in D.C. Superior Court.[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_charges_brought_in_the_2021_United_States _Capitol_attack#cite_note-Mallin-12)

Nothing like it has been seen in the US since the Civil War. Yet, "no way" was that an insurrection, you say.




On July 2, 1915, Muenter hid a package containing three sticks of dynamite with a timing mechanism set for nearly midnight under a telephone switchboard in the Senate reception room in the United States Capitol, Washington, D.C. His original target had been the Senate chamber, which he found locked. The bomb exploded at approximately 11:40 PM resulting in no casualties. Muenter wrote a letter to The Washington Star under a pseudonym R. Pearce, explaining his actions, which was published after the bombing. He said that he hoped the explosion would "make enough noise to be heard above the voices that clamor for war. This explosion is an exclamation point in my appeal for peace."




The 1954 United States Capitol shooting was an attack on March 1, 1954, by four Puerto Rican nationalists wanting Puerto Rico's independence from US rule. They shot 30 rounds from semi-automatic pistols from the Ladies' Gallery (a balcony for visitors) of the House of Representatives chamber in the United States Capitol.




A bomb explodes in the Capitol building in Washington, D.C., causing an estimated $300,000 in damage but hurting no one. A group calling itself the Weather Underground claimed credit for the bombing, which was done in protest of the ongoing U.S.-supported Laos invasion.




The 1983 U.S. Senate bombing was a bomb explosion at the United States Senate on November 7, 1983, motivated by United States military involvement in Lebanon and Grenada. The attack led to heightened security in the DC metropolitan area, and the inaccessibility of certain parts of the Senate Building.




The 1998 United States Capitol shooting was an attack on July 24, 1998, which led to the deaths of two United States Capitol Police officers. Officer Jacob Chestnut and Detective John Gibson were killed when Russell Eugene Weston Jr., entered the Capitol and opened fire.


History is not so simple. Lets not forget the time anthrax was sent to DC or the time a plane almost bombed the capitol. Maybe not so many people entered the building, but the damage and devastation has been far more severe in many instances.

What would you call it when 500+ men (more like 1,000+ men), variously armed,I wouldn't get too carried away with the "variously armed" comment lest it appear that all 500 were armed. That is far removed from the truth.

"But 23 people have been charged with having deadly or dangerous weapons during the assault — including a loaded handgun found on a man arrested on Capitol grounds." So there was one gun, and the other 22 had, "...baseball bats, chemical sprays, a captured police officer’s riot shield, a crowbar, fire extinguishers and a metal flagpole."

An insurrection armed with...ONE gun? Doesn't seem to pass muster to me. "OK men. Charge!! Show em what a fire extinguisher can do!"

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/03/capitol-protesters-were-armed-with-variety-of-weapons/

Most Capitol riot offenders won’t face hefty prison terms, legal experts say. - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/05/13/capitol-rioters-sentencing/)

Many Capitol rioters unlikely to serve jail time - POLITICO (https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/30/jan-6-capitol-riot-jail-time-478440)

70 % of those arrested are not being held . They must be a terrible threat to the country .


Democrats’ message is not resonating because they overstate everything. They argue that a very serious incident, organized by a few fanatics, to interrupt the certification of the 2020 presidential election is equivalent to the foreign terrorists who hijacked four planes, flew them into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and a Pennsylvania forest, killed more than 3,000 people, injured thousands more, and caused billions of dollars in damage.
They appeal to the visceral by calling the Jan. 6 incident an “insurrection” even though they know the legal definition is not met.
Democrats, even in the Judiciary hearing, argue that the rioting for the past year is merely a series of peaceful protests and simply an exercise of First Amendment rights, but paint everyone who came to the Capitol on Jan. 6 as “insurrectionists” attempting to take over the government.


Democrats learn hard truths about Capitol breach | TheHill (https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/558627-democrats-learn-hard-truths-about-capitol-breach)

From your Hill article....

"BY REP. ANDY BIGGS (R-ARIZ.), OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 06/15/21 07:30 PM EDT THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL (https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/558627-democrats-learn-hard-truths-about-capitol-breach#bottom-story-socials)"

I added it because it is what I have been saying since January . What about the Compost and Politico sources ?

History is not so simple.

These are not even close to the Jan 6 insurrection.

70 % of those arrested are not being held . They must be a terrible threat to the country .

I'll go with US Attorney Sherwin.

Revealed: majority of people charged in Capitol attack aren’t in jail | US Capitol breach | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/28/us-capitol-attack-suspects-jail-trial)

After the 6th, we had an inauguration on the 20th. So I wanted to ensure, and our office wanted to ensure that there was shock and awe, that we could charge as many people as possible before the 20th. And it worked because we saw through media posts that people were afraid to come back to D.C. because they're like, "If we go there, we're gonna get charged." ... We wanted to take out those individuals that essentially were thumbing their noses at the public for what they did.


"Significant federal felonies" = "Shock and awe"

I love that last part "We wanted to take out those individuals for...thumbing their noses at the public"

Not exactly law and order talk, but we'll get those dumb insurrectionists.

Too bad Kamala's bail fund isn't for those kind of insurrectionists...they might get out and kill and rape just like those darn peaceful protestors.

Here (https://www.npr.org/2021/02/09/965472049/the-capitol-siege-the-arrested-and-their-stories) is a running list of who was charged and for what, most are unsealed.

Heads up, 25 are there for curfew violations. The only guns that were found were on people who didn't enter the capitol, but were violating curfew, one arrested the next day for stuff in truck. 4 more by my count.

A lot of these only passed a barricade, or entered the building, simply to leave a few minute later, IE the trespassing charges.

"Steal, Sell, Convey or Dispose of Anything of Value of the United States" means picked up something off the ground that didn't belong to you.

Even with all that surveillance footage and congressional commissions, we still don't know who put those bombs in the bushes (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/pipe-bombs-found-near-capitol-on-jan-6-are-believed-to-have-been-placed-the-night-before/ar-BB1dd6Cj). Who got off the antifa bus -Paul Sperry. Why some people got $1,000 to show up 2:26:48 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBRJmnvFfo8). Who killed Ashli Babbit? Who was handing out weapons (https://rumble.com/vcm9at-antifa-handing-out-weapons-to-their-comrades-during-the-storming-of-the-us-.html). Why were there no police? Who is John Galt (Sullivan) (https://www.newsweek.com/john-sullivan-capitol-attack-leftwing-antifa-1561898). (Needed to throw that one in there, lol)

Then the conspiracies abound!

Who is John Galt (Sullivan) (https://www.newsweek.com/john-sullivan-capitol-attack-leftwing-antifa-1561898). (Needed to throw that one in there, lol) My all time favorite literary character .


Who killed Ashli Babbit? normally the left is quick to name a cop who kills a protester . The DOJ has chosen to not press charges against the officer .

His name is Lt. Mike Byrd . The 5th column ....ooops I mean the 4th estate media has known this from the beginning but still refuse to officially name him . Besides this incident he was in the news for leaving his loaded glock-22 unattended in a bathroom in the Capitol in 2019 .

Here (https://www.npr.org/2021/02/09/965472049/the-capitol-siege-the-arrested-and-their-stories) is a running list of who was charged and for what, most are unsealed.

Heads up, 25 are there for curfew violations. The only guns that were found were on people who didn't enter the capitol, but were violating curfew, one arrested the next day for stuff in truck. 4 more by my count.

At least 40 are accused of committing conspiracy, one of the most serious charges brought. At least 96 are accused of committing acts of violence, particularly against police. At least 42 are suspected of causing property damage, like breaking windows or doors to gain entry to the building. At least 30 are accused of theft, like the man photographed carrying House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's lectern or one woman who allegedly took a laptop from Pelosi's office.

Why do right-wing evangelists deny the facts so often about the Jan 6 insurrection? After following that bunch for over a year now, it's looking like they will sell their soul for anything supporting their politics. Bad enough for the usual right-wing fringe, but for self-proclaimed Christians?

My part describing those accused is directly from the link cited by infojunkie. Could his part citing 25 curfew violations be possibly any more misleading than it already is?

I'm at a loss to understand why Christian evangelists are so devious.

Athos, you are an idiot. No, one is claiming there was no crime. What happened on Jan 6 was despicable.

No one is denying what happened, this is the most documented crime of the century. What's a up for debate is why the media uses such foul language describing a "right wing" crime, while other clear acts of violence are wonderful acts of downtrodden people.

One might even argue the media is responsible for creating such an atmosphere where violence is lauded and the left wing political class for encouraging these while failing to enforce laws that would have put an end to such nonsense.

Your bigotry against christians and right wingers is noted.

Athos, you are an idiot

You couldn't provide rational answers in the previous discussion, and you can't provide them here, so I'm the idiot.


No one is claiming there was no crime.

You're very wrong there. At least one Republican stated it was a typical day with tourists and cameras. In general, the Republicans have played it down like you did with your "running list" citing only curfew violations. Why did you omit the serious crimes?


What happened on Jan 6 was despicable.

NOW you say it - after you were called on the absurdity of your comment.


No one is denying what happened

You certainly implied it wasn't much in your post #30. You made it seem like a walk in the park with your sarcasm.


This is the most documented crime of the century.

Then why are you so casual about it (#30)?


What's a up for debate is why the media uses such foul language describing a "right wing" crime

Wrong again, what is up for debate is why the Republicans voted down an investigation into the "crime of the century".

As to the "foul language", the media covered it exactly for what it was - a right-wing insurrection incited by madman Trump. When you see the truth as foul language, you have a problem.


While other clear acts of violence are wonderful acts of downtrodden people.

You're deflecting. A typical tactic of the right-wing. Aka "whataboutism" as if the one excuses the other.


One might even argue the media is responsible for creating such an atmosphere where violence is lauded and the left wing political class for encouraging these while failing to enforce laws that would have put an end to such nonsense.

No, only an idiot would make such an argument, and you fit the bill.

I love you too.

Funny to see Athos complaining about a lack rational answers.

InfoJunkie
One might even argue the media is responsible for creating such an atmosphere
And Athos:
No, only an idiot would make such an argument
InfoJunkie:
most arrested will have trespassing charges at best.
Athos
You must be listening to Trump or OAN Cable.
Funny to see Athos complaining about a lack of rational answers.
Funny indeed.

read about this arrested " insurrectionist " .

FBI tears New Yorker's life into shreds: Devine (nypost.com) (https://nypost.com/2021/06/23/fbi-tears-new-yorkers-life-into-shreds-devine/)

I love you too.

Instead of trying to be cute, try to answer the points I made in post # 36.


Funny to see Athos complaining about a lack rational answers.

Instead of your typical meanness and stalking, provide rational answers to what I posted in # 36 - if you can.


Funny indeed.

Go away.

read about this arrested " insurrectionist " .

FBI tears New Yorker's life into shreds: Devine (nypost.com) (https://nypost.com/2021/06/23/fbi-tears-new-yorkers-life-into-shreds-devine/)

If the story is true, the FBI acted terribly and should be brought to account.

However, the NY POST is hardly known for Trumpian accuracy, and the victim's comment that "there was no riot" is laughable.

The raid is confirmed in other sources if you bother to look instead of just attacking the source

and of course it has nothing to do with his dispute with Dana Lowey Luttway, who is the daughter of former New York Congresswoman (D) Nita Lowey over renovations she did in the neighborhood. An anonymous neighbor claims he was bragging about being there . (pure speculation on my part about the connection . Luttway's company was fined multiple times during the renovations and was subject to stop work orders because they were a nuisance )
Congresswoman's Daughter Bickers With Neighbors Over 3-Year Home Renovation - Upper West Side - New York - DNAinfo (https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20170919/upper-west-side/nearly-3-years-construction-make-dream-house-nightmare-for-neighbors/)

Go awayAwe, and I thought we were friends. You're not very nice. I like it here, this place is fun. Maybe you could relax a bit, take a breather. Now go to your room! Momma Didn't Raise You To Act This Way

The raid is confirmed in other sources if you bother to look instead of just attacking the source

I hardly need to look for other sources of the raid. My point is the victim's credibility when he said "there was no riot".

Momma Didn't Raise You To Act This Way

Did your momma raise you to lie about your age? Or hide behind a nickname?

Did your momma raise you to preach long-winded sermons here that even your co-religionists need to have clarified, and nobody else can understand?

Why are you here? You contribute almost nothing to whatever the discussion is. You couldn't even give a coherent response to the issues raised in my post.

Time for you to clear up that confusion in your head.

Did your momma raise you to lie about your age? I thought we were using the 50 is the new 20 rule?
Or hide behind a nickname? My nickname makes me who I am, and I will forever love being "Waltero.
Did your momma raise you to preach long-winded sermons here?How long should the sermon series be? The Truly Abundant Life is Meant to Be Lived in the Larger Story.
That even your co-religionists need to have clarified? Enquiring minds want to know.
And nobody else can understand? No harm, no foul...being that nobody else could understand the Topic (John 12:20)anyway...including you.
Why are you here? because this is an open forum, and I seek knowledge. Thought I'd see what the educated folks had to say. You contribute almost nothing I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you.
To whatever the discussion is. Ask your momma what it is.
You couldn't even give a coherent response to the issues raised in my post. It's not always about you.
Time for you to clear up that confusion in your head If only I had a Brain!

This is never about us, but our response to the issues. Some responses are superficial, some provide knowledge and some have nothing to do with the thread, ah well, I don't get it, it isn't as though your own thread costs money

These are not even close to the Jan 6 insurrection.

Different, yes. Do you want to rank order them? What are your criteria? Does that criteria stand in all circumstances? How is this the worst since the civil war?

I keep hearing the mouthpieces saying stuff like this, what is Biden's justification for comparing this event to the Civil War where more than half a million people died, and our country was literally ripped apart? How many on the political left rank Jan 6 with 9/11? We have 3000 dead and wars on wars as consequences from one, do the consequences of the other carry the same weight? Arnold Schwarzenegger ranks this with the Kristallnacht which brought sweeping destruction and put more than 30,000 men into concentration camps. Anderson Cooper thinks this is the same as the Rwandan and Bosnian genocides.

Pearl Harbor, al Qaeda, terrorists, the list goes on.

Maybe my comparisons were off base by severity, as January 6th can only be ranked amongst the worst acts of human indignation. How about you tone down the rhetoric, unless it is your goal to smear and villainize and silence dissenters.



they will sell their soul for anything supporting their politics




Christian evangelists are so devious




white supremacist domestic terrorism




threaten a takeover of the nation


Very strong words my friend.

Athos, as for your Post #36:



No one is claiming there was no crime.


You're very wrong there. At least one Republican....



Let me clarify: "no one" here, in this discussion.

The next few comments regarding Post #30...mostly vile assumptions about me. This was an attempt to clarify some facts not clearly stated prior. Let me explain in simpler terms.

Point 1: You used Michael Sherwin in Post #21, #28 as an authoritative source to prove the extreme nature of the crimes of the rioters, even as you refuse to accept other sources that show that the judges involved feel quite different. My quote of Michael Sherwin is an authoritative source that Michael Sherwin could care less about actual crimes and would rather send a message using the full weight of the law. Intent matters. I also might point out that the judges and lawyers involved in these cases would have an intimate knowledge of the individual cases and have the proper authority to adjudicate these crimes and assess the risk involved with these individuals.

Point 2: Sarcastic remarks about Kamala's Bail Fund, not whataboutism, but rather evidence to illustrate the hypocrisy of those who support violence when it aligns with their ideology while condemning violence that does not align with their ideology.

Point 3: A list of current charges of those involved in the January 6 riot. I believe regularly updated. This is simply a source we can use to enhance our discussion.

-It was asserted in Post #2 that white supremacist domestic terrorism was involved. No such charges were found in this list related to terrorism or any sort of hate crimes.

-It was asserted in Post #6 that arrests were mostly for trespassing. Can't search by that criteria, however, I believe this to be true. Using the find function on my browser I noted 266 instances of "Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building" charges, 186 instances of "Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building" charges, and 144 instances of "Remaining in any Restricted Building or Grounds Without Lawful Authority" charges (Probably the same people, multiple charges). I also believe this lacks context as nearly all of those charges are accompanied by other charges as well. I was too lazy to write a whole post on this and do a study on the relevancy of the charges with the summary of events that lead to these charges.

-It was asserted in Post #16 that "Even fewer than that got violent," and Post #19 "500 so far is 'fewer that got violent.'" There are only 73 instances of an "Act of Physical Violence" in this list.

-Post #19 also asserts "500+ men (more like 1,000+ men), variously armed, attacked the United States Capitol" and Post #23 states "But 23 people have been charged with having deadly or dangerous weapons during the assault — including a loaded handgun found on a man arrested on Capitol grounds" while the list corroborates 116 instances of "Deadly or Dangerous Weapon."

This link can bring clarity to this discussion.

Point 4: 25 people on the list had nothing to do with the riot, they were violating curfew, with no other charges brought. Less than 5% of those arrested.

Point 5: There are a fair number of people who are being given leniency because they did nothing more than enter and leave.

Point 6: There are a fair number of people who are being given leniency because they committed nothing more than petty theft.



Wrong again, what is up for debate is why the Republicans voted down an investigation into the "crime of the century".


You must understand something about politics. There are seldom good actors, neither on the left nor the right. Most politicians are self serving.

This particular commission is an attempt to root out failures within the federal government as related to the January 6 attack. In reality, the republicans are afraid it would be a club wielded by liberal media, government leaks, and others on the left side of the isle to smack them with, non-stop, until the 2022 midterms. It is also true that the House of Representatives have already launched an investigative subcommittee, while the Senate has 2 separate investigations, the latest of which was released on June 8th. All of this is ongoing while the FBI, DoJ and other departments conduct their own internal and external investigations.



As to the "foul language", the media covered it exactly for what it was - a right-wing insurrection incited by madman Trump. When you see the truth as foul language, you have a problem.


I see the truth as somewhere between hyperbole and denial. The media are self serving also, they ratchet up the language when it suits them; they ignore things when it suits them; they downplay whatever suits them. Turn off CNN and do some real research.



You're deflecting. A typical tactic of the right-wing. Aka "whataboutism" as if the one excuses the other.


See previous statement about hypocrisy.



One might even argue the media is responsible for creating such an atmosphere where violence is lauded and the left wing political class for encouraging these while failing to enforce laws that would have put an end to such nonsense.


No, only an idiot would make such an argument, and you fit the bill.



It is incredibly hard to engage with someone who refuses to analyze and rebut rational arguments. If it is so wrong, try attacking the argument.

That final bit brings us back to Chicago.

The leaders there continually assert that they have a gun problem. From Rahm Emanuel to Lori Lightfoot (and even Joe Biden), they see gun control as a proper remedy to the criminal element of their city. Their gun legislation has not helped one bit. So they blame gun dealers and neighboring states for disseminating the weapons. The trouble is, most of the guns recovered in Chicago are from Illinois, and after investigating them, the ATF rarely busts a FFL dealer. They did nothing wrong. The guns are generally stolen or purchased off the black market.

The real problem is policy.

Criminals are routinely let out of jail early or given lesser sentences just to go on committing crimes.

Prosecution of weapons related charges is falling continually. From 2005 to 2016, these prosecutions fell by almost 35%.

In 2016 Chicago only had 15 attorneys dedicated to violent crime. Lack of proper resources.

Most gun crime convictions are given the lowest possible sentence.

With constant defund the police rhetoric and racism rhetoric, the powers that be, think it is better to let criminals walk that to arrest too many individuals of a specific minority. Many on the left see criminals as disconnected from their actions, rather, a product of their environment. Thus America is to blame, not the felons.

Maybe my comparisons were off base by severity

They were off base making a comparison to an attempt to overthrow the duly elected government of the US.


How about you tone down the rhetoric,

YOU started the rhetoric with, "Athos, you are an idiot". Does your outrage apply to yourself, or just to others?


unless it is your goal to smear and villainize and silence dissenters.

My goal is to tell the truth based on facts. Your goal is to support an ideology led by Trump regardless of facts.


Very strong words

You meant, "Very truthful words".

That final bit brings us back to Chicago.

This seems to be addressed to me. I have not made any comment or post about Chicago.

"Gun control" is their only answer ;although during his speech Wednesday Quid actually said that cities with extra covid bucks should invest in their police forces .That is a concession that the year long defund the cops effort has been an unmitigated disaster .His emphasis on so called "assault weapons " is completely irrelevant to the crime way that is hitting America's cities.

Getting ILLEGAL guns off the streets worked in NYC under Rudy and nanny-Bloomy . But that requires more policing not less. It appears based on primary results that NYC is looking for a return to sanity .

I keep hearing the mouthpieces saying stuff like this, what is Biden's justification for comparing this event to the Civil War where more than half a million people died, and our country was literally ripped apart? How many on the political left rank Jan 6 with 9/11? We have 3000 dead and wars on wars as consequences from one, do the consequences of the other carry the same weight? Arnold Schwarzenegger ranks this with the Kristallnacht which brought sweeping destruction and put more than 30,000 men into concentration camps. Anderson Cooper thinks this is the same as the Rwandan and Bosnian genocides.

Well said, Info. The 1/6 event is now largely being used for political consumption. Thus we see the allegations of "white supremacists" on a rampage of destruction and insurrection, all of which is wild conjecture. On the basis of damage to the country, I would rate the Ferguson riots as more destructive.

The next few comments regarding Post #30...mostly vile assumptions about me

Post # 30 is yours, not mine, and, obviously, I made no vile assumptions about you in your own post.


Point 1. Yoiu used Michasel Sherwin in Post #21, #28 as an authoritative source to prove the extreme nature of the crimes of the rioters,

I agree with Michael Sherwin who is an authoritative source. The only actual trial so far has resulted in a guilty verdict. A minor offense, it a is a harbinger of more serious charges in the future to be tried.


even as you refuse to accept sources that show that the judges involved feel quite different.

Do you accept sources that show the judges involved to feel otherwise than your judges? No, I thought not.


Point 2: Sarcastic remarks about Kamala's Bail Fund

I never said a word, sarcastic or otherwise, about Kamala's bail fund.


evidence to illustrate the hypocrisy of those who support violence when it aligns with their ideology while condemning violence that does not align with their ideology.

I couldn't make a better argument than that for those Repubs who do EXACTLY that. Completely ignore the violence at the Capitol from that yo-yo who was filmed defending against the rioters while claiming it was like a typical camera and tourist day. What in God's name could possibly make someone say such a thing in front of the whole world? And he's not the only one!


Point 3: A list of current charges of those involved in the January 6 riot. I believe regularly updated. This is simply a source we can use to enhance our discussion.

How can the discussion be enhanced when you leave out the serious charges?


It was asserted in Post #2 that white supremacist domestic terrorism was involved. No such charges were found in this list related to terrorism or any sort of hate crimes.

I never asserted that charges were filed for white supremacist terrorism. I asserted that white supremacists were part of the crowd based on Jesus banners and the testimony of a minister who was there and said Trump the Inciter was "appointed by God".


It was asserted in Post #6 that arrests were mostly for trespassing.

This is one of those comments that drive truth-seekers crazy. SO-DAMN-WHAT! Does that excuse the hundreds who were charged with far more serious crimes? The FACTS are available - you just need drop your laziness to search for them.


-It was asserted in Post #16 that "Even fewer than that got violent," and Post #19 "500 so far is 'fewer that got violent.'" There are only 73 instances of an "Act of Physical Violence" in this list.

I define violence as the whole crowd swarming and yelling things like "Hang Mike Pence" and "Get Nancy". The fact that many were never caught doesn't change the reality.


Point 4: 25 people on the list had nothing to do with the riot, they were violating curfew, with no other charges brought. Less than 5% of those arrested.

Point 5: There are a fair number of people who are being given leniency because they did nothing more than enter and leave.

Point 6: There are a fair number of people who are being given leniency because they committed nothing more than petty theft.

These points are not relevant to the main crime of insurrection. They do not absolve the bad actors. It's unclear why you even brought them up.


You must understand something about politics. There are seldom good actors, neither on the left nor the right. Most politicians are self serving.

Condescending comments are not your strong point.


This particular commission is an attempt to root out failures within the federal government as related to the January 6 attack. In reality, the republicans are afraid

The Republicans are afraid of the truth coming out and further damaging their reputation which has sunk near-bottom under Trump and the really bad leadership: I.e., McConnell, McCarthy - and Greene and the assorted other whackos like Greene.


I see the truth as somewhere between hyperbole and denial

That's your problem right there. You can't see the truth. You think it's in the middle of rhetoric. Wrong, it exists all by itself. You should have learned that in kindergarten.


Turn off CNN and do some real research.

And what cable channel do you watch?


It is incredibly hard to engage with someone who refuses to analyze and rebut rational arguments.

You are so right. That is why I have such difficulty dealing with the likes of you ("you're a bigot - I love you too - Athos, you're an idiot") and your pals. You rarely answer points I make (this being an exception - thank you), arguments are made that are not arguments at all (they are beliefs that have no basis in fact), and at least one here thinks this is a training ground for giving sermons.

As for me, I strive to make factual and provable points. This is not that hard to do in today's media-driven society where so much is on video or audio easily retrievable on the internet. Truth can also be in the mind of someone from experience but not readily provable. In that case, take it or leave it.

When I offer opinion, I try to indicate that by saying so or else it's obvious within the context.


The media are self serving also, they ratchet up the language when it suits them; they ignore things when it suits them; they downplay whatever suits them.

That is true to a degree. It's the nature of the beast. However, it's easy to tell which media are the best at reporting the actual events accurately. The problem we've had with mainstream media is that Trump was such a moron it was impossible to show him otherwise. Even his own appointees thought he was a nutcase. When FOX tried to support Trump it became a laughingstock although plenty of ill-informed citizens continued to watch FOX. Trump's newest favorite is OAN and NEWMAX - both as poor as can be reporting facts.

Media is the chief safeguard against public corruption.

Does anyone actually read these hyper-nuanced and piecemeal replies? It makes me tired just looking at them.

Does anyone actually read these hyper-nuanced and piecemeal replies? It makes me tired just looking at them.

They're not for you.

Thank goodness! So I don't have to read these kind of well-reasoned, scholarly statements?

"Condescending comments are not your strong point."

"The Republicans are afraid of the truth coming out and further damaging their reputation which has sunk near-bottom under Trump and the really bad leadership: I.e., McConnell, McCarthy - and Greene and the assorted other whackos like Greene."

"That's your problem right there. You can't see the truth. You think it's in the middle of rhetoric. Wrong, it exists all by itself. You should have learned that in kindergarten."

"As for me, I strive to make factual and provable points." I wonder if that includes statements about "white evangelicals", a group that you seem unable to define, and unable to say if their beliefs are somehow different from the beliefs of non-white evangelicals? And if those beliefs do not differ, then why is it so important to you to distinguish "white" evangelicals from other evangelicals? Why the racial aspect?

Athos, you really fail to read my comments. If it wasn't so much fun getting you all worked up, I wouldn't even bother. I spend a great deal of time researching these posts, while you continually misrepresent and only half read what's been written. You lose the chain of conversation and spend your time attacking individuals.

I'll put some of this into context.



Heads up, 25 are there for curfew violations.


My part describing those accused is directly from the link cited by infojunkie. Could his part citing 25 curfew violations be possibly any more misleading than it already is?



No one is claiming there was no crime.


You're very wrong there. At least one Republican stated it was a typical day with tourists and cameras. In general, the Republicans have played it down like you did with your "running list" citing only curfew violations. Why did you omit the serious crimes?



Instead of trying to be cute, try to answer the points I made in post # 36.


Let me clarify: "no one" here, in this discussion.





What happened on Jan 6 was despicable.


NOW you say it - after you were called on the absurdity of your comment.

You certainly implied it wasn't much in your post #30. You made it seem like a walk in the park with your sarcasm.

Then why are you so casual about it (#30)?


The next few comments regarding Post #30...mostly vile assumptions about me. This was an attempt to clarify some facts not clearly stated prior. Let me explain in simpler terms.
It is asserted X the link says Y
It is asserted V the link says W
etc.
This link can bring clarity to this discussion.


Post # 30 is yours, not mine, and, obviously, I made no vile assumptions about you in your own post.

I define violence as the whole crowd swarming and yelling things like "Hang Mike Pence" and "Get Nancy". The fact that many were never caught doesn't change the reality.

These points are not relevant to the main crime of insurrection. They do not absolve the bad actors. It's unclear why you even brought them up.

Lets talk about insurrection for a minute. You continually bring this up.

Wondergirl defined it well, "The definition of an insurrection is a rise against government authority or a revolt."

You agreed in Post #19.

Now you assert that the "main crime" is insurrection.



Although there are frequent concerns about statements made by media figures, on social media, or even by members of the government itself, there are two aspects of the crime of insurrection and rebellion that tend to limit its use.

The first is that, since insurrection and rebellion is a crime, private citizens do not have standing to file charges against someone. Only the government itself, acting through the Office of the Attorney General, can bring charges.

The second reason that rebellion and insurrection are rarely charged is because of the strength of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protection of free speech. A certain amount of hyperbole is tolerated, where there aren't accompanying overt acts. The general language of the crime also lends itself to interpretation, making prosecutions a chancier proposition.

Where possible, the government tends to level charges that are based more on actions than words.


If you read the language in 18 U.S.C. Section 2383 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383) it is a clear definition of a crime that is punishable. However, the broad scope of such a crime often prevents prosecution, it is limited in scope by many other laws. The regular usage of the code is to define when Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 (https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-1-2/ALDE_00001128/['impeachment']) as defined by the Prize Cases (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prize_Cases) and Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 (https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C15_1/ALDE_00001077/) of the constitution are properly employed.

It is clear that there are no "Insurrection" charges leveled against any of the rioters. It is clear that language alone cannot be the qualification for legal insurrection, and that you falsely equate rhetoric with violent crimes.



I define violence as the whole crowd swarming and yelling


Speech is not violence.



My goal is to tell the truth based on facts.


I guess you're not an idiot then, you are a liar.



You rarely answer points I make


Ditto. I might add that I have to use such long posts to address the quantity of your post's I respond to. As a matter of fact, I prefer to respond to your points. I like trolling you.



As for me, I strive to make factual and provable points


Ditto. You rarely address facts or prove your points, you spew hatred and nonsense regularly.

P.S.

Don't forget that crimes in the US can only be legally charged against individuals. The individual did X, not this group is X. A person commits insurrection, as a crime, not a group. A group of individuals can be implicated in individual insurrectionist behavior when you want to play politics. When you are talking about group mentality and assigning blame to groups as a whole, you are no longer in the realm of the law, but in the realm of rhetoric.

And what cable channel do you watch?


I don't watch much television. I think it rots the brain.

Athos, you really fail to read my comments. If it wasn't so much fun getting you all worked up, I wouldn't even bother. I spend a great deal of time researching these posts, while you continually misrepresent and only half read what's been written. You lose the chain of conversation and spend your time attacking individuals.

Not a single sentence of this is true. and you know it! It's obvious I read your comments with care. It's interesting that your motivation is to annoy me - it should be seeking and presenting the truth. Every one of your comments had been rebuked. Your claim of my losing the conversation is just that - a claim. I note you gave no examples of that. This whole paragraph was nothing more than unfounded accusations. I'm not surprised.


I'll put some of this into context.

Good. Read it with care and you will see how your own post supports my points.

Rebuke # 1. My curfew comment rebuking yours was absolutely true.

Rebuke # 2. You DID omit the serious crimes. You admitted in a later post you had failed to clarify. Absolutely true.

Rebuke # 3. Your "despicable comment". You added that in a later post after I called you on it. Absolutely true. Your post # 30 read like sarcasm. An opinion, but absolutely true. My calling you on accusing me of vile assumptions in Post 30 was absolutely true. You had the wrong Post #. My definition of violence includes incitement like screaming and yelling. Absolutely true. The irrelevant points you brought up I said were unclear why you even brought them up. Absolutely true.

What is odd here is that you put all the post comments charging me with not reading your comments showing every one of my answers, and you did NOT answer a single one. Your copying the comments SUPPORTS what I said. I think you're very confused, probably blinded by your ideology. I don't know for sure where your confusion lies, but it's there.

Your silly comment about you having fun getting me "all worked up" is just a childish way of denying and hiding your own frustration when exchanging ideas with me. I know this because in our first discussion you bailed out in the middle having run out of answers to my posts. Now there is this comment to which I am responding that is actually supporting my points without you providing any answers other than to throw insults.

If you read the language in 18 U.S.C. Section 2383 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383) it is a clear definition of a crime that is punishable. However, the broad scope of such a crime often prevents prosecution, it is limited in scope by many other laws. The regular usage of the code is to define when Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 (https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-1-2/ALDE_00001128/['impeachment']) as defined by the Prize Cases (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prize_Cases) and Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 (https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C15_1/ALDE_00001077/) of the constitution are properly employed.

It is clear that there are no "Insurrection" charges leveled against any of the rioters. It is clear that language alone cannot be the qualification for legal insurrection,

What do you call stormng the Capitol of the United States attempting to overthrow the duly elected government with violence, and death threats to the VP of the United States?


and that you falsely equate rhetoric with violent crimes.

Is shouting "fire" in a crowded theater false rhetoric?


Speech is not violence.

See above.


I guess you're not an idiot then, you are a liar.

Is this an example of you condemning others for insults? Here's a saying you badly need to know and apply in your life. People in glass house shouldn't throw stones.


I might add that I have to use such long posts to address the quantity of your post's I respond to.

YOU were the one who started the long posts. My posts are long to reply to you. Why do you twist things?


As a matter of fact, I prefer to respond to your points. I like trolling you.

You're an excellent troll. In fact, you'd be even better if you managed to include answers in your response to my points.


You rarely address facts or prove your points

You know that's not true. It's just you deflecting away from your own inabilities.


you spew hatred and nonsense regularly.

Is this more of your anti-insult crusade?


Don't forget that crimes in the US can only be legally charged against individuals. The individual did X, not this group is X. A person commits insurrection, as a crime, not a group. A group of individuals can be implicated in individual insurrectionist behavior when you want to play politics. When you are talking about group mentality and assigning blame to groups as a whole, you are no longer in the realm of the law, but in the realm of rhetoric.

Pay attention.

Insurrection is charged against a person who, in this case, is part of a group. The group is not charged but group members are. Your excursion into law is another of your weak points.

I don't watch much television. I think it rots the brain.

Another explanation describing your problem. Cable TV News provides audio and video and commentary and pure news and opinion of all major issues. You even have your pick of which side to watch.

This is a major reason why you are so confused about current events.

Rebuke # 1. My curfew comment rebuking yours was absolutely true.

Not remotely, I already explained what the purpose of Post #30 was point by point. Then you misrepresented and butchered my statements to try and gain the upper hand. Your quest for truth ends at the point where you wrong. I listed several quotes (yours and others) where the conversation could be enhanced by truth and precision of dialogue.



Rebuke # 2. You DID omit the serious crimes. You admitted in a later post you had failed to clarify. Absolutely true.


The clarification I offered concerning my statements was about who was involved in the "no one" statement. Post #30 is a clarification of the misinformation that was being propagated here (by you and others). Post #50 explains this clearly. I even offered several evidences of such misinformation and what the truth is concerning those. The link I provided could be a direct source for facts regarding what happened on an individual basis and on the ground at the Jan 6 riot.

The omission of "serious crimes" is simply an opinion. Serious is a relative conditional. I accept no rebuke for what I found in the facts as illustrated in my Post #50. It would be a useful rebuttal if you enumerated the "serious crimes" so that there is a fact or two to engage with (like you did in Post #33, minus the nonsensical second half).



Rebuke # 3. Your "despicable comment". You added that in a later post after I called you on it. Absolutely true.


It wasn't even in the context of the debate. You accused me and everybody who dares cites facts, of being misleading. I offered no ideology on the matter. It was you who proclaimed that "right-wing evangelists deny the facts," that "they will sell their soul for anything supporting their politics," and "Christian evangelists are so devious." To ensure we were on the same page I offered my belief that these events were despicable, to which you only offered that my previous comments (a list of facts) were absurd.



Your post # 30 read like sarcasm. An opinion, but absolutely true.


Opinions are not in the domain of fact or reason. They are a belief or judgement drawn without relation to facts. You may believe something because of facts or in spite of facts. Furthermore, you missed the point. The only sarcastic remark was regarding the use of Kamala's bail fund. The rest was a response to assertions made here about Jan 6.



My calling you on accusing me of vile assumptions in Post 30 was absolutely true. You had the wrong Post #.


My words were "The next few comments regarding Post #30." To which you replied: "Post # 30 is yours, not mine." The vile assumptions are concluded from the following statements you made regarding Post #30:

"NOW you say it - after you were called on the absurdity of your comment."

"You certainly implied it wasn't much in your post #30. You made it seem like a walk in the park with your sarcasm."

"Then why are you so casual about it (#30)?"

"As to the 'foul language', the media covered it exactly for what it was"

My opinion is, that you have vile assumptions about me, Trump, right wingers, evangelicals, whites, fundamentalists, etc...Can you see how I came to this conclusion?



My definition of violence includes incitement like screaming and yelling. Absolutely true.


Incitement is illegal. It is also a crime that has not been charged against any of the Jan 6 rioters. You are accusing, in your opinion, that this is true. Still incitement is not violence, it is a call to violence. Separate issues you continue to conflate.



The irrelevant points you brought up I said were unclear why you even brought them up. Absolutely true.


I'll explain again why they are relevant. Early on in this thread, there were significant assumptions and misinformation stated as fact. I brought them up to show light on said assumptions and misinformation. I even brought more context and clarity to those statements later (Post #50). You only responded (Post #33, #36, #56) by changing definitions, declaring the evil intent of everybody present, and misrepresenting my comments.



Your silly comment about you having fun getting me "all worked up" is just a childish way of denying and hiding your own frustration when exchanging ideas with me.


Yes it is childish, but I'm trying to meet you on level ground. I don't think I'm hiding anything, I just stated it openly and plainly. Plus I can multitask. I can "seek truth" and pick on you at the same time.



Insurrection is charged against a person who, in this case, is part of a group. The group is not charged but group members are. Your excursion into law is another of your weak points.


Again, you started calling it a crime in Post #56. That is invoking the law. It remains that there have been no legal charges of insurrection brought against anyone who has been arrested so far. The rhetorical use of insurrection may or may not be fitting (I am inclined to say it is for those who committed acts of violence) but the legal use of the word is hardly relevant.

Another explanation describing your problem. Cable TV News provides audio and video and commentary and pure news and opinion of all major issues. You even have your pick of which side to watch.


Pure news is a list of facts, it would require a lack of opinions and commentary. News is defined as "Information about recent events or happenings" not what people think about those things. This is one of the biggest problems with the MSM, they think opinion counts as fact and that adding a ton of discourse regarding facts is necessary. It is only necessary insomuch as explaining their biases and beliefs. The addition of commentary into the news media was largely non-present until the late 70's. Even the opinion sections generally involved relevant persons, not the opinion of the newscaster. Go look up some old broadcasts or read some old newspapers. They were quite dry.

The news media figured out that they can improve ratings and viewership by adding commentary and unrelated stories, as they enhance the A/V experience. The facts generally lie outside of commentary. The amount and nature of commentary is irrelevant to the content of the facts they choose to report on. I don't need anybody to tell me what to think.

Does that mean you don't watch Faux news either? What do you watch/read if I may enquire? Any talking head can be fact checked in real time.

No news is unbiased, even if that means only providing half the facts, but in particular most news services are biased to a particular political viewpoint. At the time of the invasion of the capitol there were some very biased viewpoints in play leading to political unrest to the point of insurrection.

Originally posted by InfoJunkie4Life

I already explained what the purpose of Post #30 was point by point. Then you misrepresented and butchered my statement

I stand by every single thing I wrote in those posts.


The omission of "serious crimes" is simply an opinion. Serious is a relative conditional.

Don't be ridiculous. You only included the minor offenses. A felony is not opinion, it is a serious crime.


It was you who proclaimed that "right-wing evangelists deny the facts," that "they will sell their soul for anything supporting their politics," and "Christian evangelists are so devious."

I did and I still hold those opinions. Didn't you later agree that the events discussed are "despicable"?


Opinions are not in the domain of fact or reason.

An opinion may or may not be in "the domain of fact". An opinion equally can be reasonable - mine are. They are called opinions because their truth remains to be seen.


The only sarcastic remark was regarding the use of Kamala's bail fund

Fine. Do you now admit that I never said it?


My words were "The next few comments regarding Post #30." To which you replied: "Post # 30 is yours, not mine."

The entire post appeared to be a response to my comment about Sherwin. And I certainly didn't say those things you posted.


The vile assumptions are concluded from the following statements you made regarding Post #30:


"NOW you say it - after you were called on the absurdity of your comment."

"You certainly implied it wasn't much in your post #30. You made it seem like a walk in the park with your sarcasm."

"Then why are you so casual about it (#30)?"

"As to the 'foul language', the media covered it exactly for what it was"

They were hardly "vile assumptions". They were questions and comments about what you wrote. Not one vile assumption.


My opinion is, that you have vile assumptions about me,

According to your own definition in this very discussion, opinions are "beliefs drawn without relation to facts". Does that apply to your opinions, or just everybody else's?



Trump, right wingers, evangelicals, whites, fundamentalists, etc...

I do not have a vile opinion about you. In fact, in the beginning I thought you could turn out to be a civil, intelligent, formidable, and even helpful, correspondent. I no longer hold that based on what I see as nasty attacks and frequent refusal to acknowledge the plain truth.

As to Trump and the rest, I do hold assumptions about those groups (except whites), and I do find the groups vile - always in the case of Trump and sometimes in the politics of the others and also in some of their Biblical beliefs. The assumptions are not vile, they are the truth.


Can you see how I came to this conclusion?

Of course, but it is a misguided conclusion. Exactly what it is based on is a difficult matter. I've given it plenty of thought and I'm thinking it is based in the psychology of the individual, and the ability of the individual to discard fact and/or reason so as not to interfere with a held belief. It's common among religious folk and I believe that is the source. It then translates to politics and any other issues where the belief is challenged. "Religious" is used in its widest sense to include, say, atheists who may be true believers in a philosophy or an economic system like Communism.


Incitement is illegal. It is also a crime that has not been charged against any of the Jan 6 rioters. You are accusing, in your opinion, that this is true. Still incitement is not violence, it is a call to violence. Separate issues you continue to conflate.

Incitement is illegal and a crime, yet you say it is not violence, it's a "call to violence". OK. That seems to be a distinction without a difference - at least a practical difference. I'm not conflating them. I believe each is a crime, violence and its incitement. I think you agree with me.


I'll explain again why they are relevant. Early on in this thread, there were significant assumptions and misinformation stated as fact. I brought them up to show light on said assumptions and misinformation. I even brought more context and clarity to those statements later (Post #50).

I explained this above. Please refer there for my reply.


(You) declaring the evil intent of everybody present, and misrepresenting my comments.

Not everybody, and perhaps nobody. Misguided is not always evil. You feel I misrepresented your comments because you object to my replies to those comments. If you read as carefully as you want me to read, you would find that I didn't misrepresent you - I disagreed with you.


Yes it is childish

Yup.


but I'm trying to meet you on your ground.

Nope.


I can "seek truth" and pick on you at the same time.

Quite an accomplishment. I'll remember that next time you accuse me of not playing fair.

Does that mean you don't watch Faux news either? What do you watch/read if I may enquire? Any talking head can be fact checked in real time.


I went through a CNN phase, a FOX phase, and then some of the foreign and independent stuff (RT, NTD, etc.) The foreign stuff I'll still pay attention to, when they're on, as they tend to list facts, but they all have agendas. Now, I'll hear about news stories from friends and family members, then do some reading.

I go through the headlines online at the NYT, WP, NYP, BBC, Guardian, CNN, NBC, FOX, my local paper, etc. I read the articles that pique my interest, then research the talking points. I'm not prejudiced to any one source, I just have learned that, much of what is said or printed is usually unrelated to the facts. I get a list of headlines from google news, and take it from there. In my research I may encounter a dozen or more news sources not present in my feed.

I can cover more ground by reading. Watching videos bothers me, much of what is said in an hour can be read in minutes. Plus, I can readily re-read sentences for context and clarity, I can pause and take rabbit trails, or verify facts.

No news is unbiased, even if that means only providing half the facts, but in particular most news services are biased to a particular political viewpoint. At the time of the invasion of the capitol there were some very biased viewpoints in play leading to political unrest to the point of insurrection.


This is quite true. This is why I try to consume media from a broad selection, to not be stuck in an echo chamber of singular ideas. Often I will find myself surprised by the arguments laid out by the left in what I thought was an air tight case presented on the right, or vise versa. The more common reality is that neither side likes to look at what the other is actually talking about, even though they are often deliberating the same facts 80% of the time.

news update :

Ex cop and anti defund the police candidate Eric Adams has taken a commanding lead in the NYC Democrat primary . He will almost surely be the Dem candidate and as such almost assured to be the next Mayor of NY .

The Repub winner is the founder of the Guardian Angels Curtis Sliwa . You know where he stands on crime issues .

Clearly the people of NYC does not want to defund the police ;and want the police to do their jobs and protect the people from the marauders who have taken over the city streets and subways since Sandinista Bill became Mayor .

pps ranked choice voting is a joke

Congratulations to Eric Adams . His win in the Dem primary for Mayor of NYC is confirmed . He is almost a shoe in for Mayor because the Dems run the city . Here's hoping he brings some sanity back to a city that has been plagued by the horrible mismanagement of the commie moron Sandinista Bill .