[InfoJunkie4Life]

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 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 as defined by the Prize Cases and Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 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.

[InfoJunkie4Life]

And what cable channel do you watch?

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

[Athos]

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.

[Athos]

If you read the language in 18 U.S.C. Section 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 as defined by the Prize Cases and Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 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.

[Athos]

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.

[InfoJunkie4Life]

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.

[InfoJunkie4Life]

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.

[talaniman]

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.

[paraclete]

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.

[Athos]

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.

[InfoJunkie4Life]

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.

[InfoJunkie4Life]

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.

[tomder55]

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 .