Poll of the Day > So Day is the Anniversary of Homeland Domestic Terrorism at the Capitol...

(+) Yeah! (+)

Jen0125 posted...

It does though. You said no charges were brought. But no charges have been brought YET. It's not concluded. You can't just speak in definite that he hasn't been charged because there are multiple concurrent investigations being done rn.

I can because they're not going to get him for that speech as I already said why.

Revelation34 posted...

I can because they're not going to get him for that speech as I already said why.

You can't because the investigations are not concluded lol.

kangolcone posted...

Do you mention that there were more than 10,000 arrests as resulting from the violence that sprang from BLM protests? Or do you only stand up for people who violently assaulted police officers before breaking into one of the most historic buildings in the US during a Federal election proceeding with the intention of killing politicians?

BLM is unrelated to any of this (can't even decipher what youre asking there), and I'm not standing up for anybody involved here. Like I literally said these guys getting arrested is justice. Maybe calm down?

Veedrock- posted...

BLM is unrelated to any of this (can't even decipher what youre asking there), and I'm not standing up for anybody involved here. Like I literally said these guys getting arrested is justice. Maybe calm down?

Theres comparisons between Jan 6 and BLM in posts 6, 9, and 22. You dont mention to those posters that make the comparison the number of arrests related to those events. Wondering why you didnt reality check those people.

That makes even less sense.

Veedrock- posted...

That makes even less sense.

Right, you only reality check people critical of people who assaulted police in an attempt to murder politicians. You dont reality check those making inaccurate comparisons.

I came into this topic 40 posts in and you're mad I stuck to the topic title and most recent post that I quoted instead of going through and addressing off points from 20-30 posts back.

Here's a reality check for you: maybe calm down? Jfc.

Veedrock- posted...

I came into this topic 40 posts in and you're mad I stuck to the topic title and most recent post that I quoted instead of going through and addressing off points from 20-30 posts back.

Here's a reality check for you: maybe calm down? Jfc.

I just asked a question about your need to defend people who tried to murder politicians over the results of a lawful election. Had you responded with, I dont read topics, I just respond to a person who is responding to a person, whos post I havent read and will now defend that point without full knowledge of what was said. I would have accepted your stated ignorance and moved on. Im glad you feel qualified enough to defend posts you didnt read.

Where am I defending the insurrectionists?

You will not slander me.

Veedrock- posted...

Where am I defending the insurrectionists?

You will not slander me.

You downplayed its seriousness because it wasnt committed by foreign agents. Then you tried to absolve the harm it did by claiming the arrests were justice.

I dont need to slander you. Both what you say and dont say is important. You have done a good job of showing which side you are on.

kangolcone posted...

You downplayed its seriousness because it wasnt committed by foreign agents.

Would I be downplaying assault if I said murder is worse?

kangolcone posted...

You have done a good job of showing which side you are on.

So that's what this is about, you're an "us vs them" person. So even though I've stated these people are criminals and deserve prosecution, my views just aren't extreme enough to fit in with "your side" so you group me with apologists and supporters.

Such a binary world view in 2022 must be rough. You have my pity.

Edit: Sorry this derailed the topic everyone but we got to the bottom of it. Carry on, I'm out.

@Veedrock-

Yes, you would be downplaying rape. For example, if I looked at a rape victim and said at least you werent murdered. That is, in fact, downplaying the rape because its not as significant so theres no reason for concern.

As far as sides, yes, you are on the side of people that pretends it wasnt a big deal. Im glad you think this one topic is indicative of world view. And Im not grouping you with anybody. Your quotes group you with those people, no matter how intellectually dishonest you are or naive you pretend to me.

Itl be a minor event talked about sometimes in a few textbooks.

kangolcone posted...

@Veedrock-

Yes, you would be downplaying rape. For example, if I looked at a rape victim and said at least you werent murdered. That is, in fact, downplaying the rape because its not as significant so theres no reason for concern.

As far as sides, yes, you are on the side of people that pretends it wasnt a big deal. Im glad you think this one topic is indicative of world view. And Im not grouping you with anybody. Your quotes group you with those people, no matter how intellectually dishonest you are or naive you pretend to me.

You can also use it in other ways, it's basically like saying a shot in the leg doesn't matter because you will live. If instead the person would have been dead nearly instantly if shot in the heart.

You can downplay anything by comparing it to someone worse,

Murderer on trial: "Well I plead guilty, but with a caveat that I only killed my wife Hitler slaughtered thousands by his own hand, therefore my murder is completely insignificant."

The only reason this event wasn't the nightmare it could have possibly been is the cops prevented them from breaching the Chamber of Congress before the politicians could be evacuated, if they were better equipped and got to the chamber earlier they could have done any number of horrific things.

Jen0125 posted...

You can't because the investigations are not concluded lol.

First amendment. In order not to be covered it has to be direct which is speech was not.

Revelation34 posted...

First amendment. In order not to be covered it has to be direct which is speech was not.

False. A mobster saying "take care of him" can still be considered an order to kill someone and is not protected by free speech. It doesn't have to be direct.

No. It's tragic, but nowhere near as tragic as 9/11.

Zareth posted...

False. A mobster saying "take care of him" can still be considered an order to kill someone and is not protected by free speech. It doesn't have to be direct.

Ok, Canadian.

Revelation34 posted...

Ok, Canadian.

hes right tho, whether or not that means they will get trump i dunno but it doesnt have to be word for word KILL!!!

GGuirao13 posted...

No. It's tragic, but nowhere near as tragic as 9/11.

Its atleast 100 times worse. I guess because they are white you gotta down play it though

Revelation34 posted...

Ok, Canadian.

How embarrassing for you that a Canadian knows more about your country's first amendment than you.

lolwut, knowing how the Constitution works makes me Canadian?

HelIWithoutSin posted...

How embarrassing for you that a Canadian knows more about your country's first amendment than you.

Good thing that never happened then.

damn nice response, no facts just nuh uh

Revelation34 posted...

Good thing that never happened then.

What an embarrassing, delusional reply.

Zareth posted...

lolwut, knowing how the Constitution works makes me Canadian?

No makes you a Smart Rational Individual...

darkknight109 posted...

The riots (labelling them "BLM riots" is a bit disingenuous, given that BLM was mostly involved in peaceful protests, not riots) weren't trying to deny the results of an election and overthrow the government.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

fires are very peaceful.