|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> WE /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1729179020 Message started by thumperclone on 10/17/24 at 08:30:20 |
|
Title: WE Post by thumperclone on 10/17/24 at 08:30:20 when asked about guns at the Jan. 6th debacle the orange FELON admitted his involvement "There were no guns down there; we didn't have guns." (lie) "The others had guns, but we didn't have guns." (another lie) "We" indicates complicity after years of lying the truth comes out treasonous bastard quotes from Univison town hall meeting as reported by Washinton Post |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by Eegore on 10/17/24 at 10:13:10 The guns versus no guns indicates his line of thought. People who were there unarmed protesting were part of the "We" and those that were there armed are not part of the "We". Kind of like saying we were at a parade and none of us were armed, but there is video evidence of a guy with a gun on his hip so I am complicit, and lying about being there with guns. Am I? If I go to a parade unarmed with 10 humans and say "we" went, am I lying if any of the other humans besides the 10 I went with are armed? |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by thumperclone on 10/17/24 at 11:50:45 guns or not he's admitting complicity which he has denied till now he lost the election fact he told the mob to fight like hell fact he is treasonous bastard opinion he cannot be trusted opinion he said he wants to use the military to go after anyone who disagrees with him fact he is a fascist of the highest caliber FACT |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by JOG on 10/17/24 at 16:18:38 Your Opinion.. Phhht. |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by JOG on 10/17/24 at 16:23:10 6B4B49415C4B2E0 wrote:
Forcing honesty into that,,, Well done, E. |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by Eegore on 10/17/24 at 17:02:06 guns or not he's admitting complicity which he has denied till now I'm not sure he is. If the word "we" is how one is to conclude complicity among the actions of hundreds of humans, then any single human that says "we" did something at an event is complicit in the criminal behavior of any other human at the event. We can't just apply rules to Trump and not other humans. A group of humans I associate with went to a football game. I encouraged "everyone" to go on my social media accounts. I said "we all went to the game together". A guy got drunk and punched someone. So am I complicit in that human's behavior? Am I also to be charged with assault? I did after all admit I invited "everyone" and that "we all" went. So am I complicit in the violence? This post is my opinion for anyone incapable of understanding what an opinion is. |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by JOG on 10/17/24 at 18:50:25 You do know I was agreeing with you, right? |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by Eegore on 10/17/24 at 19:12:40 You do know I was agreeing with you, right? Yes. |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by thumperclone on 10/17/24 at 23:04:22 "If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore." FACTUAL proof of complicity.. |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by JOG on 10/17/24 at 23:45:00 You interpret that the way You want to. For You, it's Proof. It's Your Poopinion. Just more stupid lefty schitt. |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by thumperclone on 10/18/24 at 00:51:51 how do you interpret it? you don't NEED to be nasty |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by zevenenergie on 10/18/24 at 01:24:00 https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GhExT3XudGc |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by JOG on 10/18/24 at 05:18:28 4458455D405542535C5F5E55300 wrote:
Well, TC, I'll try to not treat you the way you've treated me and simply say WE doesn't necessarily Have to be an admission of what you say it is. I thought E did a pretty good job of dragging the thought processes through an option and teased some of the nuanced thinking into view. When I'm Complaining about what America is doing, things I Certainly don't agree with, I often say WE have opened our borders. WE are giving them drivers licenses WE are paying for them to come here.. But I'm Not a willing participant. I'm not a part of the WE who choose to Do these things. Trump said We,, Well,, Mehhh,, it doesn't Have to mean what you want it to mean. It Could, but it doesn't have to. If you would apply that energy to going and listening to his words. ALL OF THEM, Like Go and peacefully make your voices heard. Maybe ask around,, Who chose Not to get National Guard in, like Trump Asked Pelosi to do? Don't let your hatred for him keep you from asking All the right questions. |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by Eegore on 10/18/24 at 05:21:57 If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore." FACTUAL proof of complicity.. So if I coach a football game and tell the players to "fight like hell" and one of the players punches a rival player, am I complicit in that human's assault? If a Planned Parenthood Administrator said people need to "fight like hell" to keep pro-choice clinics available and a group of humans storm a State Capitol, is there FACTUAL proof Planned Parenthood is complicit in the damage? At what point does the human saying "fight like hell" assume a degree of responsibility? Incitement is not as easy as you want it to be. Disliking Trump does not make the burden of "FACTUAL proof" go away. We can't simply say because someone said "fight like hell" leaving out all other context by the way, prior to an event, that they actually meant physical assaults. |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by WebsterMark on 10/18/24 at 06:35:27 0020222A3720450 wrote:
Dammit Eegore….stop invoking your view of logic in a political forum! What’s wrong with you? Here is an example of proper Democratic logic: Trump saying fight like hell is a call to arms but Harris calling Trump Hitler and a threat to Democracy in no way contributes to assassination attempts. See how that works? |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by MnSpring on 10/18/24 at 06:43:18 233F223A273225343B383932570 wrote:
Once again the kettle calls the pot black |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by Serowbot on 10/18/24 at 07:10:57 "If you don't fight like hell" in the context of getting out the vote, or battling cancer, or a football game is different than saying, "March to the Capital, and if you don't fight like hell..." The latter is more literal, and the result is the proof |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by Eegore on 10/18/24 at 07:58:21 March to the Capital, and if you don't fight like hell That would be more literal if it was actually said. Again we can't just change things because we don't like who it's about. Also we can't just say any interpretation of a statement is what the statement meant. Since Trump never said that, we can't sit here and say he is complicit in the violence based off of the use of the word "We", and justify it by saying it's more literal by using a made-up quote. I can make it easier: Trump said "March to the Capitol, get inside, use force, fight, assault police, get into the Capitol and fight people in a desperate attempt to stop the election!" There, now does it make sense to use the quote I made up to justify his complicit behavior? My opinion, for anyone incapable of understanding what an opinion is, would be No. And we fight. We fight like hell And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore. That's the quote and context of it we need to use. I don't think everyone thought he meant to physically fight. That is my opinion for anyone incapable of understanding what an opinion is. |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by JOG on 10/18/24 at 08:11:17 63407D5E5C4740492E0 wrote:
Once again the kettle calls the pot black [/quote] And after I wrote him such a nice poem,too. |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by Serowbot on 10/18/24 at 08:38:13 5B7B79716C7B1E0 wrote:
The proof is in the pudding What Trump said, inspired thousands to violently ascend upon the Capitol with violence You're arguing that a person in a crowded theater yelled "Flames" in stead of "Fire" Trump instigated an insurgency. Period, full stop Cut the semantics He will be found iable |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by Eegore on 10/18/24 at 08:49:34 The proof is in the pudding What Trump said, inspired thousands to violently ascend upon the Capitol with violence You're arguing that a person in a crowded theater yelled "Flames" in stead of "Fire" Incorrect. I am arguing that the word "we" is not enough proof to implicate Trump. You are arguing if he incited the Jan 6 actions by using his quotes. I personally think it requires the totality of all actions, not cherry-picked quotes. |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by thumperclone on 10/18/24 at 08:50:17 a football team and an armed radical mob are hardly comparable same goes for a coach and a fascist pig |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by JOG on 10/18/24 at 09:00:01 3E223F273A2F38292625242F4A0 wrote:
Liar. Armed mob? Bullschitt |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by MnSpring on 10/18/24 at 09:00:32 I know of a Part time, Assistant, Not paid, Coach, who IS, a fascist pig !!!!! |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by Serowbot on 10/18/24 at 09:24:59 Cut the semantics Trump made a speech... that led thousands to the Capital... Chanting "Hang Mike Pence" and "Nancy, where are you Nancy"... that required emergency evacuation of the building... that injured 140 policemen... ...and he watched the whole thing unfold for hours on TV in his dining room while family and advisors begged him to tell them to stop He enjoyed it We all know it Some of us are appalled, and some relish it ..but, it is what it is |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by thumperclone on 10/18/24 at 09:30:05 7540534B5057534056320 wrote:
Liar. Armed mob? Bullschitt[/quote] your aversion to TRUTH is remarkable |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by Eegore on 10/18/24 at 09:43:44 a football team and an armed radical mob are hardly comparable same goes for a coach and a fascist pig Implicating a human for the use of the word "we" needs to be equal. You need more proof. This is my opinion for anyone incapable of understanding what an opinion is. |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by WebsterMark on 10/18/24 at 10:10:06 You leftist are so completely deranged with hatred for Trump, the most logical statements just completely failed to register with you. Using your logic, aren’t you and leftist liable for assassinations attempt on trumps life because you’re calling him Hitler and who, if they had a chance to, wouldn’t kill Hitler if they could? If Trump, using the word “we” was responsible for your made up insurrection , then what responsibility do democratic members of Congress and others have for the antifa and George Floyd riots, which actually did kill many people and billions of dollars in damage? Are you responsible for that? I recalled Chuck Schumer and others telling people to take to the streets, and it was during those, “taking to the streets” that people were killed. So, are you responsible? The reality is, no, you’re not. And that’s the stupidity of your arguments for saying Trump, arranging for a protest in DC is responsible for your pretend insurrection. And yes, I’m calling it a pretend because it was not an insurrection and I realize will never agree with that but whatever. |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by thumperclone on 10/18/24 at 10:34:35 625057464150477854475E350 wrote:
I said armed mob |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by thumperclone on 10/18/24 at 10:38:49 Liar. Armed mob? Bullschitt[/quote] guns, clubs, pepper spray, bear spray, flag poles fact checked [smiley=thumbup.gif] yes armed mob |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by WebsterMark on 10/18/24 at 11:58:07 You two leftist crack me up. |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by JOG on 10/18/24 at 12:23:07 If you weren't so dishonest you would have figured out by now it was a setup and Your team,Antifa, were there. As were fed gov employees. Who held the doors open? How did complete strangers Find the Offices they Wanted? Think about it. Just exactly HOW did they manage it? Have you been there? You should read a bit about it. You don't know what a crooked load of schitt all this is. |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by thumperclone on 10/18/24 at 14:17:49 5E6B78607B7C786B7D190 wrote:
your opinion is not based on reality |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by JOG on 10/18/24 at 21:46:20 The Goddammed questions ARE! And you can't answer them. |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by WebsterMark on 10/19/24 at 04:31:47 For the last time, January 6 was not an insurrection. If the events of January 6 qualify as an insurrection, and there were dozens of insurrections during the Trump presidency. Most notably, the two or three nights crowds gathered in front of the White House, and were held back by police and SS. Had they broken through, the presumption is they would’ve stormed the White House looking to kill Trump. If that’s not an insurrection, I don’t know what it is. A thorough investigation was not conducted of those events. Emails were not subpoenaed, credit card companies did not turn over receipts, neighbors were not ask if someone from the neighborhood attended, the leaders who organized the group were not identified and brought up on charges. Had the same style investigation been conducted on those two nights, you could’ve come up with the exact same conclusion, that this was an organized insurrection and democratic party leaders encouraged it, and did nothing to discourage it. That alone is evidence that defines January 6 as only a protest out of control and not an actual insurrection attempt. |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by thumperclone on 10/19/24 at 05:55:14 web who called it an insurrection ? jog whataboutisms don't change the facts |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by Serowbot on 10/19/24 at 07:11:03 Insurrection The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government. What part doesn't apply? |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by WebsterMark on 10/19/24 at 16:43:47 The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government. Sounds like those nights in front of the White House, doesn’t it? |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by Serowbot on 10/19/24 at 16:49:22 I don't think the insurrection was the crime, it was the violence against police and desecration of property plus threats, preventing a legal process, and thefts on Jan 6. Lotsa' bad behavior |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by WebsterMark on 10/19/24 at 19:42:56 All those things happened those other nights . |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by JOG on 10/19/24 at 20:37:50 Yeah, the most well armed segment of society went to overthrow the government and left their guns at home. You guys can lie to yourselves, but don't BullSchitt me,okay? |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by thumperclone on 10/20/24 at 02:27:48 4471627A6166627167030 wrote:
asinine fantasy syndrome |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by WebsterMark on 10/20/24 at 04:06:01 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOl2nHMDO7E Looks like an insurrection to me. |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by thumperclone on 10/20/24 at 10:14:30 riot |
|
Title: Re: WE Post by WebsterMark on 10/21/24 at 04:44:51 Jan 6 was a protest that got out of control. A few had some ridiculous fantasies that they were going to take control of the US government. When the police backed away and thousands followed the crowd (99.9% of which had no knowledge of these fantasies) the media and leftist clowns called them all insurrectionists. Because the news media, social media at the time and the entertainment culture controls the public narrative, you geniuses think this was an actual armed insurrection and the most destructive day in US history. The Biden Administration weaponized the DOJ and ruined people’s lives to scar Trump. During Trump’s time n office, these out of control protests against the Trump administration were almost regular events but practically no one was charged, no conspiracy investigations were done to see if this was an organized effort on the same level as those few idiots and their Jan 6 fantasies. There. That’s a perfect summary of Jan 6, suitable for history classes. Oh, and the next chapter is the congressional hearings and the partnership with the partisan committee (who called no defense witnesses) and the entertain news companies who allowed prime time shows pretending to be an actual trial complete with Hollywood helping out with the production. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |