absolutely. That's what I wrote yesterday. It was never intended to "overthrow the government." The riot was meant to intimidate people into doing what they could to throw out electoral votes for Biden.
the frequency of his mischaracterizations of other people's words (twice for me just yesterday) makes me wonder if it's purposeful, or if it's truly a misunderstanding of what was written. But I lean toward intentional misrepresentation when so often he writes that "it seems" I meant something or other. Any time anyone has to say "it seems you're saying" you can be pretty sure they're intentionally twisting your words.
"Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, we won't get fooled again."
Brian Kilmeade again says Dems shouldn't pursue impeachment because Republicans are threatening mass violence "We see what's happening around this country, how 50 state houses are being threatened on Inauguration Day, this is the last thing you want to do" pic.twitter.com/LS1DOfEWkR
the frequency of his mischaracterizations of other people's words (twice for me just yesterday) makes me wonder if it's purposeful, or if it's truly a misunderstanding of what was written. But I lean toward intentional misrepresentation when so often he writes that "it seems" I meant something or other. Any time anyone has to say "it seems you're saying" you can be pretty sure they're intentionally twisting your words.
"Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, we won't get fooled again."
(Or something like that)
I'll admit I do feel like an idiot every time I get in a discussion with terp and he does the same thing again. I'm like Charlie Brown expecting to kick the football. So yeah, the fact that it keeps happening is on me at this point for continuing to engage.
If someone engages in or threatens violence, in order to bring about a political result, I think the "terrorist" label applies. The "Ya'll Qaeda" folks in Washington last week fit the definition.
If you want to discuss other specific individuals and cases, go at it.
I'll admit that I often don't care for his tone and approach -- there's a great deal of ad hominems and I find the whole heretic schtick tedious -- but he has an actual point of view and works to express a set of principles, as much as anyone does. If I ignore the gratuitous insults and diversions, it does force me to think about my own point of view and principles, where they are consistent and where they are fuzzy. I'll take that over, say, mtierney's boring partisanship any time.
This reads as a bit of a backhanded compliment, and I suppose to a degree it is -- I'm not going to pretend I don't find his approach frustrating and often pretty off-putting. One of his apparent goals it to just p*** people off, and I'll admit he often succeeds. But even people who go out of their way to be rude and unfriendly often have something actually interesting to say, so on balance I do feel I learn via my interactions with him. The one thing I do worry about is that these tend to end up dominating threads, at the expense of other topics and other voices, so probably I should watch myself a bit more and not get too drawn in as often or as long as I do.
IMHO I don't think the rioting clowns should be called terrorists.
why not? Isn't what they're doing pretty much the definition of terrorism?
(I hate to pull a terp here but)
were the summer rioters terrorists?
I'm just really wary of throwing the terrorist label around - it leads to bad laws.
as nohero pointed out, if the violence has a specific political goal to be achieved through violent intimidation, it's terrorism. And what could be a more apt description of what the mob at the Capitol was doing? They were trying to force Congress to nullify electoral votes. Personally I try not to throw those kind of words around casually. But sometimes the words are accurate. And this is one of those times.
I'll admit that I often don't care for his tone and approach -- there's a great deal of ad hominems and I find the whole heretic schtick tedious -- but he has an actual point of view and works to express a set of principles, as much as anyone does. If I ignore the gratuitous insults and diversions, it does force me to think about my own point of view and principles, where they are consistent and where they are fuzzy. I'll take that over, say, mtierney's boring partisanship any time.
This reads as a bit of a backhanded compliment, and I suppose to a degree it is -- I'm not going to pretend I don't find his approach frustrating and often pretty off-putting. One of his apparent goals it to just p*** people off, and I'll admit he often succeeds. But even people who go out of their way to be rude and unfriendly often have something actually interesting to say, so on balance I do feel I learn via my interactions with him. The one thing I do worry about is that these tend to end up dominating threads, at the expense of other topics and other voices, so probably I should watch myself a bit more and not get too drawn in as often or as long as I do.
you're correct and I do appreciate reading other POVs. It helps me clarify my own ideas. But I should just stick to reading the comments instead of replying. If there's one thing that gets to me more than anything else about these discussions, it when someone starts arguing dishonestly.
and here's Trump threatening more violence as he faux-denounces the violence that's already occurred:
"This impeachment is causing tremendous anger, and you're doing it and it's really a terrible thing that they're doing," he told reporters on the White House South Lawn. "For Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to continue on this path, I think it's causing tremendous danger to our country, and it's causing tremendous anger. I want no violence."
The "I want no violence" is so disingenuous after he goes on about the impeachment causing "tremendous anger." He's dog whistling to his base that he wants them to attack again if he's impeached.
I'm just really wary of throwing the terrorist label around - it leads to bad laws.
Its terrorism.
A riot is when a group get worked up enough to riot. Here we have planned event, a war call with spilled blood.
A decapitation and overthrow of our elected Democracy by violence.
A day before rioters stormed Congress, an FBI office in Virginia issued an explicit internal warning that extremists were preparing to travel to Washington to commit violence and “war,” according to an internal document reviewed by The Washington Post that contradicts a senior official’s declaration the bureau had no intelligence indicating anyone at last week’s pro-Trump protest planned to do harm.
A situational information report approved for release the day before the U.S. Capitol riot painted a dire portrait of dangerous plans, including individuals sharing a map of the complex’s tunnels, and possible rally points for would-be conspirators to meet up in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and South Carolina and head in groups to Washington.
“As of 5 January 2021, FBI Norfolk received information indicating calls for violence in response to ‘unlawful lockdowns’ to begin on 6 January 2021 in Washington. D.C.,” the document says. “An online thread discussed specific calls for violence to include stating ‘Be ready to fight. Congress needs to hear glass breaking, doors being kicked in, and blood from their BLM and Pantifa slave soldiers being spilled. Get violent. Stop calling this a march, or rally, or a protest. Go there ready for war. We get our President or we die. NOTHING else will achieve this goal.”
I'll admit I do feel like an idiot every time I get in a discussion with terp and he does the same thing again. I'm like Charlie Brown expecting to kick the football. So yeah, the fact that it keeps happening is on me at this point for continuing to engage.
It's OK. Exactly the same way I felt dealing with the OP of the Rose Garden thread. I do my best to ignore it.
1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence especially against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion. 2 : violent and intimidating gang activity street terrorism. Other Words from terrorism. terrorist \ -ist \ adjective or noun.
Pentagon leadership will soon make a rare statement on rejecting Trump-led extremism. Let that sink in... we are in crazy times. https://t.co/vXaTL2KV2s
What's the consensus on redneck, yokel, hick, rube, and bumpkin?
Also, as you may imagine, I do have other less bucolic or down homey descriptors at my disposal as well. I will warn you though- these alternates do not summon up folksy images of Mayberry, Petticoat Junction, Bo or Luke Duke, Mr. Ed, Green Acres, Hee Haw, Duck Dynasty the Beverly H-words or any kind of elegy.
Please advise and I'll gladly edit and re-post with a more apropriate moniker for racist, low information, murderous traitors, and would-be assassins.
1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence especially against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion. 2 : violent and intimidating gang activity street terrorism. Other Words from terrorism. terrorist \ -ist \ adjective or noun.
"Which is why they absolutely must be stopped at all costs. The military MUST intervene. Otherwise, the republic is dead. People say regroup, organize, etc. If you can't vote this corrupt cabal out of office, what's the point? Either there are fair elections or there aren't."
The military MUST intervene. Otherwise, the republic is dead.
"No argument there. But the military's CIC just cucked out."
"Asked by reporters Tuesday whether he held any "personal responsibility" over the riot at the Capitol, Trump replied, "If you read my speech, and many people have done it and I've seen it both in the papers and in the media, on television, it's been analyzed and people thought that what I said was totally appropriate."
"Everybody to a 'T' thought it was totally appropriate," Trump said.
I didn't write what you claim. You took out the qualifiers, the context and the nuance.
I'm done. I can no longer discuss with someone who continues to misrepresent what I've written.
Wow. Touchy touchy. First off, you did write all of that. I am quoting you directly. I didn't snip your quote. I even provided links for those who would like the fuller context.
Not only is the above post naseatingly juvenile, but it is in itself an example of a double standard. I have had my posts clipped. Even if the claim you make above was true, you would still be a big baby.
I have been called names, repeatedly. And that is not in a situation where I'm surrounded by 10 or so like minded people. No, it's just me and 10 people that are constantly attacking me. Theres this Dennis seenblach guy who only seems to use his account to hurl personal attacks at me. I mean, the moderator of this board edited the title of one of my threads completely mischaracterizing my point.
Again, what happened to all of the opposition. on this board? It was always a minority, but it was always present. Why do you think they don't feel welcome?
The fact remains you will go out of your way to find any possible way to deflect any blame from people you agree with and you will find any possible reason to condemn those you disagree with. It is just tribal behavior. That is all it is.
I'll admit that I often don't care for his tone and approach -- there's a great deal of ad hominems and I find the whole heretic schtick tedious -- but he has an actual point of view and works to express a set of principles, as much as anyone does. If I ignore the gratuitous insults and diversions, it does force me to think about my own point of view and principles, where they are consistent and where they are fuzzy. I'll take that over, say, mtierney's boring partisanship any time.
This reads as a bit of a backhanded compliment, and I suppose to a degree it is -- I'm not going to pretend I don't find his approach frustrating and often pretty off-putting. One of his apparent goals it to just p*** people off, and I'll admit he often succeeds. But even people who go out of their way to be rude and unfriendly often have something actually interesting to say, so on balance I do feel I learn via my interactions with him. The one thing I do worry about is that these tend to end up dominating threads, at the expense of other topics and other voices, so probably I should watch myself a bit more and not get too drawn in as often or as long as I do.
you're correct and I do appreciate reading other POVs. It helps me clarify my own ideas. But I should just stick to reading the comments instead of replying. If there's one thing that gets to me more than anything else about these discussions, it when someone starts arguing dishonestly.
1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence especially against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion. 2 : violent and intimidating gang activity street terrorism. Other Words from terrorism. terrorist \ -ist \ adjective or noun.
Well. That wasn't hard at all. Was it Terp?
I would say that definition fits both the Jan 6 mob as well as much of the mob violence we saw over the summer.
Does the disruption of a free and fair election by a wannabe dictator bother you at all? Do you think if many of these protesters were able to catch up to Pence or Pelosi they would have just wanted their autograph?
Can you tell us which leader instigated or spurred on the violence at the BLM protests?
Sure the events of last week bother me. I would not characterize it in exactly the way you do.
Regarding leaders instigating violence, the person below is the head of a BLM associated groupmin Utah. He was inside the Capitol on January 6 and apparently took the video of the unarmed woman who was shot in cold blood. Please watch the 2nd video.
John Earle Sullivan, who was inside the Capitol building during the siege on Wednesday, previously gave a speech in BLM Plaza in DC in August 2020 where he identifies as being part of an insurgency group & calls for a violent left-wing revolution. pic.twitter.com/6XeaTHmPlh
This is your leader example - seriously? Never heard of him - how many twitter followers does he have? Do you feel that Trump has a civic duty to tell his million of followers the truth. We currently have his proud boys and 2nd amendment followers on standby and millions who actually believe him. You must have an issue with the brainwashing of Donny to some degree.
Was the guy in the video talking about Rittenhouse? What did the crowd do right after this speech? Did they storm any government building?
Learn to pronounce 
absolutely. That's what I wrote yesterday. It was never intended to "overthrow the government." The riot was meant to intimidate people into doing what they could to throw out electoral votes for Biden.