![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
75.143.134.198
In Reply to: RE: BTW, they were both bungled, but one was an insurrection and the other was not [nt] posted by Chris from Lafayette on January 07, 2022 at 15:56:21
indeed, the very definition was met by the mob chants of 'stop the count' and attempts to steal what the mob thought were ballot boxes
that and the incitement to do so was exactly what it looked like
it's just a matter of getting to the root of things
Follow Ups:
OTOH, if there had been some beheadings, that would have certainly met the "insurrection" standard. ;-)
"Stop the count!" - Really? Isn't that what happened with Gore v. Dubya? Oh no - I'm sorry - that was stop the REcount! ;-)
'Isn't that what happened with Gore v. Dubya?'
no, that was done through the courts ... you know, legally
see the difference?
you were given the definition needed for the purposes of citation
there's no mention of blood, so my comments weren't inflated or conflated
pull your pants up, you've stumbled in your defense of the indefensible
more care is needed while you're carrying water for authoritarians
you've splashed enough out that your pail isn't full
a good waterboy doesn't do that!
OK, I think I'm out of snarky metaphors for this one, carry on
Authority. Is Oxford good enough for you?
Last try here: It seems as if you're taking a "nothing to see here" approach just because the attempted insurrection fell apart.
Shouldn't an attempted insurrection be concerning?
If you watched the 2nd Impeachment trial, (which you referred to as the "show trial," I watched all two days), you'd know that there were many points during the attempted insurrection where dumb luck or a mere 30 seconds here and there made the difference between life and death of Gov't officials.
As for violence, is anything less than "beheadings" just no big deal?
nt
When one of the Jan 6 demonstrators actually gets convicted of "insurrection", please let me know. Deal?
Maybe then we'll see who's living an an "alternate reality". ;-)
The actual Insurrectionists, those legitimately hoping to overturn the election using mayhem and violence, will hopefully have their day in court soon.
Insurrection may be hard to prove, but the people involved, all the way up to the WH, don't seem to have hidden their tracks and money trails very well.
Insurrection: Violent uprising against Government or other authority.
The useful idiots arrested and convicted so far were simply tools. The organizers, fund-raisers, etc?
We'll see.
without any false equivalence but a great deal of irony:
Al Capone ... was he a murderer, numbers & rum runner, racketeering conspiring mob boss, tax evader ... ? why yes, yes he was!
was he taken down on tax evasion charges? yes he was!
do we know why that happened despite knowing about the other crimes?
yes, we do ... they were much easier to prosecute yet carried 'weight'
do you need a picture drawn for you as to why the rabble haven't been charged with the overarching crime they had committed?
unfortunately that answer is probably yes as well!
. . . to be found guilty of insurrection?
And the reason they won't be found guilty is all because Al Capone set the precedent - wow! ;-)
![]()
Suddenly not an amusing cerebral exercise to pass the time anymore, is it?
Am I wrong?
Kind of like the police who shot Ashli Babbitt dead?
Indeed, it's not an amusing cerebral exercise to pass the time anymore, is it?
down. Not very brave, is he?As for your WhataBabbittism, her death is on herself, (you don't rush a man with a drawn weapon**) and Trump for fooling the woman into believing the election was stolen, just to raise a few bucks.
**The first thing one learns when taking a firearms course is to never draw a gun unless you intent to use it. Babbitt, being military-trained, knew what was coming. If she was a civilian I'd feel a little more sorry for her.
As for cops, 140 were injured, many seriously. Love?
As for "amusing exercise," I'm not the one who is treating it that way while swishing an olive around my cocktail glass, I call 1/6 what it was: an insurrection. No word-play.
If "insurrection" is not an appropriate a word to describe (Oxford) a violent uprising against a gov't (while said gov't is certifying an election, no less!) what word would you use that's more appropriate? The definition of Insurrection has been around longer us, so it's not politicized. And even if no one individual is charged for insurrection, so what? Collectively, it was a violent uprising against a gov't. An Insurrection.
Edits: 01/09/22
As for Ashli Babbitt, I suggest you watch the video again. And I'll remind you that she was UNARMED. Would you be claiming that she was "rushing the police" if all the circumstances were exactly the same, except that she were black and the city had been Ferguson?
I think it's time for me to reiterate my observation that none of the demonstrators thus far have even been charged with insurrection, much less convicted. If one of them does get convicted of insurrection in the future, maybe it will be time to revisit the topic. Until then, your snowflake characterization of the January 6 demonstration as an "insurrection" is noted for the word inflation that it is.
BTW, Ms. CfL and I were caught in the middle of the Harvey Milk "White Night Riots" in SF, which I think more properly embody the definition of a riot (if not an insurrection, compared to the January 6 Washington DC demonstration), with the crowd exploding the fuel tanks of 12 police cars and 8 other cars.
oh, there's a few other considerations involved in those charging decisions
but no, I'm usually not too surprised by things anymore
since Al Capone wasn't supervising his own prosecution your statement ...
is just silly ; )
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: