A short video clip of the the 2017 riots incited by Democrat leaders who rejected Trump's election ...

Thistle

Well-known member
The internet has been polarized for as long as I've been online (twenty+ years). I don't do twitter or any other social media (unless you count CARM). I'm not sure what you mean by twitter radicalizing the net. Despite its popularity, I don't think it can radicalize anything but itself.
A lot of us on the right were slow to believe that the tobacco industry did a lot of science directed at making their product addictive. We were wrong on that point, because they did. Big tech has done a lot of science directed at making their product addictive too. Whether by design or not that addictive basket of products radicalizes people too. But like yourself unless you don't count CARM I don't have any social media presence either.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
Twitter (and Facebook and just about any other social media platform) radicalizes everyone who uses it, regardless of what side they are on. That's because the economic model of these platforms benefits from showing you more of what you already believe, allowing everyone to hunker down in their silo of like-minded individuals. This is opposed to when most media was non-customized. That meant it had to appeal to a broader audience. People would read the editorial pages of newpapers (printed on actual paper) and be exposed to ideas contrary to their own. They might get mad and fume about "How could they be so stupid?" but they were exposed. Same with Television when there were only 3 or 4 channels.

The way Twitter, Facebook, etc. all work you are encouraged to encounter only your own tribe. Thus people grow more and more distant from those outside their tribe, and do not consider them to be their neighbors or fellow citizens, but merely as enemies. As I said, this is an equal opportunity phenomenon, affecting both the left and the right, leaving nothing in the middle. I don't know the solution.
You stated the problem better than I did, but that is exactly my meaning.
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
Okay, so speaking as a man of the left, how does this contextual memory inform your view of the events of January 6th?
I note several differences. One is that no Democratic leader incited the violence. The other is that most of what we see in the video is police violent reaction to demonstrators that were not engaged in violence. That is to be expected in a nation where law enforcement is, more often than not, a tool of white supremacy. The protests were seen as more of a threat than the white supremacist protesters on Jan. 6th. Lastly, I note that the violence we do see is outside, on civilian property. It did not invade Congress or the White House. The major difference is that the violence was incited by the misinformation and direct encouragement spread by the President for months, and especially on Jan 6th, when he praised the rioters after the violence had taken place. No Democratic leader ever praised violent rioters after they had rioted. Other than all those differences, it was exactly the same, I guess.
 

Howie

Well-known member
I note several differences. One is that no Democratic leader incited the violence. The other is that most of what we see in the video is police violent reaction to demonstrators that were not engaged in violence. That is to be expected in a nation where law enforcement is, more often than not, a tool of white supremacy. The protests were seen as more of a threat than the white supremacist protesters on Jan. 6th. Lastly, I note that the violence we do see is outside, on civilian property. It did not invade Congress or the White House. The major difference is that the violence was incited by the misinformation and direct encouragement spread by the President for months, and especially on Jan 6th, when he praised the rioters after the violence had taken place. No Democratic leader ever praised violent rioters after they had rioted. Other than all those differences, it was exactly the same, I guess.
Yikes!!!
 

Thistle

Well-known member
I note several differences.
When I read this line I thought I was going to get a completely informative response. And I guess I am informed, I'm just at a loss as to how to interpret the information.
One is that no Democratic leader incited the violence.
How is that different? If a Republican leader incited violence please make the case.
The other is that most of what we see in the video is police violent reaction to demonstrators that were not engaged in violence.
You believe it's reasonable to assume that the burning cars and smashed windows were as likely attributable to police as protesters?
That is to be expected in a nation where law enforcement is, more often than not, a tool of white supremacy.
For those of us who don't speak post modern woke, could you explain that in English?
The protests were seen as more of a threat than the white supremacist protesters on Jan. 6th.
On what ground are you calling Trump voters white supremacists?
There is a lot to fill in concerning what you've said already, as to what you mean, and your grounds for alleging it.
I note that the violence we do see is outside, on civilian property.
Civilian contrasts with military. So as long as they are just destroying the property of civilians, you are down with that?
It did not invade Congress or the White House.
For part of that day President Obama was in the White House.
The major difference is that the violence was incited by the misinformation and direct encouragement spread by the President for months, and especially on Jan 6th, when he praised the rioters after the violence had taken place.
Praising the violence of rioters is very bad. I heard no such thing. In fact, I heard exactly the opposite. But I'm sure you have no qualms about proving up the charge. I'll be interested to see what you have.
No Democratic leader ever praised violent rioters after they had rioted.
What was it that Nancy Pelosi said? Oh yes, when asked about the riots she said, "people are going to do what they are going to do." And I believe it was Maxine Waters who said, "If you see Republicans in public get in their face." And I believe it was our esteemed former top cop Eric Holder who said, "if they go low, kick 'em." As horrible as all these comments are, none of them meet the definition of incitement. And certainly nothing in Trumps speech met that definition either.
Other than all those differences, it was exactly the same, I guess.
As indicated above your comment raises a lot more questions than provides understanding. I look forward to clarification.
 

Howie

Well-known member
When I read this line I thought I was going to get a completely informative response. And I guess I am informed, I'm just at a loss as to how to interpret the information.

How is that different? If a Republican leader incited violence please make the case.

You believe it's reasonable to assume that the burning cars and smashed windows were as likely attributable to police as protesters?

For those of us who don't speak post modern woke, could you explain that in English?

On what ground are you calling Trump voters white supremacists?

There is a lot to fill in concerning what you've said already, as to what you mean, and your grounds for alleging it.

Civilian contrasts with military. So as long as they are just destroying the property of civilians, you are down with that?

For part of that day President Obama was in the White House.

Praising the violence of rioters is very bad. I heard no such thing. In fact, I heard exactly the opposite. But I'm sure you have no qualms about proving up the charge. I'll be interested to see what you have.

What was it that Nancy Pelosi said? Oh yes, when asked about the riots she said, "people are going to do what they are going to do." And I believe it was Maxine Waters who said, "If you see Republicans in public get in their face." And I believe it was our esteemed former top cop Eric Holder who said, "if they go low, kick 'em." As horrible as all these comments are, none of them meet the definition of incitement. And certainly nothing in Trumps speech met that definition either.

As indicated above your comment raises a lot more questions than provides understanding. I look forward to clarification.
Amen...
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
How is that different? If a Republican leader incited violence please make the case.
I assume you have been following the right-wing extremist movement supporting Trump over the past few months, and that you watched the entire speech Trump gave on the 6th. If that does not convince you, you will have to wait until the Senate takes up the case when they return. You will see the case being made then.

You believe it's reasonable to assume that the burning cars and smashed windows were as likely attributable to police as protesters?
Those were separate videos at different protests. The bulk of those videos shows the police response to peaceful protests. Those were not the protests that were burning cars.


For those of us who don't speak post modern woke, could you explain that in English?
It is perfectly clear. If you think it is wrong, show how it is wrong.

On what ground are you calling Trump voters white supremacists?
I did not call all Trump voters white supremacists. Just the few rioting ones on Jan. 6th. This is a standard, but very weak ploy in an argument, to try to extend your opponent's argument beyond what he said and argue against that. You may know it as a "straw man argument."

Civilian contrasts with military. So as long as they are just destroying the property of civilians, you are down with that?
Another straw man argument? Really, now. I am drawing a contrast between two things, neither of which I am "down with."



Praising the violence of rioters is very bad. I heard no such thing.
The words "We love you. You are very special. Now go home" were tweeted or spoken to the rioters AFTER the riots and AFTER the invasion of the capital and AFTER the killing. Consider the words "We love you. You are very special" and tell me how that is not praising but is actually a condemnation of the violence?


In fact, I heard exactly the opposite.
Yes, that was the next day, after Trump aids wrote it for him and advised him he better say them if he expects to save his skin. (I assume.)


But I'm sure you have no qualms about proving up the charge. I'll be interested to see what you have.
This gets back to the lack of a common agreed-upon fact base. If you accept none of things I consider facts, there is no way I can prove anything to you, or you can prove anything to me.,


What was it that Nancy Pelosi said? Oh yes, when asked about the riots she said, "people are going to do what they are going to do."
That is not praise.

And I believe it was Maxine Waters who said, "If you see Republicans in public get in their face."
That is not praising deadly violence either.


And I believe it was our esteemed former top cop Eric Holder who said, "if they go low, kick 'em."
“When I say we kick them, I don’t mean we do anything inappropriate, we don’t do anything illegal, but we have to be tough and we have to fight,” he said. He was talking about campaigning. Trump was not talking about campaigning. The campaign was over. The election was over. He lost. But of course since you are living in the Bizarro world, you will probably deny that fact too.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
I assume you have been following the right-wing extremist movement supporting Trump over the past few months,
No but that wouldn't be relevant.
and that you watched the entire speech Trump gave on the 6th.
Why don't you share the relevant parts you believe address the issue.
If that does not convince you, you will have to wait until the Senate takes up the case when they return.
In other words, you've simply believed the Trump-Russia-Collusion press that's been lying about Trump for four years. See now, that wasn't hard.
You will see the case being made then.
I suppose we will see, but the Constitution has given the Senate no authority to try an ex-president.
Those were separate videos at different protests.
I refer to the one video in the thread in post #4.
The bulk of those videos shows the police response to peaceful protests. Those were not the protests that were burning cars.
So you are saying that the reporter NBC lied? They said "the chaotic scene was just blocks from the parade route" referring to the inauguration and the burning cars.
It is perfectly clear. If you think it is wrong, show how it is wrong.
No, I don't speak wokish. If you have a real complaint put it in plain English.
I did not call all Trump voters white supremacists.
I appreciate you clarifying that.
Just the few rioting ones on Jan. 6th.
I don't know if they are white supremacists, but I object as much to them as I do to the ones in the other video.
This is a standard, but very weak ploy in an argument,
I'll be glad to be corrected then.
to try to extend your opponent's argument beyond what he said and argue against that. You may know it as a "straw man argument."
No I'm sorry, I just misunderstood you.
Another straw man argument? Really, now. I am drawing a contrast between two things, neither of which I am "down with."
Okay, thanks for that. I restate your ideas to elicit your clarification. Communication is dynamic. So in what category do you put burning the police precinct or the burning of the federal court house [attempted anyway] in Portland?
The words "We love you. You are very special. Now go home" were tweeted or spoken to the rioters AFTER the riots and AFTER the invasion of the capital and AFTER the killing. Consider the words "We love you. You are very special" and tell me how that is not praising but is actually a condemnation of the violence?
So you think he was telling the felons to go home, rather than stay and be arrested by the authorities? I don't agree with your interpretation of those words. If he was talking about the felons, did he pardon any of them, on the ground that he loved them, so they could go home? I'm pretty sure someone might have reported that in the press. I didn't see a thing about it.
Yes, that was the next day, after Trump aids wrote it for him and advised him he better say them if he expects to save his skin. (I assume.)
He told them to "peacefully" demonstrate on the 6th. Did you miss that?
This gets back to the lack of a common agreed-upon fact base. If you accept none of things I consider facts, there is no way I can prove anything to you, or you can prove anything to me.,
Well . . . when one side lies about Trump Russia Collusion for four years straight, then just goes silent on the subject, refusing to acknowledge they were wrong. Trust does become an issue, yes. And then when we learn that Robert Mueller had dispositive exculpatory proof that Trump Russia Collusion was false on day one of the investigation, and then spent all that time and money investigating Trumps subsequent tweets, which he put in "book two," and called an obstruction of justice investigation; yes, things like that do inform the question of trust.
That is not praise.
It's a far cry from condemnation too. And I love Governor Como's idiot brother who said, "who said demonstrations had to be peaceful?"
That is not praising deadly violence either.
Okay, it's instructing people to commit the crime of assault. And if they actually touched the person in the process, that would be the additional crime of battery.
“When I say we kick them, I don’t mean we do anything inappropriate,
I am so glad that you are so charitable with these interpretations, because I'd like you to go back and read what Trump actually said again.
we don’t do anything illegal, but we have to be tough and we have to fight,” he said. He was talking about campaigning.
Trump was talking about peaceful protesting.
Trump was not talking about campaigning. The campaign was over. The election was over.
There are still live cases in the courts as I write this. So unresolved issues concerning this election are not over, and thus the grounds for soliciting Congress for a redress of grievances is not over either. And if they are still viable today, they were certainly viable on the 6th.
When you concede you effectively have lost.
But of course since you are living in the Bizarro world, you will probably deny that fact too.
Peter Navarro did an excellent job in cataloguing the real questions for which we still do not have satisfactory answers.
 

Howie

Well-known member
No but that wouldn't be relevant.

Why don't you share the relevant parts you believe address the issue.

In other words, you've simply believed the Trump-Russia-Collusion press that's been lying about Trump for four years. See now, that wasn't hard.

I suppose we will see, but the Constitution has given the Senate no authority to try an ex-president.

I refer to the one video in the thread in post #4.

So you are saying that the reporter NBC lied? They said "the chaotic scene was just blocks from the parade route" referring to the inauguration and the burning cars.

No, I don't speak wokish. If you have a real complaint put it in plain English.

I appreciate you clarifying that.

I don't know if they are white supremacists, but I object as much to them as I do to the ones in the other video.

I'll be glad to be corrected then.

No I'm sorry, I just misunderstood you.

Okay, thanks for that. I restate your ideas to elicit your clarification. Communication is dynamic. So in what category do you put burning the police precinct or the burning of the federal court house [attempted anyway] in Portland?

So you think he was telling the felons to go home, rather than stay and be arrested by the authorities? I don't agree with your interpretation of those words. If he was talking about the felons, did he pardon any of them, on the ground that he loved them, so they could go home? I'm pretty sure someone might have reported that in the press. I didn't see a thing about it.

He told them to "peacefully" demonstrate on the 6th. Did you miss that?

Well . . . when one side lies about Trump Russia Collusion for four years straight, then just goes silent on the subject, refusing to acknowledge they were wrong. Trust does become an issue, yes. And then when we learn that Robert Mueller had dispositive exculpatory proof that Trump Russia Collusion was false on day one of the investigation, and then spent all that time and money investigating Trumps subsequent tweets, which he put in "book two," and called an obstruction of justice investigation; yes, things like that do inform the question of trust.

It's a far cry from condemnation too. And I love Governor Como's idiot brother who said, "who said demonstrations had to be peaceful?"

Okay, it's instructing people to commit the crime of assault. And if they actually touched the person in the process, that would be the additional crime of battery.

I am so glad that you are so charitable with these interpretations, because I'd like you to go back and read what Trump actually said again.

Trump was talking about peaceful protesting.

There are still live cases in the courts as I write this. So unresolved issues concerning this election are not over, and thus the grounds for soliciting Congress for a redress of grievances is not over either. And if they are still viable today, they were certainly viable on the 6th.

When you concede you effectively have lost.

Peter Navarro did an excellent job in cataloguing the real questions for which we still do not have satisfactory answers.
You have made a cogent argument based not upon emotion, but upon on-the-record facts. Please continue.
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
Why don't you share the relevant parts you believe address the issue.
All of it. But of course I expected you would disagree. That's why I said to wait for the Senate hearings.

In other words,...
99% if the time, when a response starts out with "In other words", the rest of the sentence is nothing at all like the original words. That is the case here too.


I suppose we will see, but the Constitution has given the Senate no authority to try an ex-president.
The Constitution does not specify that the impeachment option ends when the term is expired. And there is precedent for impeaching a Federal officer who is no longer in office. The common sense reason is that without that option, a President would be free to engage in any wrongdoing in the waning days of his term without consequences. But for more complete description of the legal argument, see this analysis.


I refer to the one video in the thread in post #4.
The video in post #4 contains scenes of numerous protests in different cities. In only one of them - the one at the beginning of the video - was there massive violence. Why are we talking about this? It goes back to when I said that most of the protests in the video were peaceful, despite the fact that they all faced massive police force. I am not excusing the violent one, however.

No, I don't speak wokish. If you have a real complaint put it in plain English.
When you want to seriously respond, I will try to answer. Otherwise I can't really say things any clearer than I did.

So in what category do you put burning the police precinct or the burning of the federal court house [attempted anyway] in Portland?
The category of violent and unacceptable forms of protest.


So you think he was telling the felons to go home, rather than stay and be arrested by the authorities?
The "go home" part was just fine. But the "You're very special" and "We love you" to felons without any condemnation of what they did is not.


I don't agree with your interpretation of those words. If he was talking about the felons, did he pardon any of them...
I said he praised them. I didn't say that he pardoned them. However there is a rumor I heard that he is considering pardoning some of them that have been arrested right now.



He told them to "peacefully" demonstrate on the 6th. Did you miss that?
Apparently they missed it too, amidst all the rhetoric about "fight".


Well . . . when one side lies about Trump Russia Collusion for four years straight
See, there's an example of a mismatch in our fact base. As far as I know, the Democratic leadership gave up on the collusion charge very early, but focused on Russian interference and related crimes. The "collusion" charge persisted only in some of the unofficial left-wing conspiracy theorists. It was not taken seriously by anyone in power after it could not be proven. Anyway, the Muller investigation is too far off topic so it would be a deflection.

It's a far cry from condemnation too.
The only thing I claimed was that they did not praise rioters like Trump did.


Okay, it's instructing people to commit the crime of assault. And if they actually touched the person in the process, that would be the additional crime of battery.
That would depend on the manner in which someone "gets in their face". And it is certainly not praising someone who has gone too far, like Trump did.

Trump was talking about peaceful protesting.
You don't "fight" in a protest. You "fight" in a campaign.


There are still live cases in the courts as I write this.
Not cases about overturning the election. That is all done. The Supreme Court has decided.


Peter Navarro did an excellent job in cataloguing the real questions for which we still do not have satisfactory answers.
There is no end to people's ability to ask questions.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
All of it. But of course I expected you would disagree. That's why I said to wait for the Senate hearings.
I'm more than happy to be quite specific on this question, your oblique answer notwithstanding. Trump said that the protesters were to be [in relevant part] "peaceful" on capital hill. I'm just puzzled by the fact that you've made this judgment, the grounds for which, you are unable or unwilling to recite.
99% if the time, when a response starts out with "In other words", the rest of the sentence is nothing at all like the original words. That is the case here too.
It's lucky then, that I so consistently provide the opportunity for you to clear up any misunderstanding.
The Constitution does not specify that the impeachment option ends when the term is expired.
Of course it does! It says in relevant part "The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." If you can't be removed from office you don't qualify to be tried in the Senate, because the words there are NOT may be removed THEY ARE shall be removed!
And there is precedent for impeaching a Federal officer who is no longer in office.
There is precedent for treating African-Americans as chattel, but we don't do that! Why? The point is not the precedent, it's the clear language of the Constitution.
The common sense reason is that without that option, a President would be free to engage in any wrongdoing in the waning days of his term without consequences. But for more complete description of the legal argument, see this analysis.
I'm not interested in reading analysis that says the unambiguous language of the Constitution can be ignored.
The video in post #4 contains scenes of numerous protests in different cities. In only one of them - the one at the beginning of the video - was there massive violence. Why are we talking about this?
It's a salient issue, as they identify exactly where the video was taken, on the map. I'm very familiar with Washington DC as I had an office there for 10 years, in George Town. That video was taken at about 13th and L Street NW.

DC map.jpg
It goes back to when I said that most of the protests in the video were peaceful, despite the fact that they all faced massive police force. I am not excusing the violent one, however.
There are a number of problems with that kind of protest. The only reason for everyone to dress alike is to hide the perpetrators of crime. This further illustrates that Trump supporters didn't go to Washington to commit crimes.
When you want to seriously respond, I will try to answer. Otherwise I can't really say things any clearer than I did.
You are using language grounded in postmodern nonsense, a body of scholarship fabricated out of whole cloth, that has no real meaning in Standard English. I agree it's a very specific kind of nonsense, but it's still nonsense. If you can't say it in Standard English, and defend it in Standard English, then what you are talking about has no basis whatsoever in reality. It may as well be a creaking door hinge.
The category of violent and unacceptable forms of protest.
We agree.
The "go home" part was just fine.
The whole thing was just fine.
But the "You're very special" and "We love you" to felons
You honestly believe those words were directed to felons? That is an insane interpretation.
without any condemnation of what they did is not.
If those words were directed to the felons this would be an issue, but they obviously were not. He was directing those words to the same people he told to protest peacefully. The felons didn't listen to him then, why would they listen to him now?

I give you every opportunity to correct every misunderstanding. I don't challenge you on any correction, and your treatment of Trumps words is this withering? That's not setting off any alarm bells for you?
I said he praised them.
"Them" meaning his supporters, not the felons.
I didn't say that he pardoned them.
The police arrested the felons, they couldn't go home. It's a nonsensical interpretation.
However there is a rumor I heard
Why not? Not likely to be less accurate than the crucify-Trump-first-last-and-always press.
that he is considering pardoning some of them that have been arrested right now.
Well, if Marge from Omaha wanders up there and sees that the door are open, which at one point they were, and all she has seen is people going in and milling about, there could conceivably be an application for that. New facts informing our understanding of what happened are coming out all the time.
Apparently they missed it too, amidst all the rhetoric about "fight".
Fight is far from the only example of analogical language we use in this type of discussion.
See, there's an example of a mismatch in our fact base. As far as I know, the Democratic leadership gave up on the collusion charge very early, but focused on Russian interference and related crimes. The "collusion" charge persisted only in some of the unofficial left-wing conspiracy theorists. It was not taken seriously by anyone in power after it could not be proven. Anyway, the Muller investigation is too far off topic so it would be a deflection.
There is a sea of video of Adam Schiff insisting they have proof of coordination or what ever word he was using that day. He would get in these interviews even as the Mueller report was coming out still defending the charge.
The only thing I claimed was that they did not praise rioters like Trump did.
Okay, but we still disagree, on the notion that the praise was directed at rioters.
That would depend on the manner in which someone "gets in their face".
The examples I see in video clearly qualifies as assault.
And it is certainly not praising someone who has gone too far, like Trump did.
The protesters shouted down Sarah Huckabee in a restaurant so severely that the owner blamed her, and insisted she leave. A guy shot a Trump support in the chest, because he was "one of them." What qualifies as too far?
You don't "fight" in a protest. You "fight" in a campaign.
You don't conclude someone is inciting sedition because they mangle metaphors. That is crazy.
Not cases about overturning the election. That is all done. The Supreme Court has decided.
No, there are still cases that will be alive long after the 20th.
There is no end to people's ability to ask questions.
These are all points concerning which no court has weighed in on the evidence.
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
I'm more than happy to be quite specific on this question, your oblique answer notwithstanding. Trump said that the protesters were to be [in relevant part] "peaceful" on capital hill. I'm just puzzled by the fact that you've made this judgment, the grounds for which, you are unable or unwilling to recite.

It's lucky then, that I so consistently provide the opportunity for you to clear up any misunderstanding.

Of course it does! It says in relevant part "The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." If you can't be removed from office you don't qualify to be tried in the Senate, because the words there are NOT may be removed THEY ARE shall be removed!

There is precedent for treating African-Americans as chattel, but we don't do that! Why? The point is not the precedent, it's the clear language of the Constitution.

I'm not interested in reading analysis that says the unambiguous language of the Constitution can be ignored.

It's a salient issue, as they identify exactly where the video was taken, on the map. I'm very familiar with Washington DC as I had an office there for 10 years, in George Town. That video was taken at about 13th and L Street NW.

View attachment 696

There are a number of problems with that kind of protest. The only reason for everyone to dress alike is to hide the perpetrators of crime. This further illustrates that Trump supporters didn't go to Washington to commit crimes.

You are using language grounded in postmodern nonsense, a body of scholarship fabricated out of whole cloth, that has no real meaning in Standard English. I agree it's a very specific kind of nonsense, but it's still nonsense. If you can't say it in Standard English, and defend it in Standard English, then what you are talking about has no basis whatsoever in reality. It may as well be a creaking door hinge.

We agree.

The whole thing was just fine.

You honestly believe those words were directed to felons? That is an insane interpretation.

If those words were directed to the felons this would be an issue, but they obviously were not. He was directing those words to the same people he told to protest peacefully. The felons didn't listen to him then, why would they listen to him now?

I give you every opportunity to correct every misunderstanding. I don't challenge you on any correction, and your treatment of Trumps words is this withering? That's not setting off any alarm bells for you?

"Them" meaning his supporters, not the felons.

The police arrested the felons, they couldn't go home. It's a nonsensical interpretation.

Why not? Not likely to be less accurate than the crucify-Trump-first-last-and-always press.

Well, if Marge from Omaha wanders up there and sees that the door are open, which at one point they were, and all she has seen is people going in and milling about, there could conceivably be an application for that. New facts informing our understanding of what happened are coming out all the time.

Fight is far from the only example of analogical language we use in this type of discussion.

There is a sea of video of Adam Schiff insisting they have proof of coordination or what ever word he was using that day. He would get in these interviews even as the Mueller report was coming out still defending the charge.

Okay, but we still disagree, on the notion that the praise was directed at rioters.

The examples I see in video clearly qualifies as assault.

The protesters shouted down Sarah Huckabee in a restaurant so severely that the owner blamed her, and insisted she leave. A guy shot a Trump support in the chest, because he was "one of them." What qualifies as too far?

You don't conclude someone is inciting sedition because they mangle metaphors. That is crazy.

No, there are still cases that will be alive long after the 20th.

These are all points concerning which no court has weighed in on the evidence.
You have now jumped the shark. By the way, are you the same Thistle I remember from the old CAF, or is that just a coincidence? I think that one was always arguing against evolution. But it was long time ago and my memory may be mistaken on that. I had a different name on that forum.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
You have now jumped the shark.
At least you're consistent. Your arguments are all conclusions.
By the way, are you the same Thistle I remember from the old CAF, or is that just a coincidence? I think that one was always arguing against evolution.
I've been on CARM a very long time. I hold the view that the arguments for evolution or at least as good if not better than the arguments against it for a number of years now. There are no good arguments for the natural emergence of life that I'm aware of. And from what I read, it doesn't seem like there are good arguments emerging for the natural initiation of life. So it's a pretty involved topic.
But it was long time ago and my memory may be mistaken on that. I had a different name on that forum.
I'm the same Thistle from the older forum. The doctrine of creation is the central of the Christian faith everything else depends on it. I believe God created the heavens and the earth. It's been a topic that I've been interested in for decades. I have read books on the issue written from a number of different perspectives, but as it stands now, I think the theistic evolutionists have the best arguments I'm aware of.
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
At least you're consistent. Your arguments are all conclusions.

I've been on CARM a very long time. I hold the view that the arguments for evolution or at least as good if not better than the arguments against it for a number of years now. There are no good arguments for the natural emergence of life that I'm aware of. And from what I read, it doesn't seem like there are good arguments emerging for the natural initiation of life. So it's a pretty involved topic.

I'm the same Thistle from the older forum. The doctrine of creation is the central of the Christian faith everything else depends on it. I believe God created the heavens and the earth. It's been a topic that I've been interested in for decades. I have read books on the issue written from a number of different perspectives, but as it stands now, I think the theistic evolutionists have the best arguments I'm aware of.
Well, I did remember the name, but apparently I was confusing you with someone else - perhaps "buffalo". In any case, if you haven't heard, CAF closed down at the end of 2020. It is no more.
 

Ignatius

Active member
What did you expect? As far as the left is concerned they are "peaceful" no matter how many buildings they set on fire. You didn't really think that imbecile was going to see your point did you? They are incapable. They are ALWAYS right and anyone who disagree with them is ALWAYS wrong.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
Well, I did remember the name, but apparently I was confusing you with someone else - perhaps "buffalo". In any case, if you haven't heard, CAF closed down at the end of 2020. It is no more.
I'm not sure I know what CAF is.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
Oh, then you are not the same Thistle after all. That Thistle was on CAF (Catholic Answers Forum), which is no more.
Right, I am a different thistle. Someone famous and I am sorry to say that I can't say who, wrote what they called the epistle from thistle. One of my professors adopted that pin name, and wrote for a publication in our brotherhood, so I to have adopted that as a nom de guerre.
 
Top