1/6 Defendants demand to be sent to GITMO

[Stann]

Nope. That is YOUR stupid take on their actions.

Are you totally ignorant. It's been all over the news. www.nbcnews.com old keeper testifies about massive gunpile stash in hotel on the... 3 days ago

 

[iceberg]

Nope. Not in the least. ANYONE doing what she did risked getting shot. Interesting that you make distinctions. People don’t always fit in your neat little pigeonholes.

Speaking of distinctions...

Portland

 

[Coyote]

The VP worked to get them bail. That is certainly supporting them. Many mayors ordered cops to stand down during various illegal "protests". At least two people defending their home were arrested.

YOu are just incorrect.

The VP did not. You are incorrect. Individual mayors did whatever they thought best, but can’t find any support for the rioters themselves, can you? Any one calling them patriots or political prisoners? Anyone?

Says the lib convienently forgetting that there was an eyewitness. And thus siding with the criminal. Yes, it had nothing to do with teh Floyd riots, my point was clearly about your lefty reflext to side with the criminal. Which was my original point. If 1/6 was a lefty riot, you would be siding with the "unarmed" woman.

The only eye witness was the defendant. Kinda skews it.

…point is you are completely wrong about what I think or feel. You think that I think like you. I don’t. I don’t care WHAT the political affiliation is of those who stormed our Capitol. They lost any support or sympathy the moment they chose not to turn away and instead attack. Through the book at them.

But you call them patriots.

Sure it was. THe video clearly showed a mob attacking a young man, and him defending himself. That even after we heard of the STATMENT OF INTENT TO COMMITT MURDER, by the insane child rapist, you people still sided with the criminals.

Oh, and "unarmed"? LOL. Thanks for making my point.

We are not going to agree here, it was far from simple and clear cut. I don’t disagree with the verdict, I disagree with your one sided assessment.

It shows the normal bias of the Left for the lawbreaker, and against the keepers of civilization.

patriot
gulag
political prisoner

Keepers of civilization

’nuff said.

The primary differnece of 1/6, is NOT that place of the riot, but the political leaning of the rioters.

Like Hell.

You people support crime and violence, especially when it is political, IF IT LOOKS TO BE ON YOUR SIDE, OR AT LEAST BY AN ALLY.

 

[beagle9]

Who supported those who rioted during the Floyd protests? I’m willing to bet very few and certainly not the mainstream.

No one called them patriots.
No one called them political prisoners.
No one said they were in a gulag.


Which has nothing to do with J6 or the Floyd riots. Not a only that, he’s dead. He couldn’t speak up for himself as to what transpired. We will never really know. We only have one man’s word.

That case was far from straight forward. You can’t go around killing unarmed people and not expect to be held accountable or freed through the legal process. Did anyone call these guys patriots? Oh Ya. Rittenhouse.


You can’t come with anything. Martin was long before Floyd. The arguments over Rittenhouse were not about defending rioters.

 

[iceberg]

The VP did not. You are incorrect. Individual mayors did whatever they thought best, but can’t find any support for the rioters themselves, can you? Any one calling them patriots or political prisoners? Anyone?


The only eye witness was the defendant. Kinda skews it.

…point is you are completely wrong about what I think or feel. You think that I think like you. I don’t. I don’t care WHAT the political affiliation is of those who stormed our Capitol. They lost any support or sympathy the moment they chose not to turn away and instead attack. Through the book at them.

But you call them patriots.





We are not going to agree here, it was far from simple and clear cut. I don’t disagree with the verdict, I disagree with your one sided assessment.





patriot
gulag
political prisoner

Keepers of civilization

’nuff said.



Like Hell.

Democrats are now the riot party

Liberal cities have become the center of violence and extremism.

thehill.com

I believe a senator or congresswoman helped tear down statues and one fell on a "protestor"

You cry like a woman possessed at 1/6 but excuse Portland riots and any attempt to stop them by Trump as "jack booted thugs" and Pelosi called the attempts to stop them "stormtroopers"

The reason we cant find that common ground is simply because you refuse to.

You make up more excuses to justify your hate.

You are not "thinking" at all. You emotionally react.

 

[beagle9]

The VP did not. You are incorrect. Individual mayors did whatever they thought best, but can’t find any support for the rioters themselves, can you? Any one calling them patriots or political prisoners? Anyone?


The only eye witness was the defendant. Kinda skews it.

…point is you are completely wrong about what I think or feel. You think that I think like you. I don’t. I don’t care WHAT the political affiliation is of those who stormed our Capitol. They lost any support or sympathy the moment they chose not to turn away and instead attack. Through the book at them.

But you call them patriots.





We are not going to agree here, it was far from simple and clear cut. I don’t disagree with the verdict, I disagree with your one sided assessment.





patriot
gulag
political prisoner

Keepers of civilization

’nuff said.



Like Hell.

Just go back and listen to the left loving pandering politician's who alledgedly supported violence or rioting by the mobs, and yes it coming straight from their own mouth's starting with Maxine Waters and on and on and on it went. You denying any of it is you being big time dishonest. Yes the VP is on record supporting the rioting disguised as protest straight out of her own mouth, and yes everyone knows that she was supportive in the bail out situation as well. Biden wouldn't even condemn the rioting and violence while in the debates for the nomination when asked. All this stuff is recorded and can be accessed at any time. Time won't wash away the truth about what happened, and after Trump was railroaded by rogue political forces gone mad for 4+ year's, he is going to probably be the richest man in America when all is said and done.

 

[iceberg]

Just go back and listen to the left loving pandering politician's who alledgedly supported violence or rioting by the mobs, and yes it coming straight from their own mouth's starting with Maxine Waters and on and on and on it went. You denying any of it is you being big time dishonest. Yes the VP is on record supporting the rioting disguised as protest straight out of her own mouth, and yes everyone knows that she was supportive in the bail out situation as well. Biden wouldn't even condemn the rioting and violence while in the debates for the nomination when asked. All this stuff is recorded and can be accessed at any time. Time won't wash away the truth about what happened, and after Trump was railroaded by rogue political forces gone mad for 4+ year's, he is going to probably be the richest man in America when all is said and done.

Minimize that and scream at Trump.

You are not worried about fair play for all if you do this. You want emotional justice.

 

[beagle9]

Minimize that and scream at Trump.

You are not worried about fair play for all if you do this. You want emotional justice.

Explain...

 

[iceberg]

Explain...

Sorry. Not you, but Coyote.

Long night n no sleep. Apologies.

 

[Coyote]

Until we get past that one major fallacy, we have NO common ground or shared reality upon which to engage in discussion.

sounds like i must see it the way you do or you won't even hear my side / understanding of it.

In order to have a rational discussion, there needs to be some common agreement on at least some fact. You continuously try to pull me down your various rabbit holes and insist I follow you. When I won’t you accuse me of “insisting I agree with you”. Then you start pulling in shit from all over: prior conversations, unproven claims posted as unanswered questions, and a ton of “but what abouts”. You typically, at some point turn it personal.

Why should I continue to engage with you?

I am always willing to agree to disagree. How about you?

When I say to you you need a base of commonly agreed upon facts in order to have a rational discussion, you call that forcing you to agree with me.

Here is an example that might fit your view better:
You: the rioters in the Floyd riots caused millions of dollars worth of damage.
Me: the rioters were actually Trump’s FBI agents and MAGA supporters trying instigating violence in order to make racial justice protesters look bad.
You: huh?
Me: it wasn’t really a riot, it was the Trump regime’s plan to jail thousands of leftists who were protesting racial injustice, look at how he sent the FBI to infiltrate them and shut them down, and even FBI agents hunting them down and stuffing them in cars with no warrants or charges. Lots of unanswered questions.
You: wtf? Can we at least agree it was a riot?
Me: If they were rightists you wouldn’t call it a riot. You’re only calling it a riot because it was leftists.
You: fuck off.

Disclaimer: the above is not a statement of my actual views but an example.

you calling it an attack on our capital by a group of people who had no guns is funny to me. its either the worst "planned attack" in the history of mankind or a situation that was not initially an attack but got out of hand.

See my example above.

now i never said it happened, now did i? this is you inventing my side of the story because i don't make this my #1 bullet and no "nah nah nah" to any other options.

now, are we going to simply keep making lists of what the other person dismisses? this will be fun.

keep in mind you yourself said we had enough video and nancy didn't need to provide ALL video. would you agree ALL DATA is needed to arrive at a fair conclusion?

We are at this again? How much is enough data? You will just find one more thing. And another. And another.

Tons of video. Tons of sworn testimony.

We will never have 100% without finding and interviewing under oath every single individual even remotely involved….so we can’t come up with a “fair” conclusion ever?

And to make it better you don’t apply this demand to those jailed for the Floyd riots which you constantly bring up when J6 is discussed. How come? Why aren’t you demanding the same? I have zero problem withose who committed arson, assault, looting or property destruction being held accountable but your definition of crime and accountability stops abruptly at partisan lines.

no = hear my facts
yes = you could be wrong.

which is it?

so - if you're engaged in violence, esp with a mob, it's ok to shoot and kill you.

You left out mob and threatening the lives of….

an important distinction you conveniently omit.

except if you're in portand burning down gov buildings, then it's jackbooted thugs daring to haul you away for a bit and find out what is going on.

According to who?

you warp situations to fit your own reality and at every opportunity, fail to acknowledge how these standards YOU SET should be applied to all. with you, you cite an extreme stance and when time to hold that same stance to yourself, cry out FOUL and scream how different the situation is.

if you're going to say how things should be, live it yourself.

do, we sure do not have the same definition of fact.

fact - russia was complete bullshit and trump demonized
fact - the DOJ is currently completely weaponized and going after anyone and everyone who speaks out against them

both of those are facts you will find some way to twist or justify because you find validation for your hate in that. my emotions have no bearing on facts but they drive your own interpretation of them.

in that light, we are night and day.

in the end, we cannot debate or talk about these things because of what your yourself said - and i'll repeast:

Until we get past that one major fallacy, we have NO common ground or shared reality upon which to engage in discussion.

which to me screams AGREE WITH ME OR WE CAN'T TALK! the common ground *could* be there. you simply refuse because of your emotional stake in this.

You see - these differences, TO ME, are WHY we should be talking. i don't talk to force views or sell my own, i do it to learn other views and maybe change mine. maybe *that* is why we can't talk.

good day.

Predictable….we argue about J6 and you always bring up Floyd riots and Russia Russia Russia.

I will have a good day

 

[beagle9]

Sorry. Not you, but Coyote.

Long night n no sleep. Apologies.

Apology accepted...

 

[Coyote]

Democrats are now the riot party

Liberal cities have become the center of violence and extremism.

thehill.com

I believe a senator or congresswoman helped tear down statues and one fell on a "protestor"

You cry like a woman possessed at 1/6 but excuse Portland riots and any attempt to stop them by Trump as "jack booted thugs" and Pelosi called the attempts to stop them "stormtroopers"

The reason we cant find that common ground is simply because you refuse to.

You make up more excuses to justify your hate.

You are not "thinking" at all. You emotionally react.

Speaking of emotional reacting…ya got a link to support this claim or are just speaking out of your ass again?

Keep on excusing the J6 rioters, you are on record with that. Nothing to do with hate on my part.

 

[iceberg]

In order to have a rational discussion, there needs to be some common agreement on at least some fact. You continuously try to pull me down your various rabbit holes and insist I follow you. When I won’t you accuse me of “insisting I agree with you”. Then you start pulling in shit from all over: prior conversations, unproven claims posted as unanswered questions, and a ton of “but what abouts”. You typically, at some point turn it personal.

Why should I continue to engage with you?

I am always willing to agree to disagree. How about you?

When I say to you you need a base of commonly agreed upon facts in order to have a rational discussion, you call that forcing you to agree with me.

Here is an example that might fit your view better:
You: the rioters in the Floyd riots caused millions of dollars worth of damage.
Me: the rioters were actually Trump’s FBI agents and MAGA supporters trying instigating violence in order to make racial justice protesters look bad.
You: huh?
Me: it wasn’t really a riot, it was the Trump regime’s plan to jail thousands of leftists who were protesting racial injustice, look at how he sent the FBI to infiltrate them and shut them down, and even FBI agents hunting them down and stuffing them in cars with no warrants or charges. Lots of unanswered questions.
You: wtf? Can we at least agree it was a riot?
Me: If they were rightists you wouldn’t call it a riot. You’re only calling it a riot because it was leftists.
You: fuck off.

Disclaimer: the above is not a statement of my actual views but an example.



See my example above.




We are at this again? How much is enough data? You will just find one more thing. And another. And another.

Tons of video. Tons of sworn testimony.

We will never have 100% without finding and interviewing under oath every single individual even remotely involved….so we can’t come up with a “fair” conclusion ever?

And to make it better you don’t apply this demand to those jailed for the Floyd riots which you constantly bring up when J6 is discussed. How come? Why aren’t you demanding the same? I have zero problem withose who committed arson, assault, looting or property destruction being held accountable but your definition of crime and accountability stops abruptly at partisan lines.



You left out mob and threatening the lives of….

an important distinction you conveniently omit.



According to who?





Predictable….we argue about J6 and you always bring up Floyd riots and Russia Russia Russia.

I will have a good day

You rabbit hole all the time.

I do it to define rules for all and if your goal is that or something else.

It's something else. You don't give a fuck about the same rules for all. You simply want people you hate tobsuffer regardless of the hypocrisy it exposes.

You find bullshit "this doesn't apply" to you ass needed.

I've never seen you say "your side" is wrong.

 

[iceberg]

Speaking of emotional reacting…ya got a link to support this claim or are just speaking out of your ass again?

Keep on excusing the J6 rioters, you are on record with that. Nothing to do with hate on my part.

I gave you a link.

You just ignore what you don't like and go into attack mode saying someone else made you

When I'm as asshole, and I certainly can be, no one "made me". I chose to be in that instance.

Huge difference between us.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In order to have a rational discussion, there needs to be some common agreement on at least some fact.

And the last thing conservatives want is a rational debate predicated on facts – a debate conservatives would lose – hence the misinformation and lies.

For conservatives to acknowledge the facts of the 1/6 rightwing terrorist attack on America’s democracy is to acknowledge the treason and criminality of Trump and his supporters, something conservatives lack the courage and integrity to do.

Unwilling to admit the truth and facts, conservatives deflect, mitigate, and lie about January 6th, contriving ridiculous excuses and justifications in a failed, pathetic effort minimize the negative political impact of the right’s attack on America’s democracy.

 

[Correll]

Correct.

‘Debate’ is pointless and futile with conservatives who refuse to acknowledge the facts of 1/6:

“The cumulative effect of all the Jan. 6 hearings, culminating in Thursday's wrap-up of the central narrative, has made clear that Donald Trump set up the coup before the election,

You are completely mad and refuse to listen to reality.

 

[Correll]

Are you totally ignorant. It's been all over the news. www.nbcnews.com old keeper testifies about massive gunpile stash in hotel on the... 3 days ago

Liar.

 

[Correll]

The VP did not. You are incorrect. Individual mayors did whatever they thought best, but can’t find any support for the rioters themselves, can you? Any one calling them patriots or political prisoners? Anyone?

Did Kamala Harris Bail Out 'Violent Rioters' During George Floyd Protests?

The claim appeared to stem from a June 2020 tweet from Harris.

www.snopes.com

"What's True
Harris expressed support for a nonprofit called the Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF), which pays criminal bail and immigration bonds, and encouraged her supporters to donate to it during the protests over Floyd's death in the summer of 2020."


She did. Also, the mayors did order cops to stand down. The Left as a whole, from the President down you YOU, support hte JUSTIFICATIONS for the riots.

Whole liberaries could be written on the support shown by the Left for the rioters.

The only eye witness was the defendant. Kinda skews it.

Incorrect. A man looked out his window and saw Martin beating Zimmerman "MMA style" while Zimmerman screamed.


That you convienantly missed that, or forgot it, is not surprising.

…point is you are completely wrong about what I think or feel. You think that I think like you. I don’t. I don’t care WHAT the political affiliation is of those who stormed our Capitol. They lost any support or sympathy the moment they chose not to turn away and instead attack. Through the book at them.

But you call them patriots.

You say that, and by you, I mean the plural you, I've heard many libs make that claim.

BUT, it is just too much of a coinciedence, the way you almost ALWAYS, land on the side of the lefty or at least presumed ally.

We are not going to agree here, it was far from simple and clear cut. I don’t disagree with the verdict, I disagree with your one sided assessment.





patriot
gulag
political prisoner

Keepers of civilization

’nuff said.



Like Hell.

It is worth nothing that the 1/6 rioters are almost certainly more patriotic than the normal lefty rioters, who are generally anti-american hard lefties, or uncivilized barbarians, or some unholy mixture of the two.


Such as Joseph Rosenbaum, for an example. He was politically motivated, but also mentally ill and a violent child rapist.

And a lefty rioter.

 

[beagle9]

And the last thing conservatives want is a rational debate predicated on facts – a debate conservatives would lose – hence the misinformation and lies.

For conservatives to acknowledge the facts of the 1/6 rightwing terrorist attack on America’s democracy is to acknowledge the treason and criminality of Trump and his supporters, something conservatives lack the courage and integrity to do.

Unwilling to admit the truth and facts, conservatives deflect, mitigate, and lie about January 6th, contriving ridiculous excuses and justifications in a failed, pathetic effort minimize the negative political impact of the right’s attack on America’s democracy.

Yeah and I bet you bought into the lie's about Donald Trump being a Russian asset, and the steel dossier was real and true. You leftist have got to be some of the biggest hypocrites on the planet. First off, you ran with everything that was being spoon fed to you by your master's, but you did so in thought that it was protecting your hive, so to hell with the facts and the truth eh ? To late to go back on your bull crap now, because November is approaching and once again you all have terrible candidates running for office. Thinking that the American people were so gullible and dumb has backfired on your bull crap espoused constantly on this site.

Patience is all it takes to bring it back around, but first the lie's and then the exposure's had to take place.

Putting lipstick on pig's isn't going to cut it come November, and no matter how much damage control your side attempts to do, it's to little to late.

 

[xyz]

If they renounce their US citizenship then maybe they can get sent to GITMO.