Well, that's because he's never acknowledged the insurrection as being such. Things there were never as bad as others have made them to be. A relatively innocent protester lost their life as a result of an overzealous and unnecessarily deadly Capitol Security person's response which has never been properly investigated.
Don't forget, all of this happened following the BLM summer when "y'all" supported the destruction of property and looting by the woke mob and Antifa.
To appreciate the similarities, you just need to normalize all riots.
It's more of you failing to make the connection. I was okay with the toy-gun-guy getting shot (right up until the coup de grace, when it became murder). I was also 100% okay with capitol guards opening fire and to this day I don't understand how or why more (100s more) weren't dropped before they had a chance to even break in. When I see an armed police officer, I assume I will be shot in the face if I attack him or whatever he's protecting. That's why they carry guns. If they're going to carry guns, they have to back it up. But here you are, cheerleading a guy who unloaded on a thug, but not cheerleading a guy who unloaded on a thug.
Well, that's because he's never acknowledged the insurrection as being such. Things there were never as bad as others have made them to be. A relatively innocent protester lost their life as a result of an overzealous and unnecessarily deadly Capitol Security person's response which has never been properly investigated.
These aren't my thoughts mind you... just "channeling" the dark side.
It's more of you failing to make the connection. I was okay with the toy-gun-guy getting shot (right up until the coup de grace, when it became murder). I was also 100% okay with capitol guards opening fire and to this day I don't understand how or why more (100s more) weren't dropped before they had a chance to even break in. When I see an armed police officer, I assume I will be shot in the face if I attack him or whatever he's protecting. That's why they carry guns. If they're going to carry guns, they have to back it up. But here you are, cheerleading a guy who unloaded on a thug, but not cheerleading a guy who unloaded on a thug.
No, this is a response to Scott's comments in another thread where he made this connection. I inquired to what he meant but never got a reply. So I said this as an assumption to the point he was trying to make.
I've had enough excitement for today. Time for a nap.
It's more of you failing to make the connection. I was okay with the toy-gun-guy getting shot (right up until the coup de grace, when it became murder). I was also 100% okay with capitol guards opening fire and to this day I don't understand how or why more (100s more) weren't dropped before they had a chance to even break in. When I see an armed police officer, I assume I will be shot in the face if I attack him or whatever he's protecting. That's why they carry guns. If they're going to carry guns, they have to back it up. But here you are, cheerleading a guy who unloaded on a thug, but not cheerleading a guy who unloaded on a thug.
You mean by not having protesters storm the capital right? And calling them protesters after they broke windows/doors, assaulted guards, and went into the nations capitol causing havoc and vandalism is VERY generous. At the point they were breaking into the capitol, more of them deserved harsher treatment.
If only they had lined up to go through the metal detectors
You keep bringing up in several contexts this âunarmed protesterâ shot on January 6. She and others were attempting to break through a substantial barricade to gain entry to an area where members of Congress were located. The Capitol Police officer who shot her after she ignored warnings viewed it as a âlast resortâ to save lives of those members. He was not aware she was unarmed. Threats had been made by those seeking to break through. It was an unfortunate tragedy, and, in hindsight, it could have been avoided, but, under the circumstances, she was not an innocent murdered by the Capitol Police.
You mean by not having protesters storm the capital right? And calling them protesters after they broke windows/doors, assaulted guards, and went into the nations capitol causing havoc and vandalism is VERY generous. At the point they were breaking into the capitol, more of them deserved harsher treatment.
There seems be plenty of "pretzel logic" (funny, I heard that term quite frequently from the trumpsters the past few days) from both parties.
Trumptsters jumping on this file case, after defending trump last year (i recall when the trump story broke, that many politicians will have these documents after serving...which neither side seemed willing to admit, depending on which story broke).
The right attacks against the Cap police officer who shot the invader, while defending cops who kill citizens who resist arrest.
It would be a big step towards getting the people of this country back on a better track, if we could all just admit the obvious flaws from whichever team you're on., rather than defending them,. And step away from the sole focus on what's wrong with their side, rather than how do we fix the problems at hand. ..of course by providing solutions that are negotiable, with give and take.
For the record, Biden is not 'my team' (and neither is trump!). Also for the record: anyone found improperly holding classified documents should be investigated and probably punished. So far* what Biden (and cohorts yet to be determined) is nowhere near what trump did in scale/severity or audacity. Now, let's investigate them both and let the cards fall where they may.
*- Long way to go and all, but until Biden is in court fighting subpoenas this is still 100:1 Trump: Biden.
No, this is a response to Scott's comments in another thread where he made this connection. I inquired to what he meant but never got a reply. So I said this as an assumption to the point he was trying to make.
Kyle Rittenhouse is a rising star for shooting people while defending himself and the property of others 20 miles from home in another state while the woman who is part of a group that trampled fencing and smashed windows to trespass at the Capital is innocent while climbing through a chamber barricaded by the Capital Police. The ability to completely ignore previous statements to support the new tribe rhetoric is exhausting. Pretzel logic concedes far too much mental dexterity.
As to not being seen as a card-carrying Communist by Kurt et al, I agree that the guy shot while carrying a plastic gun had it coming. I'm against handguns, and think any carry (open or concealed ) is F*#&ing stupid...but you gotta know the rules for the home field if you're gonna play the game. When you point something at people that looks like a gun and tell them to give you their money, you'd better be prepared for the response.
I'm going to break the rules here, and agree with you.
The right attacks against the Cap police officer who shot the invader, while defending cops who kill citizens who resist arrest.
Kyle Rittenhouse is a rising star for shooting people while defending himself and the property of others 20 miles from home in another state while the woman who is part of a group that trampled fencing and smashed windows to trespass at the Capital is innocent while climbing through a chamber barricaded by the Capital Police. The ability to completely ignore previous statements to support the new tribe rhetoric is exhausting. Pretzel logic concedes far too much mental dexterity.
As to not being seen as a card-carrying Communist by Kurt et al, I agree that the guy shot while carrying a plastic gun had it coming. I'm against handguns, and think any carry (open or concealed ) is F*#&ing stupid...but you gotta know the rules for the home field if you're gonna play the game. When you point something at people that looks like a gun and tell them to give you their money, you'd better be prepared for the response.
Yeah, laugh. I'll laugh at you trying to equate the shooting of a robber with a toy gun as being just as unarmed as the actually unarmed protester shot on January 6.
You keep bringing up in several contexts this “unarmed protester” shot on January 6. She and others were attempting to break through a substantial barricade to gain entry to an area where members of Congress were located. The Capitol Police officer who shot her after she ignored warnings viewed it as a “last resort” to save lives of those members. He was not aware she was unarmed. Threats had been made by those seeking to break through. It was an unfortunate tragedy, and, in hindsight, it could have been avoided, but, under the circumstances, she was not an innocent murdered by the Capitol Police.
No, this is a response to Scott's comments in another thread where he made this connection. I inquired to what he meant but never got a reply. So I said this as an assumption to the point he was trying to make.
There seems be plenty of "pretzel logic" (funny, I heard that term quite frequently from the trumpsters the past few days) from both parties.
Trumptsters jumping on this file case, after defending trump last year (i recall when the trump story broke, that many politicians will have these documents after serving...which neither side seemed willing to admit, depending on which story broke).
The right attacks against the Cap police officer who shot the invader, while defending cops who kill citizens who resist arrest.
It would be a big step towards getting the people of this country back on a better track, if we could all just admit the obvious flaws from whichever team you're on., rather than defending them,. And step away from the sole focus on what's wrong with their side, rather than how do we fix the problems at hand. ..of course by providing solutions that are negotiable, with give and take.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jan 12, 2023 - 11:20am
kurtster wrote:
Yeah, laugh. I'll laugh at you trying to equate the shooting of a robber with a toy gun as being just as unarmed as the actually unarmed protester shot on January 6.
You keep bringing up in several contexts this âunarmed protesterâ shot on January 6. She and others were attempting to break through a substantial barricade to gain entry to an area where members of Congress were located. The Capitol Police officer who shot her after she ignored warnings viewed it as a âlast resortâ to save lives of those members. He was not aware she was unarmed. Threats had been made by those seeking to break through. It was an unfortunate tragedy, and, in hindsight, it could have been avoided, but, under the circumstances, she was not an innocent murdered by the Capitol Police.
Once again, a democrat is guilty of what they accuse others of doing. This is the hallmark of the democratic party. Has been forever.
Yeah, laugh. I'll laugh at you trying to equate the shooting of a robber with a toy gun as being just as unarmed as the actually unarmed protester shot on January 6.
