Why does everyone who doesn't agree in lockstep with everything I do have to be right wing?

[hpslugga 4044]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

That's right, that brings up another clear distinction. Only one of the two was accepted by many on this board without much critical thought, clinging to it until the bitter end.  

First, I would ask how many is “many?” I can’t speak for anyone other than myself but I didn’t give a shit about the dossier one way or the other. Do I think Donald Trump should have been impeached? Yes. Do I think he should have been impeached for the reasons he was actually impeached (the first time around)? Let’s put it this way: if you ranked his crimes alphabetically and if you really believed every single word in that dossier, there still aren’t enough letters in the alphabet to include it.

Second, how many, of this “many,” still cling to it? Is it nearly as big as the QAnon idiots who still believe in a batshit fairy tale that never earned a microsecond’s worth of attention? If you could provide evidence to “yes” answers to both, you’d merit consideration. Until then, you’re still coming off as someone desperately seeking a false equivalence in this stupid game of whataboutism. 

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

That's right, that brings up another clear distinction. Only one of the two was accepted by many on this board without much critical thought, clinging to it until the bitter end.  

Well, no real response needed then. I'll let that shine all by itself. 

[David Dennison 18659]

Anastasis gonna Anastasis.

[gmr548 16516]

This level of arrogance and elitism sums up this board perfectly.  A 100% complete lack of self awareness, and before any actual issue is discussed, you have already demonized your "opponent" and placed yourself above them with no real knowledge to do so.  Sprinkle in the inability to call out your own hypocrisy and here we are.  Twitter does not represent a majority of Americans.
Love to throw out this hateful rhetoric that paints themselves as saints (the god complex is unbecoming), while not being able to provide an actual example of their projection.

You bolded the phrase “through pure relatively” and yet very clearly either do not understand its meaning or willfully chose to ignore it. Your victim complex makes texags blush.

[wildcat09 29257]

My favorite Anastasis post is still when he said (paraphrasing here) that Hillary didn't ratfuck like Republicans ratfuck because she's more competent. 

[High Plains Drifter 10977]

16 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Hyperbolic. “Insurrection”. A small group of criminals who walked around the capital for 4 hours who burned nothing, looted Nancy and murdered no one. Charge them for their crimes. 
 

there is a desperation to turn 1/6 into the second civil war to validate the fear mongering projected during the Trump administration. It’s validation in your mind. 
 

to the average American (non CR poster or mainstream media) it was a nothing burger and no one cares who goes to jail for breaking the law. idiots on an afternoon. 
 

The domestic terrorism that lasted 6 months and watched cities burn, businesses looted and over 100 lives lost was ten times worse than the afternoon of the 6th. 

 

"small group" "nothing burger" "cities burn" "looted nothing"

 

first hit:

Quote

What is the legal definition of insurrection?

insurrection n

: the act or an instance of revolting esp. violently against civil or political authority or against an established government. ;also. : the crime of inciting or engaging in such revolt [whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or against the authority of the United States…

 

which sounds exactly like what hundreds, probably over a thousand, people did on 1/6, including the Dotard.

 

 

 

 

Tell me something, did Biden win the election, fair and square? Be honest now.

 

 

 

[GW Hayduke 1952]

I see the chicken sandwich insurrection thing as a reflection of two bubbles. One bubble sees the labeling of "insurrection" as mean, ugly, and an attack against their side, who are the obvious victims here.  The other bubble has access dictionary.com.

[Anastasis 23394]

1 hour ago, hpslugga said:

Do I think Donald Trump should have been impeached? Yes.

I agree.  For details described in Vol II.  And he should have been removed after Helsinki.

1 hour ago, hpslugga said:

First, I would ask how many is “many?” I can’t speak for anyone other than myself but I didn’t give a shit about the dossier one way or the other.

See the spoiler tag for a small sampling. There are some repeat customers, generally representing the people that whine the most about it when I bring it up. The really fun times were when some posters got really excited about the whole thing when news reports that were totally baseless really shored up their confidence, but the media treatment is a totally separate discussion.

 

1 hour ago, hpslugga said:

Second, how many, of this “many,” still cling to it?

Some, but not most, of the quotes are post Dec 2019. I do agree that there is a difference in the durability of the delusion, but you see in the reactions how some are still not quite able to come to grips with themselves. 
 

 

Spoiler

The dossier might as well be gospel at this point. Steele has been proven correct time and again. It is very solid work.

And worth noting - the Steele Dossier was mostly corroborated by the intelligence community and has widely been proven to be accurate. An in depth article on the Steele Dossier and it's veracity

very single thing that comes out about the subject matter of the dossier...supports it. It’s fucking true.

Re: the Steele dossier, which 1) Trump repeatedly refers to as "discredited," and 2) whenever any facts actually do come out, they match up with what was recorded in the dossier....I have a question.... Does "discredited" mean "dead-on, balls accurate?"

You still pretending the dossier isn't a reliable document? 

The Steele Dossier’s information was in fact, very reliable.

I wouldn't be making such bold predictions against the veracity of thedossier

Remember two years ago when Buzzfeed News published the Steele Dossier? How is that holding up?

There is nothing wrong with the FBI relying on the Steele Dossier to get a FISA warrant

How many points of the dossier have been proven false today? Zero. zilch. nada

Nothing in the dossier has been proven to be false.

So yet another piece of the dossier is correct.... [in reference to Prague]

 Remember Rosneft stock sale and Steele Dossier ?????

Except that a ton of information in the dossier has been proven to be accurate.

I can’t wait until every item in the dossier has been proven true except for the pee tape and Dotard keeps clinging to that as evidence that the dossier has been completely discredited.

Has any of the dossier actually been discredited? Like, any one part?

You espoused the Nunes/Gym Jordan conspiracy theory of the FISA warrant being based on the “phony” dossier despite this being disproven repeatedly.

You are making some assumptions that the dossier wasn't fully vetted by the proper authorities to find whether they warrant using against anyone, and then viewed against other vetted evidence to make a case.

Just read the criminal information in all the indictments starting with the Internet Research Agency and ending with the Cohen criminal information. Then read the Dossier. Mind blowing how it’s all starting to come together.

Along with Steele, I think Great Britain has the fucking goods on all this shit. That's why I think Louise Mensch scores a scoop now and then.* I suspect she has ties to an MP with access to intelligence. *She's also been wrong about plenty of shit, IMO.

 

 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Anastasis

[elfenix 34171]

do you keep a dossier?

[RomaVicta 29793]

22 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Hyperbolic. “Insurrection”. A small group of criminals who walked around the capital for 4 hours who burned nothing, looted Nancy and murdered no one. Charge them for their crimes. 
 

there is a desperation to turn 1/6 into the second civil war to validate the fear mongering projected during the Trump administration. It’s validation in your mind. 
 

to the average American (non CR poster or mainstream media) it was a nothing burger and no one cares who goes to jail for breaking the law. idiots on an afternoon. 
 

The domestic terrorism that lasted 6 months and watched cities burn, businesses looted and over 100 lives lost was ten times worse than the afternoon of the 6th. 

Negged for repeating lies about the events on Jan. 6 when there is video evidence that easily proves this was not people "walking around the capitol."  Did they all just happen to lean into the door crushing the police officer? Were they so interested in seeing the statuary that they bullied past police lines and sprayed police with bear spray as an act of joyfull exuberance? 

I won't neg you for being formidably obtuse regarding my earlier post. Your response evoked a laugh.

At your first attempt to prove your assertion that I demonized the opposition by defining them as anyone who rejects the Dem platform is another lie of yours. Willfully obtuse at every turn. 

I'm only on page 2 of the thread. My guess is that you've scurried away to some snowflake safe space where you can complain about being wronged by hypocrites who arrogantly lie and condemn. Thanks for justifying the use of your name in my parenthetical example. You are the face and voice of the GOP.

[Anastasis 23394]

4 hours ago, elfenix said:

do you keep a dossier?

Nope, just use the search function to follow the crumbs that reside in my pickled brain.  Honestly not sure why people complain about that board functionality.

 

6 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

My favorite Anastasis post is still when he said (paraphrasing here) that Hillary didn't ratfuck like Republicans ratfuck because she's more competent. 

Yeah that was pretty fucking great.

But this one was better, imo.

 

[Anastasis 23394]

Take that back.  It was actually "The Choice is Yours". 

[Doc Sam Beckett 5784]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Nope, just use the search function to follow the crumbs that reside in my pickled brain.  Honestly not sure why people complain about that board functionality.

 

The search function has always come through for me. Maybe you boners need to click the "all my words" option. 

[Walden Ponderer 12639]

OP has me thinking about a dumb joke I told on the football board that bombed. Prison humor reference, so I casually dropped a Chauvin reference, and it got called out as political. I would have called it out as stupid, personally, but...

Why the fuck is that political? It *ought* to just be a murder case, but it's not. And that seems to be the consensus. Why?

I think it's because the Right wants cops to be protected from consequences for their racism. And I don't see any evidence that would lead me to any other conclusion -- the evidence in that case was so overwhelming it seems tautological to say Chauvin is a murderer. Saying Ted Bundy is a murderer isn't a political statement, so why is this?

[High Plains Drifter 10977]

6 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

I'm only on page 2 of the thread. My guess is that you've scurried away to some snowflake safe space where you can complain about being wronged by hypocrites who arrogantly lie and condemn. Thanks for justifying the use of your name in my parenthetical example. You are the face and voice of the GOP.

 

 

Best way to drive the snowflakes off is to move the thread from DT to CR.

 

 

[hpslugga 4044]

20 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I agree.  For details described in Vol II.  And he should have been removed after Helsinki.

See the spoiler tag for a small sampling. There are some repeat customers, generally representing the people that whine the most about it when I bring it up. The really fun times were when some posters got really excited about the whole thing when news reports that were totally baseless really shored up their confidence, but the media treatment is a totally separate discussion.

 

Some, but not most, of the quotes are post Dec 2019. I do agree that there is a difference in the durability of the delusion, but you see in the reactions how some are still not quite able to come to grips with themselves. 
 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

The dossier might as well be gospel at this point. Steele has been proven correct time and again. It is very solid work.

And worth noting - the Steele Dossier was mostly corroborated by the intelligence community and has widely been proven to be accurate. An in depth article on the Steele Dossier and it's veracity

very single thing that comes out about the subject matter of the dossier...supports it. It’s fucking true.

Re: the Steele dossier, which 1) Trump repeatedly refers to as "discredited," and 2) whenever any facts actually do come out, they match up with what was recorded in the dossier....I have a question.... Does "discredited" mean "dead-on, balls accurate?"

You still pretending the dossier isn't a reliable document? 

The Steele Dossier’s information was in fact, very reliable.

I wouldn't be making such bold predictions against the veracity of thedossier

Remember two years ago when Buzzfeed News published the Steele Dossier? How is that holding up?

There is nothing wrong with the FBI relying on the Steele Dossier to get a FISA warrant

How many points of the dossier have been proven false today? Zero. zilch. nada

Nothing in the dossier has been proven to be false.

So yet another piece of the dossier is correct.... [in reference to Prague]

 Remember Rosneft stock sale and Steele Dossier ?????

Except that a ton of information in the dossier has been proven to be accurate.

I can’t wait until every item in the dossier has been proven true except for the pee tape and Dotard keeps clinging to that as evidence that the dossier has been completely discredited.

Has any of the dossier actually been discredited? Like, any one part?

You espoused the Nunes/Gym Jordan conspiracy theory of the FISA warrant being based on the “phony” dossier despite this being disproven repeatedly.

You are making some assumptions that the dossier wasn't fully vetted by the proper authorities to find whether they warrant using against anyone, and then viewed against other vetted evidence to make a case.

Just read the criminal information in all the indictments starting with the Internet Research Agency and ending with the Cohen criminal information. Then read the Dossier. Mind blowing how it’s all starting to come together.

Along with Steele, I think Great Britain has the fucking goods on all this shit. That's why I think Louise Mensch scores a scoop now and then.* I suspect she has ties to an MP with access to intelligence. *She's also been wrong about plenty of shit, IMO.

 

 

And you really don't see how people can detect the utter tone deafness on your part when you seem to equate, for example, 20 quotes that, according to you, were posted more than 16 months ago by fewer than 20 people with a belief that either was adopted by or sympathized with by 72% of Republican voters?

[Anastasis 23394]

7 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

And you really don't see how people can detect the utter tone deafness on your part when you seem to equate, for example, 20 quotes that, according to you, were posted more than 16 months ago by fewer than 20 people with a belief that either was adopted by or sympathized with by 72% of Republican voters?

I didn't equate anything, in fact explicitly the opposite, twice. Not so sure why you are feeling so defensive about me pointing out the prevalence of political conspiracies that have actually left tracks across this sub. 

While you bang a drum about false equivalence, your slight of hand does not go unnoticed. Certainly, you don't honestly believe that 72% of Republican voters think that President Trump is defending the planet from a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles who are running a secret child sex-trafficking ring.

[hpslugga 4044]

22 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I didn't equate anything, in fact explicitly the opposite, twice. Not so sure why you are feeling so defensive

You're projecting as I have nothing to be defensive about. And why should I? This wasn't about anything I've done or said over the years; this is about you and your commitment to obsessive whataboutism. I'm not the first person to call it out, even if we limit that to just this thread.

You knew better than to say something like that.

Quote

your slight of hand does not go unnoticed. Certainly, you don't honestly believe that 72% of Republican voters think that President Trump is defending the planet from a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles who are running a secret child sex-trafficking ring.

I wasn't even referring to QAnon. You just assumed that. But see, that's the point. When it comes to batshit nuttery, GOP voters aren't short on material. I was actually referring to birtherism, which is at least sympathized with (if not wholly embraced) by 72% of registered GOP voters. 41% of participants in a 2016 poll indicated that they "disagreed" with the statement "Barack Obama was born in the United States" while an additional 31% "had doubts." In other words, even despite being presented concrete, irrefutable evidence to prove the fact of the statement fully 5 years before the poll was taken, 72% of GOP voters will not say that they agree with it. And that's just the most egregious example. Again, we also have Jade Helm 15, the stolen election of 2020, QAnon, Pizzagate, Seth Rich, Vince Foster, COVID is a hoax being perpetrated by the Chinese, etc. That laundry list is considerably longer than whatever dreams Democratic voters are having. You spend far less time and effort pointing that out than you do with your silly little "both sides!!!" comments.

Edited April 23, 2021 by hpslugga

[Anastasis 23394]

12 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

I wasn't even referring to QAnon. You just assumed that.

LOL. I see, it wasn't even slight of hand. Good talk man.   

[workswithseed 2037]

12 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

 

Best way to drive the snowflakes off is to move the thread from DT to CR.

 

 

No shit, this is the truth. It's what happens when you go from annoying semi political stances to literal hell.

[hayden_horn 11360]

11 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

LOL. I see, it wasn't even slight of hand. Good talk man.   

*sleight

[Anastasis 23394]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

*sleight

Shit. At least is wasn't the less/fewer thing. 

[elfenix 34171]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Shit. At least is wasn't the less/fewer thing. 

fucking prescriptivists!

[Mole 4320]

16 hours ago, Walden Ponderer said:

OP has me thinking about a dumb joke I told on the football board that bombed. Prison humor reference, so I casually dropped a Chauvin reference, and it got called out as political. I would have called it out as stupid, personally, but...

Why the fuck is that political? It *ought* to just be a murder case, but it's not. And that seems to be the consensus. Why?

I think it's because the Right wants cops to be protected from consequences for their racism. And I don't see any evidence that would lead me to any other conclusion -- the evidence in that case was so overwhelming it seems tautological to say Chauvin is a murderer. Saying Ted Bundy is a murderer isn't a political statement, so why is this?

Let’s go further with this line of thought.
 

Trump won the 2016: a generally agreed upon, non-political statement of fact. The foreign interference issue is related, but not the same. It’s about politics, but it’s a basic fact.

Obama won in 2012. Also a simple statement of fact.

And so on for basically any election prior to 2020. You’ll get some pushback on Bush/Gore, but not even close to the extent of 2020 and still, the statement, “Bush won the 2000 election” would mostly be accepted as a statement of fact about politics rather than a political statement open to debate.

Biden won the 2020 election. For a substantial portion of our population, this is a controversial, debatable, political statement rather than a simple factual statement.

COVID killed 500,000+ Americans: another fact that is now politics.

A pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol and tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power (insurrection), killing a number of people in the process. Cops were beaten with flags and crushed in doors; the mob claimed to want to execute leaders of government and were searching the halls of the Capitol looking for them; the paused in ransacking the Senate chambers to pray “in Jesus name;” they did all of this because the outgoing president repeatedly lied about the results of the election. This also somehow a debatable (hyperbolic) political statement rather than a simple recounting of facts.

And on and on. When everything is political, there is no longer agreed upon reality. 

Growing up in conservative communities, I often heard about the dangers of post-modernism and moral relativism; how “my truth” is replacing objective facts with opinion. Even in recent years, we’ve heard that “facts don’t care about your feelings.”

And yet the very same voices that decried the downfall of objective truth are tearing or limb from limb.

There’s room for debate on taxes or abortion or immigration or whatever. There’s no room for debate on basic reality. Anyone who disagrees with me on taxes or abortion just disagrees, no big deal; the real problem is anyone that won’t engage in reality.

Cry all you want about trans athletes suddenly dominating women’s sports or whatever latest fear I’m supposed to have, but anti-reality and right wing have become synonymous.

 

[Beau Vine 54003]

 

nm

Edited April 23, 2021 by Beau Vine

[hpslugga 4044]

46 minutes ago, Mole said:

Let’s go further with this line of thought.
 

Trump won the 2016: a generally agreed upon, non-political statement of fact. The foreign interference issue is related, but not the same. It’s about politics, but it’s a basic fact.

Obama won in 2012. Also a simple statement of fact.

And so on for basically any election prior to 2020. You’ll get some pushback on Bush/Gore, but not even close to the extent of 2020 and still, the statement, “Bush won the 2000 election” would mostly be accepted as a statement of fact about politics rather than a political statement open to debate.

Biden won the 2020 election. For a substantial portion of our population, this is a controversial, debatable, political statement rather than a simple factual statement.

COVID killed 500,000+ Americans: another fact that is now politics.

A pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol and tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power (insurrection), killing a number of people in the process. Cops were beaten with flags and crushed in doors; the mob claimed to want to execute leaders of government and were searching the halls of the Capitol looking for them; the paused in ransacking the Senate chambers to pray “in Jesus name;” they did all of this because the outgoing president repeatedly lied about the results of the election. This also somehow a debatable (hyperbolic) political statement rather than a simple recounting of facts.

And on and on. When everything is political, there is no longer agreed upon reality. 

Growing up in conservative communities, I often heard about the dangers of post-modernism and moral relativism; how “my truth” is replacing objective facts with opinion. Even in recent years, we’ve heard that “facts don’t care about your feelings.”

And yet the very same voices that decried the downfall of objective truth are tearing or limb from limb.

There’s room for debate on taxes or abortion or immigration or whatever. There’s no room for debate on basic reality. Anyone who disagrees with me on taxes or abortion just disagrees, no big deal; the real problem is anyone that won’t engage in reality.

Cry all you want about trans athletes suddenly dominating women’s sports or whatever latest fear I’m supposed to have, but anti-reality and right wing have become synonymous.

 

Goddamn, all of motherfucking this.

[cam4mav 770]

1 hour ago, Mole said:

And on and on. When everything is political, there is no longer agreed upon reality. 

Whole post was spot on but I wanted to highlight this.

Was talking to my folks about this a few days ago, trying to explain the QAnon phenomenon and how the fuck we got there. How political polarization combined with social media herding people into like minded groups to create interactions that get progressively more extreme in idea. These bubbles become echo chambers without counter balances. This is exactly where the disconnect is. It's not a difference of ideas or policies. It's become a complete separation of experienced realities.

Like a fork in the road of time travel or something, the alt right fearmongering religious conservative lives in a different universe than the rest of us. Facts are no longer facts, they've become opinions that are shrugged off and replaced with extreme opinions that get believed as facts. Social media echo chambers reinforce these extreme opinions and they become "obviously" true, when they are simply not. But the belief is there. The faith in that being unquestionably true is there. And it's dangerous as fuck.

Facts used to unite us in one world where disagreement and discussion was possible because there was at least mutually agreed upon points of intersection. 

 

edit: In fairness, the mechanism of polarization + social media echo chamber = more extremism with less and less grounding in reality is not exclusive to the right, obviously.

Echo chambers have produced extremists throughout history, they normally have been literal bubbles with lack of outside world interaction. See indoctrination of kids into jihadism, hippy cults turned terrorists in California, whatever. Same basic idea. If all you know is the story from one source, it sure seems true. Those extremists are grown in literal bubbles with zero attachment/access to the outside world.

The current political extremism is by fucking choice by people with access to all the information in the world at their fingertips via their phone and computers.... The irony is that same access that should act as a counterbalance was actually the method of rapid spread and introduction of insane ideas to millions more. woops.

It's just spread like wildfire. The perfect storm of tea party and increased social media utilization among older ages combined to form one hell of a seed that has grown into a major fuck storm.

Edited April 23, 2021 by cam4mav

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

4/28/2021

Joe:”The worst attack on our democracy since the civil war”

 

[Captainant 27464]

15 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

4/28/2021

Joe:”The worst attack on our democracy since the civil war”

 

Your boys tried to interrupt the execution of the US constitution, by way of executing the VP and chain of succession. Or did I misread the "hang mike pence" signs and functional gallows erected on the capitol lawn?

[Willfully Horn 7915]

2 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

4/28/2021

Joe:”The worst attack on our democracy since the civil war”

 

You seem to relish being a shitty American. 
 

RW trolls and far left haters want to tear this country apart.

Edited April 29, 2021 by Willfully Horn
Editorial

[DigglerontheHoof 21065]

7 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

4/28/2021

Joe:”The worst attack on our democracy since the civil war”

 

You're a traitor. 

[Dahobbs 17447]

8 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

4/28/2021

Joe:”The worst attack on our democracy since the civil war”

 

What are the other attacks since the civil war? Honestly, 1/6/2021 is one of the few literal attacks on our democracy that I can think of. The Japanese attacked a military base, not democracy itself. I could see arguments for the assassinations of Lincoln and Kennedy counting. What else is there? 

[DalTxHornFan 3085]

38 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

What are the other attacks since the civil war? Honestly, 1/6/2021 is one of the few literal attacks on our democracy that I can think of. The Japanese attacked a military base, not democracy itself. I could see arguments for the assassinations of Lincoln and Kennedy counting. What else is there? 

Here are a couple to consider:

1954 Puerto Rican terrorists shooting in the House of Representatives

1971 Weather Underground bombing in Capitol Building

1981 Reagan assassination attempt

2017 assassination attempt of Republican congressmen at baseball practice 

[Nivek 16860]

The 1981 assassination attempt by John Hinkley Jr. who was trying to get the attention of actress Jodi Foster is an attempt to thwart our representative democracy?

Haha ha ha ha god you are fucking stupid. Here is the real funny part. I didn’t just insult you. I pointed out a fact which also doubles as an insult.

[DigglerontheHoof 21065]

18 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Here are a couple to consider:

1954 Puerto Rican terrorists shooting in the House of Representatives

1971 Weather Underground bombing in Capitol Building

1981 Reagan assassination attempt

2017 assassination attempt of Republican congressmen at baseball practice 

Can you point out which ones of those had a sitting president asking, no imploring them to do those acts?  And can you also point out which of those you posted were to interrupt the peaceful transfer of power from one president to the next, you mouth-breathing moron?

[DalTxHornFan 3085]

3 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Can you point out which ones of those had a sitting president asking, no imploring them to do those acts?  And can you also point out which of those you posted were to interrupt the peaceful transfer of power from one president to the next, you mouth-breathing moron?

This is what is called "moving the goal posts" -- I was simply responding (accurately) to Dahobbs question. 

Nice personal attack on me, BTW.  Have fun, guys.

[DigglerontheHoof 21065]

1 minute ago, DalTxHornFan said:

This is what is called "moving the goal posts" -- I was simply responding (accurately) to Dahobbs question. 

Nice personal attack on me, BTW.  Have fun, guys.

No, you didn't respond "accurately".  You weren't even in the same country as "accurate".   None of the events you listed were an attack on democracy.  They were certainly terrorist and assassination attacks but at no point was our form of government under attack by the sitting POTUS (who just fairly and accurately lost the election) who was rallying his moronic supporters blocks from the Capitol to go over and fight like hell to stop a Constitutional process of peacefully transferring power.

But you have a point on the personal attack.  Your post was a mouth-breathing moronic post.  I'm sure you're cool and all. 

[The Royal We 3065]

2 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

This is what is called "moving the goal posts" -- I was simply responding (accurately) to Dahobbs question. 

Nice personal attack on me, BTW.  Have fun, guys.

i.e., I realize my take was incorrect and I'm taking my ball and going back to the safe space of the DT.

Seriously, all of those were horrific events, but they are missing a pretty clear differentiator with 1/6 - the sitting POTUS' team organizing said event... 

This isn't that difficult.

[Captainant 27464]

5 minutes ago, The Royal We said:

i.e., I realize my take was incorrect and I'm taking my ball and going back to the safe space of the DT.

Seriously, all of those were horrific events, but they are missing a pretty clear differentiator with 1/6 - the sitting POTUS' team organizing said event... 

This isn't that difficult.

For real. Trumps admin pulled strings to get the Jan 6 permit for the event! It was previously planned to be in Feb for fucks sake

[Dahobbs 17447]

31 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Here are a couple to consider:

1954 Puerto Rican terrorists shooting in the House of Representatives

1971 Weather Underground bombing in Capitol Building

1981 Reagan assassination attempt

2017 assassination attempt of Republican congressmen at baseball practice 

Not a terrible list. 1954 and 1971 I would think count as an attack on democracy to some extent, but not 1981 or 2017. I don't think it is unfair to call 1/6/2021 worse than 1954 or 1971 given that its stated goal was to stop the peaceful, democratic transfer of power and given that it was supported by the sitting president.  Therefore, I still think it is fair to call the 1/6/2021, one of the three worst attack on our democracy since the civil war (the others being the assassinations of Lincoln of Kennedy, although I think really only Lincoln was an attack on democracy). So, I'll rate the statement slightly hyperbolic. 

[Js1 85110]

47 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Here are a couple to consider:

1954 Puerto Rican terrorists shooting in the House of Representatives

1971 Weather Underground bombing in Capitol Building

1981 Reagan assassination attempt

2017 assassination attempt of Republican congressmen at baseball practice 

If 2017 counts, then Gabby Giffords' assassination attempt has to be part of that too. 

Edited April 29, 2021 by Js1

[Nivek 16860]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

If 2017 counts, then Gabby Giffords' assassination attempt has to be part of that too. 

Attacks on Libs are their fault, or just mental illness.  

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

On 4/29/2021 at 9:12 AM, DalTxHornFan said:

2017 assassination attempt of Republican congressmen at baseball practice 

Six people actually died and another 13 were injured in the shooting of Gabbie Giffords, dumbass.