Capitol Riots 2

18911131449

Comments

  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 38,853
    edited June 2021
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Why would they not back this?  The language used in the bill they say...

    Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.

    If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
    Politically is on the other end of the spectrum from "prosecutors".  I don't understand what you mean.  
    I shortcut when I write instead of explaining it all sometimes...

    The reasoning for some NOT to back it was because of the language used in the bill.

    I find it preposterous to look at the bill that way.

    If, and only if the language in this bill gets used down the road to legally persecute people, we as a country are in really bad shape.

    It boils down to if you make a bill to honor people then cherry pick statements from it to use in court cases to me, is bad.


    I do take time to hear the counterpoints and put them in reason.
    I think you meant "prosecute?" Those two words are not interchangeable.
    mrussel1 said:
    Why would they not back this?  The language used in the bill they say...

    Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.

    If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
    Politically is on the other end of the spectrum from "prosecutors".  I don't understand what you mean.  
    I shortcut when I write instead of explaining it all sometimes...

    The reasoning for some NOT to back it was because of the language used in the bill.

    I find it preposterous to look at the bill that way.

    If, and only if the language in this bill gets used down the road to legally persecute people, we as a country are in really bad shape.

    It boils down to if you make a bill to honor people then cherry pick statements from it to use in court cases to me, is bad.


    I do take time to hear the counterpoints and put them in reason.
    I think you meant "prosecute?" Those two words are not interchangeable.
    Since you both get that I wrote the wrong word and "prosecute" is it.  Do you understand it now?
    Words matter. Words matter.
    I know, I know, but you both knew what I meant, I didn't proof read, bad habit...
    I don't make assumptions.  Otherwise I would assume you knew you can only be charged under the criminal code. 
    You said "I think you meant prosecute".  That is assuming...

    And you were right.
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 38,853
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Why would they not back this?  The language used in the bill they say...

    Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.

    If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
    Politically is on the other end of the spectrum from "prosecutors".  I don't understand what you mean.  
    I shortcut when I write instead of explaining it all sometimes...

    The reasoning for some NOT to back it was because of the language used in the bill.

    I find it preposterous to look at the bill that way.

    If, and only if the language in this bill gets used down the road to legally persecute people, we as a country are in really bad shape.

    It boils down to if you make a bill to honor people then cherry pick statements from it to use in court cases to me, is bad.


    I do take time to hear the counterpoints and put them in reason.
    this bill is simply to award a congressional gold medal to captial police on duty that day. 

    Correct but 12 people whom voted for it do not.

    Capitol?  I know what you meant but everyone says "words matter".
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 35,808
    Darwinspeed, all. 

    Cheers,

    HFD




  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 36,482
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Why would they not back this?  The language used in the bill they say...

    Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.

    If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
    Politically is on the other end of the spectrum from "prosecutors".  I don't understand what you mean.  
    I shortcut when I write instead of explaining it all sometimes...

    The reasoning for some NOT to back it was because of the language used in the bill.

    I find it preposterous to look at the bill that way.

    If, and only if the language in this bill gets used down the road to legally persecute people, we as a country are in really bad shape.

    It boils down to if you make a bill to honor people then cherry pick statements from it to use in court cases to me, is bad.


    I do take time to hear the counterpoints and put them in reason.
    this bill is simply to award a congressional gold medal to captial police on duty that day. 

    Correct but 12 people whom voted for it do not.

    Capitol?  I know what you meant but everyone says "words matter".
    I'm not convinced that your use of the word "persecute" in the context that you used it was accidental or due to a lack of proof reading. Very Fucker Carlson of you. Whereas in Mickey's context, it could be chalked up to misspelling.

    Words matter. Words matter.
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 38,853
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Why would they not back this?  The language used in the bill they say...

    Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.

    If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
    Politically is on the other end of the spectrum from "prosecutors".  I don't understand what you mean.  
    I shortcut when I write instead of explaining it all sometimes...

    The reasoning for some NOT to back it was because of the language used in the bill.

    I find it preposterous to look at the bill that way.

    If, and only if the language in this bill gets used down the road to legally persecute people, we as a country are in really bad shape.

    It boils down to if you make a bill to honor people then cherry pick statements from it to use in court cases to me, is bad.


    I do take time to hear the counterpoints and put them in reason.
    this bill is simply to award a congressional gold medal to captial police on duty that day. 

    Correct but 12 people whom voted for it do not.

    Capitol?  I know what you meant but everyone says "words matter".
    I'm not convinced that your use of the word "persecute" in the context that you used it was accidental or due to a lack of proof reading. Very Fucker Carlson of you. Whereas in Mickey's context, it could be chalked up to misspelling.

    Words matter. Words matter.
    The quote I used says "prosecutors".  The word was  quoted even.  I just messed up the word.  Even if I had meant to use "persecute" what does it matter?  
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 35,808
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Why would they not back this?  The language used in the bill they say...

    Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.

    If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
    Politically is on the other end of the spectrum from "prosecutors".  I don't understand what you mean.  
    I shortcut when I write instead of explaining it all sometimes...

    The reasoning for some NOT to back it was because of the language used in the bill.

    I find it preposterous to look at the bill that way.

    If, and only if the language in this bill gets used down the road to legally persecute people, we as a country are in really bad shape.

    It boils down to if you make a bill to honor people then cherry pick statements from it to use in court cases to me, is bad.


    I do take time to hear the counterpoints and put them in reason.
    this bill is simply to award a congressional gold medal to captial police on duty that day. 

    Correct but 12 people whom voted for it do not.

    Capitol?  I know what you meant but everyone says "words matter".
    I'm not convinced that your use of the word "persecute" in the context that you used it was accidental or due to a lack of proof reading. Very Fucker Carlson of you. Whereas in Mickey's context, it could be chalked up to misspelling.

    Words matter. Words matter.
    The quote I used says "prosecutors".  The word was  quoted even.  I just messed up the word.  Even if I had meant to use "persecute" what does it matter?  
    I knew what you meant. An odd thing to keep going back and forth on, I agree. 
    Darwinspeed, all. 

    Cheers,

    HFD




  • mickeyratmickeyrat up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,429
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Why would they not back this?  The language used in the bill they say...

    Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.

    If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
    Politically is on the other end of the spectrum from "prosecutors".  I don't understand what you mean.  
    I shortcut when I write instead of explaining it all sometimes...

    The reasoning for some NOT to back it was because of the language used in the bill.

    I find it preposterous to look at the bill that way.

    If, and only if the language in this bill gets used down the road to legally persecute people, we as a country are in really bad shape.

    It boils down to if you make a bill to honor people then cherry pick statements from it to use in court cases to me, is bad.


    I do take time to hear the counterpoints and put them in reason.
    this bill is simply to award a congressional gold medal to captial police on duty that day. 

    Correct but 12 people whom voted for it do not.

    Capitol?  I know what you meant but everyone says "words matter".

    I have a suggestion. guess what it is.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 38,853
    mickeyrat said:
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Why would they not back this?  The language used in the bill they say...

    Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.

    If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
    Politically is on the other end of the spectrum from "prosecutors".  I don't understand what you mean.  
    I shortcut when I write instead of explaining it all sometimes...

    The reasoning for some NOT to back it was because of the language used in the bill.

    I find it preposterous to look at the bill that way.

    If, and only if the language in this bill gets used down the road to legally persecute people, we as a country are in really bad shape.

    It boils down to if you make a bill to honor people then cherry pick statements from it to use in court cases to me, is bad.


    I do take time to hear the counterpoints and put them in reason.
    this bill is simply to award a congressional gold medal to captial police on duty that day. 

    Correct but 12 people whom voted for it do not.

    Capitol?  I know what you meant but everyone says "words matter".

    I have a suggestion. guess what it is.
    I agree with you so not sure why you're getting snarky?
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 36,482
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Why would they not back this?  The language used in the bill they say...

    Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.

    If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
    Politically is on the other end of the spectrum from "prosecutors".  I don't understand what you mean.  
    I shortcut when I write instead of explaining it all sometimes...

    The reasoning for some NOT to back it was because of the language used in the bill.

    I find it preposterous to look at the bill that way.

    If, and only if the language in this bill gets used down the road to legally persecute people, we as a country are in really bad shape.

    It boils down to if you make a bill to honor people then cherry pick statements from it to use in court cases to me, is bad.


    I do take time to hear the counterpoints and put them in reason.
    this bill is simply to award a congressional gold medal to captial police on duty that day. 

    Correct but 12 people whom voted for it do not.

    Capitol?  I know what you meant but everyone says "words matter".
    I'm not convinced that your use of the word "persecute" in the context that you used it was accidental or due to a lack of proof reading. Very Fucker Carlson of you. Whereas in Mickey's context, it could be chalked up to misspelling.

    Words matter. Words matter.
    The quote I used says "prosecutors".  The word was  quoted even.  I just messed up the word.  Even if I had meant to use "persecute" what does it matter?  
    Guess you missed the question mark in my reply? What does it matter? Good god there's not enough patience in a lifetime to explain the difference between "persecute" and "prosecute" in the context that you used the word "persecute." Sure am glad you cleared that up.
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 38,853
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Why would they not back this?  The language used in the bill they say...

    Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.

    If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
    Politically is on the other end of the spectrum from "prosecutors".  I don't understand what you mean.  
    I shortcut when I write instead of explaining it all sometimes...

    The reasoning for some NOT to back it was because of the language used in the bill.

    I find it preposterous to look at the bill that way.

    If, and only if the language in this bill gets used down the road to legally persecute people, we as a country are in really bad shape.

    It boils down to if you make a bill to honor people then cherry pick statements from it to use in court cases to me, is bad.


    I do take time to hear the counterpoints and put them in reason.
    this bill is simply to award a congressional gold medal to captial police on duty that day. 

    Correct but 12 people whom voted for it do not.

    Capitol?  I know what you meant but everyone says "words matter".
    I'm not convinced that your use of the word "persecute" in the context that you used it was accidental or due to a lack of proof reading. Very Fucker Carlson of you. Whereas in Mickey's context, it could be chalked up to misspelling.

    Words matter. Words matter.
    The quote I used says "prosecutors".  The word was  quoted even.  I just messed up the word.  Even if I had meant to use "persecute" what does it matter?  
    Guess you missed the question mark in my reply? What does it matter? Good god there's not enough patience in a lifetime to explain the difference between "persecute" and "prosecute" in the context that you used the word "persecute." Sure am glad you cleared that up.
    I don't understand what you are trying to get at, I really don't...

    I understand the difference of the words.  I wrote the wrong one and you and another picked up on it and both admitted I was wrong yet we are still going around with this?


  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 36,482
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Why would they not back this?  The language used in the bill they say...

    Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.

    If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
    Politically is on the other end of the spectrum from "prosecutors".  I don't understand what you mean.  
    I shortcut when I write instead of explaining it all sometimes...

    The reasoning for some NOT to back it was because of the language used in the bill.

    I find it preposterous to look at the bill that way.

    If, and only if the language in this bill gets used down the road to legally persecute people, we as a country are in really bad shape.

    It boils down to if you make a bill to honor people then cherry pick statements from it to use in court cases to me, is bad.


    I do take time to hear the counterpoints and put them in reason.
    this bill is simply to award a congressional gold medal to captial police on duty that day. 

    Correct but 12 people whom voted for it do not.

    Capitol?  I know what you meant but everyone says "words matter".
    I'm not convinced that your use of the word "persecute" in the context that you used it was accidental or due to a lack of proof reading. Very Fucker Carlson of you. Whereas in Mickey's context, it could be chalked up to misspelling.

    Words matter. Words matter.
    The quote I used says "prosecutors".  The word was  quoted even.  I just messed up the word.  Even if I had meant to use "persecute" what does it matter?  
    Guess you missed the question mark in my reply? What does it matter? Good god there's not enough patience in a lifetime to explain the difference between "persecute" and "prosecute" in the context that you used the word "persecute." Sure am glad you cleared that up.
    I don't understand what you are trying to get at, I really don't...

    I understand the difference of the words.  I wrote the wrong one and you and another picked up on it and both admitted I was wrong yet we are still going around with this?


    You then asked, depending on which word was used, “what difference does it make?” and tried to equate that to a misspelled word. The difference, if you really don’t know, is quite large and substantial in their meaning and consequences, particularly in the context of your original post. The events of January 6th are not a laughing matter, nor one to be so easily misrepresented or glib about. January 6th wasn’t the end but the beginning.
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 38,853
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Why would they not back this?  The language used in the bill they say...

    Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.

    If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
    Politically is on the other end of the spectrum from "prosecutors".  I don't understand what you mean.  
    I shortcut when I write instead of explaining it all sometimes...

    The reasoning for some NOT to back it was because of the language used in the bill.

    I find it preposterous to look at the bill that way.

    If, and only if the language in this bill gets used down the road to legally persecute people, we as a country are in really bad shape.

    It boils down to if you make a bill to honor people then cherry pick statements from it to use in court cases to me, is bad.


    I do take time to hear the counterpoints and put them in reason.
    this bill is simply to award a congressional gold medal to captial police on duty that day. 

    Correct but 12 people whom voted for it do not.

    Capitol?  I know what you meant but everyone says "words matter".
    I'm not convinced that your use of the word "persecute" in the context that you used it was accidental or due to a lack of proof reading. Very Fucker Carlson of you. Whereas in Mickey's context, it could be chalked up to misspelling.

    Words matter. Words matter.
    The quote I used says "prosecutors".  The word was  quoted even.  I just messed up the word.  Even if I had meant to use "persecute" what does it matter?  
    Guess you missed the question mark in my reply? What does it matter? Good god there's not enough patience in a lifetime to explain the difference between "persecute" and "prosecute" in the context that you used the word "persecute." Sure am glad you cleared that up.
    I don't understand what you are trying to get at, I really don't...

    I understand the difference of the words.  I wrote the wrong one and you and another picked up on it and both admitted I was wrong yet we are still going around with this?


    You then asked, depending on which word was used, “what difference does it make?” and tried to equate that to a misspelled word. The difference, if you really don’t know, is quite large and substantial in their meaning and consequences, particularly in the context of your original post. The events of January 6th are not a laughing matter, nor one to be so easily misrepresented or glib about. January 6th wasn’t the end but the beginning.
    I said you were right.
    I misspelled the word.
    I admitted to the above.
    I know the difference.
    Nobody is laughing.

    Move on.

    You just argue to the point of arguing.
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 36,482
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Why would they not back this?  The language used in the bill they say...

    Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.

    If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
    Politically is on the other end of the spectrum from "prosecutors".  I don't understand what you mean.  
    I shortcut when I write instead of explaining it all sometimes...

    The reasoning for some NOT to back it was because of the language used in the bill.

    I find it preposterous to look at the bill that way.

    If, and only if the language in this bill gets used down the road to legally persecute people, we as a country are in really bad shape.

    It boils down to if you make a bill to honor people then cherry pick statements from it to use in court cases to me, is bad.


    I do take time to hear the counterpoints and put them in reason.
    this bill is simply to award a congressional gold medal to captial police on duty that day. 

    Correct but 12 people whom voted for it do not.

    Capitol?  I know what you meant but everyone says "words matter".
    I'm not convinced that your use of the word "persecute" in the context that you used it was accidental or due to a lack of proof reading. Very Fucker Carlson of you. Whereas in Mickey's context, it could be chalked up to misspelling.

    Words matter. Words matter.
    The quote I used says "prosecutors".  The word was  quoted even.  I just messed up the word.  Even if I had meant to use "persecute" what does it matter?  
    Guess you missed the question mark in my reply? What does it matter? Good god there's not enough patience in a lifetime to explain the difference between "persecute" and "prosecute" in the context that you used the word "persecute." Sure am glad you cleared that up.
    I don't understand what you are trying to get at, I really don't...

    I understand the difference of the words.  I wrote the wrong one and you and another picked up on it and both admitted I was wrong yet we are still going around with this?


    You then asked, depending on which word was used, “what difference does it make?” and tried to equate that to a misspelled word. The difference, if you really don’t know, is quite large and substantial in their meaning and consequences, particularly in the context of your original post. The events of January 6th are not a laughing matter, nor one to be so easily misrepresented or glib about. January 6th wasn’t the end but the beginning.
    I said you were right.
    I misspelled the word.
    I admitted to the above.
    I know the difference.
    Nobody is laughing.

    Move on.

    You just argue to the point of arguing.
    No, I’m making my point AFTER you claimed “not to understand what I was getting at.” Do yourself a favor and proof read your posts if you don’t want to be misunderstood. Really.

    Have a great day!
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 38,853
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Why would they not back this?  The language used in the bill they say...

    Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.

    If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
    Politically is on the other end of the spectrum from "prosecutors".  I don't understand what you mean.  
    I shortcut when I write instead of explaining it all sometimes...

    The reasoning for some NOT to back it was because of the language used in the bill.

    I find it preposterous to look at the bill that way.

    If, and only if the language in this bill gets used down the road to legally persecute people, we as a country are in really bad shape.

    It boils down to if you make a bill to honor people then cherry pick statements from it to use in court cases to me, is bad.


    I do take time to hear the counterpoints and put them in reason.
    this bill is simply to award a congressional gold medal to captial police on duty that day. 

    Correct but 12 people whom voted for it do not.

    Capitol?  I know what you meant but everyone says "words matter".
    I'm not convinced that your use of the word "persecute" in the context that you used it was accidental or due to a lack of proof reading. Very Fucker Carlson of you. Whereas in Mickey's context, it could be chalked up to misspelling.

    Words matter. Words matter.
    The quote I used says "prosecutors".  The word was  quoted even.  I just messed up the word.  Even if I had meant to use "persecute" what does it matter?  
    Guess you missed the question mark in my reply? What does it matter? Good god there's not enough patience in a lifetime to explain the difference between "persecute" and "prosecute" in the context that you used the word "persecute." Sure am glad you cleared that up.
    I don't understand what you are trying to get at, I really don't...

    I understand the difference of the words.  I wrote the wrong one and you and another picked up on it and both admitted I was wrong yet we are still going around with this?


    You then asked, depending on which word was used, “what difference does it make?” and tried to equate that to a misspelled word. The difference, if you really don’t know, is quite large and substantial in their meaning and consequences, particularly in the context of your original post. The events of January 6th are not a laughing matter, nor one to be so easily misrepresented or glib about. January 6th wasn’t the end but the beginning.
    I said you were right.
    I misspelled the word.
    I admitted to the above.
    I know the difference.
    Nobody is laughing.

    Move on.

    You just argue to the point of arguing.
    No, I’m making my point AFTER you claimed “not to understand what I was getting at.” Do yourself a favor and proof read your posts if you don’t want to be misunderstood. Really.

    Have a great day!
    Tool
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,602
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Why would they not back this?  The language used in the bill they say...

    Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.

    If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
    Politically is on the other end of the spectrum from "prosecutors".  I don't understand what you mean.  
    I shortcut when I write instead of explaining it all sometimes...

    The reasoning for some NOT to back it was because of the language used in the bill.

    I find it preposterous to look at the bill that way.

    If, and only if the language in this bill gets used down the road to legally persecute people, we as a country are in really bad shape.

    It boils down to if you make a bill to honor people then cherry pick statements from it to use in court cases to me, is bad.


    I do take time to hear the counterpoints and put them in reason.
    this bill is simply to award a congressional gold medal to captial police on duty that day. 

    Correct but 12 people whom voted for it do not.

    Capitol?  I know what you meant but everyone says "words matter".
    I'm not convinced that your use of the word "persecute" in the context that you used it was accidental or due to a lack of proof reading. Very Fucker Carlson of you. Whereas in Mickey's context, it could be chalked up to misspelling.

    Words matter. Words matter.
    The quote I used says "prosecutors".  The word was  quoted even.  I just messed up the word.  Even if I had meant to use "persecute" what does it matter?  
    Guess you missed the question mark in my reply? What does it matter? Good god there's not enough patience in a lifetime to explain the difference between "persecute" and "prosecute" in the context that you used the word "persecute." Sure am glad you cleared that up.
    I don't understand what you are trying to get at, I really don't...

    I understand the difference of the words.  I wrote the wrong one and you and another picked up on it and both admitted I was wrong yet we are still going around with this?


    You then asked, depending on which word was used, “what difference does it make?” and tried to equate that to a misspelled word. The difference, if you really don’t know, is quite large and substantial in their meaning and consequences, particularly in the context of your original post. The events of January 6th are not a laughing matter, nor one to be so easily misrepresented or glib about. January 6th wasn’t the end but the beginning.
    I said you were right.
    I misspelled the word.
    I admitted to the above.
    I know the difference.
    Nobody is laughing.

    Move on.

    You just argue to the point of arguing.
    No, I’m making my point AFTER you claimed “not to understand what I was getting at.” Do yourself a favor and proof read your posts if you don’t want to be misunderstood. Really.

    Have a great day!
    Tool
    Stinkfist
  • mickeyratmickeyrat up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,429
    mrussel1 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Why would they not back this?  The language used in the bill they say...

    Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.

    If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
    Politically is on the other end of the spectrum from "prosecutors".  I don't understand what you mean.  
    I shortcut when I write instead of explaining it all sometimes...

    The reasoning for some NOT to back it was because of the language used in the bill.

    I find it preposterous to look at the bill that way.

    If, and only if the language in this bill gets used down the road to legally persecute people, we as a country are in really bad shape.

    It boils down to if you make a bill to honor people then cherry pick statements from it to use in court cases to me, is bad.


    I do take time to hear the counterpoints and put them in reason.
    this bill is simply to award a congressional gold medal to captial police on duty that day. 

    Correct but 12 people whom voted for it do not.

    Capitol?  I know what you meant but everyone says "words matter".
    I'm not convinced that your use of the word "persecute" in the context that you used it was accidental or due to a lack of proof reading. Very Fucker Carlson of you. Whereas in Mickey's context, it could be chalked up to misspelling.

    Words matter. Words matter.
    The quote I used says "prosecutors".  The word was  quoted even.  I just messed up the word.  Even if I had meant to use "persecute" what does it matter?  
    Guess you missed the question mark in my reply? What does it matter? Good god there's not enough patience in a lifetime to explain the difference between "persecute" and "prosecute" in the context that you used the word "persecute." Sure am glad you cleared that up.
    I don't understand what you are trying to get at, I really don't...

    I understand the difference of the words.  I wrote the wrong one and you and another picked up on it and both admitted I was wrong yet we are still going around with this?


    You then asked, depending on which word was used, “what difference does it make?” and tried to equate that to a misspelled word. The difference, if you really don’t know, is quite large and substantial in their meaning and consequences, particularly in the context of your original post. The events of January 6th are not a laughing matter, nor one to be so easily misrepresented or glib about. January 6th wasn’t the end but the beginning.
    I said you were right.
    I misspelled the word.
    I admitted to the above.
    I know the difference.
    Nobody is laughing.

    Move on.

    You just argue to the point of arguing.
    No, I’m making my point AFTER you claimed “not to understand what I was getting at.” Do yourself a favor and proof read your posts if you don’t want to be misunderstood. Really.

    Have a great day!
    Tool
    Stinkfist

    message to harry manback
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 38,853
    mrussel1 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Why would they not back this?  The language used in the bill they say...

    Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.

    If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
    Politically is on the other end of the spectrum from "prosecutors".  I don't understand what you mean.  
    I shortcut when I write instead of explaining it all sometimes...

    The reasoning for some NOT to back it was because of the language used in the bill.

    I find it preposterous to look at the bill that way.

    If, and only if the language in this bill gets used down the road to legally persecute people, we as a country are in really bad shape.

    It boils down to if you make a bill to honor people then cherry pick statements from it to use in court cases to me, is bad.


    I do take time to hear the counterpoints and put them in reason.
    this bill is simply to award a congressional gold medal to captial police on duty that day. 

    Correct but 12 people whom voted for it do not.

    Capitol?  I know what you meant but everyone says "words matter".
    I'm not convinced that your use of the word "persecute" in the context that you used it was accidental or due to a lack of proof reading. Very Fucker Carlson of you. Whereas in Mickey's context, it could be chalked up to misspelling.

    Words matter. Words matter.
    The quote I used says "prosecutors".  The word was  quoted even.  I just messed up the word.  Even if I had meant to use "persecute" what does it matter?  
    Guess you missed the question mark in my reply? What does it matter? Good god there's not enough patience in a lifetime to explain the difference between "persecute" and "prosecute" in the context that you used the word "persecute." Sure am glad you cleared that up.
    I don't understand what you are trying to get at, I really don't...

    I understand the difference of the words.  I wrote the wrong one and you and another picked up on it and both admitted I was wrong yet we are still going around with this?


    You then asked, depending on which word was used, “what difference does it make?” and tried to equate that to a misspelled word. The difference, if you really don’t know, is quite large and substantial in their meaning and consequences, particularly in the context of your original post. The events of January 6th are not a laughing matter, nor one to be so easily misrepresented or glib about. January 6th wasn’t the end but the beginning.
    I said you were right.
    I misspelled the word.
    I admitted to the above.
    I know the difference.
    Nobody is laughing.

    Move on.

    You just argue to the point of arguing.
    No, I’m making my point AFTER you claimed “not to understand what I was getting at.” Do yourself a favor and proof read your posts if you don’t want to be misunderstood. Really.

    Have a great day!
    Tool
    Stinkfist
    Aeinima
  • Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 10,390
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Why would they not back this?  The language used in the bill they say...

    Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.

    If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
    Politically is on the other end of the spectrum from "prosecutors".  I don't understand what you mean.  
    I shortcut when I write instead of explaining it all sometimes...

    The reasoning for some NOT to back it was because of the language used in the bill.

    I find it preposterous to look at the bill that way.

    If, and only if the language in this bill gets used down the road to legally persecute people, we as a country are in really bad shape.

    It boils down to if you make a bill to honor people then cherry pick statements from it to use in court cases to me, is bad.


    I do take time to hear the counterpoints and put them in reason.
    this bill is simply to award a congressional gold medal to captial police on duty that day. 

    Correct but 12 people whom voted for it do not.

    Capitol?  I know what you meant but everyone says "words matter".
    I'm not convinced that your use of the word "persecute" in the context that you used it was accidental or due to a lack of proof reading. Very Fucker Carlson of you. Whereas in Mickey's context, it could be chalked up to misspelling.

    Words matter. Words matter.
    The quote I used says "prosecutors".  The word was  quoted even.  I just messed up the word.  Even if I had meant to use "persecute" what does it matter?  
    Guess you missed the question mark in my reply? What does it matter? Good god there's not enough patience in a lifetime to explain the difference between "persecute" and "prosecute" in the context that you used the word "persecute." Sure am glad you cleared that up.
    I don't understand what you are trying to get at, I really don't...

    I understand the difference of the words.  I wrote the wrong one and you and another picked up on it and both admitted I was wrong yet we are still going around with this?


    You then asked, depending on which word was used, “what difference does it make?” and tried to equate that to a misspelled word. The difference, if you really don’t know, is quite large and substantial in their meaning and consequences, particularly in the context of your original post. The events of January 6th are not a laughing matter, nor one to be so easily misrepresented or glib about. January 6th wasn’t the end but the beginning.
    I said you were right.
    I misspelled the word.
    I admitted to the above.
    I know the difference.
    Nobody is laughing.

    Move on.

    You just argue to the point of arguing.
    No, I’m making my point AFTER you claimed “not to understand what I was getting at.” Do yourself a favor and proof read your posts if you don’t want to be misunderstood. Really.

    Have a great day!
    Tool
    Stinkfist

    message to harry manback
    Pezzo di merda. 
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,602
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Why would they not back this?  The language used in the bill they say...

    Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.

    If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
    Politically is on the other end of the spectrum from "prosecutors".  I don't understand what you mean.  
    I shortcut when I write instead of explaining it all sometimes...

    The reasoning for some NOT to back it was because of the language used in the bill.

    I find it preposterous to look at the bill that way.

    If, and only if the language in this bill gets used down the road to legally persecute people, we as a country are in really bad shape.

    It boils down to if you make a bill to honor people then cherry pick statements from it to use in court cases to me, is bad.


    I do take time to hear the counterpoints and put them in reason.
    this bill is simply to award a congressional gold medal to captial police on duty that day. 

    Correct but 12 people whom voted for it do not.

    Capitol?  I know what you meant but everyone says "words matter".
    I'm not convinced that your use of the word "persecute" in the context that you used it was accidental or due to a lack of proof reading. Very Fucker Carlson of you. Whereas in Mickey's context, it could be chalked up to misspelling.

    Words matter. Words matter.
    The quote I used says "prosecutors".  The word was  quoted even.  I just messed up the word.  Even if I had meant to use "persecute" what does it matter?  
    Guess you missed the question mark in my reply? What does it matter? Good god there's not enough patience in a lifetime to explain the difference between "persecute" and "prosecute" in the context that you used the word "persecute." Sure am glad you cleared that up.
    I don't understand what you are trying to get at, I really don't...

    I understand the difference of the words.  I wrote the wrong one and you and another picked up on it and both admitted I was wrong yet we are still going around with this?


    You then asked, depending on which word was used, “what difference does it make?” and tried to equate that to a misspelled word. The difference, if you really don’t know, is quite large and substantial in their meaning and consequences, particularly in the context of your original post. The events of January 6th are not a laughing matter, nor one to be so easily misrepresented or glib about. January 6th wasn’t the end but the beginning.
    I said you were right.
    I misspelled the word.
    I admitted to the above.
    I know the difference.
    Nobody is laughing.

    Move on.

    You just argue to the point of arguing.
    No, I’m making my point AFTER you claimed “not to understand what I was getting at.” Do yourself a favor and proof read your posts if you don’t want to be misunderstood. Really.

    Have a great day!
    Tool
    Stinkfist

    message to harry manback
    Haha.  I think that's part of their trilogy..

    Message > prison sex> stinkfist
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 36,482
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Why would they not back this?  The language used in the bill they say...

    Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.

    If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
    Politically is on the other end of the spectrum from "prosecutors".  I don't understand what you mean.  
    I shortcut when I write instead of explaining it all sometimes...

    The reasoning for some NOT to back it was because of the language used in the bill.

    I find it preposterous to look at the bill that way.

    If, and only if the language in this bill gets used down the road to legally persecute people, we as a country are in really bad shape.

    It boils down to if you make a bill to honor people then cherry pick statements from it to use in court cases to me, is bad.


    I do take time to hear the counterpoints and put them in reason.
    this bill is simply to award a congressional gold medal to captial police on duty that day. 

    Correct but 12 people whom voted for it do not.

    Capitol?  I know what you meant but everyone says "words matter".
    I'm not convinced that your use of the word "persecute" in the context that you used it was accidental or due to a lack of proof reading. Very Fucker Carlson of you. Whereas in Mickey's context, it could be chalked up to misspelling.

    Words matter. Words matter.
    The quote I used says "prosecutors".  The word was  quoted even.  I just messed up the word.  Even if I had meant to use "persecute" what does it matter?  
    Guess you missed the question mark in my reply? What does it matter? Good god there's not enough patience in a lifetime to explain the difference between "persecute" and "prosecute" in the context that you used the word "persecute." Sure am glad you cleared that up.
    I don't understand what you are trying to get at, I really don't...

    I understand the difference of the words.  I wrote the wrong one and you and another picked up on it and both admitted I was wrong yet we are still going around with this?


    You then asked, depending on which word was used, “what difference does it make?” and tried to equate that to a misspelled word. The difference, if you really don’t know, is quite large and substantial in their meaning and consequences, particularly in the context of your original post. The events of January 6th are not a laughing matter, nor one to be so easily misrepresented or glib about. January 6th wasn’t the end but the beginning.
    I said you were right.
    I misspelled the word.
    I admitted to the above.
    I know the difference.
    Nobody is laughing.

    Move on.

    You just argue to the point of arguing.
    No, I’m making my point AFTER you claimed “not to understand what I was getting at.” Do yourself a favor and proof read your posts if you don’t want to be misunderstood. Really.

    Have a great day!
    Tool
    Pussy Riot
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 38,853
    mrussel1 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Why would they not back this?  The language used in the bill they say...

    Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.

    If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
    Politically is on the other end of the spectrum from "prosecutors".  I don't understand what you mean.  
    I shortcut when I write instead of explaining it all sometimes...

    The reasoning for some NOT to back it was because of the language used in the bill.

    I find it preposterous to look at the bill that way.

    If, and only if the language in this bill gets used down the road to legally persecute people, we as a country are in really bad shape.

    It boils down to if you make a bill to honor people then cherry pick statements from it to use in court cases to me, is bad.


    I do take time to hear the counterpoints and put them in reason.
    this bill is simply to award a congressional gold medal to captial police on duty that day. 

    Correct but 12 people whom voted for it do not.

    Capitol?  I know what you meant but everyone says "words matter".
    I'm not convinced that your use of the word "persecute" in the context that you used it was accidental or due to a lack of proof reading. Very Fucker Carlson of you. Whereas in Mickey's context, it could be chalked up to misspelling.

    Words matter. Words matter.
    The quote I used says "prosecutors".  The word was  quoted even.  I just messed up the word.  Even if I had meant to use "persecute" what does it matter?  
    Guess you missed the question mark in my reply? What does it matter? Good god there's not enough patience in a lifetime to explain the difference between "persecute" and "prosecute" in the context that you used the word "persecute." Sure am glad you cleared that up.
    I don't understand what you are trying to get at, I really don't...

    I understand the difference of the words.  I wrote the wrong one and you and another picked up on it and both admitted I was wrong yet we are still going around with this?


    You then asked, depending on which word was used, “what difference does it make?” and tried to equate that to a misspelled word. The difference, if you really don’t know, is quite large and substantial in their meaning and consequences, particularly in the context of your original post. The events of January 6th are not a laughing matter, nor one to be so easily misrepresented or glib about. January 6th wasn’t the end but the beginning.
    I said you were right.
    I misspelled the word.
    I admitted to the above.
    I know the difference.
    Nobody is laughing.

    Move on.

    You just argue to the point of arguing.
    No, I’m making my point AFTER you claimed “not to understand what I was getting at.” Do yourself a favor and proof read your posts if you don’t want to be misunderstood. Really.

    Have a great day!
    Tool
    Stinkfist

    message to harry manback
    Haha.  I think that's part of their trilogy..

    Message > prison sex> stinkfist
    There is a Harry Manback Pt2.  Also, if you didn't know Harry Manback is a homage to Bill Hicks and his skit "Hairy Bobbin' Man Ass".
  • Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 10,390

    It's weird to say the least, how quiet LEO defenders are about the GOP trying to memory hole 1/6. 
  • KatKat There's a lot to be said for nowhere. Posts: 4,769
    They could always have an investigation into 1/6 to prove what they're saying that it wasn't an insurrection. :tongue:
    Falling down,...not staying down
  • Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 10,390
    Kat said:
    They could always have an investigation into 1/6 to prove what they're saying that it wasn't an insurrection. :tongue:
    Or to prove it was Antifa.... 

    Or to prove it was the FBI... 

    Or to prove Ashley Babbit was assasinated...
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 38,853
    Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".


  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,602
    Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".


    What a fucking kop out.  You vote against the bill to "Back the Blue" because you're worried that a bill will unfairly prejudice a jury against a criminal defendant?  Just curious, would you have voted no on this bill?
  • Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 10,390
    Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".


    Their case to bring to justice the people who stormed the Capitol and assaulted Capitol Police? 

    That case? 
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 38,853
    mrussel1 said:
    Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".


    What a fucking kop out.  You vote against the bill to "Back the Blue" because you're worried that a bill will unfairly prejudice a jury against a criminal defendant?  Just curious, would you have voted no on this bill?
    I get that the "language matters" but it was an insurrection so I'd have voted Yes.

    Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".


    Their case to bring to justice the people who stormed the Capitol and assaulted Capitol Police? 

    That case? 
    Yes that case.  Interesting, huh?
Sign In or Register to comment.