Capitol Riots 2
Comments
-
Pussy Riottempo_n_groove said:
ToolHalifax2TheMax said:
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.tempo_n_groove said:
I said you were right.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.tempo_n_groove said:
I don't understand what you are trying to get at, I really don't...Halifax2TheMax said:
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.tempo_n_groove said:
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?Halifax2TheMax said:
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.tempo_n_groove said:
Correct but 12 people whom voted for it do not.mickeyrat said:
this bill is simply to award a congressional gold medal to captial police on duty that day.tempo_n_groove said:
I shortcut when I write instead of explaining it all sometimes...mrussel1 said:
Politically is on the other end of the spectrum from "prosecutors". I don't understand what you mean.tempo_n_groove said:
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...Bentleyspop said:
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.
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.
Capitol? I know what you meant but everyone says "words matter".
Words matter. Words matter.
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?
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.
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; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
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".mrussel1 said:
Haha. I think that's part of their trilogy..mickeyrat said:mrussel1 said:
Stinkfisttempo_n_groove said:
ToolHalifax2TheMax said:
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.tempo_n_groove said:
I said you were right.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.tempo_n_groove said:
I don't understand what you are trying to get at, I really don't...Halifax2TheMax said:
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.tempo_n_groove said:
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?Halifax2TheMax said:
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.tempo_n_groove said:
Correct but 12 people whom voted for it do not.mickeyrat said:
this bill is simply to award a congressional gold medal to captial police on duty that day.tempo_n_groove said:
I shortcut when I write instead of explaining it all sometimes...mrussel1 said:
Politically is on the other end of the spectrum from "prosecutors". I don't understand what you mean.tempo_n_groove said:
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...Bentleyspop said:
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.
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.
Capitol? I know what you meant but everyone says "words matter".
Words matter. Words matter.
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?
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.
Have a great day!
message to harry manback
Message > prison sex> stinkfist0 -
It's weird to say the least, how quiet LEO defenders are about the GOP trying to memory hole 1/6.
0 -
They could always have an investigation into 1/6 to prove what they're saying that it wasn't an insurrection.
Falling down,...not staying down0 -
Or to prove it was Antifa....Kat said:They could always have an investigation into 1/6 to prove what they're saying that it wasn't an insurrection.
Or to prove it was the FBI...
Or to prove Ashley Babbit was assasinated...
0 -
Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".
0 -
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?tempo_n_groove said:Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".0 -
Their case to bring to justice the people who stormed the Capitol and assaulted Capitol Police?tempo_n_groove said:Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".
That case?0 -
I get that the "language matters" but it was an insurrection so I'd have voted Yes.mrussel1 said:
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?tempo_n_groove said:Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".
Yes that case. Interesting, huh?Merkin Baller said:
Their case to bring to justice the people who stormed the Capitol and assaulted Capitol Police?tempo_n_groove said:Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".
That case?0 -
So I don't quite get your stance. Were you reporting, providing your opinion or being a contrarian?tempo_n_groove said:
I get that the "language matters" but it was an insurrection so I'd have voted Yes.mrussel1 said:
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?tempo_n_groove said:Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".
Yes that case. Interesting, huh?Merkin Baller said:
Their case to bring to justice the people who stormed the Capitol and assaulted Capitol Police?tempo_n_groove said:Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".
That case?0 -
tempo_n_groove said:
I get that the "language matters" but it was an insurrection so I'd have voted Yes.mrussel1 said:
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?tempo_n_groove said:Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".
Yes that case. Interesting, huh?Merkin Baller said:
Their case to bring to justice the people who stormed the Capitol and assaulted Capitol Police?tempo_n_groove said:Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".
That case?
So you agree the reasoning is bullshit then, since you agree it was an insurrection?
0 -
mrussel1 said:
So I don't quite get your stance. Were you reporting, providing your opinion or being a contrarian?tempo_n_groove said:
I get that the "language matters" but it was an insurrection so I'd have voted Yes.mrussel1 said:
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?tempo_n_groove said:Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".
Yes that case. Interesting, huh?Merkin Baller said:
Their case to bring to justice the people who stormed the Capitol and assaulted Capitol Police?tempo_n_groove said:Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".
That case?
Direct quote from meMerkin Baller said:tempo_n_groove said:
I get that the "language matters" but it was an insurrection so I'd have voted Yes.mrussel1 said:
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?tempo_n_groove said:Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".
Yes that case. Interesting, huh?Merkin Baller said:
Their case to bring to justice the people who stormed the Capitol and assaulted Capitol Police?tempo_n_groove said:Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".
That case?
So you agree the reasoning is bullshit then, since you agree it was an insurrection?
"I'd have voted yes" as to voting yes on the medals for the Capitol police.
Am I missing something?0 -
Yes, you missed my direct question:tempo_n_groove said:mrussel1 said:
So I don't quite get your stance. Were you reporting, providing your opinion or being a contrarian?tempo_n_groove said:
I get that the "language matters" but it was an insurrection so I'd have voted Yes.mrussel1 said:
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?tempo_n_groove said:Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".
Yes that case. Interesting, huh?Merkin Baller said:
Their case to bring to justice the people who stormed the Capitol and assaulted Capitol Police?tempo_n_groove said:Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".
That case?
Direct quote from meMerkin Baller said:tempo_n_groove said:
I get that the "language matters" but it was an insurrection so I'd have voted Yes.mrussel1 said:
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?tempo_n_groove said:Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".
Yes that case. Interesting, huh?Merkin Baller said:
Their case to bring to justice the people who stormed the Capitol and assaulted Capitol Police?tempo_n_groove said:Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".
That case?
So you agree the reasoning is bullshit then, since you agree it was an insurrection?
"I'd have voted yes" as to voting yes on the medals for the Capitol police.
Am I missing something?
I asked if you agree the reasoning the republicans gave for voting against the bill is bullshit, since you agree it was an insurrection.
0 -
@tempo_n_groove this is what started the whole thing. This is what led everyone to believe that you thought the language was a problem.tempo_n_groove said:
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...Bentleyspop said:
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.0 -
Got it. I do believe the language in the bill matters and I have said before that if the future "Prosecution" (not persecutionMerkin Baller said:
Yes, you missed my direct question:tempo_n_groove said:mrussel1 said:
So I don't quite get your stance. Were you reporting, providing your opinion or being a contrarian?tempo_n_groove said:
I get that the "language matters" but it was an insurrection so I'd have voted Yes.mrussel1 said:
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?tempo_n_groove said:Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".
Yes that case. Interesting, huh?Merkin Baller said:
Their case to bring to justice the people who stormed the Capitol and assaulted Capitol Police?tempo_n_groove said:Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".
That case?
Direct quote from meMerkin Baller said:tempo_n_groove said:
I get that the "language matters" but it was an insurrection so I'd have voted Yes.mrussel1 said:
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?tempo_n_groove said:Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".
Yes that case. Interesting, huh?Merkin Baller said:
Their case to bring to justice the people who stormed the Capitol and assaulted Capitol Police?tempo_n_groove said:Again w the language in the bill and it could be used as a "bearing on their case".
That case?
So you agree the reasoning is bullshit then, since you agree it was an insurrection?
"I'd have voted yes" as to voting yes on the medals for the Capitol police.
Am I missing something?
I asked if you agree the reasoning the republicans gave for voting against the bill is bullshit, since you agree it was an insurrection.
) of people on trial have the wording in this bill used against them then that is a problem.
I think that is a bullshit reason not to vote for this bill though and yes it was an insurrection.0 -
lol
"Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., who voted against awarding police officers the Congressional Gold Medal for their bravery in protecting the U.S. Capitol against violent, pro-Trump rioters on Jan. 6, refused to shake hands with District of Columbia police officer Michael Fanone on Wednesday.
Fanone was beaten unconscious after he voluntarily rushed to the Capitol to help defend it from those who breached the building. He suffered a concussion and a mild heart attack. In the months since, Fanone has been one of the leading voices pushing back against Republicans who have sought to downplay the severity of what happened Jan. 6....
He said he recognized Clyde at an elevator and that he and Dunn hopped in with the congressman.
“I simply extended my hand and said, “How are you doing today, Congressman.’ I knew immediately he recognized me by the way he reacted. He completely froze. He just stared at me,” Fanone said in an interview.
Fanone said Clyde did not motion to shake his hand in return.
“I said, ‘I’m sorry, you’re not going to shake my hand?’ ” Fanone said he told Clyde.
He said Clyde answered, “I don’t know who you are.”
Fanone said he responded, “‘I’m sorry, sir, my name is Michael Fanone. I’m a D.C. police officer and I fought to defend the Capitol on Jan. 6.” He said he described being stunned repeatedly in the back of the neck and beaten unconscious, stripped of his badge and radio.
“His response was nothing,” Fanone said. “He turned away from me, pulled out his cellphone and started thumbing through the apps.” Fanone said Clyde turned on the camera app but did not point the phone in his direction. Fanone said he believes Clyde was trying to record audio of the encounter.
“After that, I just simply stood there,” Fanone said.
He said Clyde bolted when the doors opened."
0 -
Yeah, if we're all in agreement that this was an insurrection, why would there be concern about the term being used politically? Or by prosecuting attorneys?mrussel1 said:
@tempo_n_groove this is what started the whole thing. This is what led everyone to believe that you thought the language was a problem.tempo_n_groove said:
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...Bentleyspop said:
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.
What's the problem?
We're worried about people bringing facts to the table now?
0 -
Facts are out there and should not look at the bill for them is what I am saying. If prosecution uses the medal of valor bill to convict people I just find that really odd...Merkin Baller said:
Yeah, if we're all in agreement that this was an insurrection, why would there be concern about the term being used politically? Or by prosecuting attorneys?mrussel1 said:
@tempo_n_groove this is what started the whole thing. This is what led everyone to believe that you thought the language was a problem.tempo_n_groove said:
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...Bentleyspop said:
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.
What's the problem?
We're worried about people bringing facts to the table now?
"I present you with evidence that it was an insurrection from the medal of valor bill your honor!"
No. Show the damn videos, emails and everything else. Don't politicize the damn Valor bill. You cheapen it by doing so.0 -
You're taking at face value, the reasoning used to vote against the bill, which suggests these republicans care about the people being prosecuted.tempo_n_groove said:
Facts are out there and should not look at the bill for them is what I am saying. If prosecution uses the medal of valor bill to convict people I just find that really odd...Merkin Baller said:
Yeah, if we're all in agreement that this was an insurrection, why would there be concern about the term being used politically? Or by prosecuting attorneys?mrussel1 said:
@tempo_n_groove this is what started the whole thing. This is what led everyone to believe that you thought the language was a problem.tempo_n_groove said:
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...Bentleyspop said:
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.
What's the problem?
We're worried about people bringing facts to the table now?
"I present you with evidence that it was an insurrection from the medal of valor bill your honor!"
No. Show the damn videos, emails and everything else. Don't politicize the damn Valor bill. You cheapen it by doing so.
Let's face facts, here. Republicans don't want to call it an insurrection, because it was a republican insurrection. If they were to call it as much, they would be admitting they tried to overthrow the government.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 278 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help