Capitol Riots 2
Comments
-
It was Antifa
It was BLM
It was the FBI
It was a normal tour
It wasn't an insurrection
Also, we don't want to investigate, we want to pretend it never happened, we can't dwell on the past we need to move forward.
JFC, come on already.0 -
Oh please. It was a bullshit defense and was only raised by the members that continually downplay and lie about the ferocity of the event. And they are the same ones that say Stop the Steal and voted against certification. In short, this defense is only being raised by the enablers of Jan 6th. Echoing their arguments does not serve you or anyone well.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.0 -
You asked, don't like my answer? Fine.mrussel1 said:
Oh please. It was a bullshit defense and was only raised by the members that continually downplay and lie about the ferocity of the event. And they are the same ones that say Stop the Steal and voted against certification. In short, this defense is only being raised by the enablers of Jan 6th. Echoing their arguments does not serve you or anyone well.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.
We agree with everything else on it.
Don't politicize the Medal of Valor Bill. That's all I want.0 -
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.Merkin Baller said:
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.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.0 -
How was this bill politicized, and by whom?tempo_n_groove said:
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.Merkin Baller said:
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.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
0 -
OK let's go through this again.Merkin Baller said:
How was this bill politicized, and by whom?tempo_n_groove said:
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.Merkin Baller said:
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.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
The reason for the repubs NOT voting for it was the wording, their words. The wording they think can be used in prosecution.
I said If, that is IF, this bill is used to prosecute and prove a point then the bill is being politicized.
I have also said that the reasoning for the repubs to vote no is bullshit.
So, what is the problem?0 -
the issue, I THINK (don't want to speak for anyone here) the issue is that you are saying the reason is bullshit, but you agree with their reasoning that if it gets politicized it's wrong, but their whole reason for not voting yes is because of that reason, so it sounds like you agree with them, even though you say you don't.tempo_n_groove said:
OK let's go through this again.Merkin Baller said:
How was this bill politicized, and by whom?tempo_n_groove said:
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.Merkin Baller said:
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.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
The reason for the repubs NOT voting for it was the wording, their words. The wording they think can be used in prosecution.
I said If, that is IF, this bill is used to prosecute and prove a point then the bill is being politicized.
I have also said that the reasoning for the repubs to vote no is bullshit.
So, what is the problem?By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
The problem is you’re contradicting yourself.tempo_n_groove said:
OK let's go through this again.Merkin Baller said:
How was this bill politicized, and by whom?tempo_n_groove said:
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.Merkin Baller said:
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.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
The reason for the repubs NOT voting for it was the wording, their words. The wording they think can be used in prosecution.
I said If, that is IF, this bill is used to prosecute and prove a point then the bill is being politicized.
I have also said that the reasoning for the repubs to vote no is bullshit.
So, what is the problem?You acknowledge their reasoning to vote against the bill is bullshit, but also accept the hypothetical “politicization” of the bill as a valid reason to not vote for the bill.Which one is it? Bullshit, or a valid reason to vote against the bill?
It can’t be both.0 -
Your logic.tempo_n_groove said:
OK let's go through this again.Merkin Baller said:
How was this bill politicized, and by whom?tempo_n_groove said:
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.Merkin Baller said:
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.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
The reason for the repubs NOT voting for it was the wording, their words. The wording they think can be used in prosecution.
I said If, that is IF, this bill is used to prosecute and prove a point then the bill is being politicized.
I have also said that the reasoning for the repubs to vote no is bullshit.
So, what is the problem?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;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
No it's not.Merkin Baller said:
The problem is you’re contradicting yourself.tempo_n_groove said:
OK let's go through this again.Merkin Baller said:
How was this bill politicized, and by whom?tempo_n_groove said:
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.Merkin Baller said:
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.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
The reason for the repubs NOT voting for it was the wording, their words. The wording they think can be used in prosecution.
I said If, that is IF, this bill is used to prosecute and prove a point then the bill is being politicized.
I have also said that the reasoning for the repubs to vote no is bullshit.
So, what is the problem?You acknowledge their reasoning to vote against the bill is bullshit, but also accept the hypothetical “politicization” of the bill as a valid reason to not vote for the bill.Which one is it? Bullshit, or a valid reason to vote against the bill?
It can’t be both.
I think their reasoning is bullshit because it won't happen. Politicizing of the bill won't happen.
If politicizing of the bill does happen then that is bullshit.0 -
This.Merkin Baller said:
It was Antifa
It was BLM
It was the FBI
It was a normal tour
It wasn't an insurrection
Also, we don't want to investigate, we want to pretend it never happened, we can't dwell on the past we need to move forward.
JFC, come on already.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;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Close.HughFreakingDillon said:
the issue, I THINK (don't want to speak for anyone here) the issue is that you are saying the reason is bullshit, but you agree with their reasoning that if it gets politicized it's wrong, but their whole reason for not voting yes is because of that reason, so it sounds like you agree with them, even though you say you don't.tempo_n_groove said:
OK let's go through this again.Merkin Baller said:
How was this bill politicized, and by whom?tempo_n_groove said:
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.Merkin Baller said:
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.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
The reason for the repubs NOT voting for it was the wording, their words. The wording they think can be used in prosecution.
I said If, that is IF, this bill is used to prosecute and prove a point then the bill is being politicized.
I have also said that the reasoning for the repubs to vote no is bullshit.
So, what is the problem?I think their reasoning is bullshit because it won't happen. Politicizing of the bill won't happen.
If politicizing of the bill does happen then that is bullshit.0 -
What is the bill for?Halifax2TheMax said:
Your logic.tempo_n_groove said:
OK let's go through this again.Merkin Baller said:
How was this bill politicized, and by whom?tempo_n_groove said:
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.Merkin Baller said:
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.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
The reason for the repubs NOT voting for it was the wording, their words. The wording they think can be used in prosecution.
I said If, that is IF, this bill is used to prosecute and prove a point then the bill is being politicized.
I have also said that the reasoning for the repubs to vote no is bullshit.
So, what is the problem?
Easy question.0 -
tempo_n_groove said:
No it's not.Merkin Baller said:
The problem is you’re contradicting yourself.tempo_n_groove said:
OK let's go through this again.Merkin Baller said:
How was this bill politicized, and by whom?tempo_n_groove said:
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.Merkin Baller said:
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.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
The reason for the repubs NOT voting for it was the wording, their words. The wording they think can be used in prosecution.
I said If, that is IF, this bill is used to prosecute and prove a point then the bill is being politicized.
I have also said that the reasoning for the repubs to vote no is bullshit.
So, what is the problem?You acknowledge their reasoning to vote against the bill is bullshit, but also accept the hypothetical “politicization” of the bill as a valid reason to not vote for the bill.Which one is it? Bullshit, or a valid reason to vote against the bill?
It can’t be both.
I think their reasoning is bullshit because it won't happen. Politicizing of the bill won't happen.
If politicizing of the bill does happen then that is bullshit.
From where I'm standing it seems like you have no idea what you're saying.tempo_n_groove said:
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.Merkin Baller said:
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.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.0 -
I thought I explained it well enough but we will try another way.Merkin Baller said:tempo_n_groove said:
No it's not.Merkin Baller said:
The problem is you’re contradicting yourself.tempo_n_groove said:
OK let's go through this again.Merkin Baller said:
How was this bill politicized, and by whom?tempo_n_groove said:
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.Merkin Baller said:
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.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
The reason for the repubs NOT voting for it was the wording, their words. The wording they think can be used in prosecution.
I said If, that is IF, this bill is used to prosecute and prove a point then the bill is being politicized.
I have also said that the reasoning for the repubs to vote no is bullshit.
So, what is the problem?You acknowledge their reasoning to vote against the bill is bullshit, but also accept the hypothetical “politicization” of the bill as a valid reason to not vote for the bill.Which one is it? Bullshit, or a valid reason to vote against the bill?
It can’t be both.
I think their reasoning is bullshit because it won't happen. Politicizing of the bill won't happen.
If politicizing of the bill does happen then that is bullshit.
From where I'm standing it seems like you have no idea what you're saying.tempo_n_groove said:
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.Merkin Baller said:
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.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
What is the bill for?0 -
The bill is for the medal of honor.
If the bill's language is used in the court of law going forward then the bill was politicized. That is what I am trying to get at.
Does that make sense?0 -
tempo_n_groove said:
I thought I explained it well enough but we will try another way.Merkin Baller said:tempo_n_groove said:
No it's not.Merkin Baller said:
The problem is you’re contradicting yourself.tempo_n_groove said:
OK let's go through this again.Merkin Baller said:
How was this bill politicized, and by whom?tempo_n_groove said:
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.Merkin Baller said:
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.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
The reason for the repubs NOT voting for it was the wording, their words. The wording they think can be used in prosecution.
I said If, that is IF, this bill is used to prosecute and prove a point then the bill is being politicized.
I have also said that the reasoning for the repubs to vote no is bullshit.
So, what is the problem?You acknowledge their reasoning to vote against the bill is bullshit, but also accept the hypothetical “politicization” of the bill as a valid reason to not vote for the bill.Which one is it? Bullshit, or a valid reason to vote against the bill?
It can’t be both.
I think their reasoning is bullshit because it won't happen. Politicizing of the bill won't happen.
If politicizing of the bill does happen then that is bullshit.
From where I'm standing it seems like you have no idea what you're saying.tempo_n_groove said:
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.Merkin Baller said:
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.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
What is the bill for?
I'm not the only person who found your statements contradictory, so you clearly didn't explain it well enough.
Figure out the bill for yourself and explain both how the republicans' reasoning for voting against it is bullshit and valid, because you've argued both here this afternoon.0 -
I give up...Merkin Baller said:tempo_n_groove said:
I thought I explained it well enough but we will try another way.Merkin Baller said:tempo_n_groove said:
No it's not.Merkin Baller said:
The problem is you’re contradicting yourself.tempo_n_groove said:
OK let's go through this again.Merkin Baller said:
How was this bill politicized, and by whom?tempo_n_groove said:
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.Merkin Baller said:
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.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
The reason for the repubs NOT voting for it was the wording, their words. The wording they think can be used in prosecution.
I said If, that is IF, this bill is used to prosecute and prove a point then the bill is being politicized.
I have also said that the reasoning for the repubs to vote no is bullshit.
So, what is the problem?You acknowledge their reasoning to vote against the bill is bullshit, but also accept the hypothetical “politicization” of the bill as a valid reason to not vote for the bill.Which one is it? Bullshit, or a valid reason to vote against the bill?
It can’t be both.
I think their reasoning is bullshit because it won't happen. Politicizing of the bill won't happen.
If politicizing of the bill does happen then that is bullshit.
From where I'm standing it seems like you have no idea what you're saying.tempo_n_groove said:
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.Merkin Baller said:
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.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
What is the bill for?
I'm not the only person who found your statements contradictory, so you clearly didn't explain it well enough.
Figure out the bill for yourself and explain both how the republicans' reasoning for voting against it is bullshit and valid, because you've argued both here this afternoon.0 -
that's how I took it too, tempo.tempo_n_groove said:
I give up...Merkin Baller said:tempo_n_groove said:
I thought I explained it well enough but we will try another way.Merkin Baller said:tempo_n_groove said:
No it's not.Merkin Baller said:
The problem is you’re contradicting yourself.tempo_n_groove said:
OK let's go through this again.Merkin Baller said:
How was this bill politicized, and by whom?tempo_n_groove said:
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.Merkin Baller said:
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.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
The reason for the repubs NOT voting for it was the wording, their words. The wording they think can be used in prosecution.
I said If, that is IF, this bill is used to prosecute and prove a point then the bill is being politicized.
I have also said that the reasoning for the repubs to vote no is bullshit.
So, what is the problem?You acknowledge their reasoning to vote against the bill is bullshit, but also accept the hypothetical “politicization” of the bill as a valid reason to not vote for the bill.Which one is it? Bullshit, or a valid reason to vote against the bill?
It can’t be both.
I think their reasoning is bullshit because it won't happen. Politicizing of the bill won't happen.
If politicizing of the bill does happen then that is bullshit.
From where I'm standing it seems like you have no idea what you're saying.tempo_n_groove said:
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.Merkin Baller said:
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.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
What is the bill for?
I'm not the only person who found your statements contradictory, so you clearly didn't explain it well enough.
Figure out the bill for yourself and explain both how the republicans' reasoning for voting against it is bullshit and valid, because you've argued both here this afternoon.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
This last one didn't make sense?HughFreakingDillon said:
that's how I took it too, tempo.tempo_n_groove said:
I give up...Merkin Baller said:tempo_n_groove said:
I thought I explained it well enough but we will try another way.Merkin Baller said:tempo_n_groove said:
No it's not.Merkin Baller said:
The problem is you’re contradicting yourself.tempo_n_groove said:
OK let's go through this again.Merkin Baller said:
How was this bill politicized, and by whom?tempo_n_groove said:
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.Merkin Baller said:
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.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
The reason for the repubs NOT voting for it was the wording, their words. The wording they think can be used in prosecution.
I said If, that is IF, this bill is used to prosecute and prove a point then the bill is being politicized.
I have also said that the reasoning for the repubs to vote no is bullshit.
So, what is the problem?You acknowledge their reasoning to vote against the bill is bullshit, but also accept the hypothetical “politicization” of the bill as a valid reason to not vote for the bill.Which one is it? Bullshit, or a valid reason to vote against the bill?
It can’t be both.
I think their reasoning is bullshit because it won't happen. Politicizing of the bill won't happen.
If politicizing of the bill does happen then that is bullshit.
From where I'm standing it seems like you have no idea what you're saying.tempo_n_groove said:
Don't politicize the bill is what I am saying.Merkin Baller said:
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.
There is plenty of evidence out there that the last thing they need is a bill to help the cause out.
That is all I am saying.
What is the bill for?
I'm not the only person who found your statements contradictory, so you clearly didn't explain it well enough.
Figure out the bill for yourself and explain both how the republicans' reasoning for voting against it is bullshit and valid, because you've argued both here this afternoon.The bill is for the medal of honor.
If the bill's language is used in the court of law going forward then the bill was politicized. That is what I am trying to get at.
Does that make sense?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K 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