Capitol Riots 2
Comments
-
I get what you're saying. Sure, it wasn't worded very clear, but I know what you mean now. A lot of hand wringing going on here over much ado about nothing.It's a hopeless situation...0
-
No. Bills introduced, debated and voted on in Congress by their/there/they're nature are "political." Referencing a bill/law/act passed by Congress in a courtroom prosecution because it mentions or references "insurrection" is not "politicizing" the bill, its a statement of fact.tempo_n_groove said:
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?
If the bill didn't pass, do you think the prosecutors would drop the charges? As far as I've heard, no one is being charged with insurrectionism, if there is indeed a statute on the books in the courts that have jurisdiction and prosecutors have filed such a charge.
A defense attorney could argue that, "that evil commie bill passed by Congress that awarded the Medal of Honor to our men and women in blue was an evil conspiracy by the dem majority to define a tourist visit as an insurrection and since it was a tourist visit, you must acquit my client." Never mind the actual charge(s) of trespassing, failure to disperse, theft, assault, conspiracy, etc. that defendants are likely to be charged with.
How do you define "insurrection?"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 -
Couldn't disagree more, considering the events that inspired the thread.tbergs said:I get what you're saying. Sure, it wasn't worded very clear, but I know what you mean now. A lot of hand wringing going on here over much ado about nothing.0 -
tempo_n_groove said:
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.
this isnt a bill establishing criminal law with penalties etc....
_____________________________________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 '140 -
This is what the repubs are afraid of and why they're trying to define the insurrection as a "tourist visit" and are opposed to any kind of formal investigation. There are members of Congress and the POOTWH administration who are complicit in the events of that day (unlike Hillary and Benghazi) and likely are in violation of the law. First the definition:Merkin Baller said:
Couldn't disagree more, considering the events that inspired the thread.tbergs said:I get what you're saying. Sure, it wasn't worded very clear, but I know what you mean now. A lot of hand wringing going on here over much ado about nothing.Definition of insurrection
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established governmentChoose the Right Synonym for insurrection
REBELLION, REVOLUTION, UPRISING, REVOLT, INSURRECTION, MUTINY mean an outbreak against authority. REBELLION implies an open formidable resistance that is often unsuccessful. open rebellion against the officers REVOLUTION applies to a successful rebellion resulting in a major change (as in government). a political revolution that toppled the monarchy UPRISING implies a brief, limited, and often immediately ineffective rebellion. quickly put down the uprising REVOLT and INSURRECTION imply an armed uprising that quickly fails or succeeds. a revolt by the Young Turks that surprised party leaders an insurrection of oppressed laborers MUTINY applies to group insubordination or insurrection especially against naval authority. a mutiny led by the ship's cook
Insurrection | Definition of Insurrection by Merriam-Webster
Now, the law:
§2383. Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §4 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §4, 35 Stat. 1088).
Word "moreover" was deleted as surplusage and minor changes were made in phraseology.
[USC02] 18 USC Ch. 115: TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES (house.gov)
Now, they'd have to be indicted, charged and face trial and be found guilty but me thinks there's enough evidence that we know about and more that we don't know about to get a conviction. It'd be nice if there were consequences for these fuckers (complicit members of Congress) but there won't be. And if the Horned Shaman, or any other treasonous POS, is convicted in a court where the prosecutor references the Medal of Honor bill as referencing the "insurrection" and he's convicted? Great, he/they got what he/they deserved because it was an "insurrection."
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 -
And if you don’t think this shit is going to get worse, you better wake up. These are elected members of Congress spewing this rhetoric on major communications outlets. They know who their/there/they’re message reaches. Someone should ask Lindsey Flimsy Flip Flop Faloozy Graham, Matt Getts Off and the rest of their ilk if their/there/they’re dues paying members or supporters of any white supremacist/nationalist organization. They need to be exposed.
https://apple.news/AJEp4mDSvQy22eJM8BZJu-w
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 -
Fauma New yawk cop and FBI agent shouting, “take yaw shit awf, take yaw shit awf!” Prior to physically assaulting capitol police.
Sounds like BLM to me.
No, No, sounds like ANTIIIIIIIIFA to me.
No, no,no, sounds like a tourist tour.
yup that’s it. Maybe Laong Island? Aight?
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 -
This video footage is wild.0 -
Where’s LindaMaria and Muskydan and a whole koolaide pitcher full of PGA course pretend playing surfing kayaking teaching having heat hot water cooling descending down the escalator believing backing the blue brilliance of brilliant brilliancy blue lives matter constituency?Merkin Baller said:This video footage is wild.Oh yea, fifty of their own quit because one was charged. So much for being a “better man.”
Im sure it’s a crisis. Like Seattle has fallen.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 -
That is why I said "IF" it is used for that then it's bullshit...mickeyrat said:tempo_n_groove said:
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.
this isnt a bill establishing criminal law with penalties etc....0 -
This bill should have nothing to do with prosecuting though. It is a medal for the officers that day. But the way you describe it is exactly what will happen now. The bill becomes about the insurrection and not about the officers that day.Halifax2TheMax said:
No. Bills introduced, debated and voted on in Congress by their/there/they're nature are "political." Referencing a bill/law/act passed by Congress in a courtroom prosecution because it mentions or references "insurrection" is not "politicizing" the bill, its a statement of fact.tempo_n_groove said:
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.
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?
If the bill didn't pass, do you think the prosecutors would drop the charges? As far as I've heard, no one is being charged with insurrectionism, if there is indeed a statute on the books in the courts that have jurisdiction and prosecutors have filed such a charge.
A defense attorney could argue that, "that evil commie bill passed by Congress that awarded the Medal of Honor to our men and women in blue was an evil conspiracy by the dem majority to define a tourist visit as an insurrection and since it was a tourist visit, you must acquit my client." Never mind the actual charge(s) of trespassing, failure to disperse, theft, assault, conspiracy, etc. that defendants are likely to be charged with.
How do you define "insurrection?"
I have said multiple times that what happened that day was an insurrection since you needed confirmation.0 -
No one has been charged with fomenting an insurrection nor sedition. So why would a federal prosecutor use a congressional bill's language to accuse a defendant of insurrection?tempo_n_groove said:
This bill should have nothing to do with prosecuting though. It is a medal for the officers that day. But the way you describe it is exactly what will happen now. The bill becomes about the insurrection and not about the officers that day.Halifax2TheMax said:
No. Bills introduced, debated and voted on in Congress by their/there/they're nature are "political." Referencing a bill/law/act passed by Congress in a courtroom prosecution because it mentions or references "insurrection" is not "politicizing" the bill, its a statement of fact.tempo_n_groove said:
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.
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?
If the bill didn't pass, do you think the prosecutors would drop the charges? As far as I've heard, no one is being charged with insurrectionism, if there is indeed a statute on the books in the courts that have jurisdiction and prosecutors have filed such a charge.
A defense attorney could argue that, "that evil commie bill passed by Congress that awarded the Medal of Honor to our men and women in blue was an evil conspiracy by the dem majority to define a tourist visit as an insurrection and since it was a tourist visit, you must acquit my client." Never mind the actual charge(s) of trespassing, failure to disperse, theft, assault, conspiracy, etc. that defendants are likely to be charged with.
How do you define "insurrection?"
I have said multiple times that what happened that day was an insurrection since you needed confirmation.0 -
mrussel1 said:
No one has been charged with fomenting an insurrection nor sedition. So why would a federal prosecutor use a congressional bill's language to accuse a defendant of insurrection?tempo_n_groove said:
This bill should have nothing to do with prosecuting though. It is a medal for the officers that day. But the way you describe it is exactly what will happen now. The bill becomes about the insurrection and not about the officers that day.Halifax2TheMax said:
No. Bills introduced, debated and voted on in Congress by their/there/they're nature are "political." Referencing a bill/law/act passed by Congress in a courtroom prosecution because it mentions or references "insurrection" is not "politicizing" the bill, its a statement of fact.tempo_n_groove said:
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.
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?
If the bill didn't pass, do you think the prosecutors would drop the charges? As far as I've heard, no one is being charged with insurrectionism, if there is indeed a statute on the books in the courts that have jurisdiction and prosecutors have filed such a charge.
A defense attorney could argue that, "that evil commie bill passed by Congress that awarded the Medal of Honor to our men and women in blue was an evil conspiracy by the dem majority to define a tourist visit as an insurrection and since it was a tourist visit, you must acquit my client." Never mind the actual charge(s) of trespassing, failure to disperse, theft, assault, conspiracy, etc. that defendants are likely to be charged with.
How do you define "insurrection?"
I have said multiple times that what happened that day was an insurrection since you needed confirmation.think all are overlooking this is more resolution than legislation going to become law....senate has already issued theirs. dont believe it requires a president's signature......
_____________________________________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 '140 -
what a POS.Merkin Baller said:This video footage is wild.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
Correct.mrussel1 said:
No one has been charged with fomenting an insurrection nor sedition. So why would a federal prosecutor use a congressional bill's language to accuse a defendant of insurrection?tempo_n_groove said:
This bill should have nothing to do with prosecuting though. It is a medal for the officers that day. But the way you describe it is exactly what will happen now. The bill becomes about the insurrection and not about the officers that day.Halifax2TheMax said:
No. Bills introduced, debated and voted on in Congress by their/there/they're nature are "political." Referencing a bill/law/act passed by Congress in a courtroom prosecution because it mentions or references "insurrection" is not "politicizing" the bill, its a statement of fact.tempo_n_groove said:
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.
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?
If the bill didn't pass, do you think the prosecutors would drop the charges? As far as I've heard, no one is being charged with insurrectionism, if there is indeed a statute on the books in the courts that have jurisdiction and prosecutors have filed such a charge.
A defense attorney could argue that, "that evil commie bill passed by Congress that awarded the Medal of Honor to our men and women in blue was an evil conspiracy by the dem majority to define a tourist visit as an insurrection and since it was a tourist visit, you must acquit my client." Never mind the actual charge(s) of trespassing, failure to disperse, theft, assault, conspiracy, etc. that defendants are likely to be charged with.
How do you define "insurrection?"
I have said multiple times that what happened that day was an insurrection since you needed confirmation.
Your second part has been my argument all along as a "what if scenario"0 -
Can they vote again on an investigation or is that dead now?0
-
Seems to me that your looking for an excuse to excuse 1/6 and the consequences for traitors of conducting an insurrection.tempo_n_groove said:
This bill should have nothing to do with prosecuting though. It is a medal for the officers that day. But the way you describe it is exactly what will happen now. The bill becomes about the insurrection and not about the officers that day.Halifax2TheMax said:
No. Bills introduced, debated and voted on in Congress by their/there/they're nature are "political." Referencing a bill/law/act passed by Congress in a courtroom prosecution because it mentions or references "insurrection" is not "politicizing" the bill, its a statement of fact.tempo_n_groove said:
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.
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?
If the bill didn't pass, do you think the prosecutors would drop the charges? As far as I've heard, no one is being charged with insurrectionism, if there is indeed a statute on the books in the courts that have jurisdiction and prosecutors have filed such a charge.
A defense attorney could argue that, "that evil commie bill passed by Congress that awarded the Medal of Honor to our men and women in blue was an evil conspiracy by the dem majority to define a tourist visit as an insurrection and since it was a tourist visit, you must acquit my client." Never mind the actual charge(s) of trespassing, failure to disperse, theft, assault, conspiracy, etc. that defendants are likely to be charged with.
How do you define "insurrection?"
I have said multiple times that what happened that day was an insurrection since you needed confirmation.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, you're confusing me with someone else? Nowhere have I said anything of the sort.Halifax2TheMax said:
Seems to me that your looking for an excuse to excuse 1/6 and the consequences for traitors of conducting an insurrection.tempo_n_groove said:
This bill should have nothing to do with prosecuting though. It is a medal for the officers that day. But the way you describe it is exactly what will happen now. The bill becomes about the insurrection and not about the officers that day.Halifax2TheMax said:
No. Bills introduced, debated and voted on in Congress by their/there/they're nature are "political." Referencing a bill/law/act passed by Congress in a courtroom prosecution because it mentions or references "insurrection" is not "politicizing" the bill, its a statement of fact.tempo_n_groove said:
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.
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?
If the bill didn't pass, do you think the prosecutors would drop the charges? As far as I've heard, no one is being charged with insurrectionism, if there is indeed a statute on the books in the courts that have jurisdiction and prosecutors have filed such a charge.
A defense attorney could argue that, "that evil commie bill passed by Congress that awarded the Medal of Honor to our men and women in blue was an evil conspiracy by the dem majority to define a tourist visit as an insurrection and since it was a tourist visit, you must acquit my client." Never mind the actual charge(s) of trespassing, failure to disperse, theft, assault, conspiracy, etc. that defendants are likely to be charged with.
How do you define "insurrection?"
I have said multiple times that what happened that day was an insurrection since you needed confirmation.0 -
No.tempo_n_groove said:
No, you're confusing me with someone else? Nowhere have I said anything of the sort.Halifax2TheMax said:
Seems to me that your looking for an excuse to excuse 1/6 and the consequences for traitors of conducting an insurrection.tempo_n_groove said:
This bill should have nothing to do with prosecuting though. It is a medal for the officers that day. But the way you describe it is exactly what will happen now. The bill becomes about the insurrection and not about the officers that day.Halifax2TheMax said:
No. Bills introduced, debated and voted on in Congress by their/there/they're nature are "political." Referencing a bill/law/act passed by Congress in a courtroom prosecution because it mentions or references "insurrection" is not "politicizing" the bill, its a statement of fact.tempo_n_groove said:
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.
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?
If the bill didn't pass, do you think the prosecutors would drop the charges? As far as I've heard, no one is being charged with insurrectionism, if there is indeed a statute on the books in the courts that have jurisdiction and prosecutors have filed such a charge.
A defense attorney could argue that, "that evil commie bill passed by Congress that awarded the Medal of Honor to our men and women in blue was an evil conspiracy by the dem majority to define a tourist visit as an insurrection and since it was a tourist visit, you must acquit my client." Never mind the actual charge(s) of trespassing, failure to disperse, theft, assault, conspiracy, etc. that defendants are likely to be charged with.
How do you define "insurrection?"
I have said multiple times that what happened that day was an insurrection since you needed confirmation.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 -
Here’s what you should be upset about. The next David Koresh, Timothy McVeigh, Ruby Ridge sacred site in the making.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/06/18/slow-building-conservative-effort-turn-ashli-babbitt-into-martyr/
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 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