Moron.
President Joe Biden
- Thread starter tenacious
- Start date
Moron.
Desert Hound
DA
I find it interesting how the word insurrection gets tossed around by people who think they are smart in the media/dem party.
It wasn't an insurrection by any standard other than saying so for political purposes and then having their followers dutifully repeat the term. You had a couple hundred people at most break into the congressional building. Most it seems walked around talking selfies. A few took some momentos. All should be prosecuted.
That however is not an insurrection. The same people tossing that term around so casually are the same ones saying fascist, racist, etc day in and day out.
Trump didn't incite violence. Read or watch the speech.
To pretend otherwise means you didn't bother reading or watching it, and are simply taking your clues from people with an agenda.
I'm not sure in espola's case he honestly understands the meaning of any of these terms and their nuances. He's just parroting. He can't even define what he means by "classic conservative". He just points to this other crazy curmudgeon that makes pens and whose banner reads "don't just embrace the crazy....slide up next to it and lick it's ear." If all the cuckoo birds are even still in the clock, they aren't all flying in the same direction.
I watched his speech, the one where he told the rioters to go to the Capitol and not be "weak" after others had whipped up the crowd with words like "trial by combaT" and "take names and kick ass". I also watched him dancing around gleefully to televised reports of the riot while the rioters were committing murder in the Capitol. I watched his speech when he told the rioters "We love you".
I have posted my definition of classic conservatism many times before, even in direct responses to you. You can look it up.
None of that rises to the legal standard of incitement. Struggle words are often used in political speech. If that weren't the case then Biden is in an impeachable situation for saying he would beat the hell out of Trump if in high school. What matters is he specifically said to the protestors:
"will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make our voices heard" and that he never instructed them to violate any law, enter the Capitol or do violence.
Yeah, but never coherently, which as I was just telling DH, is the problem with you (and why you are a Magoo).
There's that word "legal" again.
What is not coherent about what I posted? Are you afraid to look it up?
Legal is all we really have to go on. It's separate from the question of "moral".
As to what you posted, all I remember is you and the crazy pen guy and Nixon. Don't really care that much about you to waste an hour hunting and look it up. <head pat>
It seems to be a recurring tactic of yours to tell lies about someone and then claim that it is too much work to show the basis for your opinions.
It's funny (given your motto is so truthy) that you think I deal in tactics at all. That would ascribe more care than I give to you. Again, I look upon you as a confused lost curmudgeon, not some great opponent that I'm wagging some kind of half-assed tactical struggle with. Poor Magoo.
Another of your tactics is personal insults when you have nothing material to back up your position.
Shouldn't a graduate of one of the top law schools in the country know better than that? How would a judge react to similar behavior in a courtroom?
Hüsker Dü
DA
What did they convict Al Capone of? Charles Manson?
In 1971, he was convicted of first-degree murderand conspiracy to commit murder for the deaths of seven people, including the film actress Sharon Tate. The prosecution contended that, while Manson never directly ordered the murders, his ideology constituted an overt act of conspiracy.
That's funny coming from the coocoo king. Pot meet kettle. Like I said, I never initiate things with folks. Your courtroom reference even implies a contest (hence the tactics reference) when that is nothing of the kind going on here.
If any thing, my jibes are giving you the benefit of the doubt. I've said every once in a while you have something lucid and clever to say. You are well-read if only partially understanding of what you read. I choose to believe and give you the benefit of the doubt that you are this loveable, confused, crazy curmudgeon rather than a no account troll who is just trying to score partisan points. You are the crazy uncle at the Thanksgiving dinner table who we nevertheless love
A word of advice from an old curmudgeon: When you tell a lie about someone, they are the first to know that you are a liar.
a. Don't know too much about the Manson murder, but wasn't Capone convicted of tax fraud?
b. the house Ds didn't charge murder. They charged incitement which has a specific legal standard which has not been met here.
c. they could have charged a conspiracy to do something "x" but a conspiracy also has some specific requirements, most notably an agreement, which can be express or implied. The problem with that then is you have to get into not only Trump's intent but the intent of everyone involved in the so-called conspiracy to see if there was some sort of meeting of the minds.
d. That's stupid. You are beclowning yourself.
Very telling. Very profound. See, Magoo can sometimes pull it out of his little bowler hat.
Because were I to believe the worst of you, this is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. But I don't, so I choose to believe you are in a fog of confusion and can't make distinctions clear.
Poor Magoo <pat>
Many of the Capitol rioters have stated publicly that they went on their rampage because t told them to.
Are you suggesting that I have lied about you? If so, can you point out any such lies? Or is this another one of your "look it up for yourself" evasions?