Jan 6th Footage


Carborendum
 Share

Recommended Posts

To continue the threadjack from this thread, I thought I should start a new thread.

I had said that what we were seeing from the Jan 6th hearings was the dictionary definition of a kangaroo court.

  • The verdict was pre-determined regardless of evidence and testimony.
  • Exculpatory evidence was suppressed.
  • Defense witness testimony was denied.
  • The right to confront their accusers was denied.
  • AFAIK, many of the defendants didn't even have defense counsel.

Now, with the footage recently shown by Fox News, we begin to see a different picture.  Some other information similar to this was already available to the public.  But it was all but wiped from the internet by social media sites and mainstream media sites.  For those who actually saw some of it, we couldn't link to it because it had been scrubbed except by very fringe media sites that no one took seriously.  So, I was never able to link to the videos I had seen with my own eyes.  I hope a lot of that stuff will start making their appearance again.

It was in fact a "mostly peaceful protest."  No one on the government side was harmed during the protest.  But the media ran with it as an "insurrection."  Some on the right even allowed that it could be called a "riot."  It was a heck of a lot more peaceful than any BLM riot.

The only person that died from the incident was Air Force veteran Ashli Babbit because she stuck her head through the broken "window" in a hallway door to peek at the hallway beyond.  Media said she was "climbing through" the window.  The video showed she did not.  Yet all charges were dropped against officer Michael T. Byrd who shot Babbit.  She was killed for looking through a broken window.  But they found no wrong doing by the officer who killed her.  Where will there ever be a campaign about "Justice for Ashli"?

So far, we haven't seen much of the footage.  So, there is still a lot where we should withhold judgment.  But the very fact that this video shows cooperation between protesters and the police/security team indicates that it was certainly not an insurrection.

We need to see something very important.  There were some agitators.  But all the verifiable reports say that:

  • The agitators couldn't really rile up all that many people to rioting.
  • None of the agitators themselves were arrested.  They seem to have mysteriously vanished.  Despite all the security cameras capturing their images and plenty of arrested protesters who could identify them, none of them were able to be apprehended.  Curious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
44 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Now, with the footage recently shown by Fox News, we begin to see a different picture.  Some other information similar to this was already available to the public.  But it was all but wiped from the internet by social media sites and mainstream media sites.  For those who actually saw some of it, we couldn't link to it because it had been scrubbed except by very fringe media sites that no one took seriously.  So, I was never able to link to the videos I had seen with my own eyes.  I hope a lot of that stuff will start making their appearance again.

It was in fact a "mostly peaceful protest."  No one on the government side was harmed during the protest.  But the media ran with it as an "insurrection."  Some on the right even allowed that it could be called a "riot."  It was a heck of a lot more peaceful than any BLM riot.

I'd imagine that the 1/6 protest was similar to the BLM protests in that there were large swaths of peaceful protesters and smaller factions of violent ones, with the latter getting the bulk of the media attention. The difference here is that instead of a Starbucks or a grocery store, the target of the violence was the United States Congress. 

44 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The only person that died from the incident was Air Force veteran Ashli Babbit because she stuck her head through the broken "window" in a hallway door to peek at the hallway beyond.  Media said she was "climbing through" the window.  The video showed she did not.  Yet all charges were dropped against officer Michael T. Byrd who shot Babbit.  She was killed for looking through a broken window.  But they found no wrong doing by the officer who killed her.  Where will there ever be a campaign about "Justice for Ashli"?

My understanding (which could admittedly be incorrect) is that the door that Babbitt was "poking her head through"* was the only thing separating her and the other protesters from members of Congress. If that's true, then I think it was a justified shooting. An unarmed mob can be just as dangerous as a single gunman, if not more so. I'm glad, but also a bit surprised, that there were no other protesters shot by police/security/secret service that day. 

*The video that's been widely circulated clearly shows that Babbit was trying to climb through the window, not simply looking through it. Obstensibly, this is because the door was barricaded, which tracks with the supposition that members of Congress were beyond that door.

44 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So far, we haven't seen much of the footage.  So, there is still a lot where we should withhold judgment.  But the very fact that this video shows cooperation between protesters and the police/security team indicates that it was certainly not an insurrection.

Some of those who work forces....

44 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

We need to see something very important.  There were some agitators.  But all the verifiable reports say that:

  • The agitators couldn't really rile up all that many people to rioting.
  • None of the agitators themselves were arrested.  They seem to have mysteriously vanished.  Despite all the security cameras capturing their images and plenty of arrested protesters who could identify them, none of them were able to be apprehended.  Curious.

How are you defining "agitators"? Because I know for a fact that there are multiple individuals who are seen assaulting police officers in video footage who have either been convicted for their crimes or are awaiting their day in court for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I had said that what we were seeing from the Jan 6th hearings was the dictionary definition of a kangaroo court.

Well, this is what the party in charge gets to do.  You hold hearings, subpoena witnesses, question the crap out of the ones you don't like, create sound bytes, run news cycles, gain votes.   Legislators aren't courts.  It's pure unadulterated political theater, whether Dems or Republicans are in charge.  I mean, what did you expect - that Democrats wouldn't look into Jan 6 while they were in charge?   Now that the midterms switched the house red, are you somehow surprised that we're getting round 2 that makes the Dems look dumb?

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

No one on the government side was harmed during the protest.  But the media ran with it as an "insurrection."  Some on the right even allowed that it could be called a "riot."  It was a heck of a lot more peaceful than any BLM riot.

The only person that died from the incident was Air Force veteran Ashli Babbit because she stuck her head through the broken "window" in a hallway door to peek at the hallway beyond.  Media said she was "climbing through" the window.  The video showed she did not.  Yet all charges were dropped against officer Michael T. Byrd who shot Babbit.  She was killed for looking through a broken window.  But they found no wrong doing by the officer who killed her.  Where will there ever be a campaign about "Justice for Ashli"?

Just out of curiosity, have you seen the video where the chant of "heave-HO" is going on, and one of the capitol police screams out in pain as he's being crushed under their weight?   Not sure if he was injured or not, and the call went out from the mob to cease pushing.  Since it shows both police getting injured by a mob, and the mob showing concern and altering their behavior, it favored neither side.  And therefore, I've never seen it in the news, nor was it in the Jan 6th commission montage of the worst of it.  

Also, have you seen the raw unedited video of Ashli getting shot?  The one with a minute of footage before and after the shot?  The crowd closest to the doors did not comply with several lawful commands and warnings from the cops on the other side of that door.  You could hear their repeated orders clearly on the video.  Yeah, she got herself killed, and the capitol policeman who pulled the trigger did nothing wrong.  She did some textbook FA, and she FO.   

Quote

We need to see something very important.  There were some agitators.  But all the verifiable reports say that:

  • The agitators couldn't really rile up all that many people to rioting.
  • None of the agitators themselves were arrested.  They seem to have mysteriously vanished.  Despite all the security cameras capturing their images and plenty of arrested protesters who could identify them, none of them were able to be apprehended.  Curious.

Totally agree here.  You are totally spot on.  

I mean, yes, the BLM/Antifa/general lawless riots of 2020-22 were much more violent, widespread, deadly, and expensive.  The fact that Jan 6 gets so much press, and the horrors of burning cities and beatings and homicides and property destruction gets so little, it's beyond forgivable.   The fact that Trump takes so much flak for his part in that day, where dozens and dozens of Dem/Liberal/leftie politicians and news anchors and influencers get zero attention, is beyond intentional blinder-wearing ignorance.    But yeah, you have to call things as they are, and some of the stuff that happened on Jan 6 was as wrong as much of the stuff that happened after COVID lockdowned bored America saw George Floyd on blast and took to the streets. 

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Godless said:

I'd imagine that the 1/6 protest was similar to the BLM protests in that there were large swaths of peaceful protesters and smaller factions of violent ones, with the latter getting the bulk of the media attention. The difference here is that instead of a Starbucks or a grocery store, the target of the violence was the United States Congress. 

 

 

1/6 was NOTHING like the endless BLM (and Antifa) rioting.  Relentless violence for days upon days without end.  No comparison.  Yes there were some injuries and the death of Ashli Babbit.  Still no comparison to the violence inflicted by the BLM/Antifa crowds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Godless said:

How are you defining "agitators"? Because I know for a fact that there are multiple individuals who are seen assaulting police officers in video footage who have either been convicted for their crimes or are awaiting their day in court for it. 

Agreeing with this part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Godless said:

I'd imagine that the 1/6 protest was similar to the BLM protests in that there were large swaths of peaceful protesters and smaller factions of violent ones,

How many people were killed in BLM riots?  By whom?

How many people were killed in the J-6 protest?  Only one protester -- by a police officer who was not in danger.  No one else was killed.  

This comparison is what marks them as very different.

23 minutes ago, Godless said:

protesters from members of Congress. If that's true, then I think it was a justified shooting. An unarmed mob can be just as dangerous as a single gunman, if not more so. I'm glad, but also a bit surprised, that there were no other protesters shot by police/security/secret service that day.

Let's see, the "mob" remained outside barricades on the Capital grounds until the police moved the barricades and told the protesters they could enter.  Did BLM ever exhibit such behavior?

23 minutes ago, Godless said:

*The video that's been widely circulated clearly shows that Babbit was trying to climb through the window, not simply looking through it. Obstensibly, this is because the door was barricaded, which tracks with the supposition that members of Congress were beyond that door.

  • The police were standing there watching as they were breaking down the barricade.  They could have told them all to stop.  Did they?   I've never seen evidence that they did.   If so, why did they not do anything to physically stop them?  That was at least enough to get them on vandalism charges.  But they just stood there.  If there was a reason for the officer on the other side to consider his life in danger, why didn't these officers feel in danger?
  • The video you refer to only had a partial view of the back.  We can't see what she was doing.  She shorter than average and actually needed help seeing over the barricaded materials.  People lifted her up.  From what I could tell, she looked like she was about to fall forward.
  • The video that was on the internet, but has since disappeared, showed her from the front.  It showed her being raised and sticking her head in to look around.  Then she was shot.
23 minutes ago, Godless said:

Some of those who work forces....

How are you defining "agitators"? Because I know for a fact that there are multiple individuals who are seen assaulting police officers in video footage who have either been convicted for their crimes or are awaiting their day in court for it. 

No videos.  Just the testimony of people who were there.

My neighbor actually went there on J-6.  But she had enough sense to realize when there was a setup.  She said that most of the people were the typical picketing type of protesters.  She was one of them.  They weren't going to vandalize anything.  They were just going to walk around and yell/chant stuff.

But then she noticed a few people here and there that certainly seemed quite different than others.  And they were there for something much worse.  She said that most of the people ignored such agitators.  But there were just a few people who started to be swayed by each agitator.  She decided, that it was not a good idea to be near this.  So, when the exterior barricades were opened, she was not going inside.

She also noted that the few agitators that she saw slunked away just as the police started arresting people.  Some of them slipped between police officers just as they were arresting all the people whom they agitated.  It is these guys that "got agitated" that are in jail awaiting their day in court (even after two years).  Do you know that many rapists don't get a two year sentence?

This jibes with many reports I read on the internet about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Well, this is what the party in charge gets to do.  You hold hearings, subpoena witnesses, question the crap out of the ones you don't like, create sound bytes, run news cycles, gain votes.   Legislators aren't courts.  It's pure unadulterated political theater, whether Dems or Republicans are in charge.  I mean, what did you expect - that Democrats wouldn't look into Jan 6 while they were in charge?   Now that the midterms switched the house red, are you somehow surprised that we're getting round 2 that makes the Dems look dumb?

They get to hold hearings, yes.  But they also prevented any information from getting out that would exhonerate anyone. The members of Congress specifically withheld evidence that should have been public record.  That is NOT what they are supposed to do.

Andy why are these people in solitary confinement for two years while still awaiting a trial for vandalism?

You are right that I'm conflating several government bodies because the lines are blurring.  But this isn't like a normal Congressional hearing.  Congress/FBI/etc.  is withholding exculpatory evidence from being shown in public and in the courtroom.  And it's all a circus.  They're all acting as one body in their collusion.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
45 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

 

1/6 was NOTHING like the endless BLM (and Antifa) rioting.  Relentless violence for days upon days without end.  No comparison.  Yes there were some injuries and the death of Ashli Babbit.  Still no comparison to the violence inflicted by the BLM/Antifa crowds.

This is a complicated comparison for a variety of reasons.

 

1. The scale - Obviously, we're comparing a single event in one location to ongoing events nationwide. I do believe it's accurate to say that the George Floyd protests were mostly peaceful. But yes, it's also accurate to say that they were more violent than the 1/6 protest because there was more damage caused and more people hurt. If 1/6 had been a nationwide event targeting government buildings in several states, there probably would have been a lot more violence and people hurt/killed.

 

2. The target - Private property (mostly retail stores) vs. A federal government building occupied by the entirety of the US government and the Vice President of the United States. Imo, the protection one of those merits a more loose ROE than the other, and it ain't Cub Grocery. As I said, I'm glad that more people weren't hurt or killed on 1/6, but I recall watching some of the footage and wondering why there wasn't a more violent response.

 

3. Agitators - Unlike 1/6, we have law enforcement on record saying that some of the George Floyd violence was instigated by opposition groups like conservative agitators and white supremacists.

 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-helped-ignite-george-floyd-riots-identified-white/story?id=72051536

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54670557

 

https://www.justice.gov/usao-nv/pr/joint-terrorism-task-force-charges-three-men-who-allegedly-sought-exploit-protests-las

 

In at least one instance, the police themselves were complicit in the escalation of violence.

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/seattle-police-faked-reports-of-armed-proud-boys-to-spook-george-floyd-protesters-watchdog-report-says

 

To be clear, I'm not trying to suggest that the BLM protesters were entirely peaceful or blameless. There's certainly cause to vilify Antifa sympathizers for their role in violence. I just think there's more nuance to it than some people are willing to give credit for. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Godless said:

2. The target - Private property (mostly retail stores) vs. A federal government building occupied by the entirety of the US government and the Vice President of the United States. Imo, the protection one of those merits a more loose ROE than the other, and it ain't Cub Grocery. As I said, I'm glad that more people weren't hurt or killed on 1/6, but I recall watching some of the footage and wondering why there wasn't a more violent response.

This, to me, is probably the biggest issue I have with BLM.

Yes, some areas were targeting the government buildings.  We saw them.  But the vast majority of the personal damage and property damage were against average citizens who had nothing to do with the complaints that BLM had.  They just wanted to keep their heads down and hoped it would just be left alone.

Government officials have special protection.  Those citizens did not.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
14 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

This, to me, is probably the biggest issue I have with BLM.

Yes, some areas were targeting the government buildings.  We saw them.  But the vast majority of the personal damage and property damage were against average citizens who had nothing to do with the complaints that BLM had.  They just wanted to keep their heads down and hoped it would just be left alone.

Government officials have special protection.  Those citizens did not.

No argument here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just heard a report (complete with court documents) that Federal Agents were involved with J6 (supposedly, they were the agitators that go away) and destroyed evidence.  I also saw another source saying the same thing.  But it was behind a paywall that I can't read the details of.

Apart from that, I can't find a corroborating source yet.  But I'll be looking for further details as I keep my ear to the ground.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Godless said:

The difference here is that instead of a Starbucks or a grocery store, the target of the violence was the United States Congress. 

Well, yeah, that and the widespread looting, arson, destruction of property, battery, and murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have anyone particularly in mind here, I just wanna go on a general rant against my fellow humans for a minute:

 

It's not ok to try to disrupt congress as they're trying to certify the results of a hotly contested presidential election.

It's not ok to blockade the exits to a police station and push a flaming dumpster up against it in an effort to burn it down with cops still inside.

It's not ok to bash up businesses and private property in the name of demanding justice.

It's not ok to take advantage of civil unrest to flashmob a Target and steal stuff.

 

You know what else isn't ok?  Selective blindness that only allows someone to call foul when a differently-political person or group is doing bad things.  You want your side to win?  Don't defend or minimize horrible things when your side does them.   Yeah, everyone's got an agent provocateur.  Everyone's got a charismatic leader urging others to forward the agenda.  Everyone knows how to run a false flag operation.  Everyone knows how to selectively edit videos to emphasize how your guys are the goodies, and their guys are the baddies.   And when your tactics get discovered, you lose relevancy, trust, and the ability to persuade folks.  Don't be that guy.  

 

Ten bucks says half of you are responding with something like "There's no proof Trump wanted that", or "The white nationalists were pretending to be Antifa in that thing you're thinking about."  Gimme a break. Y'all are better than such defensive dismissals.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

I don't have anyone particularly in mind here, I just wanna go on a general rant against my fellow humans for a minute:

 

It's not ok to try to disrupt congress as they're trying to certify the results of a hotly contested presidential election.

It's not ok to blockade the exits to a police station and push a flaming dumpster up against it in an effort to burn it down with cops still inside.

It's not ok to bash up businesses and private property in the name of demanding justice.

It's not ok to take advantage of civil unrest to flashmob a Target and steal stuff.

 

You know what else isn't ok?  Selective blindness that only allows someone to call foul when a differently-political person or group is doing bad things.  You want your side to win?  Don't defend or minimize horrible things when your side does them.   Yeah, everyone's got an agent provocateur.  Everyone's got a charismatic leader urging others to forward the agenda.  Everyone knows how to run a false flag operation.  Everyone knows how to selectively edit videos to emphasize how your guys are the goodies, and their guys are the baddies.   And when your tactics get discovered, you lose relevancy, trust, and the ability to persuade folks.  Don't be that guy.  

 

Ten bucks says half of you are responding with something like "There's no proof Trump wanted that", or "The white nationalists were pretending to be Antifa in that thing you're thinking about."  Gimme a break. Y'all are better than such defensive dismissals.

I agree with everything you've written. But what I have seen much of from "my side" is people ignoring or minimizing the evils done by the opposition and magnifying evils done by "our side". This typically takes the form of "everyone does thus-and-such" and "you're just as biased as they are" and "it's human nature to do [something dishonest], so just admit that's what you're doing here."

I readily admit that "mobbing" the federal buildings in DC on the very evening of election certification is beyond mere stupidity, and can certainly be construed as some sort of sedition. I also note that the "mobbing" was done by a relatively few people who made little attempt to disguise themselves, that they never had any real opportunity to overturn an election or cause serious mayhem, and that the media played it up for all they possibly could. On the other hand, the riots that occurred the preceding year were done by masked hooligans intent on property damage and looting, occurred in urban areas throughout the entire nation, presented a real and immediate threat to public safety, and were dismissed by Democrats and media alike (but I repeat myself) with the almost humorously outrageous and cynical phrase "mostly peaceful".

The two are not equivalent. The riots were far more dangerous and far more damaging long-term than the stupidity of January 6. The media took absolutely no pains to disguise their bias. The lecture you gave above applies to all human beings generally, but does not apply equally to the constituency of those involved in comparing and contrasting the above two situations. On the whole, those who decry the riotings acknowledge the stupidity of January 6 far more openly and readily than those who decry January 6 admit the destructiveness of the supposedly "mostly peaceful" riotings.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

I don't have anyone particularly in mind here, I just wanna go on a general rant against my fellow humans for a minute:

 

It's not ok to try to disrupt congress as they're trying to certify the results of a hotly contested presidential election.

It's not ok to blockade the exits to a police station and push a flaming dumpster up against it in an effort to burn it down with cops still inside.

It's not ok to bash up businesses and private property in the name of demanding justice.

It's not ok to take advantage of civil unrest to flashmob a Target and steal stuff.

 

You know what else isn't ok?  Selective blindness that only allows someone to call foul when a differently-political person or group is doing bad things.  You want your side to win?  Don't defend or minimize horrible things when your side does them.   Yeah, everyone's got an agent provocateur.  Everyone's got a charismatic leader urging others to forward the agenda.  Everyone knows how to run a false flag operation.  Everyone knows how to selectively edit videos to emphasize how your guys are the goodies, and their guys are the baddies.   And when your tactics get discovered, you lose relevancy, trust, and the ability to persuade folks.  Don't be that guy.  

 

Ten bucks says half of you are responding with something like "There's no proof Trump wanted that", or "The white nationalists were pretending to be Antifa in that thing you're thinking about."  Gimme a break. Y'all are better than such defensive dismissals.

It’s the best gift the right gave the left. Like it or not, the majority of Americans were incredibly disturbed by the Jan 6th crowd. The right can argue about stolen elections and conspiracies until they are blue in the face, but the simple truth is that riot flipped the last few moderates out there to the left.
 

At least for now-Americans have short memories. More justifying of the riot and ranting about stolen elections will guarantee our side loses in 2024. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

I agree with everything you've written. But what I have seen much of from "my side" is people ignoring or minimizing the evils done by the opposition and magnifying evils done by "our side". This typically takes the form of "everyone does thus-and-such" and "you're just as biased as they are" and "it's human nature to do [something dishonest], so just admit that's what you're doing here."

Well, and frankly, the point of a lot of us more institutionalist-leaning conservatives is “Of course Democratic riffraff are going to riot and steal and burn and maim and marshal the nation’s felons and ne’er-do-wells into the ranks of their shock troops; as they’ve been doing since the 1960s and as their Marxist ideological heroes were doing long before then.  But we’re supposed to be the party of law and order.”

And for those of us who see a religious/spiritual facet to our political agendas:  we tend to look at divine favor and divine aid as a sine qua non for long-term success; which means we gotta fight clean and fair.  It’s awfully hard to argue that God looked at January 6 (or the rhetoric and actions that led up to it, or the post hoc excuses and apologetics) with any degree of pleasure.

Unless we are in a position where nothing less than all-out war becomes necessary to counter assaults on our personal liberty/safety (or that of our loved ones), we likely should be holding ourselves to a higher standard.  And really, if widespread violence/civil war does break out, the Saints should probably be thinking about ways to extricate themselves from that social/ political/ geographical milieu and focusing on the spiritual and physical building up of Zion.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

And for those of us who see a religious/spiritual facet to our political agendas:  we tend to look at divine favor and divine aid as a sine qua non for long-term success; which means we gotta fight clean and fair.  It’s awfully hard to argue that God looked at January 6 (or the rhetoric and actions that led up to it, or the post hoc excuses and apologetics) with any degree of pleasure.

Not saying I disagree... but cannot help but consider the founding of the country and the related riotous (and, indeed, war inducing) actions when trying to judge these matters.

I'm not suggesting that good people should be rioting. I just cannot help but wonder on such matters. 

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Not saying I disagree... but cannot help but consider the founding of the country and the related riotous (and, indeed, war inducing) actions when trying to judge these matters.

I'm not suggesting that good people should be rioting. I just cannot help but wonder on such matters. 

Well, it would seem that the left is already at the point where they are willing to pledge their fortunes and their (ahem) honor for their cause.  Are they willing to pledge their lives?  I don't know.  The best way to find out would be to really prosecute these individuals to the fullest extent of the law, including RICO.  If they are still growing after a significant period, then we know that they really are willing to do so.

What about the right?  Well, if we only have Jan 6 to compare to, it seems that a precious few were.  But many tried to cop a deal.  Others just didn't even know what was going on, but they were still prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and then some.

I go by the guidance in the Declaration.  If it does become "absolute despotism" (and thankfully, we haven't reached that point... yet) and it has become so bad that a full 10% to 15% of "otherwise law-abiding citizens of all economic persuasions" are willing to pledge the BIG 3, then the rioting and war is justified.

Would I be part of such an uprising?  Not really.  It would really take a LOT for me to do so.  And, thankfully, we're about 100 steps away from getting to the point where I'd be involved in that sort of activity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Not saying I disagree... but cannot help but consider the founding of the country and the related riotous (and, indeed, war inducing) actions when trying to judge these matters.

I'm not suggesting that good people should be rioting. I just cannot help but wonder on such matters. 

Indeed.  I’ve been thinking lately about the rationale from the Declaration of Independence:


Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Are we seeing a “long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinc[ing] a design to reduce [us] under absolute Despotism”?  What does it mean to exist under “absolute despotism”?

And, notably, Jefferson isn’t saying that in such a case it’s our duty just to to raise a ruckus/engage in shooting until we see no more enemies to shoot.  It’s our duty to “provide new guards for [our] future security”.  In 1776 that meant declaring independence from a despot two thousand miles away and implementing geography-based self rule.  What would that mean in 2023, when (assuming, for argument’s sake, that a cabal of would-be despots as envisioned by Jefferson is in ascendancy today) the would-be despots are all around us, rather than separated from us by an ocean?*  Shouldn’t we be able to give at least a tentative answer to the question of “what, next?”, before we turn to violence?
 

*(I just remembered Mel Gibson’s rhetorical question in The Patriot asking how being ruled by one thousand despots living one mile away would be better than being ruled by one despot living one thousand miles away.)

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Are we seeing a “long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinc[ing] a design to reduce [us] under absolute Despotism”?  What does it mean to exist under “absolute despotism”?

Not yet a "long train".  But what elements of despotism do we see? Small things that add up.  Add a long enough list together, and it is a long train of abuses.

LGBTQ. -- every one of these were enforced by government, or else there wouldn't be a problem.

  • "Protected Class" of people based on criteria that most of us didn't even care about.  But such status now gives them more power than an average citizen by way of lawsuits more than legislation.
  • Persecuting individuals' businesses because they don't want to support ideologies that are against their deeply held religious beliefs.  Certainly, that baker in Colorado kept having the state itself bring charges against him that were later overturned by the SCOTUS. And they continue to do that to him.
  • Forcing (by threat of lawsuit, loss of employment, and all other cancellation) people to use preferred pronouns that are anti-reality.
  • Using force of government to both force transgenderism (I've linked to it in other threads) among our children, and encouraging confused children to embrace the ideology.  And hiding such activity from the parents of those children.
  • Adoption vis-à-vis LGBTQ agenda.

Other

  • Jan 6
  • Mentioning religion in the classroom can get a teacher fired and students punished.
  • Porn epidemic -- facilitated (not enforced) by government.
  • Drug epidemic -- facilitated (not enforced) by government.
  • Immigration crisis
  • Failed to enforce laws to keep cities safe
  • ATF requires handgun braces to be registered.
  • Declaring a bunch of protesters as terrorists so they can be incarcerated without trial and without bail.
  • Declaring a bunch of parents as terrorists so they could be arrested for voicing dissent at school boards.
  • Arresting a father with a SWAT team for protecting his son from an activist because he (the father) was pro-life.  Didn't do a thing to the activist for starting the altercation.
  • Denying non-profit status to conservative political groups because they were conservative, while allowing many liberal political groups to have non-profit status why they acted very much like a commercial enterprise.
  • Persecuting religious schools from K-12 to Universities.
  • Enforcing environmental laws that have made conditions worse from any perspective.
  • Got us into Ukraine/Russian war.
  • Inflation

And to be fair, let's look at what conservative officials have done to liberals for primarily political motivations:

  • Patriot Act
  • FISA
  • "Domestic Terrorist"
  • They want male and female to be discerned by biology.
  • Prevented LGBTQ topic to be taught to impressionable children.
  • Shut down the entire world because of a flu bug.  Yes, both Repubs and Dems have to share the blame here.
  • They want parents to have more control over the raising of their children.
  • They ceded federal power over abortion and gave the power back to states.
  • Weakened unions.
  • Have proposed sunsets on Social Security/medicare.  Never succeeded.
  • Inflation
  • And I'm sure our more liberal forum members will have a longer list.
Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I've just heard a report (complete with court documents) that Federal Agents were involved with J6 (supposedly, they were the agitators that go away) and destroyed evidence.  I also saw another source saying the same thing.  But it was behind a paywall that I can't read the details of.

Apart from that, I can't find a corroborating source yet.  But I'll be looking for further details as I keep my ear to the ground.

I've seen bits and pieces, but haven't had time to actually sit down and investigate. 

One thing I've heard is that the FBI deleted large quantities of messages and documentation that should have been forwarded to the defense team for at least one of the accused, and that this has led to at least one case being declared a mistrial. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share