History in the making

[JoeWeber 2,840]

1 minute ago, kallend said:

Doesn't sound like anything.  

Thank you, Professor. I'll study harder.

[gowlerk 2,253]

8 hours ago, kallend said:

Sometimes a one liner gets the message across better than a multi page dissertation.

I generally agree less is more.

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

Then you attack the posters honesty, in keeping with your technique, followed by asking for an admission or an apology for, apparently, whatever comes to your mind at the moment. Rinse, wash, repeat.

Why are you still so butthurt over that? I asked you to be honest about something once (and it wasn't even an attack by the way, I was fully expecting that you would be) and it pissed you off so much you followed around every thread I posted in for week making digs about it, and apparently you're still carrying the same grudge months later. For someone who so obviously prides himself on having a sense of humour you should probably stop being so damn uptight.

And what came to my mind at that moment was exactly what you said one post earlier. Funny that. But what about you? If you think it's important, how often do you post opinions you have to defend? You like guns and you don't like Trump, beyond that I'd be hard pressed to think of anything obvious that you stand for despite your thousands of posts here.

[jakee 1,564]

On 1/30/2021 at 12:09 AM, mistercwood said:

Generally I agree with you but the last two just seemed to be picking fights over semantics for the purpose of picking fights. Seemed an incredible waste of energy, but everyone gets to post how they see fit, so...  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

No. Zombie was saying that a person who was convicted multiple times for theft and fraud, and is the current leader of a violent domestic terror group could be trusted implicitly, but a person who once helped convict other criminals is a rat, a liar and cannot be trusted at all. I disagree with that idea. Not the way it was presented or the words used to describe it, the idea itself.

The semantics started later after he got all pissy about black and white ideas right after having posted a black and white idea.

[sfzombie13 324]

2 hours ago, jakee said:

No. Zombie was saying that a person who was convicted multiple times for theft and fraud, and is the current leader of a violent domestic terror group could be trusted implicitly, but a person who once helped convict other criminals is a rat, a liar and cannot be trusted at all. I disagree with that idea. Not the way it was presented or the words used to describe it, the idea itself.

The semantics started later after he got all pissy about black and white ideas right after having posted a black and white idea.

yet again, you are totally mistaking what was said.  i said that individual is not to be trusted due to his own denial of ever ratting out anyone despite the proof otherwise.  then i said that just because an individual has been to jail he is not necessarily an untrustworthy person.  maybe the words were what got you confused, and i am paraphrasing here, but i am sure you'll go copy/paste them for me.  it does not change the thought process, nor does it invalidate the way i think.  i even tried to explain it in more detail, just for you, yet you played with my wording, rather than accept the thoughts i was trying to clarify.  i should have been a little more clear when i posted the first idea, that it was his denial and not the action that makes him always a rat (it was unclear at the time, now it is explained in more detail but does not change what i posted earlier).  sometimes there is substance to an idiomatic expression.  it is possible to hold two opposing views as truths at the same time, and this is one.  sort of like the stance i have on zero tolerance.  it is never a good idea, no matter the subject.  how can i have a zero tolerance policy on zero tolerance you ask?  easy.  it helps me sleep well at night.  chew on that today.

Edited January 31, 2021 by sfzombie13
explanatory words

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Not sure if this should go in the 'deplorables' thread or here.

But, as a general rule, when participating in a riot/insurrection attempt, wearing a jacket with the NAME and PHONE NUMBER of the company you own in really big letters on the back is probably not the best idea.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/capitol-riot-phone-number-jacket_n_60193f4ac5b622df90f6bf89?fbclid=IwAR035JGaJ7rNoT4jV2ZXwIy30zuhl91Myl8mpxvabtrg0EF4qrDCu0S6VpM&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9sLmZhY2Vib29rLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAN3ULB90tWyQ8MIWZ_vT7EwgaVEI3d2EgLFP20IhgS469W2C0KmWgAdUJqoBAQYI0QMcWkiTCHZw8a5wNt89hD8s2VTJTajAT1asoT-aaRgkcYkFQwRL7qFxTnOTMS2e-paEaeXPY_fh8cdvY2g_EvQ3Vbwsy0k_aXC2vV2XxkbX

[ryoder 1,590]

Canada labels far-right Proud Boys a terrorist entity

As a recognized "terrorist entity," property and other belongings connected to the group may be seized by the government, and financial institutions "are subject to reporting requirements with respect to an entity's property," under terms of Canada's Anti-Terrorism Act.

[headoverheels 333]

Fox "News" slips from 1st to 3rd in cable viewers in January, as viewers seek reporting over bloviation. 

[jakee 1,564]

On 1/31/2021 at 12:02 PM, sfzombie13 said:

yet again, you are totally mistaking what was said.  i said that individual is not to be trusted due to his own denial of ever ratting out anyone despite the proof otherwise.  

Funny that a guy currently hanging out with lots of untrustworthy criminals wouldn;t want them to know he once ratted out some criminals. But even then, it doesn't mean 'once a rat, always a rat' does it? How can you be so black and white even about just him when your only evidence is unrelated?

Quote

then i said that just because an individual has been to jail he is not necessarily an untrustworthy person.  maybe the words were what got you confused, and i am paraphrasing here, but i am sure you'll go copy/paste them for me.  it does not change the thought process, nor does it invalidate the way i think.  i even tried to explain it in more detail, just for you, yet you played with my wording, rather than accept the thoughts i was trying to clarify.

Because saying something completely different to what you originally said is not clarification, especially when you continue to insist that what you originally said was completely correct.

[sfzombie13 324]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

Funny that a guy currently hanging out with lots of untrustworthy criminals wouldn;t want them to know he once ratted out some criminals. But even then, it doesn't mean 'once a rat, always a rat' does it? How can you be so black and white even about just him when your only evidence is unrelated?

Because saying something completely different to what you originally said is not clarification, especially when you continue to insist that what you originally said was completely correct.

wow.  just wow.  first off, i said this guy, meaning the one we were referring to who said that he didn't rat anyone out (just in case you think i was talking about someone else), is a rat, and can't be trusted, hence the phrase i used on him about a rat. 

it's hard to explain, especially to one who is being asinine in the first place, but i'll try since i've got nothing better to do for a bit. 

i know what i wrote, and the thought process behind it.  you don't.  piss off.

[jakee 1,564]

8 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

wow.  just wow.  first off, i said this guy, meaning the one we were referring to who said that he didn't rat anyone out (just in case you think i was talking about someone else), is a rat, and can't be trusted, hence the phrase i used on him about a rat. 

Of course I know you’re talking about him. Now you’re just trying to confuse the issue even further.

And again, how can you make a black and white statement that he is always a rat when your evidence (that he is just dishonest) is unrelated to him currently being a rat?

And even further, how can you judge that a one time rat and current liar is always a rat, when you vehemently disagree with the judgement that a one time fraudster and current liar can’t be trusted? 
 

8 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

i know what i wrote, and the thought process behind it.  you don't.  piss off.

And yet you didn’t know the thought process behind my statements when you judged them to mean no one ever changes (even though you suggested that far more strongly than I did), that they were black and white, and that they came from lack of thought. How did you come to that conclusion? Do you think you’re special? Can you see my thoughts but I can’t see yours? 

[kallend 2,112]

Cell phone pings on January 6 in DC, showing the mob moving from the Trump rally to the Capitol.

 

Historic way to capture a riot.

[JoeWeber 2,840]

18 minutes ago, kallend said:

Cell phone pings on January 6 in DC, showing the mob moving from the Trump rally to the Capitol.

 

Historic way to capture a riot.

Yep, and by toting their phones into the building they've given their two-bit court appointed lawyers a problem. I notice that there are at least 11 Texans with serious charges now. Also West Virginian cops and other Southern patriots. It will be fascinating to see the demographics when it's all said and done.

[kallend 2,112]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Yep, and by toting their phones into the building they've given their two-bit court appointed lawyers a problem. I notice that there are at least 11 Texans with serious charges now. Also West Virginian cops and other Southern patriots. It will be fascinating to see the demographics when it's all said and done.

One has to wonder what these people are thinking, taking selfies while participating in a violent riot and posting the photos on social media.

I have several hypotheses, none of which are very complimentary to the individuals involved..

[wmw999 2,551]

7 minutes ago, kallend said:

One has to wonder what these people are thinking, taking selfies while participating in a violent riot and posting the photos on social media.

I have several hypotheses, none of which are very complimentary to the individuals involved..

They probably all think they're on the side of the good guys. It takes tunnel vision to think that, but humans are really, really, good at tunnel vision.

Wendy P.

[billvon 3,080]

21 minutes ago, kallend said:

One has to wonder what these people are thinking, taking selfies while participating in a violent riot and posting the photos on social media.

Watch the videos they recorded afterwards.  They were saying things like "this is a huge turning point in democracy" and "people will be talking about this for years."  They saw themselves as a hybrid of Paul Revere, George Washington and Molly Pitcher, bringing Trump-style democracy to the elected tyranny of the US Capital..  They WANTED to be part of that history.

It was only the next day when they found out about the dead people and the vandalism and the looting and the fact that most Americans do NOT support violent coups that they started changing their tune.  By that time, of course, the videos had been copied.  And there was a time when almost exactly half the people on Parler were claiming that it was an Antifa or BLM false flag operation, while the other half was still posting their selfies and self-congratulatory videos.

[JoeWeber 2,840]

15 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

They probably all think they're on the side of the good guys. It takes tunnel vision to think that, but humans are really, really, good at tunnel vision.

Wendy P.

Nah. They're just a bunch of credulous dunces predisposed to accept misinformation over fact. Mental illness should be the go to defense by their lawyers.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

5 hours ago, kallend said:

One has to wonder what these people are thinking, taking selfies while participating in a violent riot and posting the photos on social media.

I have several hypotheses, none of which are very complimentary to the individuals involved..

Many of these dipshits thought that the 'real' reason the National Guard was in place on inauguration day was to arrest Biden.

[billvon 3,080]

Fun fact -

Right after the attack on the capitol, Marjorie Taylor Greene sought to blame the left for the attack, saying that it was Antifa disguised as Trump supporters that rioted, looted and vandalized the capital, and killed a police officer.  She just knew that "Antifa would dress as Trump supporters . .  Antifa was clearly there."

Well, not only does it turn out that it was Trump supporters, it turns out one of them was her bestie.  Anthony Aguero, a conservative livestreamer and close associate of Greene, said on video that "we were all there. It was not Antifa and it was not BLM. It was Trump supporters that did that yesterday. I'm the first to admit it, being one myself." Greene has called this guy "amazing" and "one of my closest friends."

So we know where to look in the future for people who are likely to riot, vandalize, loot and kill cops - her phonebook.

 

[kallend 2,112]

I wonder if Senator Ron Johnson (R, WI) knows him.

[ryoder 1,590]

A Capitol rioter texted his ex during the insurrection to call her a ‘moron,’ feds say. She turned him in.

ROTF!

[billvon 3,080]

This thread began with a triumphant proclamation that history was being made by the Trump folks "taking back" the presidency.  All the egging on by Trump and his minions resulted in a riot at the Capitol that, many Trump supporters believed, would upset the apple cart and through some unexplained mechanism anoint Trump the president in perpetuity.  The election was STOLEN! they were told.  Voter fraud!  Illegals voting!  Boxes of ballots being burned!  Voting machine companies were in on it!  Such memes were seen on right wing sites and reposted in echo chambers across the country, and proclaimed by the "brave patriots" as a rationale to attack the Capitol, kill cops, vandalize and loot the capital, attempt to kidnap and kill members of Congress - even literally shit on the floors of the US government.  People bragged about it as they were doing it, what a great day this was for democracy.  And recorded it, and posted it to Parler.

And here we are, a few months later.  Not only did that not happen, the people who helped Trump are claiming that no one in their right mind should have believed all the things they said.  And all those videos?  Rather than be a record of history being made, they are being used as evidence to put criminals away for years.

Still, I have a feeling that next time such people will fall for the same sort of manipulation all over again - even after they were told by the people manipulating them that they would have had to be insane to fall for it.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

11 hours ago, billvon said:

...I have a feeling that next time such people will fall for the same sort of manipulation all over again - even after they were told by the people manipulating them that they would have had to be insane to fall for it.

To be fair, the fools weren't directly told that they 'would have to be insane to fall for it'.

That statement is being used as a defense by the perpetrators. The manipulators.

I have yet to hear Trump, Giuliani, Powell, or any of the other con artists actually tell the fools that it was all a massive lie. 

And, despite the evidence (no evidence submitted to a court of law, the admissions in court that it was all a sham, ect), many of those fools STILL believe that the election 'was stolen', that Trump is the 'rightful president' ect. 
They still believe that "Q" is the truth. 

You are absolutely right that it will happen again.
It's happened over and over (and over and over and over and over) in the past.
It's happening right now with all the lies and disinformation about Covid and the vaccines. Or about AGW being a 'hoax'. 

People are gullible fools. They believe what they WANT TO believe. Thousands of years of religion prove this quite clearly. 

[billvon 3,080]

52 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

To be fair, the fools weren't directly told that they 'would have to be insane to fall for it'.

That statement is being used as a defense by the perpetrators. The manipulators.

Right.  But the next time someone starts with a "the dems STOLE the election from you!" meme, a democrat will point out "you know, the last time you believed something like that, those very same republican leaders said no one in their right mind would believe their claims" - and it won't matter one bit.  They will believe QanonII with as much faith and fervor as Ron believed in Q.

Where they go one, they go all.

[kallend 2,112]

On 2/5/2021 at 10:38 AM, JoeWeber said:

Nah. They're just a bunch of credulous dunces predisposed to accept misinformation over fact. Mental illness should be the go to defense by their lawyers.

Strongly reinforced by the "no rational person" defense of Ms. Powell.