No charges for Ashli Babbitt’s killer

[Little Monster]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Minor technicalities, all. You still don't get it, do you?

--If it is something that supports Trump, RWWs, neo-Confederacy ideology, Q-anon, racist views disguised as "law and order" or complete hypocrisy in defense of any of those--THEN IT IS TO BE BELIEVED WITHOUT QUESTION!

--If it is liberal, anti-Trump, points out acts of police misconduct, points out that guns are dangerous, has three degrees of separation or less from any known Democrat, etc., then it must be fake news or a commie plot.

Get it right or the RWW thought police will pay you a visit any night now. How dare you think you are allowed to disagree!

I stand corrected!!

Shame on me for reading and believing reputable sources. Sometimes I need to be reminded that the Far right, conservatives, Republicans, Trump supporters etc. can do no wrong!!

Guess I better go hide in the "basement" of Comet Ping Pong!

[Little Monster]

Originally Posted by reddog1951

I find it quite interesting that no one cares to rebut my central point that the Capital invasion was unique and intolerable by the very fact that they DID purposely disrupt constitutionally mandated legislative action and REASONABLY posed a threat to the personal safety of lawfully elected public officials.

Riddle me this: What would be your stance had Antifa similarly invaded the Senate during the voting of Supreme Court nominees?

but...but... according to some on here it WAS antifa!!!

[reddog1951]

"but...but... according to some on here it WAS antifa!!!"

Cum dodging the posit. Irrelevant response, although according to some the earth is flat, so I guess it makes sense.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by reddog1951

Waco logic. The riotors (as you called them) at the capital intentionally disrupted constitutionally proper government action. They also threatened the lives, explicitly or implicitedly of lawfully elected representatives of the People (gallow, if nothing else). They crossed a line that others have not and shouldn't be tolerated.

the line they crossed is the same as BLM/Antifa. all are rioters. there is no justification at all for BLM/Antifa being "allowed" to riot for "justice" when the "cause" is some asshole who resists arrest.

Originally Posted by Little Monster

If their sole purpose for getting together was to break into a place and threaten people's lives like the far right Trump supporters did, then yes you would be right.

If they are defending themselves from far right agitators and the police who are taking the side of the agitators, then no you would be wrong. They are not "rioters"

nonsense. the far left is the main instigator. they go to these protests with one intent only, to start a riot. it's been shown they bring "riot gear" with them. you want to believe otherwise because you believe in their "cause" or so it appears. tell me why "peaceful protestors" bring these to a protest?





no they do NOT bring these items to "defend" themselves, they bring them to instigate a riot.


and just to be clear, Antifa's stated goal .. "anti-fascism" is a load of shit. there is no fascist movement in the US, the Government is not fascist (not yet anyway) and neither was Trump or his "America First" policy.


in fact the real fascists are the Democrats. their actions are clearly totalitarian.

[reddog1951]

"The line they crossed is the same as BLM/Antifa. all are rioters. there is no justification at all for BLM/Antifa being "allowed" to riot for "justice" when the "cause" is some asshole who resists arrest."

I disagree. You declared both contingents as rioters. I do not condone rioting on either "side". But again, how does one defend the actions of rioters(as stipulated above) who purposefully disrupt constitutionally mandated action of Congress and in the process threaten the safety (remember gallows) of lawfully elected representatives of the public? Sorry, cannot be tolerated by either "side".

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by reddog1951

"The line they crossed is the same as BLM/Antifa. all are rioters. there is no justification at all for BLM/Antifa being "allowed" to riot for "justice" when the "cause" is some asshole who resists arrest."

I disagree. You declared both contingents as rioters. I do not condone rioting on either "side". But again, how does one defend the actions of rioters(as stipulated above) who purposefully disrupt constitutionally mandated action of Congress and in the process threaten the safety (remember gallows) of lawfully elected representatives of the public? Sorry, cannot be tolerated by either "side".

how does that condone BLM rioters attacking Federal and State property? how is that any different than the Congressional building? it's no different at all.


you do know that at one point BLM/Antifa punks actually barracked a police substation .. with officers inside .. and tried to set it on fire?

if they had succeeded that would have been MURDER ONE. premeditated intent to KILL.

yes, that happened.

Seattle rioters caught on camera trying to trap police in East Precinct, set it on fire

https://komonews.com/news/local/poli...icade-officers


you can disagree all you want, there is no difference at all between riots at the capitol and any other riots.

[reddog1951]

Wacy logic cum dodging.
Please defend how the Capital RIOTERS (description established) had the RIGHT to invade the Capital of the United States and disrupt LAWFUL PROCESS of government for whatever reason, and by so doing, threaten the safety of represtatives of the people charged with confirming the highest office of government?

Sorry, but HUGE difference.

[Little Monster]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

the line they crossed is the same as BLM/Antifa. all are rioters. there is no justification at all for BLM/Antifa being "allowed" to riot for "justice" when the "cause" is some asshole who resists arrest.





nonsense. the far left is the main instigator. they go to these protests with one intent only, to start a riot.

I have yet to see any proof of this, but hey you have the right to believe whatever you want,
even if it is made up bs.


it's been shown they bring "riot gear" with them.

Wow, hammers, wrenches, chains. That's some serious stuff right there. Meanwhile the far right agitators bring AR-15's, hand guns, and other assault weapons. Gee I wonder what their intent is, especially when they show up at a protest for a cause in which they disagree with in the first place. Talk about hypocrisy.


you want to believe otherwise because you believe in their "cause" or so it appears. tell me why "peaceful protestors" bring these to a protest?

And here you are putting words in my mouth, that reeks of fascism and hypocrisy, sir.




no they do NOT bring these items to "defend" themselves, they bring them to instigate a riot.

Yet you have no proof of this

and just to be clear, Antifa's stated goal .. "anti-fascism" is a load of shit. there is no fascist movement in the US, the Government is not fascist (not yet anyway) and neither was Trump or his "America First" policy.


in fact the real fascists are the Democrats. their actions are clearly totalitarian.

Now this here is both laughable and hypocritic at the same time. Kudos to you. Trump is the one who tried to silence the media on several occasions for exposing his lies & bs. Trump is the one who did his best to undermine democracy because the election did not go his way. Trump is the one who tried to use martial law against protesters. Those are all clear elements of fascism right there. Nice try though.

Even though I already know your response, here's some articles pointing out the fact that far right agitators are the culprits of the violence that occurs at the blm protests...

https://theintercept.com/2020/07/15/...-right-antifa/

https://kevinjshay44.medium.com/righ...e-bcf1c48e1d40

https://www.justsecurity.org/70497/f...-supremacists/

[GastonGlock]

This argument is pointless. Both sides have determined that the other is an enemy of America.

[reddog1951]

Respectfully incorrect Gaston. I'm not necessarily "sided", but AM very concerned about the event at the Capital. There are probably appropriate words to describe the actions of those rioters, but I purposely don't use them so as to not incite further hatred. But, I do think it appropriate for ALL to acknowledge that the actions by those rioters were not legal, were not "justified", if sustained establish a dangerous precedent for behavior by any "side" and cannot be condoned or tolerated.

Calling it pointless ignores the central issue and sidesteps the threat to the future of civil government.

So again I ask...how are the actions of the rioters who invaded the capital justified?

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by GastonGlock

This argument is pointless. Both sides have determined that the other is an enemy of America.

I beg to differ. The BLM/Antifa faction has determined that America is structurally racist and needs to be destroyed. To BLM/Antifa, America is the enemy, the Constitution is the enemy and the answer is globalism. The other side makes no such admission.

[reddog1951]

"To BLM/Antifa, America is the enemy, the Constitution is the enemy and the answer is globalism."

So OK, but they didn't invade the Capital. Constitutional procedure was violated by a group of rioting right wingers. It's funny that a lot of response here is "yeah, but the other guy" in an attempt to shift the topic away from the original question. Wonder where that strategy was learned?

So again I ask...how are the actions of the rioters who invaded the capital justified?

[Jacuzzme]

I like how people keep pretending that there was some violent uprising when the supposed “insurgents” were the only ones subjected to violence. The media brainwashing is strong here.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by GastonGlock

This argument is pointless. Both sides have determined that the other is an enemy of America.

Agree. And even more basic, both sides have a different view of what America was, is, and should be.

The worst part is the America of the RWWs and the America of the LWWs are both very scary places. And, I suspect, not what the middle two thirds of Americans want. But it has been far too long since that middle has had a real option that actually comes from anywhere near the middle.

When the RWWa say Bush was too liberal and the LWWs say B.Clinton was too conservative it is a clear sign that the wackos are in charge of both our "choices". [Putting aside that Clinton was a sleazy bastard, that is seperate from his politics.]

[reddog1951]

"I like how people keep pretending that there was some violent uprising when the supposed “insurgents” were the only ones subjected to violence. The media brainwashing is strong here."

Rationalization. The supposed "insurgents" DID attempt to disrupt lawful constitutional process whether you want to call it violent or not and DID pose a physical threat (real or implied, same difference) to a duly elected Federal assembly.

Violent or not, how do you defend the legitimacy of that action?