Help me understand.

Skidmarx

New member
I'm not some sort of radical idiot, but I don't quite understand right or (left) wrong anymore.

Kim Potter, the officer in Brooklyn Center had a gofundme page to help with her legal expenses. I'm old and broke, so I didn't send much, just a little sumptin. They refunded it. gofundme decided she wasn't worth supporting, wouldn't take my money.
Crucifying the oathkeepers for Jan 6th, but BLM and AntiFa in Portland, Seattle and Minneapolis get out of jail free.

Please help me understand where I'm not thinking correctly.
Thank You!
 
I'm not some sort of radical idiot, but I don't quite understand right or (left) wrong anymore.

Kim Potter, the officer in Brooklyn Center had a gofundme page to help with her legal expenses. I'm old and broke, so I didn't send much, just a little sumptin. They refunded it. gofundme decided she wasn't worth supporting, wouldn't take my money.
Crucifying the oathkeepers for Jan 6th, but BLM and AntiFa in Portland, Seattle and Minneapolis get out of jail free.

Please help me understand where I'm not thinking correctly.
Thank You!

You aren't supporting left-wing ideologies and groups, therefore you are wrong.

Does that clarify this for you?
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
I'm not some sort of radical idiot, but I don't quite understand right or (left) wrong anymore.

....

Please help me understand where I'm not thinking correctly.
Thank You!
It's not your thinking that defines right and wrong. Nor anyone else's thinking. There is absolute right and there is absolute wrong, but it's not dependent upon any human being's thinking or reasoning. That's relativism. And relative right and wrong can be defined to be whatever suits the purposes and moral framework of the definer. Instead of thinking that you are not thinking correctly, understand that just the act of questioning whether or not it's you or the other person that isn't thinking correctly is the first step in your journey toward finding out what absolute right and wrong really are and where and how it's already been defined.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
I'm not some sort of radical idiot, but I don't quite understand right or (left) wrong anymore.

Kim Potter, the officer in Brooklyn Center had a gofundme page to help with her legal expenses. I'm old and broke, so I didn't send much, just a little sumptin. They refunded it. gofundme decided she wasn't worth supporting, wouldn't take my money.
Crucifying the oathkeepers for Jan 6th, but BLM and AntiFa in Portland, Seattle and Minneapolis get out of jail free.

Please help me understand where I'm not thinking correctly.
Thank You!

Well, the right wing rioters from Jan. 6 were trying to overturn a US election right on national TV, so they made themselves big, fat targets of prosecution. Since they posted all their adventures to social media, so their actions and identities are there for all to see. Stupid people being stupid go to jail.

If the BLM/Antifa folks had done something similar on social media, they would certainly be prosecuted more easily. It appears that right-wingers are just dumber.
 

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
If the BLM/Antifa folks had done something similar on social media, they would certainly be prosecuted more easily. It appears that right-wingers are just dumber.
They did.
They attacked people, including state and federal officials.
They looted and burned buildings, including state and federal facilities.
They and their friends, including the national press, posted filmed evidence of their crimes.
Leftist prosecutors and other officials ignored the evidence and turned the self-confessed rioter criminals loose to commit more crimes - until their party was firmly in control.
Now, some of these leftist officials are finding that the rioters are becoming an embarrassment and are starting to turn on them.

It is starting to look like some of the BLM/Antifa folks may see their day in court, too... .
 

roscoe

Well-known member
It is starting to look like some of the BLM/Antifa folks may see their day in court, too... .

If someone committed a crime, you won't hear me complaining about their prosecution. Arson is a felony and should be prosecuted as such. And you won't hear me complain about 'right wing prosecutors'.

But I still don't buy the equivalence - Portland was destructive anarchy; Jan. 6 was sedition.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Just good old boys havin' fun . . .

1619590692149.png


1619591568275.png


1619590771165.png


If you are talking about Ashli Babbitt, she was trying to breach the security of locked door that was between the protestors and the House Chambers, which was full of members of Congress and staffers. She was warned, but kept coming. She was pretty much asking to get shot. I think the capitol Police showed remarkable restraint. They were certainly within their legal rights to use lethal force in defense of Congress.

Further, the purpose of the protestors was to stop the count of Electoral College ballots. They were literally trying to overturn a presidential election. That is sedition. The fact that they failed spectacularly, and looked stupid doing it, is irrelevant.

Any other interpretation is absurd.
 
Last edited:

Skidmarx

New member
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm not trying to get into a legal discourse on who's guilty, who's not. Nor who should be prosecuted or not.

My question was (still is) the lady cop from Minnesota who grabbed her firearm instead of her taser and shot someone. I figure it's up to a court of law to determine guilt or innocence. BUT

A friend of hers started a Go Fund Me page for her legal defense fund. Go Fund Me took it down, the man who started it had no idea why (although I think we pretty well know why). I don't spend a lot of time on Go Fund Me, I look a little bit when the Palominas (AZ) ladies want donations for liability insurance for their 4th of July parade, or when my cousin wants a donation for her favorite service dog organization etc. I just look to see a little bit about who's asking.

Folks, if Google, or Facebook can control what we say, If Go Fund Me can determine who we support, we've got a lot more concerns than second amendment issues, and we need to wake up.
 

Selena

Active member
Keep in mind that most of the majors in entertainment are forwarding an agenda. Anything outside that agenda is "evil." Think "Strawberry Fields Forever"
 

roscoe

Well-known member
I wonder. I went to gofundme and found plenty of conservative causes.

I personally feel bad for Kim Potter. It really looks like she just made a fatal split-second mistake.
 

Gridley

New member
Query: on Jan 6th, why didn't the people who "stormed the Capitol" bring their guns?
I've seen a variety of photos and videos, and in none of them have I seen a member of the mob holding a gun (if you've seen such, please post here). In the photos above I see a bat, nightsticks, a crutch... no guns.
By contrast, look at the Richmond, VA rally just before COVID - it is hard to find a picture there where there *isn't* at least one person (and often most of them) holding a gun. Rifles were all over the place, many with magazines inserted.
So, we're supposed to believe that a group planning to violently overthrow the government... just all forgot their guns? Or did all these people who were fine bringing guns to a peaceful demonstration think they didn't need them when planning on violence?

Or, perhaps, was violence not, in fact, intended by most of those present and THAT's why they didn't come armed? Was the violence instigated by a handful of people who may not have had anything in common with the bulk of those present? Bear in mind, those handful apparently didn't come armed either - or we'd have heard of scores of Capitol Police shot from the cover of the mob. So... perhaps the instigators *wanted* the mob to be ineffective. A threat, after all, even one that doesn't actually do any damage, is a time-honored excuse for "necessary emergency actions" and "temporary restrictions."
 

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
-That's pretty much how I read it, Gridley.
An attempt to create the current equivalent of a Reichstag Fire, using a bunch of dupes and LARPers to take the blame... .
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Query: on Jan 6th, why didn't the people who "stormed the Capitol" bring their guns?
I've seen a variety of photos and videos, and in none of them have I seen a member of the mob holding a gun (if you've seen such, please post here). In the photos above I see a bat, nightsticks, a crutch... no guns.
By contrast, look at the Richmond, VA rally just before COVID - it is hard to find a picture there where there *isn't* at least one person (and often most of them) holding a gun. Rifles were all over the place, many with magazines inserted.
So, we're supposed to believe that a group planning to violently overthrow the government... just all forgot their guns? Or did all these people who were fine bringing guns to a peaceful demonstration think they didn't need them when planning on violence?

Or, perhaps, was violence not, in fact, intended by most of those present and THAT's why they didn't come armed? Was the violence instigated by a handful of people who may not have had anything in common with the bulk of those present? Bear in mind, those handful apparently didn't come armed either - or we'd have heard of scores of Capitol Police shot from the cover of the mob. So... perhaps the instigators *wanted* the mob to be ineffective. A threat, after all, even one that doesn't actually do any damage, is a time-honored excuse for "necessary emergency actions" and "temporary restrictions."

By not bringing their guns, they avoided being mowed down by the Capitol police. Your comparison with Richmond is way off - even absurd. Nobody was breaking into anything in Richmond, and there was not a building full of national legislators to protect. You must not know any cops - if the capitol police saw people with guns breaking into the capitol, there would have been a firefight.

Your second paragraph is just evidence-less conspiracy theory that has already been debunked.

BTW - carrying a baseball bat while attacking a police office - that is legally considered 'armed' with a lethal weapon. Anyplace like where I grew up, you come at a cop with a bat, you will end up dead of lead poisoning.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
-That's pretty much how I read it, Gridley.
An attempt to create the current equivalent of a Reichstag Fire, using a bunch of dupes and LARPers to take the blame... .

I agree. Trump wanted to use those 'useful idiots' to destroy the ballots. Somehow he thought that it would overturn the election. The Democrats, who had won the election, had no incentive to destroy anything. Remember - Biden won.
 

Gridley

New member
By not bringing their guns, they avoided being mowed down by the Capitol police. Your comparison with Richmond is way off - even absurd. Nobody was breaking into anything in Richmond, and there was not a building full of national legislators to protect. You must not know any cops - if the capitol police saw people with guns breaking into the capitol, there would have been a firefight.

Your second paragraph is just evidence-less conspiracy theory that has already been debunked.

BTW - carrying a baseball bat while attacking a police office - that is legally considered 'armed' with a lethal weapon. Anyplace like where I grew up, you come at a cop with a bat, you will end up dead of lead poisoning.

So they thought the Capitol Police would just stand aside and let them attack Congress? If they considered being "mowed down" by the Capitol Police as a reason to not bring guns then they obviously assumed the police would be there - which in turn means they thought they could accomplish their objectives despite the police being there. If you're doing a peaceful protest you may reasonably consider the presence of cops irrelevant - if you're planning to attack someone the cops are supposed to be defending you need a way to deal with the cops.

I know many cops - I've even talked with more than one Capitol Police officer. I've never seen any sign that they had any more resistance to using force than any other cops... which begs the question of why more of these people supposedly attempting to subvert the government by force weren't fired upon? Why, for example, wasn't the guy with the bat shot? That would, as you say, constitute grounds for use of lethal force in most jurisdictions (I'm not going to pretend to know DC law). So, again, why didn't the Capitol Police make widespread use of lethal force if the grounds for it were there, they were, as in most of the pictures, heavily outnumbered, and the bulk of the mob was armed and acting violently?

As for the "evidence-less conspiracy theory that has already been debunked" please enlighten me - who debunked it? Have the majority of those present given statements that they intended violence? As for the effects we've already seen those - talk of "domestic terrorists", supposed multi-state "right wing conspiracies" planning to attack state capitals (said attacks oddly not making the news - almost as if they didn't happen), putting people on no-fly lists, and of course fences and thousands of troops deployed to DC.

Bottom line: the mob was planning violence or it wasn't. If it was, why not come prepared for violence? You *have* heard the saying "don't bring a knife to a gunfight", yes? Do you think supposed right wing fanatics haven't? I'm not saying a mob armed with civilian weaponry (and more importantly ad-hoc civilian C3I) would have succeeded, but I've seen plenty of people who talk on the internet as if they think it would. Since those are the people who supposedly came to attack Congress, why didn't they come armed? Again, did they expect the cops to just let them kidnap Congress?
 
Top