Four Hours at the Capitol: A Must Watch HBO Documentary

[honorentheos]

The day after the election, it is understandable that a person would have questions regarding the processes involved in the election given the reporting. I can't begrudge a person for whom the declared result didn't sit well while accusations of fraudulent activity were debated on national news.

After the accusers had numerous chances to present their cases in court, making watered down claims compared to their heated public rhetoric, and absolute failure to demonstrate the election had been compromised in a meaningful manner while having practically every claim dismissed for lack of evidence by Republican and Democrat appointed judges, I stop being understanding. At that point a person who wanted to see slates of electoral votes dismissed and the Vice President of the United States violate the Constitution and democratic tradition was anti-American in belief and practices. Period. I cannot equivocate on that issue. One doesn't attempt to undermine the processes of democracy and democratic institutions and also get to maintain they were being patriotic. Not by January 6th.

Meh. Sure. And someone else disagrees. So here we are.

Someone disagreeing that the judicial process failed, the states failed, the electoral college failed, and the VP failed is disagreeing with democracy as embodied in the institutions of government. We aren't disagreeing over opinions but the function of government as currently established. Acting on that to disrupt said government function through threat of violence is insurrection. Unless one demonstrates the facts were substantially different, this isn't a po-TAY-toe, pot-TOT-oe issue. So, what facts would you put on the table that justify a meh here?

[Cultellus]

Meh. Sure. And someone else disagrees. So here we are.

Someone disagreeing that the judicial process failed, the states failed, the electoral college failed, and the VP failed is disagreeing with democracy as embodied in the institutions of government. We aren't disagreeing over opinions but the function of government as currently established. Acting on that to disrupt said government function through threat of violence is insurrection. Unless one demonstrates the facts were substantially different, this isn't a po-TAY-toe, pot-TOT-oe issue. So, what facts would you put on the table that justify a meh here?

Meh meh. The meh is, sure, go strong buddy. Be that big. And a lot of people disagree, and they have good reasons. But sure, scream those lines as loud as you can.

[honorentheos]

So, what facts would you put on the table that justify a meh here?

a lot of people disagree, and they have good reasons.

Then share them. Too easy.

[Cultellus]

So, what facts would you put on the table that justify a meh here?

a lot of people disagree, and they have good reasons.

Then share them. Too easy.

Uh. Nah. Honor, your mind is made up. What’s the point? You think you are right so get loud, get bold, get big. And blah meh blah.

[honorentheos]

Then share them. Too easy.

Uh. Nah. Honor, your mind is made up. What’s the point? You think you are right so get loud, get bold, get big. And blah meh blah.

Cultellus, if you believe in democracy as a better method for organizing societies compared to others which are almost by definition more authoritarian and inequitable, then you must also believe in the importance of civic dialog regarding facts.

You say you have facts yet to be considered but of such import they provide good reasons for not viewing the insurrection on January 6th as such. You have an obligation to engage in said dialog and discuss those facts if you maintain belief in the value and importance of public spaces such as message boards.

[Cultellus]

Uh. Nah. Honor, your mind is made up. What’s the point? You think you are right so get loud, get bold, get big. And blah meh blah.

Cultellus, if you believe in democracy as a better method for organizing societies compared to others which are almost by definition more authoritarian and inequitable, then you must also believe in the importance of civic dialog regarding facts.

You say you have facts yet to be considered but of such import they provide good reasons for not viewing the insurrection on January 6th as such. You have an obligation to engage in said dialog and discuss those facts if you maintain belief in the value and importance of public spaces such as message boards.

That is not what I said. I have no obligation to you.

Look. It is simple. Your mind is made up. This is a message board not a civic meeting. I ain’t obliged to a damn thing, especially to you when you misrepresent what I said.

[honorentheos]

Cultellus, if you believe in democracy as a better method for organizing societies compared to others which are almost by definition more authoritarian and inequitable, then you must also believe in the importance of civic dialog regarding facts.

You say you have facts yet to be considered but of such import they provide good reasons for not viewing the insurrection on January 6th as such. You have an obligation to engage in said dialog and discuss those facts if you maintain belief in the value and importance of public spaces such as message boards.

That is not what I said. I have no obligation to you.

Look. It is simple. Your mind is made up. This is a message board not a civic meeting. I ain’t obliged to a damn thing, especially to you when you misrepresent what I said.

If you are aware of mitigating facts, not sharing them is negligence on your part.

I laid out my position with the reasoning behind it. You dismissed it on the grounds people have other opinions. You claimed these alternative opinions were grounded on "good reasons".

Share those reasons.

[canpakes]

So, what facts would you put on the table that justify a meh here?

a lot of people disagree, and they have good reasons.

Then share them. Too easy.

If there were good reasons, they’d have been shared long ago.

I asked Cultellus a few months back about the fraud issue. He stated that he didn’t believe that Trump won the election or that Biden was in place because of fraud. Apparently there were no reasons he saw to believe otherwise at that time.

No backer of the fraud narrative has yet emerged with anything to support their position. It’s all posturing; nothing more.

[Dr. Shades]

Yes, we know that Kyle Rittenhouse was in a place he shouldn't have been. If he hadn't been there, the rioters wouldn't have been shot.

But we seem to be forgetting that the rioters were in a place THEY shouldn't have been, either. If THEY hadn't been there, they wouldn't have been shot.

If someone illegally crosses state lines with a firearm, does that person magically forfeit his or her right to self-defense?

[Kishkumen]

Yes, we know that Kyle Rittenhouse was in a place he shouldn't have been. If he hadn't been there, the rioters wouldn't have been shot.

But we seem to be forgetting that the rioters were in a place THEY shouldn't have been, either. If THEY hadn't been there, they wouldn't have been shot.

If someone illegally crosses state lines with a firearm, does that person magically forfeit his or her right to self-defense?

Shades, you are conflating two different questions. Look, everyone believes that those illegally carrying and discharging firearms should be held accountable, if they are being consistent, but the law has always distinguished between degrees of severity. If Kyle had been killed by his assailants, they would be in trouble as he is now. He killed them, and that is why he is where he is now.