Another week and more irrational behavior by liberals...
23 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I've been ranting for years about the perfidy of the left. At times I've been accused of exaggerating. On rare occasions I feared -- or hoped? -- that perhaps I was exaggerating. In fact I can now see that these people are worse than I ever imagined. Worse than most of us ever imagined. Worse, even, than Donald Trump, with all his insight, imagined.
He went into office determined to clean up the swamp. He was tireless. But not tireless enough. No mere mortal could have been tireless enough. Trump had denounced the swamp in apocalyptic terms, but it proved to be even deeper and more extensive than he knew...
...There's no intrinsic magic about America that protects it from becoming Mao's China or Stalin's Russia. Only utopians believe in the perfectibility of man. People are people. And some of the people who are now, or are about to be, in power in the United States would, if accorded enough power, do far more to those of us who falter in loyalty than merely take away our social-media accounts.
Indeed, as scary as the situation may be right now, one thing's for certain: worse is on its way. The Democrats now control both houses of Congress and are about to be handed the executive branch. The totalitarian-minded elements in that party are on the ascent, backed up by Silicon Valley, the legacy media, and much of corporate America. And they're about to party like it's 1793. In Paris.
The sky's the limit. And therein lies our hope, long-term though it may well be. Without doubt, these people will overreach. Their lists will grow so long, their cancelations so widespread, that, as happened with the Reign of Terror, everyone who isn't clinically insane will finally realize that things have gone too far and will, in one way or another, put an end to the madness.
But how far will things have to go before that happens? How long will it take? And how many lives will be destroyed before it's over? These, alas, are the all too sobering questions that have yet to be answered...
Trump’s speech that supposedly incited the mob is here. At the end of it, he said:
So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give… The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I want to thank you all. God bless you and God bless America. Thank you all for being here, this is incredible. Thank you very much. Thank you.
The attentive reader may have noticed that there is nothing there, or in any other part of the speech, calling upon the crowd to storm the Capitol, or to overthrow the government, or to do anything but walk down Pennsylvania Avenue and encourage lawmakers to support the president. The case for the claim that Trump incited the mob rests on the proposition that he didn’t have to spell out what he wanted them to do; when he detailed his reasons for believing that the 2020 presidential election was stolen, that was enough to inflame them sufficiently to storm the Capitol.
There was no call for lawless action by Trump. Instead, there was a call for a protest at the Capitol. Moreover, violence was not imminent, as the vast majority of the tens of thousands of protesters were not violent before the march, and most did not riot inside the Capitol. Like many violent protests in the last four years, criminal conduct was carried out by a smaller group of instigators. Capitol Police knew of the march but declined an offer from the National Guard since they did not view violence as likely.
So Congress is now seeking an impeachment for remarks covered by the First Amendment. It would create precedent for the impeachment of any president blamed for violent acts of others after using reckless language. What is worse are those few cases that would support this type of action. The most obvious is the 1918 prosecution of socialist Eugene Debs, who spoke against the draft in World War One and led figures like Woodrow Wilson to declare him a “traitor to his country.” Debs was arrested and charged with sedition, a new favorite term for Democrats to denounce Trump and Republicans who doubted the victory of Joe Biden.
In 1919, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote for a unanimous bench in one of the most infamous decisions to issue from the Supreme Court. It dismissed the free speech rights for Debs and held it was sufficient that his words had the “natural tendency and reasonably probable effect” of deterring people from supporting the international conflict.
That decision was a disgrace, but Democrats are now arguing something even more extreme as the basis for impeachment. Under their theory, any president could be removed for rhetoric that is seen to have the “natural tendency” to encourage others to act in a riotous fashion. Even a call for supporters to protest peacefully could not be a defense. Such a standard would allow for a type of vicarious impeachment that attributes conduct of third parties to any president for the purposes of removal.
The intent when they invaded the Capital building was murder the next three people were the next three in sesecection,the Vice President, the Speaker of the house and the ranking member of the majority party.
The intent when they invaded the Capital building was murder the next three people were the next three in sesecection,the Vice President, the Speaker of the house and the ranking member of the majority party.
is there anyone here that can translate?
google translator doesn't recognize 'TDS' or 'fucktard.'
Both of these events were horrific, with consequences that will last for years. Must we really assign points to see which side “wins”?
In one corner you have riots — connected to protests against police violence, especially the appalling death of George Floyd and the more complicated shooting of Jacob Blake — that destroyed businesses in cities across the country. This caused upwards of a billion dollars in damage, and if past is precedent, the places that suffered the riots will take years to recover economically. Somewhere around 20 people died. In response, some media outlets ran stories about how effective rioting is, and a liberal data analyst lost his job for tweeting a study finding that riots are actually politically counterproductive. As for the cops’ reactions, there are images of officers kneeling in solidarity with protesters, but also examples of unjustified aggression against peaceful demonstrators, and police killed a man armed with several guns in Las Vegas.
In the other corner, you have a storming of the nation’s legislature, which interrupted the counting of Electoral College votes, on the false grounds that the election was stolen. Five people died, including a police officer, and the building was ransacked. And things could have gotten much worse: Two explosive devices were found nearby, and some rioters had zip ties. The president himself urged his supporters to walk to the Capitol and failed to aggressively condemn the assault as it took place, but few journalists, on either side of the political spectrum, made excuses for what happened. There’s abundant video of the crowd assaulting police officers, and the cops used tear gas and killed one woman as she climbed through a window to the Speaker’s Lobby — yet some videos appear to show cops opening doors for the invaders and taking selfies with them, and by all accounts law enforcement was disturbingly outmanned.
Sure, you can have a scintillating late-night dorm-room discussion about how to weigh the rioters’ purported political motivations, the damage they did, the respective police responses, and the behavior of elites who should have known better. But in the end, these were both failures at all levels, and our first priority should be to make sure neither happens again, rather than to score partisan points.
The intent when they invaded the Capital building was murder the next three people were the next three in succession,the Vice President, the Speaker of the house and the ranking member of the majority party.
If they had succeeded to stop counting ballots on the electoral college votes Trump would have been the President and he would have become the dictator for life
You know they hate you, right? Really and truly, and they want you silenced, disenfranchised, and dead if necessary. That woman the federal cop shot on video in the Capitol, capped for trespassing, was expendable and so are you. Now, one might be accused of “whataboutism” for this next part, but whataboutism is a moral necessity that highlights the lies that form the foundation of our garbage Establishment, and therefore it must be constantly and loudly practiced. What about all those people killed on video whose deaths sparked riots? Now, the initial read on the shooting seems bad, but being the wacky nonconformist rebel I am, I’ll wait until all the facts are in to make a final judgment and just say at present that the shooting looks questionable. But no one will ask the questions. The cop will be cleared and will never, ever be charged, and even if President Biden’s* U.S. Attorney in the forthcoming State of D.C. were to file charges (LOL, sometimes I even make myself laugh), let’s just say I put the chances of a D.C. jury convicting at about O.J. level.
Standard Status: Double.
So, the Establishment has decided to address the grievances of people who feel disenfranchised, silenced, and subjected to double standards with much more disenfranchisement, silencing, and double standards. Seems like an on-brand move for the most corrupt, unwise, and incompetent – yet remarkably arrogant – ruling caste America has ever known. Good plan – deny them the right to pick their 2024 president, clap like trained seals as corporate overlords cut off their ability to express themselves, and continue to treat their own supporters well and dissenters much, much worse. That’s sustainable. Say, let’s put out this blazing fire with this handy can of gasoline.
Yeah, they are having fun for now. While the supine GOP is tweeting hack cliches about Muh Not Who We Are, the left is trying to tighten the noose. But we’re woke. Rasmussen puts Trump’s popularity at 51%, rising after the riots. We aren’t blaming Trump for the riots. And we sure aren’t rolling over for these bastards.
Sen. Joe Manchin, West Virginia Democrat, is open to adding two new states — the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
He would also have to be open to changing the filibuster to get there. I think this is his way of saying something to appease the left, when in fact it's a non-starter unless they eliminate the filibuster.
Moreover, Manchin is not the only Democrats who is said to be against changing the Senate rules regarding 60 votes. For many, the 60 vote threshold is what separates them from (and makes them better than) the House.
i so hope you're right, but i just can't bring myself to trust the guy.
Well the only solution appears to be to storm his Senate office and then ask to sit down and have coffee and discuss it. Maybe we can bring Roger. He supposedly has a loud scary voice that when mixed with profanities can lead to resolution of many types of conflicts.
23 comments:
I've been ranting for years about the perfidy of the left. At times I've been accused of exaggerating. On rare occasions I feared -- or hoped? -- that perhaps I was exaggerating. In fact I can now see that these people are worse than I ever imagined. Worse than most of us ever imagined.
Worse, even, than Donald Trump, with all his insight, imagined.
He went into office determined to clean up the swamp. He was tireless. But not tireless enough. No mere mortal could have been tireless enough. Trump had denounced the swamp in apocalyptic terms, but it proved to be even deeper and more extensive than he knew...
...There's no intrinsic magic about America that protects it from becoming Mao's China or Stalin's Russia. Only utopians believe in the perfectibility of man. People are people. And some of the people who are now, or are about to be, in power in the United States would, if accorded enough power, do far more to those of us who falter in loyalty than merely take away our social-media accounts.
Indeed, as scary as the situation may be right now, one thing's for certain: worse is on its way. The Democrats now control both houses of Congress and are about to be handed the executive branch. The totalitarian-minded elements in that party are on the ascent, backed up by Silicon Valley, the legacy media, and much of corporate America. And they're about to party like it's 1793. In Paris.
The sky's the limit. And therein lies our hope, long-term though it may well be. Without doubt, these people will overreach. Their lists will grow so long, their cancelations so widespread, that, as happened with the Reign of Terror, everyone who isn't clinically insane will finally realize that things have gone too far and will, in one way or another, put an end to the madness.
But how far will things have to go before that happens? How long will it take? And how many lives will be destroyed before it's over? These, alas, are the all too sobering questions that have yet to be answered...
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/01/what-now-bruce-bawer/
Trump’s speech that supposedly incited the mob is here. At the end of it, he said:
So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give… The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I want to thank you all. God bless you and God bless America. Thank you all for being here, this is incredible. Thank you very much. Thank you.
The attentive reader may have noticed that there is nothing there, or in any other part of the speech, calling upon the crowd to storm the Capitol, or to overthrow the government, or to do anything but walk down Pennsylvania Avenue and encourage lawmakers to support the president. The case for the claim that Trump incited the mob rests on the proposition that he didn’t have to spell out what he wanted them to do; when he detailed his reasons for believing that the 2020 presidential election was stolen, that was enough to inflame them sufficiently to storm the Capitol.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/robert-spencer/2021/01/10/exactly-where-and-how-did-trump-incite-the-mob-n1328053
so he did not in fact incite a riot.
and true to form, the left had to lie about that too.
There was no call for lawless action by Trump. Instead, there was a call for a protest at the Capitol. Moreover, violence was not imminent, as the vast majority of the tens of thousands of protesters were not violent before the march, and most did not riot inside the Capitol. Like many violent protests in the last four years, criminal conduct was carried out by a smaller group of instigators. Capitol Police knew of the march but declined an offer from the National Guard since they did not view violence as likely.
So Congress is now seeking an impeachment for remarks covered by the First Amendment. It would create precedent for the impeachment of any president blamed for violent acts of others after using reckless language. What is worse are those few cases that would support this type of action. The most obvious is the 1918 prosecution of socialist Eugene Debs, who spoke against the draft in World War One and led figures like Woodrow Wilson to declare him a “traitor to his country.” Debs was arrested and charged with sedition, a new favorite term for Democrats to denounce Trump and Republicans who doubted the victory of Joe Biden.
In 1919, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote for a unanimous bench in one of the most infamous decisions to issue from the Supreme Court. It dismissed the free speech rights for Debs and held it was sufficient that his words had the “natural tendency and reasonably probable effect” of deterring people from supporting the international conflict.
That decision was a disgrace, but Democrats are now arguing something even more extreme as the basis for impeachment. Under their theory, any president could be removed for rhetoric that is seen to have the “natural tendency” to encourage others to act in a riotous fashion. Even a call for supporters to protest peacefully could not be a defense. Such a standard would allow for a type of vicarious impeachment that attributes conduct of third parties to any president for the purposes of removal.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/533469-swift-second-impeachment-would-damage-the-constitution
Blogger rrb said...
There was no call for lawless action by Trump
Opinions like assholes rat and yours is gaping!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yeah sad he just doesn't resign and go away......!!!!
Dopie/Alky know nothing about economics.
Off Topic
Their collapse on the alter of BLM is a thing of Beauty.
"Mike Tomlin on Pittsburgh Steelers' late-season collapse: 'We were a group that died on the vine'"
The Three Socialists of CHT act as if they lost the Election.
So angry, can the go pro Biden, tell us when he will "cure cancer"?
i told you you couldn't trust this clown -
Sen. Joe Manchin, West Virginia Democrat, is open to adding two new states — the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jan/10/sen-joe-manchin-is-open-to-statehood-for-dc-puerto/
The push to end the Republic is on replace it with one party Socialists Rule.
The intent when they invaded the Capital building was murder the next three people were the next three in sesecection,the Vice President, the Speaker of the house and the ranking member of the majority party.
Trump is a fascist.
well at least now we know for certain that all of Slow Joe's 'unity & healing' rhetoric was just bullshit. as if there was any doubt to begin with.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
The intent when they invaded the Capital building was murder the next three people were the next three in sesecection,the Vice President, the Speaker of the house and the ranking member of the majority party.
is there anyone here that can translate?
google translator doesn't recognize 'TDS' or 'fucktard.'
Both of these events were horrific, with consequences that will last for years. Must we really assign points to see which side “wins”?
In one corner you have riots — connected to protests against police violence, especially the appalling death of George Floyd and the more complicated shooting of Jacob Blake — that destroyed businesses in cities across the country. This caused upwards of a billion dollars in damage, and if past is precedent, the places that suffered the riots will take years to recover economically. Somewhere around 20 people died. In response, some media outlets ran stories about how effective rioting is, and a liberal data analyst lost his job for tweeting a study finding that riots are actually politically counterproductive. As for the cops’ reactions, there are images of officers kneeling in solidarity with protesters, but also examples of unjustified aggression against peaceful demonstrators, and police killed a man armed with several guns in Las Vegas.
In the other corner, you have a storming of the nation’s legislature, which interrupted the counting of Electoral College votes, on the false grounds that the election was stolen. Five people died, including a police officer, and the building was ransacked. And things could have gotten much worse: Two explosive devices were found nearby, and some rioters had zip ties. The president himself urged his supporters to walk to the Capitol and failed to aggressively condemn the assault as it took place, but few journalists, on either side of the political spectrum, made excuses for what happened. There’s abundant video of the crowd assaulting police officers, and the cops used tear gas and killed one woman as she climbed through a window to the Speaker’s Lobby — yet some videos appear to show cops opening doors for the invaders and taking selfies with them, and by all accounts law enforcement was disturbingly outmanned.
Sure, you can have a scintillating late-night dorm-room discussion about how to weigh the rioters’ purported political motivations, the damage they did, the respective police responses, and the behavior of elites who should have known better. But in the end, these were both failures at all levels, and our first priority should be to make sure neither happens again, rather than to score partisan points.
The National Review
sesecection
'secretion', alky?
'Caesarean section'?
LOL.
The intent when they invaded the Capital building was murder the next three people were the next three in succession,the Vice President, the Speaker of the house and the ranking member of the majority party.
If they had succeeded to stop counting ballots on the electoral college votes Trump would have been the President and he would have become the dictator for life
LOL.
You know they hate you, right? Really and truly, and they want you silenced, disenfranchised, and dead if necessary. That woman the federal cop shot on video in the Capitol, capped for trespassing, was expendable and so are you. Now, one might be accused of “whataboutism” for this next part, but whataboutism is a moral necessity that highlights the lies that form the foundation of our garbage Establishment, and therefore it must be constantly and loudly practiced. What about all those people killed on video whose deaths sparked riots? Now, the initial read on the shooting seems bad, but being the wacky nonconformist rebel I am, I’ll wait until all the facts are in to make a final judgment and just say at present that the shooting looks questionable. But no one will ask the questions. The cop will be cleared and will never, ever be charged, and even if President Biden’s* U.S. Attorney in the forthcoming State of D.C. were to file charges (LOL, sometimes I even make myself laugh), let’s just say I put the chances of a D.C. jury convicting at about O.J. level.
Standard Status: Double.
So, the Establishment has decided to address the grievances of people who feel disenfranchised, silenced, and subjected to double standards with much more disenfranchisement, silencing, and double standards. Seems like an on-brand move for the most corrupt, unwise, and incompetent – yet remarkably arrogant – ruling caste America has ever known. Good plan – deny them the right to pick their 2024 president, clap like trained seals as corporate overlords cut off their ability to express themselves, and continue to treat their own supporters well and dissenters much, much worse. That’s sustainable. Say, let’s put out this blazing fire with this handy can of gasoline.
Yeah, they are having fun for now. While the supine GOP is tweeting hack cliches about Muh Not Who We Are, the left is trying to tighten the noose. But we’re woke. Rasmussen puts Trump’s popularity at 51%, rising after the riots. We aren’t blaming Trump for the riots. And we sure aren’t rolling over for these bastards.
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2021/01/11/the-libfascist-purge-n2582903?
Succession act signed by President Truman.
You morons want Trump to be President for life
LOL.
Sen. Joe Manchin, West Virginia Democrat, is open to adding two new states — the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
He would also have to be open to changing the filibuster to get there. I think this is his way of saying something to appease the left, when in fact it's a non-starter unless they eliminate the filibuster.
Moreover, Manchin is not the only Democrats who is said to be against changing the Senate rules regarding 60 votes. For many, the 60 vote threshold is what separates them from (and makes them better than) the House.
i so hope you're right, but i just can't bring myself to trust the guy.
i so hope you're right, but i just can't bring myself to trust the guy.
Well the only solution appears to be to storm his Senate office and then ask to sit down and have coffee and discuss it. Maybe we can bring Roger. He supposedly has a loud scary voice that when mixed with profanities can lead to resolution of many types of conflicts.
Lol
Roger, is a pussy.
Post a Comment