Florida State Seminoles

[hedge]

"everyone has their version of America now"

Evidently, I'm just surprised to find myself on the side of law and order and equally surprised to see who's on the other side. Like I said, never woulda thought it. Very strange. I guess Obama getting elected president really rattled some folks...

[innocentbystander]

"how many of you will stand up to Biden or a future nominee who pushes for stacking the court to insure that there is a liberal bias? Not only will you not stand up to it, you'lll cheer it when it happens."

Oh yeah, like you stood up to McConnell when he stopped Garland from even getting a hearing, then rammed Barrett thru in less than a month? Talk about stacking the court. And talk about cheering for it when it happens. That's your side, not ours. I'm not saying we wouldn't be doing it too if it had gone in our favor, but look in the mirror for just a second before you start accusing my side of a hypothetical hypocrisy when you're putting it on full display yourself in here. And another thing I'm sure you're going to cheer your ass off for is if the repubs win the senate and, say, Clarence Thomas dies the next day, Mitch will make sure Biden doesn't get to put anybody on the Supreme Court. He'll hold up the nomination for 2 years and then if Biden wins in 2024, he'll hold it up for another 4 years and you'll not only be fine with it, you'll be delighted. As long as you get your way, right?

I'll chime in here. Mitch was able to hold things up for two reasons: #1) the GOP had control of the Senate in 2016 and #2) we have Supreme Court justices for tough laws now instead of legislature.

The Senate is in the personnel business. That is their business. And since Senators and House Reps are more paranoid about losing their jobs and not being re-elected than they are actually LEGISLATING and writing/discontinuing federal laws, they simply appoint people to do the work that they refuse to do. Or they spin up some damn, unelected agency (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?) to make rules up as they go along. And when I say "rules" what I mean is the CFPB makes up the "laws" because Congress WON'T!

It would be so much better if congress amended the Constitution of the United States on abortion. Just go all one way or go the other. Amendment 28 of the Constitution: all embryos inside a human mother's womb are considered babies upon conception with a right to life and to kill them is to murder them OOOORRRRRRRR all embryos inside a human mother's womb are considered the mother's body and property and it may be removed at the SOLE WHIM of the mother up until 3 seconds before the embryo is born and becomes a human being with all rights to life.

That is what they want to do but can't because they want to be re-elected. SO they have Supreme Court Justices do their bidding.

[eCat]

"everyone has their version of America now"

Evidently, I'm just surprised to find myself on the side of law and order and equally surprised to see who's on the other side. Like I said, never woulda thought it. Very strange. I guess Obama getting elected president really rattled some folks...

you're not on the side of law and order

you're on the side of your law and order

that's the problem, you downplay what Hillary did as nothing, irrelevant, the FBI being corrupted. You laugh at the people that believe voting irregularities occurred and recently stated people stealing toilet paper during a riot over George Floyd were justified. (which I guess in your eyes setting police precincts on fire is toilet paper)

Your outrage at the government extends only as far as what you don't like, and has little to do with with is right or wrong.

And worse, you're setting yourself up as the fair judge in your viewpoint in all of this.

"I never thought I'd be on the right side of this"

good god

[Jungle Rat]

[Jungle Rat]

Ecats house

FB_IMG_1656525353394.jpg (121.83 KiB) Viewed 180 times

[hedge]

"you're not on the side of law and order

you're on the side of your law and order"

I'll rephrase it. I'm surprised to find myself on the side of law and order as I used to understand it (and to a large degree opposed it), while the people who's version of law and order I used to oppose are now more like I was back then...

[hedge]

"that's the problem, you downplay what Hillary did as nothing, irrelevant"

Never said nothing or irrelevant. If I recall, I think I used the phrase "dirty tricks." Unseemly? Yes. Traitorously illegal? No...

"The FBI being corrupted."

Fox News talking point...

You laugh at the people that believe voting irregularities occurred"

Most of the proven irregularities that occurred were in favor of Trump. The rest of it is hogwash and not a shred of evidence has been produced to support it. I would think that any rational person would laugh at this. Guess not...

"and recently stated people stealing toilet paper during a riot over George Floyd were justified."

Don't think I said they were justified, but I certainly put it closer to jaywalking than murder or attempting to overthrow the government. Guess you don't...

"(which I guess in your eyes setting police precincts on fire is toilet paper)"

I'm not going to go back and look, but I believe I said anybody caught doing that should be prosecuted and if found guilty punished for their crime. Guess that puts me at odds with you on Trump's attempted coup, I think anyone who was involved in that should be prosecuted and if found guilty, punished. Guess you don't. Maybe that's just "my version" of law and order, but it's certainly closer to what most people who are now dismissing the traitorous attack on the Capitol as more or less nothing simply b/c it failed used to believe. It's cool, people change. I just never thought I'd see such a reversal in my lifetime...

[hedge]

"I never thought I'd be on the right side of this"

I don't recall saying that, but it's true. That I'm on the right side of it, I mean (if you're talking about the traitorous attack on the Capitol and Trump's treasonous role in it)...

[hedge]

No

What I am saying is if you go to a protest not caring if a riot is going to break out then you are guilty of being a catalyst for the riot. And you are no longer a protester, you are a rioter

Like I said, people change...

[hedge]

"And I think there are a bunch of people who didn’t care if target got looted while they were holding their no justice no peace sign"

But evidently nobody who didn't care if the Capitol got invaded for the purpose, failed or not, of overturning an election while they were holding their MAGA signs and Hang Mike Pence signs...

[hedge]

"You want me to believe that the guy holding the sign 100 feet from the target being burned down has no responsibility in it burning.
But had no one showed up to protest, the building would not be on fire. To me there aren't many degrees of separation from the guy lighting the match and the guy cheering him on."

You seem to care more about Target than you do about the US Capitol...

[hedge]

once the rioting/looting starts its no longer peaceable.

that seems to be the part you can't comprehend.

you can't differentiate between your part of the protest being peaceable and the guy standing next to you throwing a piece of the curb at police

its all the same protest well except now its a riot

this idea that police should only focus on the rock throwers just isn't practical when the rock thrower and the peaceful guy started out the same, and especially since the rock throwing has started the "peaceful" guy has no intention of leaving the scene.

According to this, you hold everyone who showed up at the Capitol, whether they smashed door, windows or cops heads, equally guilty. But of course you've pretty much said that nothing really happened since they didn't achieve their goal. "Hey, we went to rob the Target, but somebody set it on fire so we never got to steal anything, so we're not guilty."

[Jungle Rat]

6be1dc53afb2452d2d45f1e322.jpg (60.98 KiB) Viewed 167 times

[innocentbystander]

"The FBI being corrupted."

Fox News talking point...

Agent Strzok and the bitch he was fucking Lisa Page, they both worked for the FBI. Let me assure you, their corruption is in no way a damn talking point from Fox News, or anyone.

[Jungle Rat]

article-0-1A2B262D00000578-818_636x382.jpg (132.64 KiB) Viewed 163 times

[hedge]

"Its disgusting they ordered the 3rd precinct building adandoned to be burned by the rioters."

Well what can they do when thousands of people are protesting? Just start mowing people down? I'm sure Crotch & Co. would be more than happy with that, so what if a few innocent people get killed? But that would just lead to more and bigger riots all over the place. The police can't control an enraged populace, esp. an armed populace. Thanks, 2nd Amendment!

I live in a world where protesting is peaceful, rioting is not. When you are attacking a police station, breaking windows, setting it on fire - with people inside, you are not a protester. You are not innocent.

and yea, I'd be ok with people being mowed down at that point. We have to have law, we have to have order, there has to be consequences for unlawful actions. Its clear to anyone that the police are the line between civility and chaos, and when they are attacked there has to be severe consequences to insure the next person thinks twice before crossing that line.

Like I said, people change. It appears me and eCat have both done a complete 180 degree turn in just one year. Funny...

[hedge]

"But here is what I know - had Clive Bundy been shot in the head, there would have been no rioting, no looting, no attacking innocent business owners, People would have been outraged and they would have reached out to their local officials to drive change in tactics."

Looks like those people changed too, although in fairness eCat did follow this up with "OR they would have blown up a federal building in Oklahoma City (ok, so one rogue guy)." Looks like one guy turned into thousands and the federal building they decided to attack was the US Capitol while Congress was in session. Ho-hum...

[hedge]

Criminal actions should be punished if possible. People protesting should not...

people protecting criminal actions should

[Jungle Rat]

7Y535_AS01.jpeg (165.81 KiB) Viewed 153 times

[eCat]

The Secret Service agent who former president Donald Trump allegedly attacked on January 6 is prepared to dispute that claim under oath, contradicting the testimony of a former White House aide who made the allegation during her Tuesday testimony before the January 6 committee.


Former aide to Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows, Cassidy Hutchinson, testified before the House select committee on the Capitol riot in a surprise hearing scheduled at the last minute. In her testimony, Hutchinson claimed Trump demanded that his Secret Service escort take him to the Capitol, where his supporters had begun to rally after listening to the president speak. When agent Bobby Engel refused, Trump lunged at the steering wheel and, when Engel restrained him, lunged toward Engel’s neck, according to Hutchinson.

“The president said something to the effect of, ‘I’m the effing president, take me up to the Capitol now,'” Hutchinson said, recounting details she says she was told by White House deputy chief of staff Tony Ornato.

The Secret Service told CBS News it plans to “respond on the record” to Hutchinson’s allegations, but a source close to the service told the outlet the “Engel and the driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was physically attacked or assaulted by Trump and that the former president never lunged for the steering wheel of the vehicle.”

“The United States Secret Service has been cooperating with the Select Committee since its inception in spring 2021, and will continue to do so, including by responding on the record to the Committee regarding the new allegations surfaced in today’s testimony,” Secret Service spokesperson Anthony Guglielmi said in a statement provided to CBS News.

Three Secret Service agents who were next to Trump on January 6 disputed that Trump grabbed the steering wheel or lunged for Engel, according to one current and one former law enforcement official speaking to the Washington Post.

NBC’s Peter Alexander also claimed a source told him Engel and the driver are willing to testify the assault and the lunging never happened.