Animal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 8:23 pm
An insurrection is a major crime. and an actual insurrection would have to involve a full on rebellion with significant violence. A full blown attempt to overthrow the government in a violent way.
Uh oh, careful, you're dangerously close to going back to where you ran away before. But by all means, continue to try and prove it was not an insurrection on this track. I already dissected your first attempt at this and established how everything you tried to argue didn't happen actually did happen. Go ahead and push forward on this. At the very least, you'll showcase what it looks like when people don't beat around the bush afraid to engage.
Animal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 8:23 pm
Now as much as you want to exaggerate the events of that day, the demonstration or riot that occurred was simply not up to the levels required to categorize it as an insurrection.
Except it does, quite literally. It's you that wants to argue semantics and levels of degrees whereas I just want it demonstrated that the act itself was an insurrection. So far, given the levels of hesitation from the would be apologists, I can see why. Deep down, you all know what it was and what you're aligned with and what that means for your supposed love of our freedom and democracy.
Animal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 8:23 pm
That's why no one was charged with the crime of insurrection.
Charges filed is not the same as committing the crime. You and your ilk have pivoted to this time and again out of desperation. Despite that, it will never be the case that absent charges the crime was not committed.
Animal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 8:23 pm
If that mob had been more organized and they had actually taken prisoners or wielded guns, then you probably would be crossing the line into an insurrection. But it just wasn't that violent or that organized.
Except it was that violent. It was that organized, especially by its ringleaders, one of which you and your brethren have to defend at all costs despite knowing he did what he did. So don't forget, by your own definition: violence and uprising, organization, goal of overthrowing government function, seizing powers, all these elements exist in the actions and execution of that day. It's your chosen definition. Please, keep going and tell me how it doesn't apply.
Animal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 8:23 pm
Was it stupid and criminal and unthinkable and wrong...... Absolutely. It just wasn't an insurrection.
It was by your own definition. Don't blame me, you chose what to go with.
Animal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 8:23 pm
And if it had been, then you can bet that at least one person out of the several hundred people charged, would have been charged with insurrection.
Charges filed is not the same as committing the crime. You and your ilk have pivoted to this time and again out of desperation. Despite that, it will never be the case that absent charges the crime was not committed. Now on to the other hacks.
CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 8:30 pm
Jeezus H. Christ.
You accuse me of trying to set "parameters"?
Yup, cause you still haven't done a single bit of the work. See how Animal didn't need to pitter patter around it? He tried, now twice, which is greater than your zero attempts, hack.
necronomous wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 11:54 pm
Lol you're fucking retarded.
With such quality arguments like that, why didn't you go to New York and argue fraud isn't fraud?
Animal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 12:10 am
i have tried to explain to the fucking moron. If they had charged the "subpoena non-abiders" with other crimes, like "loitering" instead of a crime that was specifically tailored to "failure to abide by a subpoena", then he would have a point. But simply not charging the "subpoena non-abiders" at all, doesn't prove anything other than they felt kind of meh about it.
Except your argument (excuse) by parallel is because insurrection wasn't charged, that it didn't happen. Whereas if you take that track down other demonstrated avenues such as subpoenas defied, you cannot come to your Do you know that I'm a fag? True Story!'s reasoning of the crime didn't happen on the same basis. Just because you and the apologists suffer from the stupidity required to make this excuse of a leap in logic doesn't mean everyone is as dumb as y'all are.
Animal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 12:10 am
His argument goes completely off the tracks though once they charge the "subpoena non abiders" with other crimes instead of the obvious one that applies to their actual crime. That's when you know that whatever they did doesn't fit the definition of the crime that the dummy wanted them charged with.
My argument was never about charges filed, that's what you guys want to make it about. I want the act itself discussed or else we get bad faith actors like everyone here defending the insurrection for what it was. That's when you know that what they did fits the definition of the crime you have provided, let alone what I began with. Don't like it? Then prove the insurrection was not an insurrection or that your definition of the word is incorrect. Failing that, y'all's Do you know that I'm a fag? True Story! excuse is wrong.