MSNBC host cries over Jan 6th Anniversary

[Road Runner]

Thanks! And for the people ...

I've actually used that video on people here before lol but I LOVE Family Matters, it was my favorite show as a kid and is still one of my favorites to this day.

 

[kaz]

So if you call people to peacefully protest, and violence breaks out, that is proof of intent by you that you wanted violence because you set up the protest?

Is that what you’re saying?

If I invite a friend to a party and he gets drunk and starts a fight with a guy, did I intend for that guy to get attacked? I mean, the only reason he was there was Because of me, right?

That’s insanely weak logic, if there’s any at all

Yep, you can't talk to leftists like forkup for that reason. The standard they hold you to they don't remotely hold themselves or their team to. Democrats don't have standards, they have talking point and they all parrot them, like fork did

 

[Mac1958]

The ease and frequency people employ it in defense of Trump by the way implies a certain recognition of their own vulnerability in defending him.

Yeah, that's my guess. And if that's the case, then they know that they're being dishonest in backing this guy.

The other possibility is that they're so lost in his eyes that they are in pure denial and don't know any better.

What I wonder is whether they don't realize what they're asking for, or if they DO. The latter may be worse.

 

[forkup]

So if you call people to peacefully protest, and violence breaks out, that is proof of intent by you that you wanted violence because you set up the protest?

Is that what you’re saying?

If I invite a friend to a party and he gets drunk and starts a fight with a guy, did I intend for that guy to get attacked? I mean, the only reason he was there was Because of me, right?

That’s insanely weak logic, if there’s any at all

If I invite a friend to a party and he gets drunk and starts a fight with a guy, did I intend for that guy to get attacked? I mean, the only reason he was there was Because of me, right?

Let's start with this analogy and make it closer to what happened.

Instead of simply inviting a friend to a party let's assume I first badmouth the guy who actually gets attacked for months. Then invite both my friend and the guy I've been badmouthing. Then instead of my friend getting drunk, I feed him drunk although I've been told he gets mean when he is. Then instead of a fight simply breaking out. I point out the guy who've I been badmouthing and then suggest he go and talk to him. Let's further assume I tell him explicitly not to fight. But when the fight does break out, I don't try to stop it, but I'm the first one to yell, fight, fight, fight. For years afterwards whenever that fight comes up, I say. "Well, he had it coming and it's unfair he got arrested".

Would you consider me telling him explicitly not to fight as proof that I didn't intend this to happen?

Thank you by the way, with providing the analogy. Most useful.

 

[FDR_Reagan]

Meantime, another MSNBC extremist, Islamist Mehdi Hasan is out..

MSNBC cancels Mehdi Hasan's show in major shakeup of weekend lineup

MSNBC has cancelled far-left presenter Mehdi Hasan's show as part of a wider shake-up of its weekend lineup.

www.dailymail.co.uk

As in "non-Muslims are animals"

 

[forkup]

Yeah, that's my guess. And if that's the case, then they know that they're being dishonest in backing this guy.

The other possibility is that they're so lost in his eyes that they are in pure denial and don't know any better.

What I wonder is whether they don't realize what they're asking for, or if they DO. The latter may be worse.

I actually think the former.

 

[forkup]

This is the USA. A person that you personally think is a threat to democracy still has the right to run for office. You're a fascist.

Funny, almost my exact words.

Me personally, I'm not comfortable with it. With the provision I mean. I think he should be allowed to run.

I think a person I personally detest and indeed consider an actual danger to Democracy should be allowed to run

But by all means, call me some more names.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Let's start with this analogy and make it closer to what happened.

Instead of simply inviting a friend to a party let's assume I first badmouth the guy who actually gets attacked for months. Then invite both my friend and the guy I've been badmouthing. Then instead of my friend getting drunk, I feed him drunk although I've been told he gets mean when he is. Then instead of a fight simply breaking out. I point out the guy who've I been badmouthing and then suggest he go and talk to him. Let's further assume I tell him explicitly not to fight. But when the fight does break out, I don't try to stop it, but I'm the first one to yell, fight, fight, fight. For years afterwards whenever that fight comes up, I say. "Well, he had it coming and it's unfair he got arrested".

Would you consider me telling him explicitly not to fight as proof that I didn't intend this to happen?

Why do you add so many aspects that didn’t happen?

You said intent is proven by whoever causes the violent individual to be there. That’s your claim. It’s a dumb claim by any metric, I hope we can agree, and you can retract your statement.

Here’s a clue: if you have to twist into pretzels to say what people you hate REALLY meant when they said X, and are using that as your primary evidence.. it’s proof that you don’t have proof. You’re making assumptions. And you’re free to do that, but don’t expect others to make the same jumps in logic.

You have no proof of intent. Proof would be orders from Trump to attack the Capitol, or to go take prisoners, etc. you have none of that, because it doesn’t exist. So, since you don’t have that, you hate Trump so much that you’ll use faulty logic in place of proof, and be just as passionate about it.

It makes you look very very silly.

 

[forkup]

Why do you add so many aspects that didn’t happen?

You said intent is proven by whoever causes the violent individual to be there.

Here’s a clue: if you have to twist into pretzels to say what people you hate REALLY meant when they said X, and are using that as your primary evidence.. it’s proof that you don’t have proof. You’re making assumptions. And you’re free to do that, but don’t expect others to make the same jumps in logic.

You have no proof of intent. Proof would be orders from Trump to attack the Capitol, or to go take prisoners, etc. you have none of that, because it doesn’t exist. So, since you don’t have that, you hate Trump so much that you’ll use faulty logic in place of proof, and be just as passionate about it.

It makes you look very very silly.

What aspect of the analogy do you think I invented? I'll be happy to tie it too it's actual occurrence.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

What aspect of the analogy do you think I invented? I'll be happy to tie it too it's actual occurrence.

My point is contained in the rest of my post that you didn’t read

 

[forkup]

My point is contained in the rest of my post that you didn’t read

This is your point?

You said intent is proven by whoever causes the violent individual to be there. That’s your claim. It’s a dumb claim by any metric, I hope we can agree, and you can retract your statement.

Here you are yet again and for the umpteenth time using a fallacious argument. I never said nor claimed that simply being the cause of a violent individual being there is sufficient to establish intent. That would be indeed silly. I never said a tweet is sufficient by itself.

But if you are the cause for them being there. You are the cause for them being upset. You ignore the warnings from people telling you it might lead to violence. You fail to even attempt to stop the violence as it is occurring and while people are pleading you to do so. You further justify their actions as it is clear that violence is occurring. And you martyr those that perpetrated that violence. Then claiming you didn't mean for it to happen is not credible anymore.


So, I'll ask again what do you believe I invented, and I'll source every single one of these aspects?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

But if you are the cause for them being there.

Which we said is not a reason. So, this means nothing.

You are the cause for them being upset.

Which all politicians do when they call a protest. So that means nothing too

You ignore the warnings from people telling you it might lead to violence.

Fact check false.

Trump wanted national guard troops present, Pelosi and DC Mayor Bowser turned it down. Blame them.

So far 2 pointless claims and a false claim

You fail to even attempt to stop the violence as it is occurring and while people are pleading you to do so.

He tweeted to remain peaceful as it was happening. That’s a fact.

Meanwhile, Democrats were silent for days as their BLM protests turned into murderous, arson-filled nationwide riots causing billions across the country and hospitalizing so many.

Trump acted very quickly in comparison. Nobody is perfect, but some (Trump) are better than others (Democrats).

You further justify their actions as it is clear that violence is occurring.

1 You can’t call for peace while simultaneously supporting violence. You’re saying thats possible? Let me guess, “he said peace but we all know what he REALLY meant”… right? That seems to be your #1 go to. You can say such subjective theories, but you can’t expect anyone who isn’t a biased hater of Trump to believe you.

2. Trump supported the non violent protests, you’re pretending everyone there was violent. 99% of people there didn’t do anything.

And you martyr those that perpetrated that violence.

Where did Trump praise the people who were violent. Give me detailed quotes that he supported the violence. No “read between the lines” BS. Proof. Go.

 

[MagicMike]

Stinky sock ^ said something.

Oh look!
intheButtAgain strikes again!
Doesn't mention a fucking thing about the actual question (the fake elector scheme)....
instead responds with another stupid, sanctimonious, sophomoric slur!

Try to keep up here intheButtAgain!
How about Trump's fake electors scheme?

 

[BackAgain]

Oh look!
intheButtAgain strikes again!
Doesn't mention a fucking thing about the actual question (the fake elector scheme)....
instead responds with another stupid, sanctimonious, sophomoric slur!

MuddledDick is all agitated.

Try to keep up here intheButtAgain!
How about Trump's fake electors scheme?

I’ve already refuted that imbecile claim several times you whine ng dishonest twat.

Go take a couple of Midols, bitch.

 

[forkup]

Which we said is not a reason. So, this means nothing.

Which all politicians do when they call a protest. So that means nothing too

Fact check false.

Trump wanted national guard troops present, Pelosi and DC Mayor Bowser turned it down. Blame them.

So far 2 pointless claims and a false claim

He tweeted to remain peaceful as it was happening. That’s a fact.

Meanwhile, Democrats were silent for days as their BLM protests turned into murderous, arson-filled nationwide riots causing billions across the country and hospitalizing so many.

Trump acted very quickly in comparison. Nobody is perfect, but some (Trump) are better than others (Democrats).

1 You can’t call for peace while simultaneously supporting violence. You’re saying thats possible? Let me guess, “he said peace but we all know what he REALLY meant”… right? That seems to be your #1 go to. You can say such subjective theories, but you can’t expect anyone who isn’t a biased hater of Trump to believe you.

2. Trump supported the non violent protests, you’re pretending everyone there was violent. 99% of people there didn’t do anything.

Where did Trump praise the people who were violent. Give me detailed quotes that he supported the violence. No “read between the lines” BS. Proof. Go.

Which we said is not a reason. So, this means nothing.

No, you said it's not a reason. I said it's not a reason BY ITSELF. Again, you keep on habitually putting up strawmen.

Which all politicians do when they call a protest. So that means nothing too

Oh really. Feel free to cite.

Fact check false.

The Secret Service painted a damning picture of Trump to the Jan. 6 committee. It wasn't the first time agents have been called to testify.

Thursday's disclosure of internal Secret Service communications is not the first time the agency has pulled back the curtain on a president's conduct.

www.businessinsider.com

He tweeted to remain peaceful as it was happening. That’s a fact.

He... and it's being contested he actually wrote that, tweeted that out after police regained control. Before that he tweeted.
Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth! This was minutes after he was evacuated.

1 You can’t call for peace while simultaneously supporting violence. You’re saying thats possible? Let me guess, “he said peace but we all know what he REALLY meant”… right?

Sure, you can. There's explicit and implicit meaning. I already gave 2 examples. The mob boss, and the hitman. In the case of the mob boss the implicit meaning and the explicit words are opposite, yet there's not a jury in the world who wouldn't get it. It happens quite often.

And yes we know what he really meant. By considering all the actions before, during and after Jan 6th.

Where did Trump praise the people who were violent. Give me detailed quotes that he supported the violence. No “read between the lines” BS. Proof. Go.

He didn't praise them. He martyred them. And not a single time for any single one did he ever say the sentence was justified. In fact, Donald Trump's January 6 choir comes back to haunt him

A song by people CONVICTED for crimes during Jan 6th is a campaign song.

 

[BackAgain]

MuddledDick needs some fresh tampons.
cleanup in aisle 6.

 

[MagicMike]

MuddledDick is all agitated.

I’ve already refuted that imbecile claim several times you whine ng dishonest twat.

Go take a couple of Midols, bitch.

So once again you've got nothing intelligent or even meaningful to say.
You haven't "refuted" anything you trivial ass-clown.
You never do.

 

[BackAgain]

So once again you've got nothing intelligent or even meaningful to say.
You haven't "refuted" anything you trivial ass-clown.
You never do.

You offer nothing of value to discuss much less to refute.

You’re a void.

You’re a worthless very empty-minded shitbag troll.

Gfy.

 

[1miseryindex]

I was in shock at the sight of a Republican Mob attacking our Capitol

It's funny, though... How dims never shed a tear when Dimrats attack-- just whatever, whether it's buildings, cop cars, court buildings... innocent by-standers...

That is what is called Selective "outrage."

 

[1miseryindex]

You offer nothing of value to discuss much less to refute.

Youre a void.



Gfy.

Back Again

Why the ugly avatar?

i liked Belushi better

(I agree more/less w/ the comment, though)