Thoughts - Inciting violence and censorship (Page 6): Protesters didn't r**t or l**t, r****rs and l**ters, r**ted and l**ted. There is quite a distinctive difference between protesting...

SSDD

Singularity wrote:

I recall the protesters who r**ted and damaged property at Monuments and federal buildings were subjected to enhanced mandatory sentencing per Trumps executive order.

The Capital building is a National Monument.

Protesters didn't r**t or l**t, r****rs and l**ters, r**ted and l**ted. There is quite a distinctive difference between protesting and r**ting, there is also quite a distinct difference between protesting and l**ting. We can't humor the lunatics, it will not bring them to t***h, it will not bring them to reality, all it will do is satiate their desires. Their desires to believe that what the i**********nists did was no worse than what the protesters did, well, since the protesters did little more than exercise their rights, what the i**********nist did was far worse than what the protesters did. Did SOME protesters take things a bit far at times? Yes, there was some violence, but it was typically retaliatory in nature. What the i**********nists did was arguably even worse than what the r****rs and the l**ters did, at least they were only breaking the laws and causing damage, loss and mayhem, what the i**********nists did was treasonous, t*****rous, un-American and downright anti-American. They were threatening to try to o*******wn our own government and WITHOUT just cause. There is few if any crimes I consider worse than that.

debeda

Singularity wrote:

I recall the protesters who r**ted and damaged property at Monuments and federal buildings were subjected to enhanced mandatory sentencing per Trumps executive order.

The Capital building is a National Monument.

Huh. I thought it was "the People's house"... Lucky all the lefty r****rs had Kamala and kompany to bail them out and lawyer up for them

SSDD

hdjimv wrote:

https://www.oann.com/eyewitness-details-first-hand-account-of-j***6-r**t/

The people who were causing the problems in the capital building weren't even listening to Trump's speech! They were already at the building before the speech even started. So how can you (lemmings) justify even connecting the two. The speech wasn't responsible for any i**********n, the "r**t" had already started before the speech was given.

Find a legitimate source making that claim.

debeda

hdjimv wrote:

https://www.oann.com/eyewitness-details-first-hand-account-of-j***6-r**t/

The people who were causing the problems in the capital building weren't even listening to Trump's speech! They were already at the building before the speech even started. So how can you (lemmings) justify even connecting the two. The speech wasn't responsible for any i**********n, the "r**t" had already started before the speech was given.

Now STOP!! You're wrecking the narrative with facts and logic

debeda

MeadowFields wrote:

Are you joking? All of those quotes were taken ou... (show quote)

And what about the other quotes? I heard them from the attributees, in total, in context. 100% accurate.

debeda

Mikeyavelli wrote:

Make my reservation for fantasy island. I believe that the e******n was s****n from Trump by a coordinated international effort led by the CIA and corrupt state level e******n officials.
I believe that Trump is the best president in history (sorry Obama and Lincoln) and that America has reached a tipping point that won't be righted peacefully.
Lock and load, you kommiecrats are way out of line.

I sadly agree with you here, Mikey. Bad times in the USA😥

debeda

MeadowFields wrote:

I wonder if you'd be so gracious and forgiving if the i**********nists were people of color and not all white?

If they were all people of color they would not BE i**********nists. They'd be peaceful protesters. Ya know, like for the past 4 years, and particularly this past summer and fall.

debeda

permafrost wrote:

Have to say,, the l**ting and burning of a big box... (show quote)

Be logical, perm. If there was an I**********n involving 1 million plus "angry people", the government would be negotiating with the occupying force as we speak.....

debeda

nwtk2007 wrote:

Most importantly, these estimates are all being co... (show quote)

Yep!! Again, the left is devoid of reason, logic, or civility.

SSDD

American Vet wrote:

You are wrong on a couple of points.

Companies must comply with the law. In certain instances ‘freedom of speech’ may be involved.

I have commented very little on the e******n outcomes.

Do you think that his sister might have ‘an axe to grind’?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Tell me where in that does it state the anybody BUT congress and by extension, the government, is obligated to "honor" anybody else's right to free speech much less an internet social media company operating on an internet that wasn't even around when the amendment was added and I seriously doubt any amendments to the first amendment have been established since the "invention" of the internet. You people can't just fabricate laws in your head and expect others to follow them, you can't make up your own interpretations of laws or constitutional rights and expect others to agree with your WAY OFF BASE, asinine interpretations that can't even stand up to scrutiny. IF you want private companies and private citizens to be bound to uphold the free speech rights of others, contact your representatives and senators and demand an amendment to the first amendment and if you are successful, which you won't be, you will have your way. Until then, forget it. There IS no law forcing ANY private citizen or ANY private company to honor someone's rights to free speech. If you don't like what someone is saying in your home, you DO have the right to have them ejected, if you own a business and you don't like what they are saying, same deal, if you have a social media site and you don't like what someone is saying, again, same deal.

What? You have something against what people can do in their own home? Their own business? Their own social media site? Don't those people/companies/entities have rights too? Except they DO have the rights granted them to do with their home/business/social media site(s) what they please. The first amendment only applies to the government and what they can or can not do in regards to your first amendment rights, it doesn't pertain to individuals or companies. What is so hard to understand about that?

SSDD

Larry Joe wrote:

Singularity, there was no i**********n there was a... (show quote)

Ah, and what were the zip ties for?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-10/man-seen-in-senate-carrying-zip-ties-among-those-charged-in-r**t

Yeah, no harm was intended, just some hooligans out tryin' to have some fun. You DO NOT carry that style "zip ties", which are ACTUALLY zip-cuffs, unless you intend to detain someone and in this case, illegally since he had no authority to detain anyone.

SSDD

MeadowFields wrote:

I wonder if you'd be so gracious and forgiving if the i**********nists were people of color and not all white?

He would likely be calling for their lynching instead if that were the case.

SSDD

permafrost wrote:

Have to say,, the l**ting and burning of a big box... (show quote)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeqGuaAl6Ic (For Whom the Bell Tolls)

American Vet

SSDD wrote:

That meme lies, that was NOT part of his rally spe... (show quote)

So how do you explain that the video/transcript you posted - which you say incited the mob to attack the Capital - started at 1444 hours and the r****rs breached the Capital at about 1400?

Singularity

SSDD wrote:

Find a legitimate source making that claim.

Trumps speech was being livestreamed on Utube. Mas ny were listening, virtually in real time, on their phone.

https://youtu.be/YVDJqipoohc