has Biden done a good job as president?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Drich, first you claim that there was no riot, no insurrection and that it was a regular visit, and you call media that claim it was a violent riot as fake, only to link to a Snopes article that calls the happening a riot and Jan. 6 insurrection. They should be fake news by your standards.

Remember when you wrote:

Insurrection : 
The act of rising against civil authority or governmental restraint; specifically, the armed resistance of a number of persons to the power of the state; incipient or limited rebellion.

A armed rebellion did not occur.

and ican argue neither did the other two definations:

• n.
  The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.
  
  
• n.
  A rising up; uprising.
  
  
  
  
  

there was no open revolt. and nothing rose up we did not birth a movement nor another nation. the government did not employ the army/force to disburse the protesters. monday came and everyone went home. you confusing this with the chaz movement/freedom zone.

The rioters WERE armed and WERE rebelling against the authority of the US government. Hence, an armed rebellion, hence an insurrection.

They WERE in open revolt. They stormed the seat of your government and threatened to kill  legally elected representatives OF that government.

It doesn’t matter that they didn’t succeed. It doesn’t matter that they weren’t forcibly dispersed. They attempted to disrupt the EC certification and nullify an election. This was an insurrection and nothing else.

Your disconnect from reality is both impressive and worrying.

Boru

[Rev. Rye]

there was no open revolt.

The definition of Revolt according to the OED: "a protest against authority, especially that of a government, often involving violence; the action of protesting against authority." A protest to demand that Congress overturn the results of a democratic election sounds like that to me.

and nothing rose up we did not birth a movement nor another nation.

Of course nothing rose up and you didn't birth a movement, because it was the failed continuation of a pre-existing movement, whether the alt-right, the MAGA movement, the Stop the Steal movement or WHAT HAVE YOU!* It has many names, but, in practice, there's no real difference between any of them.

the [/size]government[size=large] did not employ the army/force to disburse the protesters. monday came and everyone went home.

Yeah, because, since Washington DC is not a state, they don't have a governor who can send out the National Guard. That would depend on the Department of Defense, who'd need authorisation from the President, who flat-out refused to do so for several hours. They went home at the end of the day, and the only reason was because someone ended up forcing Trump to make a statement telling them to do so. And I suspect that was probably the only reason they ended up going peacefully, especially since several rioters actually outright stated they believed they were following Trump's orders, even during the event.

you confusing this with the chaz movement/freedom zone

That may also count as an uprising, but given that the Capitol Hill neighbourhood in Seattle isn't the same as the actual Capitol in DC, they're clearly different things.

* Last Podcast on the Left Children of God reference.

[Fake Messiah]

Drich, first you claim that there was no riot, no insurrection and that it was a regular visit, and you call media that claim it was a violent riot as fake, only to link to a Snopes article that calls the happening a riot and Jan. 6 insurrection. They should be fake news by your standards.

Remember when you wrote:

Insurrection : 
The act of rising against civil authority or governmental restraint; specifically, the armed resistance of a number of persons to the power of the state; incipient or limited rebellion.

A armed rebellion did not occur.

and ican argue neither did the other two definations:

• n.
  The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.
  
  
• n.
  A rising up; uprising.
  
  
  
  
  

there was no open revolt. and nothing rose up we did not birth a movement nor another nation. the government did not employ the army/force to disburse the protesters. monday came and everyone went home. you confusing this with the chaz movement/freedom zone.

And yet when it suits you, you put links to articles that claim that there was an insurrection and a riot. Like that Snopes article.

[Crossless2.0]

Is it really necessary to point out how weird it is to be lectured about primary/secondary/tertiary sources from a guy who buys into the New Testament?

Just sayin'.

[Drich]

The video of the Capitol police letting the rioters in doesn’t exonerate the rioters. In fact, it incriminates the Capitol police who did it. And we’ve known about this since at least a day or two after it happened.

your brothers don't seem to want to acknowledge that they know in fact the are name calling anyone who will even watch the video. also like to point out what one of the officers said about them being allowed in as the camera man walked by... "Not all of us agree with letting you in, we were told..." and dude stops mid sentence. who do you think told them to let the protesters in? the protesters? or maybe someone higher up? if someone higher up then the invasion of the capitol building was planned. which again is confirmed by the video of the police opening the barricades. the main guy at video start is on the radio then starts waving people in. the police were following orders. those cops only have one chief, who answers to the house speaker... Polsi. also note that the chief had several emails to speaker polsi asking for additional officers. for month before the event, and no reply. even begged for military support which again did not happen till everyone had already left for the most part.

https://www.businessinsider.com/capitol-...ers-2021-1

Also, I can’t help but notice that if Pro-Trump protesters riot in the Capitol and cause , cause minor damage, he’s ready to write off the entire movement as terrorists.

most didn't do any damage. trump supports them and they still support trump. trump is speaking to the guys like bufflo man and those who did smash out windows (antifa or not) as terrorists. most of the people there feel the same way. those people were a small outcast segment of a much larger group who were there to legitly protest and make their voices heard to call for a senate vote. which was hidden by the propaganda narrative of insurrection. most of you dims have no clue why most of us showed up as arizona's votes were in contest and could have thrown the whole election out as their votes could have decided the race. The Reps were there to protect demand the senate vote and even protect the senate when it voted trump back into office. but evil won the day when pence refused to acknowledge arizona's contested votes and the narritive shifted from patriots save election to insurrection.. (they were never fully certified as in both halves did not agree on who won the state. the reps said trump won the state and the dems said biden won and pence was supposed to call for a senate vote, but never did. rather he ignored the republican count and went with the dims uncertified count which is why there is an audit going on now.)

Man, Trump’s toadstool-shaped cock must taste great, drich!

much better than biden brand dipped in Kama-toe-ah forced into america's back door. then being sniffed and fondled afterwards

---

Insurrection : 
The act of rising against civil authority or governmental restraint; specifically, the armed resistance of a number of persons to the power of the state; incipient or limited rebellion.

A armed rebellion did not occur.

and ican argue neither did the other two definations:

• n.
  The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.
  
  
• n.
  A rising up; uprising.
  
  
  
  
  

there was no open revolt. and nothing rose up we did not birth a movement nor another nation. the government did not employ the army/force to disburse the protesters. monday came and everyone went home. you confusing this with the chaz movement/freedom zone.

And yet when it suits you, you put links to articles that claim that there was an insurrection and a riot. Like that Snopes article.

so? if i can take a segment from one of your sources and beat your teeth in with in, fake news style iam happy to do so. i don't have to believe anything snopes says.. but you do. so when they contradict you i know it stings that much more. because it shows you are not even up to date with your sides current version of bull shite. this makes you look bad sport not me. if you can be a hypocrite and shake it off like nothing happened so can i. after all it is one of your prize sources not mine. in fact that is why i paired the snopes with a local new report. so we can both see the truth in several forms even if i discount everything else in the article or the next article they publish a lie. we have a common truth you now have to accept, exposing how outdated your whole outlook on this part of the argument is. this should make any honest intellect reexamine the other parts of this story that have been redacted and changed

[Fake Messiah]

so? if i can take a segment from one of your sources and beat your teeth in with in, fake news style iam happy to do so. i don't have to believe anything snopes says..

My source? So Drich goes for ad hominem attack instead of honesty. That article proved you wrong much more than anyone else on this topic. Cop may have died of heart attack but riot still happened.

[Rev. Rye]

Looking at your ramblings on who the Capitol police answer to, I actually did a little research.

I found that the Capitol Chief of Police, well, here's what the official website of the Capitol Police says "The Chief reports directly to the Capitol Police Board and is assisted in the management of the Department by the Assistant Chiefs of Police and the Chief Administrative Officer." And while I don't know who the Capitol Police Board reports to, the head of the Police Board, the name "Sergeant at Arms of the United States Senate" does point in a different direction from Pelosi.

And did you actually read the Business Insider article you cited as a source? Because it points to another reason the Capitol PD shit the bed so bad that day.

the Pentagon issued memos in the days prior to Trump's White House rally restricting District guardsman from interacting with protesters; accessing ammunition or riot gear; sharing equipment or resources with other law enforcement agencies; or using National Guard technology without the sign off of the Defense Secretary.

And, yes, we are aware that there were claims that the election was fraudulent. And not one of them ended up working in the Republicans' favour.

[Drich]

Is it really necessary to point out how weird it is to be lectured about primary/secondary/tertiary sources from a guy who buys into the New Testament?

Just sayin'.

how sad are you to bluntly red herring your way into the subject. to exchange the topic of poor research with your peer's personal feeling on the bible. why? because you know this would trigger them into bible  bashing rather than a topical discussion. if you have nothing to add topically go away troll

[Crossless2.0]

Is it really necessary to point out how weird it is to be lectured about primary/secondary/tertiary sources from a guy who buys into the New Testament?

Just sayin'.

how sad are you to bluntly red herring your way into the subject. to exchange the topic of poor research with your peer's personal feeling on the bible. why? because you know this would trigger them into bible  bashing rather than a topical discussion. if you have nothing to add topically go away troll

It wasn't offered as a serious contribution to your little bun fight, sweetheart, and I give less than a shit whether anyone engages in off-topic Bible bashing. It's just an observation about your utter lack of consistency when you get on one of your soap boxes. 

Carry on. You amuse me, as always.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Is it really necessary to point out how weird it is to be lectured about primary/secondary/tertiary sources from a guy who buys into the New Testament?

Just sayin'.

how sad are you to bluntly red herring your way into the subject. to exchange the topic of poor research with your peer's personal feeling on the bible. why? because you know this would trigger them into bible  bashing rather than a topical discussion. if you have nothing to add topically go away troll

(Bold mine)

Attempting to limit thread participation is against forum rules. Be advised.

Boru