Scalise: 'It's Time to Open Up the People's House, Let the Public Back In'

So your argument of not being a media puppet is to use yet another media puppet gif coupled with some 4 year old claim?
You can't make this stuff up

 

The very idea that you could not clearly say that the man was wrong is also very telling.

This was not some event that was planned that some high level within the Republican party.

I assume I'm a republican at least I'm told I am around here and that's what I'm registered to vote... And I think it was wrong and it was something that got out of hand and it never should have been taken that far.

But I also think people like you are being dramatic and embellishing it and trying to make it into a political weapon.

 

OK, this is just NOT acceptable argument.

You didn't ask what I believe about that, and i was CRYSTAL CLEAR how Dems viewed that event.

You have NO EXCUSE for saying that kind of CRAP about me.

Exactly. Republicans planned and carried out an armed assault against our democracy.

And, they were very close to being successful.

Yet, we have Republicans SUPPORTING that activity, claiming it was no big deal, that Trump and his people weren't involved, that there was no plan to overthrow the election (when those involved say there WAS a plan to do that), etc.

You ARE a Republican. You forgive those who carry out treason.

 

Well, your reply is consistent with you can't make this stuff up: Right now, there are some Americans who blindly accept the delusions of Crazy Donnie Trump that he actually won the 2020 presidential election.

 

What did BW say about the FBI?

“Rosenberg, who covers national security matters for the Times says on the undercover video that “there were a ton of FBI informants among the people who attacked the Capitol.”

This revelation is a break from Rosenberg’s reporting on the matter where he characterized such a notion of FBI informants in the crowd as a “reimagining of Jan. 6.”
PROJECT VERITAS, Pulitzer Prize Winning New York Times Reporter: January 6 Media Coverage ‘Overreaction,’ FBI Involved, Event Was Not Organized Despite Ongoing Narrative, Mar. 8, 2022.
https://www.projectveritas.com/news...york-times-reporter-january-6-media-coverage/

 

A better location for the capitol of a garrison state would be the interior of Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado.

 

Still hung up on that are ya?
Did you have anything new or were you just going to keep regurgitating old Trumpisms?
This is the best you can do?
Poor thing.

 

Those taking part in the Jan 6 insurrection testify that it absolutely WAS organized.

 

Still waiting on this testimony you claim to have instead of your old media regurgitations.
Were you going to provide it or just ignore it?
Let me guess

 

OR, we could have respect for our foundational principles.

Republicans don't get to overthrow our nation.

 

You see this is why it's hard to have a rational conversation with people around here sometimes.

I already said it was unacceptable and It got out of hand. And you're going to sit here and smear an entire political party and say that they were okay with it.

And then you actually have the nerve to complain about people applying the same "logic" to you.

And spare us the bull crap. No one there has even been arrested for carrying a firearm that day. Much less prosecuted on a gun charge

 

Organized by agents of the FBI?

 

OR, our government could respect our foundational principles -- for a change.

"When the FBI could not find significant "subversive" influence, the bureau abandoned all pretense that its intelligence was directed only at organizations under the control or influence of a foreign power or dedicated to "violence." The Socialist Workers party (SWP) was placed under heavy surveillance even through the bureau conceded it was "home grown tomatoes" and in active opposition to the Communist party. The bureau took aim at the SWP because it espoused the "revolutionary principles of Marx, Lenin, and Engles (sic) as interpreted by Leon Trotsky" by "running candidates for public office." The surveillance of Martin Luther King, Jr., as we have seen, was ostensibly to prevent "the rise of a 'messiah' who could unify and electrify the . . . black . . . movement," although King's criticism of the bureau may well have been the real reason."
THE LAWLESS STATE, The Crimes of the U.S. Intelligence Agencies, By Morton Halperin, Jerry Berman, Robert Borosage, Christine Marwick, Penguin Books, 1976.
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/NSA/Lawless_State.html

 

The inconvenient truth keeps slipping out.

“Rosenberg: "They were making too big a deal. They were making this an organized thing that it wasn’t.”Rosenberg RESPONDS: “Will I stand by those comments? Absolutely.”
PROJECT VERITAS, Pulitzer Prize Winning New York Times Reporter: January 6 Media Coverage ‘Overreaction,’ FBI Involved, Event Was Not Organized Despite Ongoing Narrative, Mar. 8, 2022.https://www.projectveritas.com/news...york-times-reporter-january-6-media-coverage/

 

Here's one of the signed plea agreements where an insurgent states that he was part of a conspiracy to carry out the insurgency of Jan 6.

Caleb Berry plea agreement

I'm not going to chase them all down for you.

Oath Keepers, other groups and individuals absolutely DID plan this armed assault on our democracy.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...pers-plot-went-jan-6-attack-capitol-rcna16474

 

And what foundational principles are that?

For context, what you are quoting there was during the "Red Scare" of the 1950s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. We see this argument permenate with Muslims, CCP, and so forth. It's nothing new. That being said, the context of the quote was during that red scare where those tactics are employed. Today, they are not employed anymore because of Supreme Court Cases and national laws have changed, for better or worse. Bear in mind, we have the Patriol Act, signed into law after 9/11 that basically allows the FBI to run survelience if it has to do with terrorism of any kind. This law has been a mantra for the GOP for over 2 decades and anyone who questioned it was either Un American or soft on crime.

Your own laws were used against the GOP who wanted to use those same laws on George Floyd protests.

 

I didn’t blame the whole group for the actions of some in either the White House or the Capitol situations.

 

Make up any story you wish, even from junk sites like Project Veritas, but those insurrectionists are going to get what they deserve.

 

Did you watch the video? Do you think it is a fake?

“A Pulitzer prize-winning NYT reporter was caught in a Project Veritas sting admitting his colleagues totally exaggerated Jan. 6 danger & fear. “Dude come on you were not in any danger,” Matthew Rosenberg said. He’s referring to @ESCochrane & @npfandos. https://twitter.com/UnmaskNYT/status/1501361297694232580/video/1… 9:17 PM · Mar 8, 2022”


Back to Videos, NYT's Matthew Rosenberg Caught On Tape: Colleagues Exaggerated January 6th, "You Were Not In Any Danger”, By Ian Schwartz , March 8, 2022.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...d_january_6th_you_were_not_in_any_danger.html

 

Project Veritas has been caught multiple times editing videos.

 

Did you watch the video? Do you think it is a fake?

“A Pulitzer prize-winning NYT reporter was caught in a Project Veritas sting admitting his colleagues totally exaggerated Jan. 6 danger & fear. “Dude come on you were not in any danger,” Matthew Rosenberg said. He’s referring to @ESCochrane & @npfandos. https://twitter.com/UnmaskNYT/status/1501361297694232580/video/1… 9:17 PM · Mar 8, 2022”




Back to Videos, NYT's Matthew Rosenberg Caught On Tape: Colleagues Exaggerated January 6th, "You Were Not In Any Danger”, By Ian Schwartz , March 8, 2022.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...d_january_6th_you_were_not_in_any_danger.html

 

LOL! I can't think of anything I might have posted about the GOP that was uncritical. The GOP stinks on ice. Clear enough?

Even the hard left used to have a clue about America's "foundational principles".
Some of them have not developed amnesia.

“By “crime” I do not mean mere illegality, but instead a category of socially proscribed acts that: (1) threaten or harm other people and (2) violate norms related to justice, personal safety, or human rights, (3) in such a manner or to such a degree as to warrant community intervention (and sometimes coercive intervention). That category would surely include a large number of things that are presently illegal (rape, murder, dropping bricks off an overpass), would certainly not include other things that are presently illegal (smoking pot, sleeping in public parks, nude sunbathing), and would likely also include some things that are not presently illegal (mass evictions, the invasion of Iraq). The point here is that the standards I want to appeal to in invoking the idea of crime are not the state’s standards, but the community’s — and, specifically, the community’s standards as they relate to justice, rights, personal safety, and perhaps especially the question of violence. (...)

Because the state uses this protective function to justify its own violence, the replacement of the police institution is not only a goal of social change, but also a means of achieving it. The challenge is to create another system that can protect us from crime, and can do so better, more justly, with a respect for human rights, and with a minimum of bullying. What is needed, in short, is a shift in the responsibility for public safety—away from the state and toward the community.” Kristian Williams, Our Enemies in Blue: Police and Power in America

There has been no substantive change for the better since the "1950s, 60s, 70s, and 80s". Target selection fluctuates with perceived political expediency.

 

All news organizations edit videos.
Please paste up an example of Project Veritas editing out video that contradicts what they aired on their site.

 

Do you believe a coerced confession is the "the queen of evidence"?
If so, you are not alone.

"In 1935 he became Procurator General of the USSR, the legal mastermind of Joseph Stalin's Great Purge. Although he acted as a judge, he encouraged investigators to procure confessions from the accused. In some cases, he prepared the indictments before the "investigation" was concluded.[19] In his Theory of Judicial Proofs in Soviet Justice (Stalin Prize in 1947) he laid a theoretical base for the Soviet judicial system, based on Marxist–Leninist principles, giving it a strong bias towards dialectical and collectivist thinking. Vyshinsky recommended that investigators and judges consider "the wider social perspective" of each individual case in the context of class struggle. As a result, an actual commission of a crime was not required for conviction: people could have been convicted for being perceived as bourgeois ("class responsibility") or simply if that was considered to be beneficial for the Communist Party, for example in the "educational" role of the judicial system (thus, the importance of show trials, even with completely false[citation needed][dubious – discuss] accusations). ... Perhaps based on this practice, in which according to Vaksberg, Stalin personally gave direction on the use of confessions and the use of the death penalty,[citation needed][dubious – discuss] Vyshinsky is cited for the principle that "confession of the accused is the queen of evidence".[21] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Vyshinsky