posted January 09, 2021 01:24 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumuzi:
from me

---

posted January 09, 2021 01:46 PM            

quote:

---

Let's not, Shura.

Let's acknowledge that there was nothing actually legitimate to "protest" as determined by several courts nationwide.

---

Here's your first mistake.

Motivation for this week's protest was not the election alone. To suggest so would be equivalent to blaming a summer's worth of rioting solely on Floyd's death. If I were to take that stance, it would then reasonably follow that the protests/riots were an exaggerated response to one case of possible police brutality not yet investigated. Would this be a fair analysis? It would not and we both know why. Likewise the Capitol Hill event. I understand you may not agree with the larger motivation, and you may dismiss the myriad of issues fueling the fire here, but there they are and they matter to a great many people. Only the dishonest and self serving would pretend otherwise.

Imagine believing a protest is illegitimate if the very power protested against says so! My God.

quote:

---

We are a nation of laws. Let those wishing to establish some proof do just that. Failing that, let's be assured that we can all trust the news out of the courts

---

We are a nation of laws - many of which are unjust, and many more which do not apply to the powerful and privileged. You are asking people (and I am referring now to both groups of protestors) to demand justice from an unjust judiciary system. What recompense can a man seek when he stands in front of a corrupt judge?

quote:

---

Let's not use women protesting the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh as an excuse for the events of this week. These are no more equal than trying to use BLM as justification.

---

posted January 09, 2021 02:00 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shura:

Ok. His format indicated it was mine.

---

posted January 09, 2021 02:07 PM            

quote:

---

This is literally news to everyone. Didn't happen. They were in the chambers for sure, but legally. Then they were expelled when they broke the rules. So, no, not insurrection. Not violent. Not equal.

---

The Kavanaugh protestors "broke through police barricades." Is this peaceful? Is it legal?

Kavanaugh protestors harassed Republican senators. Recall Sen Gardner's wife receiving threatening images of a beheading before the vote. The Woman's March announced their intent was to "shut down Capitol Hill." Is that lawful? They boasted that over a thousand protesters had ignored police orders and filled the "halls and floor of the Senate building."

Please don't misunderstand me. Capitol Hill is a den of thieves and serpents and I believe it should be cleansed like the filthy Augean Stables it is. I am about two steps away from not caring who manages that feat, left or right. The difficulty is while the Left and Right are busy pointing fingers at each other, the bad actors continue to tighten the noose.

quote:

---

Are you pro-Russia now, too?

---

Are you now or have you ever been pro Russian?

posted January 09, 2021 02:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:

BTW, I have seen about a 1000 images of these groups last week, yet to spot a single African American. So Blue Roamer's Title gets stronger and stronger than ever. Black People are the Saviors in the USA right now. They vote out Neo Nazis and do not plan insurrections.

---

lol Sure you have. there is a black man standing literally next to the woman who was shot. A well known black man, in fact.

And if the Black Panthers didn't make a career out of "planning insurrections" I wouldn't like them so much.

posted January 09, 2021 02:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Shura, this is not the AG of old. Just have fun.

---

posted January 09, 2021 02:59 PM            

All of your responses in your reply to me demonstrate the same. I have no issue with the darker side of like, with yin and yang and that necessary relationship. Nor am I advocating pretending it doesn't exist. You elevate it to superiority, and that's where your mistake lies. Pacifism has lead lots of places on its own. Take a larger view. You don't understand how the world works, or else you'd represent it better.

Corruption has not been established. It's been perceived. Big difference. Meaningful difference.

You have put yourself above others, calling ideas "cute" and so forth as if to say your perspective is supreme when it's so clearly lacking.

But, for me, I don't really want to spend a lot of time on you because you're not a voice people are taking super seriously here.

quote:

---

It sounds like AG is describing himself. He is literally in a world of self-delusion, because he believes fake news is factual. From that vantage point, he thinks he is a learned scholar, but his textbook is written in Crayola.

---

It doesn't sound like that at all, and WE all know this.

quote:

---

Here's your first mistake.

Motivation for this week's protest was not the election alone. To suggest so would be equivalent to blaming a summer's worth of rioting solely on Floyd's death. If I were to take that stance, it would then reasonably follow that the protests/riots were an exaggerated response to one case of possible police brutality not yet investigated. Would this be a fair analysis? It would not and we both know why. Likewise the Capitol Hill event. I understand you may not agree with the larger motivation, and you may dismiss the myriad of issues fueling the fire here, but there they are and they matter to a great many people. Only the dishonest and self serving would pretend otherwise.

---

Thinking that I haven't witnessed people on the Right go down a rabbit hole is weird. I came back here and can see it firsthand. I don't see it here alone, but we're all witnessing it. It's unavoidable. The whole charade is not on display.

quote:

---

We are a nation of laws - many of which are unjust, and many more which do not apply to the powerful and privileged. You are demanding people (and I am referring now to both groups of protestors) demand justice from an unjust judiciary system. What recompense can a man seek when he stands in front of a corrupt judge?

---

You could have chosen to speak on the topic, but instead are trying to make a larger point that you're not illustrating. What would be your examples of an unjust judiciary system? You can find them for the BLM crowd, but it's a little harder when it comes to terrorists at the White House. The protesters (which is not how I'd describe the people that broke into the Capital) are not equal.

The choice to be unspecific in claiming a corrupt judge is an interesting one. It tells me that you don't necessarily have a specific instance in mind but are just speaking vaguely in a way that seems rhetorically adequate. Was there a case among the 60+ election result cases in which there was actually a corrupt judge? Are you suggesting that the judges are staging their own coup to remove Trump?

quote:

---

why? Show me the difference.

---

Ok, so we're going to gloss over the fact that you recounted history wrong in providing a circumstance that was not equivalent?

I don't know if you'd have me call the Capital terrorists "fringe people on the right," or just conservatives, because you seem to want to downplay their crime as equal in nature to crimes happening around BLM.

How about this?
Passionate elements on the Right MAY very well be "protesting" for reasons of imaginary circumstances. Many do belong to groups (like LL) where conspiracies are passed around like gravy at the Thanksgiving table. If they weren't protesting just the vote, their timing was ...very interesting. Were they bringing attention to things that are legitimately wrong? No. At least it hasn't been established. Right?

The women who protested Kavanaugh did get past a barrier on at least one occasion outside of whatever building it was. They were peacefully and non-violently arrested outside on the steps. Are you detecting any differences? They MAY have been motivated by conspiracy, or at least YOU might think there were. You can go to Kavanaugh's Wikipedia page to this day and see the charges laid out against him. I recall even just a soft circumstance that was unsavory with this dude: that Yale should send him students that look like models. But whatever, this was easily distinguishable as not the same as storming the Capital. They weren't trying to save the nation from a Democratic president, but a Supreme Court justice, and this after Republicans declined to seat Obama's last appointment.

Here, I can see you want to draw a line between the two. You want to say that the pink hatted women of the Left were protesting a circumstance born out of an unfair situation. You think this is the same as the passionate people at the Capital. What is the unfair situation for the passionate people at the Capital? Losing an election? Nope. That happened fair and square. Moreover, the passionate people at least have actual legal recourse for making that case. That's not true of the ladies in pink. See a difference yet?

posted January 09, 2021 08:20 PM            

i see your hypocrisy showcased well here, very good display of it

posted January 09, 2021 08:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Like I said, you're not worth much attention.

---

like i said your hypocrisy is on full display

you're still giving me plenty of attention

you just aren't addressing anything and putting me down on a personal level rather than responding to content

all the while calling me full of myself and speaking to me as if i'm beneath you

it's not a good look, but you're free to wear it

posted January 10, 2021 12:16 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
No, I've adequately dealt with your content and your character. You can be mad. I'm ok with it.

---

why would i be mad?

i find it funny and don't take it personally, it's a you issue not a me one

when someone is consistently giving you attention while saying "you arent worth my time" it's legitimately hilarious

you could have pointed out a single incorrect fact instead and spent less time on me (while simultaenously educating others), but you chose to focus solely on me and continuously respond instead

you also did exactly what you accused me of doing which makes it more amusing

nothing to be mad about 😁 it's only funny

posted January 10, 2021 03:23 PM            

Yes, I could've addressed specific falsehoods, but given the amount in every post it would keep me very busy. This last post is no exception.

posted January 10, 2021 03:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Dumuzi,

Yes, I could've addressed specific falsehoods, but given the amount in every post it would keep me very busy. This last post is no exception.

And, yes, I can ignore you if you prefer, but *news flash* YOU keep addressing me looking for answers as to why you're the way you are. I'm being polite responding, but to characterize it as "a lot" is a stretch.

---

you could've picked one, but instead you choose to focus on me and that's part of my point

i don't really care if you speak to me or not, and when did i ask you to tell me why i am i the way i am? that would be pretty ******* dumb to ask someone who doesn't know me

that's a weird projection on your part, but you've projected a fair bit onto me at this point so i'm unsurprised

posted January 10, 2021 04:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
It's not a "projection" on my part at all. You're quite transparent. Anyone here could tell you about yourself equally as well as I can and perhaps better having known you longer.

I'm glad you're not invested.

---

it definitely is you've made some very wrong statements, but you're free to die on that hill if you'd like

pretending to know a complete stranger well is rather pointless though imo

posted January 11, 2021 06:51 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Liberals like to think they can diagnose people they have never met. Even licensed professionals cannot do so. He's just trying to p*ss you off, because it makes him feel superior.

He and I are not alike. I went to law school not to feel superior, and I don't think I am better than anyone else. I went so I could have access to the courts, and to be able to defend those who can't defend themselves, protect the weak, and fight the bullies who take advantage of those who don't know their rights. And let me clear--these bullies very often are on the right.

---

Randall, your first paragraph reads like you have just described Dumuzi TBH.