Stewart Rhodes

[rogue06]

From Juvenal's post;



It simply was not the democrats that made bipartisanship impossible. It was those seeking to bury the truth that made that impossible. As it was, there were Republicans on the committee. Those willing to sacrifice their political careers to make sure the truth recieved a public hearing.

Democrats supporting the rioting and looting during the BLM/antifa months of anarchy and violence were allowed on. Democrats who were election deniers themselves were allowed on (and even led) the clown show.

They only wanted yes men and rubber stamps and refused anyone who wasn't one.

[rogue06]

From the beginning, it was apparent the Democrats on the committee would be bending over backwards to accommodate Republican concerns about partisan bias.

Have you considered doing stand up? This was almost as funny as your defense of H_A the other day.

[oxmixmudd]

Democrats supporting the rioting and looting during the BLM/antifa months of anarchy and violence were allowed on. Democrats who were election deniers themselves were allowed on (and even led) the clown show.

They only wanted yes men and rubber stamps and refused anyone who wasn't one.

Two very different things rogue. Blm/antifa was civil unrest over racism - something we've dealt with as a nation and which doesn't represent a fundamental underpinings of our nation. OTOH, Jan6 was an attempt to overthrow the democratic process and install a leader rejected by the American people. Only one of those represents an immediate threat to the long term stability of our nation.

[Cow Poke]

Two very different things rogue. Blm/antifa was civil unrest over racism -

I don't believe that for a minute. BLM in particular has been exposed for the fraud it was.

something we've dealt with as a nation and which doesn't represent a fundamental underpinings of our nation.

BLM is racism against white people in general, conservatives in particular, and chaos and mayhem where they protest. A bunch of Marxist anti-American thugs.

OTOH, Jan6 was an attempt to overthrow the democratic process and install a leader rejected by the American people.

No doubt there were some who believed that, but it was largely a bunch of demonstrators who got WAY out of hand.

Only one of those represents an immediate threat to the long term stability of our nation.

About a half a day of needless riot in which the only death was the unarmed woman killed by a Capitol Police Officer.
If it was an actual attempt to purposely overthrow the government, it was one of the worst in history, having been soundly defeated by an incredibly ill-prepared and equipped Capitol Police Force.
I condemn the violence, but so do I condemn the outright lies perpetuated by the "investigators" like the Capitol Police officer bludgeoned to death by a protestor -- never happened.

The left had tried their best to turn this into a "remember the Alamo" incident. It was not.

[rogue06]

Two very different things rogue. Blm/antifa was civil unrest over racism

antifa has never needed a reason to riot.

What has come out concerning the founders and leaders of BLM over the last couple of years should have been more than enough to disabuse you of any notion that BLM was much more than a con job/get rich scheme that exploited such things.

[oxmixmudd]

antifa has never needed a reason to riot.

What has come out concerning the founders and leaders of BLM over the last couple of years should have been more than enough to disabuse you of any notion that BLM was much more than a con job/get rich scheme that exploited such things.

We won't get anywhere on this tack, because you are laser focussed on some sort of vendetta against the democrats for their handling of those protests.

So let me just ask a few questions. Why do you not see the danger of people trying to stop congress from certifying an election based on lies about it from the president himself as more dangerous to our nation than racial protests that turned violent

[Cow Poke]

We won't get anywhere on this tack, because you are laser focussed on some sort of vendetta against the democrats for their handling of those protests.

First, I fully realize this wasn't addressed to me, but, again, point out this is a public forum where anybody can respond to anybody else.

Vendetta? Seriously? Exercising free speech is now a "Vendetta"? (referring to people like me and Rogue speaking out against this Democrat Kangaroo Kort)

So let me just ask a few questions. Why do you not see the danger of people trying to stop congress from certifying an election based on lies about it from the president himself as more dangerous to our nation than racial protests that turned violent

It was CLEARLY a very bad situation that got badly out of hand. If, in fact, it was as deadly serious as you imagine it to be, why did the Democrats have to doctor evidence and repeat outright lies in their prosecution?
Why did they use this as a major fundraising event, and why were they not interested in anything OTHER than their --- the word fits here --- vendetta against Trump and his followers?

[rogue06]

We won't get anywhere on this tack, because you are laser focussed on some sort of vendetta against the democrats for their handling of those protests.

Gee. I wonder why.

Maybe its because they not only excused the rioting and looting, in some cases they outright encouraged it.

You saw the attitude on full display back shortly before the months of rioting when the Baltimore mayor explained the necessity of giving "those who wished to destroy space to do that."

And of course there's old Joe's affirmative action pick VP, Kamala Harris.

Not only was she out there raising bail for looters and rioters including one guy who tried to shoot a cop in the head (IIRC, he was convicted)^[1]

7de09ef2-b549-419f-b47c-a87220f33392.jpg

She was darkly warning Americans that the rioting won't stop -- and shouldn't stop -- well after the protests had devolved into months long violent riots

"But they’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop. They’re not. This is a movement. I’m telling you. They’re not going to stop, and everyone, beware. Because they’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop before election day in November, and they are not going to stop after election day. And everyone should take note of that on both levels. That they’re not going to let up. And they should not, and we should not."

Telling us to "beware" and that they shouldn't stop. Again, this was well after they started burning police precincts down with police inside who were sending texts to family and friends saying they loved them because they figured they were going to die.

Harris wouldn't even say anything to denounce the violence until THREE MONTHS LATER -- on August 27th. Politifact, right after providing the quote, actually had the temerity to claim that her eventual denunciation was "proof" that she only supported peaceful demonstrations:

In a speech on Aug. 27, Harris said she supported peaceful protesters.

"We should not confuse them with those looting and committing acts of violence," she said.

That wasn't even a tepid rejection. It was darn near ice cold and most likely only the result of Biden's keepers twisting her arm to even get that much from her.

And in stark contrast, on January 6 (the day of the D.C. riot), Trump was immediately declaring "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue" before they shut down his Twitter account. The last thing he'd want is a riot which is obviously counter-productive as he even pointed out in a video saying that "we can’t play into the hands of these people" as well as "we have to have peace."

If he was like Harris it wouldn't be until April before he issued a response against violence.

This is by several orders of magnitude worse than anything Trump did. So I assume you are now in favor of her immediate impeachment, right? Right?

So let me just ask a few questions. Why do you not see the danger of people trying to stop congress from certifying an election based on lies about it from the president himself as more dangerous to our nation than racial protests that turned violent

I see it the exact same way I see people trying -- and succeeding -- in stopping Congress from confirming a SCOTUS nominee based upon demonstrable falsehoods. An incident where they held a Senator hostage in an elevator refusing to let the elevator move or him exit until he was strong-armed into agreeing into asking for a delay.

Of course the left and MSM cheered that.





1. like a typical leftist, she never puts up her own money but wanted other people to do so. And it should also be noted that after Floyd the cops in Minneapolis were incredibly hesitant to arrest anyone unless it was really bad.

[oxmixmudd]

Gee. I wonder why.

Maybe its because they not only excused the rioting and looting, in some cases they outright encouraged it.

You saw the attitude on full display back shortly before the months of rioting when the Baltimore mayor explained the necessity of giving "those who wished to destroy space to do that."

And of course there's old Joe's affirmative action pick VP, Kamala Harris.

Not only was she out there raising bail for looters and rioters including one guy who tried to shoot a cop in the head (IIRC, he was convicted)^[1]

7de09ef2-b549-419f-b47c-a87220f33392.jpg

She was darkly warning Americans that the rioting won't stop -- and shouldn't stop -- well after the protests had devolved into months long violent riots

"But they’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop. They’re not. This is a movement. I’m telling you. They’re not going to stop, and everyone, beware. Because they’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop before election day in November, and they are not going to stop after election day. And everyone should take note of that on both levels. That they’re not going to let up. And they should not, and we should not."

Telling us to "beware" and that they shouldn't stop. Again, this was well after they started burning police precincts down with police inside who were sending texts to family and friends saying they loved them because they figured they were going to die.

Harris wouldn't even say anything to denounce the violence until THREE MONTHS LATER -- on August 27th. Politifact, right after providing the quote, actually had the temerity to claim that her eventual denunciation was "proof" that she only supported peaceful demonstrations:

In a speech on Aug. 27, Harris said she supported peaceful protesters.

"We should not confuse them with those looting and committing acts of violence," she said.

That wasn't even a tepid rejection. It was darn near ice cold and most likely only the result of Biden's keepers twisting her arm to even get that much from her.

And in stark contrast, on January 6 (the day of the D.C. riot), Trump was immediately declaring "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue" before they shut down his Twitter account. The last thing he'd want is a riot which is obviously counter-productive as he even pointed out in a video saying that "we can’t play into the hands of these people" as well as "we have to have peace."

If he was like Harris it wouldn't be until April before he issued a response against violence.

This is by several orders of magnitude worse than anything Trump did. So I assume you are now in favor of her immediate impeachment, right? Right?



I see it the exact same way I see people trying -- and succeeding -- in stopping Congress from confirming a SCOTUS nominee based upon demonstrable falsehoods. An incident where they held a Senator hostage in an elevator refusing to let the elevator move or him exit until he was strong-armed into agreeing into asking for a delay.

Of course the left and MSM cheered that.





1. like a typical leftist, she never puts up her own money but wanted other people to do so. And it should also be noted that after Floyd the cops in Minneapolis were incredibly hesitant to arrest anyone unless it was really bad.

Well, that is all interesting but is more a diversion than an actual answer to the questions. Basically, what I see in your answer is - "I'm really mad at the democrats so I could care less what Trump was doing or did."

[rogue06]

Well, that is all interesting but is more a diversion than an actual answer to the questions. Basically, what I see in your answer is - "I'm really mad at the democrats so I could care less what Trump was doing or did."

Basic projection where you are really mad at Trump and don't care what the Democrats do as long as they go after OMB.

[rogue06]

Perhaps the best example of just what a joke this clown show was, is probably when they allowed third hand testimony that Trump literally physically fought with Secret Service agents in the back seat of an SUV as "evidence" but refused to allow any of the various witnesses who were actually there and wanted to debunk this bizarre claim a chance to do so.

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”

--George Orwell, 1984

[Stoic]

Perhaps the best example of just what a joke this clown show was, is probably when they allowed third hand testimony that Trump literally physically fought with Secret Service agents in the back seat of an SUV as "evidence" but refused to allow any of the various witnesses who were actually there and wanted to debunk this bizarre claim a chance to do so.

Who was actually there and wanted to debunk the story, but was not allowed a chance to do so?

[rogue06]

Who was actually there and wanted to debunk the story, but was not allowed a chance to do so?

The Secret Service agents that the committee's "witness" said Trump physically attacked for a start. They had already testified at least once and were sworn in, but the clown show wasn't interested in anyone contradicting anything that was being declared.

[Cow Poke]

We won't get anywhere on this tack, because you are laser focussed on some sort of vendetta against the democrats for their handling of those protests.

Jim, the Democrats are dancing to the devil's music across the board, and you're getting sucked in.

Absolutely, Republicans can (and do) screw up.

It's the Democrats who are leading the charge on attacks on the family (extremist pro-GLBTQ++++), the two sexes that God created (all this psycho gender fluidity), the murder of the unborn, and just about anything that Christians hold dear.

It even has you twisting scripture to justify their positions.

[Stoic]

The Secret Service agents that the committee's "witness" said Trump physically attacked for a start. They had already testified at least once and were sworn in, but the clown show wasn't interested in anyone contradicting anything that was being declared.

Do you have a (named) source for that?