Antifa & BLM are the Definition of Domestic Terrorism

[phrodeau]

Oh, come on now, phrodeau, everyone knows you were last in your class.

There were violent protests in Louisville following the police killing of Breonna Taylor. Mitch came out strong against them, but never called them domestic terrorists or started a Senate investigation.

“Breonna’s family and all Kentuckians deserve truth, accountability, and justice,” McConnell said of the episode in his hometown, adding that he was pleased that local police and the FBI are investigating.

“Stealing, burning down buildings, attacking law enforcement officers, or laying siege to police precincts is not speech or protest,” he said in his statement. “It is violent crime that victimizes innocent people. Kentuckians cannot and will not accept violence and chaos on our streets.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...0197f2-a1cd-11ea-9590-1858a893bd59_story.html

 

[score_keeper]

I didn't know the States could charge as well, I stand corrected on that point ( but you, as a an American, should know that, me a as a Canadian, well.... )
But, there still needs to be a war ( as defined) ....so you are the score-keeper, does that mean a tie....*chuckles*

I guess you didn't understand the 'levy war against' definition I put in there.

"levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

If a person levies war against the United States, it's them making war as defined by the laws set forth. It doesn't mean that the US has declared war against that person.

Try again, Fuzzynuts.

 

[score_keeper]

There were violent protests in Louisville following the police killing of Breonna Taylor. Mitch came out strong against them, but never called them domestic terrorists or started a Senate investigation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...0197f2-a1cd-11ea-9590-1858a893bd59_story.html

And the point you're trying to make is?

 

[phrodeau]

And the point you're trying to make is?

The attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi happened on September 11, 2012. The Senate investigation started on September 13th.

 

[score_keeper]

The attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi happened on September 11, 2012. The Senate investigation started on September 13th.

And you tried to make this point with Mitch & violent protests in Louisville?

WTF?

Focus, phrodeau!

 

[phrodeau]

And you tried to make this point with Mitch & violent protests in Louisville?

WTF?

Focus, phrodeau!

Yes, Mitch could certainly have investigated BLM and Antifa last year, but he didn’t. His caucus wants them investigated now, and that’s just too bad.

Sorry if the point was too cerebral for you to follow.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I guess you didn't understand the 'levy war against' definition I put in there.

"levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

If a person levies war against the United States, it's them making war as defined by the laws set forth. It doesn't mean that the US has declared war against that person.

Try again, Fuzzynuts.

Well then, in order for Treason to be laid the Jan 6th riot would need to be classified as an attempt to overthrow the government, correct?

So far it has not been declared that, but, maybe after the house investigation, that may occur.

Still you questioned why no one had been charged with Treason, or Sedition. So I guess your question was raised as a "red flag"....

In other words, you don't really care, you just want to attack anyone who posts from either side...."sticking it to tah libs"....have fun with that.

 

[score_keeper]

Yes, Mitch could certainly have investigated BLM and Antifa last year, but he didn’t. His caucus wants them investigated now, and that’s just too bad.

Sorry if the point was too cerebral for you to follow.

You lack the ability to make a fluid argument. That's your fault, phrodeau.

Tell me, while Mitch still had control of the Senate, did he try to investigate the Jan. 6th mostly peaceful protesters?

Maybe on Jan. 7th?

 

[score_keeper]

Well then, in order for Treason to be laid the Jan 6th riot would need to be classified as an attempt to overthrow the government, correct?

So far it has not been declared that, but, maybe after the house investigation, that may occur.

Still you questioned why no one had been charged with Treason, or Sedition. So I guess your question was raised as a "red flag"....

In other words, you don't really care, you just want to attack anyone who posts from either side...."sticking it to tah libs"....have fun with that.

So, what you just said was that everyone calling those mostly peaceful protesters traitors and treasonous are wrong. It doesn't matter what 'may occur.' It only matters what is occurring.

Jesus, Fuzzynuts, your argument is a train wreck.

 

[phrodeau]

You lack the ability to make a fluid argument. That's your fault, phrodeau.

Tell me, while Mitch still had control of the Senate, did he try to investigate the Jan. 6th mostly peaceful protesters?

Maybe on Jan. 7th?

No, it started on the 8th.

Two days after the January 6 attack, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee announced a joint bipartisan oversight investigation to examine the intelligence and security failures that led to the attack.

https://www****les.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Jan 6 HSGAC Rules Report.pdf

Oh, and facts don’t care about your feelings.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

So, what you just said was that everyone calling those mostly peaceful protesters traitors and treasonous are wrong. It doesn't matter what 'may occur.' It only matters what is occurring.

Jesus, Fuzzynuts, your argument is a train wreck.

Ummm It was your statement...so are you calling your original statement a train wreck?

 

[score_keeper]

No, it started on the 8th.
https://www****les.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Jan 6 HSGAC Rules Report.pdf

Oh, and facts don’t care about your feelings.

Security & Intelligence failures...they didn't investigate the protesters...which is what I said in reference to this quote from you.

Yes, Mitch could certainly have investigated BLM and Antifa last year, but he didn’t. His caucus wants them investigated now, and that’s just too bad.

Sorry if the point was too cerebral for you to follow.

Your comprehension is for shit.

Try again, phrodeau, and please, follow the conversation.

 

[score_keeper]

Ummm It was your statement...so are you calling your original statement a train wreck?

Your statement agreed with what I said after you tried to argue against it, you train wreck.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Your statement agreed with what I said after you tried to argue against it, you train wreck.

*chuckles*

You seem to be having a bit of dementia today, or perhaps it is just you trying to manage too many threads at one time....

 

[phrodeau]

Security & Intelligence failures...they didn't investigate the protesters...which is what I said in reference to this quote from you.



Your comprehension is for shit.

Try again, phrodeau, and please, follow the conversation.

I asked why Mitch didn’t investigate the protesters, and you replied that Mitch didn’t investigate the protesters. That’s some deep comprehension there.

 

[score_keeper]

*chuckles*

You seem to be having a bit of dementia today, or perhaps it is just you trying to manage too many threads at one time....

When we spoke, you said people couldn't be charged with treason, I said they could, the protesters weren't treasonous, then you ended up agreeing with me whether you meant to or not.

*chuckle* at yourself.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

When we spoke, you said people couldn't be charged with treason, I said they could, the protesters weren't treasonous, then you ended up agreeing with me whether you meant to or not.

*chuckle* at yourself.

huh?

You really need to go back and re-read everything....note the word "read", I have never spoken to you....

 

[score_keeper]

I asked why Mitch didn’t investigate the protesters, and you replied that Mitch didn’t investigate the protesters. That’s some deep comprehension there.

This was our topic

Yes, Mitch could certainly have investigated BLM and Antifa last year, but he didn’t. His caucus wants them investigated now, and that’s just too bad.

Sorry if the point was too cerebral for you to follow.

You lack the ability to make a fluid argument. That's your fault, phrodeau.

Tell me, while Mitch still had control of the Senate, did he try to investigate the Jan. 6th mostly peaceful protesters?

Maybe on Jan. 7th?

You said BLM & Antifa, I said the Protesters, then you bring up a joint committee to investigate security and intelligence failures.

Now, I unfortunately have to do my job if I want to keep it, so I'm going to give you hours upon hours to explain how Security and Intelligence Failures = Mostly Peaceful Protesters.

Make that connection for me - for everyone - or stick to making your terrible jokes.

 

[icanhelp1]

Ummm It was your statement...so are you calling your original statement a train wreck?

Pelosi's kangaroo commission is a fact finding mission not a prosecutorial one. Couldn't write that without laughing my ass off. The story is already written and the ending has been indoctrinated into our collective psyche. The story goes like this, conservatives, republicans are anti-american treasonous deplorables that need to be eradicated and Pelosi's merry band of infidels need to be propelled into sainthood.

 

[score_keeper]

huh?

You really need to go back and re-read everything....note the word "read", I have never spoken to you....

You have no defense, so you go 'literal' ... spoke as in talking on here. As in typing on here. Jesus, just because you're a train wreck doesn't mean you have to act like a ponce as well.

 

[icanhelp1]

huh?

You really need to go back and re-read everything....note the word "read", I have never spoken to you....

Hey **BABY KILLER** so when you can't win an argument you resort to word play and semantics, can't just go with the spirit of the argument, you're a *CAD*

 

[Fuzzy1975]

You have no defense, so you go 'literal' ... spoke as in talking on here. As in typing on here. Jesus, just because you're a train wreck doesn't mean you have to act like a ponce as well.

Well, it is not my fault if you failed to comprehend what was written.

The posts are there, for all to "read"....( remember we use words here on Lit for communication, speaking is done via other medias...)

 

[ll74]

Shocker that a Trumpy whiny thread devolves into a rabbit hole of incoherent ramblings yet again.

A large percentage of this forum starts out bitching about something, derails on the first page and devolves by page 3 into rambling about lack of proof.

I'ma jus gonn grab my popcorn from now on and point and laugh.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Pelosi's commission is a fact finding mission not a prosecutorial one.

Did I ever say it wasn't?

However, my understanding is, after the commission completes their report, they can then send that report off to the DOJ, and the AG can then decide to prosecute, on the basis of the report.

Is that not correct?

 

[ll74]

Did I ever say it wasn't?

However, my understanding is, after the commission completes their report, they can then send that report off to the DOJ, and the AG can then decide to prosecute, on the basis of the report.

Is that not correct?

It's an official investigation and they can absolutely refer their report to the DoJ.