The Jan. 6 Investigation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Warp12 said:
I don't have to object to any of the committee's actions in order to state that it is a highly partisan effort, with a significant focus on political gain. Quite frankly, denying that truth only serves to make the Dems look politically inept.
Click to expand...

You're thinking of the multiple Benghazi investigations that never troubled you enough to comment on.

Republicans were offered a seat at the table for the January 6th commission and refused. The degree to which it is partisan is entirely of their own making.
 
Warp12 said:
I don't have to object to any of the committee's actions in order to state that it is a highly partisan effort, with a significant focus on political gain. Quite frankly, denying that truth only serves to make the Dems look politically inept.
Click to expand...
So when was it that you fell in love with Donald, exactly?
 
Warp12 said:
I don't have to object to any of the committee's actions in order to state that it is a highly partisan effort, with a significant focus on political gain. Quite frankly, denying that truth only serves to make the Dems look politically inept.
Click to expand...


The only reason your using the term "partisan" is to dismiss the committee as political and not honest.

BS is nothing but chewed up grass and I'm not eating what your serving.
 
theprestige said:
I'm sorry, but isn't questioning a claimant's honesty part of Skepticism 101?
Click to expand...

No, it's not.

"Skepticism, also spelled scepticism, in Western philosophy, the attitude of doubting knowledge claims set forth in various areas."
(Britannica)

It does not mean doubting someone's honesty, it means to question things generally considered as facts.
 
Stacyhs said:
No, it's not.

"Skepticism, also spelled scepticism, in Western philosophy, the attitude of doubting knowledge claims set forth in various areas."
(Britannica)

It does not mean doubting someone's honesty, it means to question things generally considered as facts.
Click to expand...
Is your definition generally considered as fact? Because if so I question it..
 
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
No, it's not.

"Skepticism, also spelled scepticism, in Western philosophy, the attitude of doubting knowledge claims set forth in various areas."
(Britannica)

It does not mean doubting someone's honesty, it means to question things generally considered as facts.
Click to expand...

theprestige said:
Is your definition generally considered as fact? Because if so I question it..
Click to expand...

Skepticism (American and Canadian English) or scepticism (British, Irish, Australian, and New Zealand English) is generally a questioning attitude or doubt towards one or more putative instances of knowledge which are asserted to be mere belief or dogma.[1][2] Formally, skepticism is a topic of interest in philosophy, particularly epistemology. More informally, skepticism as an expression of questioning or doubt can be applied to any topic, such as politics, religion, or pseudoscience. It is often applied within restricted domains, such as morality (moral skepticism), theism (skepticism about the existence of God), or the supernatural.[3]
Click to expand...
(wiki)

You can always go edit it without permission and make it appear any way you want. You're good at that, aren't ya?
 
Rhodes was a keyboard warrior and grifter.

In essence, Rhodes was the Oath Keepers — effectively president for life with full control of donations, according to researchers and the group’s bylaws. Adams and former associates said newly recruited board members typically spent about three months “thinking they had this honored position” before figuring out they had joined a cult of personality.

Long before Jan. 6, members were going public with allegations that Rhodes misused the organization’s funds for personal expenses such as fancy steak dinners and hair dye. A Wall Street Journal report based on Oath Keepers bank records showed expenditures that included thousands of dollars in gun-shop purchases and auto repairs, along with hundreds spent at a bar, a lingerie shop and a perfume outlet.
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...a872c0-10b6-11ec-a511-cb913c7e5ba0_story.html
 
Long before Jan. 6, members were going public with allegations that Rhodes misused the organization’s funds for personal expenses such as fancy steak dinners and hair dye. A Wall Street Journal report based on Oath Keepers bank records showed expenditures that included thousands of dollars in gun-shop purchases and auto repairs, along with hundreds spent at a bar, a lingerie shop and a perfume outlet.
Click to expand...
Tactical lingerie and perfume, no doubt.
 
Warp12 said:
I don't have to object to any of the committee's actions in order to state that it is a highly partisan effort, with a significant focus on political gain. Quite frankly, denying that truth only serves to make the Dems look politically inept.
Click to expand...

I imagine the reluctance to accept the use of the adjective 'partisan' is because it is often assumed to be synonymous with the adjective 'prejudiced'. As long as the committee succeeds in establishing the facts of what occurred on January 6th, its makeup is immaterial. Which is why you are being asked to point out specific issues with its actions to justify your assumption that its makeup will automatically result in "a significant focus on political gain".
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
About 8 hours ago.
Click to expand...

I just heard the news. In 2008 when I was talking about John McCain on MySpace in the Republicans Forum, he was promoting Ron Paul, and we bumped head, I would tell you more but I would be accused of personalizing the conversation here, so let's Just say Stewart said the Feds were going to take his guns and now they have.
Hope Stewart finds a buddy in Prison he is going to be there a long time.
 
Last edited:
Crazy Chainsaw said:
I just heard the news. In 2008 when I was talking about John McCain on MySpace in the Republicans Forum, he was promoting Ron Paul, and we bumped head, I would tell you more but I would be accused of personalizing the conversation here, so let's Just say Stewart said the Feds were going to take his guns and now they have.
Hope Stewart finds a buddy in Prison he is going to be there a long time.
Click to expand...

As I posted in the other thread....

18 USC § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
​

If he ends up in front of one of those hard arse Federal judges in Washington, like Amy Berman Jackson or Tanya Chutkan, they are likely to throw the bloody book at him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom