The Jan. 6 Investigation

Status
Not open for further replies.
johnny karate said:
Okay, so you support this investigation and think it's fair, correct?
Click to expand...


Well, it is as fair as any committee with a large degree of partisanship should be expected to be. Of course you have to do your own research and not blindly accept what is presented. Although I am sure that most Dems will do exactly that.

And, you should of course try to wade through the obvious political subtext.
 
Warp12 said:
I am claiming the committee is highly partisan. There is significant underlying political intent, as is to be expected. Does that mean they can't possibly uncover pertinent facts? No.

I just happen to find the level of partisanship amusing. And especially the denials. Just own it, and make the most of it, I say.

This debate was gone through many pages ago, where many people denied it as well. I just felt it quite relevant again, with all of the primetime drama and celebratory comments.
Click to expand...

No its not partisan. All the committee members are American. Their intent is finding out the facts. There isn't evidence of the contrary.
 
Warp12 said:
I am claiming the committee is highly partisan. There is significant underlying political intent, as is to be expected. Does that mean they can't possibly uncover pertinent facts? No.
.....
Click to expand...

What's your notion of partisan? Cheney has been about as rabidly right-wing as anyone can be all her life. But she's not a demented liar. It's not partisan to pursue the truth about an attempt to overthrow the government by a sitting President.
 
Warp12 said:
Well, it is as fair as any committee with a large degree of partisanship should be expected to be. Of course you have to do your own research and not blindly accept what is presented. Although I am sure that most Dems will do exactly that.

And, you should of course try to wade through the obvious political subtext.
Click to expand...

More or less partisan than the Benghazi investigations?
 
JoeMorgue said:
And there it is.
Click to expand...

Generally an investigation does tend to be partisan against those the evidence suggests are wrongdoers.

I mean, it's like someone convicted of murder claiming the cops were biased against him. Might be the case, but when there is a video of the murder and the guy is drenched in the blood of the victim and holding a bloody knife and the victim's wallet, well, at some point bias stops being all that relevant.
 
Bob001 said:
What's your notion of partisan? Cheney has been about as rabidly right-wing as anyone can be all her life. But she's not a demented liar. It's not partisan to pursue the truth about an attempt to overthrow the government by a sitting President.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
Segnosaur said:
Several other posters have already commented on this, but did anyone bother to actually look at the source?

From: Mediabias Factcheck
Questionable Reasoning: Conspiracy Theories, Propaganda, Numerous Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: FAR RIGHT
...
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
...
John Solomon serves as the Editor-in-Chief. Solomon was formerly a journalist with The Hill, leaving the paper in October 2019. Solomon’s reporting has been described as conspiratorial and pro-Trump.

From: Wikipedia
In January 2018, newsroom staffers at The Hill criticized Solomon's reporting as having a conservative bias and missing important context, and asserted that this undermined The Hill's reputation.
...
Solomon worked closely with Lev Parnas, an associate of Rudy Giuliani - Trump's personal attorney – who was indicted for funneling foreign money into American political campaigns, to promote stories that Democrats colluded with a foreign power
...
Solomon was accused of breaking the traditional ethical "wall" that separated news stories from advertising at The Hill.

So an individual (Solomon) who has shown questionable ethical standards in the recent past, writes something for a far-right, pro-Trump web site known for publishing conspiracy theories, and you are accepting it as "the truth"?
Click to expand...

That's been presented to mikegriffith1 before when he posted JtheN as his source. Unsurprisingly, it just reaffirms what most of us already know: people don't want the truth; they want their existing beliefs confirmed. If that means they have to go to sources that have been shown to rely on 'truthiness', then that's what they do.
 
Last edited:
Cain said:
I'll grant a measure of credit to Cheney and Pence for opposing criminal actions by their coalition (golf clap), but I don't understand the liberals praising them. It reminds me of a Chris Rock bit...

Click to expand...

I do. Don't tie differing political views to integrity. I don't agree with Cheney's political views but that's OK. That's what a democracy is all about. But she's proven herself to have integrity and courage to be willing to stand up and be a voice of sanity in a party that has gone off the rails into cuckoo land. I give her credit for that. And Adam Kinzinger, too.
 
acbytesla said:
We already have gun control. Felons are generally not allowed to own or possess firearms. Why not extend that to children or crazy people? I'm a gun owner. I believe in responsible gun ownership. That includes that irresponsible individuals shouldn't possess guns.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree that people under the age of 21 and those with mental problems shoud not own guns. And I am in favor of a 30 day delay on most gun purchases.
I am just a little nervous about the kind of ban some people here want as long as we are facing a heavily armed right wing mob.
 
JoeMorgue said:
"I don't support it, I just oppose any negative consequence to it."

What the **** do you think the word "support" means?
Click to expand...

Exactly. I've had this conversation with my Republican BIL. He claimed he isn't a Trump supporter but voted for him anyway. I told him that makes him a Trump supporter.
 
Stacyhs said:
Exactly. I've had this conversation with my Republican BIL. He claimed he isn't a Trump supporter but voted for him anyway. I told him that makes him a Trump supporter.
Click to expand...

Hell there ain't one Trump supporter on this board to listen every single *checks notes* Trump supporter on this board.

*Raises my hands* Hallelujah and praise jeezus it's a god damn miracle. He somehow got elected President and has a cult of personality willing to commit an insurrection on his behalf without one single person admitting they support him.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
Oh, I agree that people under the age of 21 and those with mental problems shoud not own guns. And I am in favor of a 30 day delay on most gun purchases.
I am just a little nervous about the kind of ban some people here want as long as we are facing a heavily armed right wing mob.
Click to expand...

But we can't even get any kind of gun control.
 
dudalb said:
It won't be peaceful. You can bet on that.
Click to expand...

Well I am quite sure that in all likelihood, if the Fat Orange Turd (or whoever runs for the GOP) does not win in 2024, you will have another 1/6 on your hands... but this time, they will plan it in secret, they will come with firearms and loaded for bear!!
 
smartcooky said:
Well I am quite sure that in all likelihood, if the Fat Orange Turd (or whoever runs for the GOP) does not win in 2024, you will have another 1/6 on your hands... but this time, they will plan it in secret, they will come with firearms and loaded for bear!!
Click to expand...

And that will just be the beginning of the fun.
you think people will just accept this peacefully. They will not.
And, yes, I think you will see the left give up their basic dislike of guns and arm up.
I think the term is civil war. I have been ridiculed for saying this, but how people after 1/6 can laught is off is as good a example of the ostrich mentality as you are likely to see.
 
smartcooky said:
No, you are strawmanning what I said, and you even snipped the context to make a better strawman...

I am asking YOU who is to blame for why YOU see the committee as paritsan

The committee is NOT partisan, its has two Republican members, one of whom is vice chair!!
Click to expand...

Most GOPers in congress are boycotting it.And Cheney is reviled by many Republicans.
It is dominated by Democrats big time, let's admit it.
But it is the GOP own choice that they did not want to take part in it.
I fully support the comitee but to pretend it is bi partisan is just plain wrong. It could have been, but the GOP in congress rejected it.
 
Babbylonian said:
Do any of them bother to remind you that "average" is not the same as "mean," or perhaps point out the error that there's not just a single person of average intelligence and thus less than half the population will be below or higher than the average?

I only ask because a university teacher should know better.
Click to expand...

That's why I always say "about" or the like. I hoped I could be forgiven a small technicality for the rhetorical flourish to make a point.
 
Warp12 said:
Well, apparently the problem is that a lot of people can't simply admit that the committee is highly partisan. All of this debate stems from that.

Amazingly.
Click to expand...

I admit that there are more Democrats than Republicans. But that doesn't mean it is in fact partisan. Partisan alludes to the idea that the committee members elevate party over country or the facts. I have yet to see any demonstration of that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom