Split Thread Is the Jan 6th committee too partisan?

Warp12

Banned
Warp12
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
7,583
Location
USA
Last edited by a moderator:
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...

Leaving aside your obvious attempts to undermine the investigation by casting it as unfair (which totally undermine your previous attempts to claim you didn't oppose that investigation), how exactly do you think you can "do your own research"*? The committee has done about a thousand interviews. How many have you done?



*every single time that phrase is used, you can be certain the one giving the advice has done zero actual research.
 
Warp12 said:
I don't know the full details of those. But, from what has been portrayed here, they seem to have been very partisan. That would not mean that they should serve as a measure, or standard, though.
Click to expand...

So ten "very partisan" investigations into Benghazi elicits no real interest or concern from you, but you comment repeatedly about the partisanship of this investigation.

If you're concerned about these types of investigations being partisan, why are you only expressing that concern for this investigation?
 
All that effort into persona and routine and the plot thinned right back to "Durrrrr it's partisan" yet again.
 
So, he says expecting literally zero non-troll answers, how can you possibly investigate something which one political side did without it being partisan?

The argument literally "You can do anything in politics because any investigation into it is partisan and being partisan is bad" which, ironically is always the excuse given from people who are super-partisan.
 
johnny karate said:
So ten "very partisan" investigations into Benghazi elicits no real interest or concern from you, but you comment repeatedly about the partisanship of this investigation.

If you're concerned about these types of investigations being partisan, why are you only expressing that concern for this investigation?
Click to expand...


Dude, Benghazi was 10 years ago. Back then this stuff was not even on my radar. If it was highly partisan, so be it. Not a hill I care to die on...then again, neither is this one.

See, everyone knows it is a highly partisan committee. But for some darn reason, they can't even acknowledge it. I think they are afraid it will undermine the validity of the results.

Whereas, I am saying it is highly partisan...but let the veracity speak for itself. Maybe this will set a high mark in partisan investigations. Probably still in the gutter with political intent, but maybe factually great?
 
Warp12 said:
Dude, Benghazi was 10 years ago. Back then this stuff was not even on my radar. If it was highly partisan, so be it. Not a hill I care to die on...then again, neither is this one.

See, everyone knows it is a highly partisan committee. But for some darn reason, they can't even acknowledge it. I think they are afraid it will undermine the validity of the results.

Whereas, I am saying it is highly partisan...but let the veracity speak for itself. Maybe this will set a high mark in partisan investigations. Probably still in the gutter with political intent, but maybe factually great?
Click to expand...

They are Partisan because the GOP members of the HOuse except for CHeney are boycotting it.
It could'tn be becuase they don't want the facts to come out, do YoU/
If you defend Trump and the insurrectionist,you want an overthrow of democracy. End of story.
 
Warp12 said:
Dude, Benghazi was 10 years ago. Back then this stuff was not even on my radar. If it was highly partisan, so be it. Not a hill I care to die on...then again, neither is this one.

See, everyone knows it is a highly partisan committee. But for some darn reason, they can't even acknowledge it. I think they are afraid it will undermine the validity of the results.

Whereas, I am saying it is highly partisan...but let the veracity speak for itself. Maybe this will set a high mark in partisan investigations. Probably still in the gutter with political intent, but maybe factually great?
Click to expand...

In point of fact, the Benghazi investigations didn't conclude until 2016.

What has changed for you in the last six years that now partisan investigations concern you, but before they didn't?
 
Warp12 said:
Dude, Benghazi was 10 years ago. Back then this stuff was not even on my radar. If it was highly partisan, so be it. Not a hill I care to die on...then again, neither is this one.
Click to expand...

Dude, the last Benghazi hearing was like 5 years ago.

Warp12 said:
See, everyone knows it is a highly partisan committee. But for some darn reason, they can't even acknowledge it. I think they are afraid it will undermine the validity of the results.

Whereas, I am saying it is highly partisan...but let the veracity speak for itself. Maybe this will set a high mark in partisan investigations. Probably still in the gutter with political intent, but maybe factually great?
Click to expand...

In your book, participation by far right, right, center, and left politicians is "highly partisan"? How could a committee be "not partisan" under your definitions?
 
johnny karate said:
What has changed for you in the last six years that now partisan investigations concern you, but before they didn't?
Click to expand...


I have taken a greater interest in politics and social issues. Nothing mysterious. As I say, if the Benghazi stuff was highly partisan, so be it. I'm not arguing the point. As I say, that event took place 10 years ago...no reason it would have been on my radar, even with the later hearings.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
I have taken a greater interest in politics and social issues. Nothing mysterious. As I say, if the Benghazi stuff was highly partisan, so be it. I'm not arguing the point. As I say, that event took place 10 years ago...no reason it would have been on my radar, even with the later hearings.
Click to expand...

So even in your own narrative you just magically became obsessed with "partisanship" after Republicans stopped being the one to do it?

Dude just stop it, this is just sad. Layer all the excuses on it you want. The end result is "I have an endless less of excuses as to why I'm on the coup's side but don't dare say I'm on the coup's side."

Let's see you pretend to not understand that.
 
JoeMorgue said:
So even in your own narrative you just magically became obsessed with "partisanship" after Republicans stopped being the one to do it?

Dude just stop it, this is just sad. Layer all the excuses on it you want. The end result is "I have an endless less of excuses as to why I'm on the coup's side but don't dare say I'm on the coup's side."

Let's see you pretend to not understand that.
Click to expand...


I understand what you are saying, it just has no merit.
 
Warp12 said:
I have taken a greater interest in politics and social issues. Nothing mysterious. As I say, if the Benghazi stuff was highly partisan, so be it. I'm not arguing the point. As I say, that event took place 10 years ago...no reason it would have been on my radar, even with the later hearings.
Click to expand...

You have several posts on this forum commenting on political events of 2016. This is just a sampling:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13673890&highlight=2016#post13673890

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13673672&highlight=2016#post13673672

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13630723#post13630723

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13605166&highlight=2016#post13605166

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13665567&highlight=2016#post13665567


Why wasn't the partisan nature of the Benghazi investigation one of them?
 
Oh look caught in another lie. Let's see how he will lie his way out of it.
 
 
JoeMorgue said:
So even in your own narrative you just magically became obsessed with "partisanship" after Republicans stopped being the one to do it?

Dude just stop it, this is just sad. Layer all the excuses on it you want. The end result is "I have an endless less of excuses as to why I'm on the coup's side but don't dare say I'm on the coup's side."

Let's see you pretend to not understand that.
Click to expand...

So I'm not the only one hearing a lot of 'quacking' in this thread?
 
Warp12 said:
All of those posts are from 2021. I'm not sure of what your point is?
Click to expand...

My point is that they demonstrate your awareness and interest in the political events of 2016, which you previously denied.

We've established that not only were you aware and interested in the political events of 2016, but you continued to discuss them five years later.

The question remains why you expressed no interest or concern regarding the partisanship of the Benghazi investigations that were concluding that same year, to this day still have no interest in it, but are now suddenly concerned about the partisanship of the January 6th investigation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom