"The panel may be politically lopsided (biased), but it isn't partisan, sir!"
This battle of semantics is amusing. But if that is how you want to claim victory, I think it just speaks to the underlying truth of what I have said.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Split Thread Is the Jan 6th committee too partisan?
- Thread starter Warp12
- Start date
"The panel may be politically lopsided (biased), but it isn't partisan, sir!"
This battle of semantics is amusing. But if that is how you want to claim victory, I think it just speaks to the underlying truth of what I have said.
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
Is the Jan 6th committee too partisan?
No.
No.
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
No.
The question posed in the thread title is problematic, in itself.
Who of the defenders would even be outraged if the panel were 9 visibly frothing Dems?
Last edited:
plague311
Great minds think...
Well, this isn't any dumber than anything else in the thread.
I didn't say no one should post, but there has been absolutely no progress in this thread since post 5 of page 1. I'm replying to this thread, why would I say no one else should? Just because I think it's ******* stupid doesn't mean people shouldn't post.
You've been making the same point for 2 pages. He hasn't replied in good faith to you once. The conversation hasn't changed, at all. Just multiple members telling Warp12 he's wrong, and him saying "nuh uh" in various forms.
It's just...mind boggling. Trolling to the maximum level and people lining up to walk under the bridge next.
Last edited:
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 32,993
The question assumes that
- partisanship is in itself a bad thing
- that bi-partsianship or non-partisanship would lead to better results
- that Cheney and Kitzinger aren't Republicans
And
- that there was a viable alternative to having the Committee we got
- partisanship is in itself a bad thing
- that bi-partsianship or non-partisanship would lead to better results
- that Cheney and Kitzinger aren't Republicans
And
- that there was a viable alternative to having the Committee we got
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
Yes.
If tomorrow Trump says 2+2=7 Math books would not become "partisan" because they all still say 2+2=4.
Yo' normies. This is what us in the trenches of fighting the Proudly Wrong call "Teach the Controversy" and you're getting played by letting them sucker you in with talks about free speech and civil debate. Those are social concepts, they don't apply to facts.
Yo' normies. This is what us in the trenches of fighting the Proudly Wrong call "Teach the Controversy" and you're getting played by letting them sucker you in with talks about free speech and civil debate. Those are social concepts, they don't apply to facts.
Last edited:
If a Republican says you'll believe it while pretending you don't because being wrong tweaks the Libs and that is the total sum of your entire personality.
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
Wait, you think the obvious fact that you're misusing words to promote a partisan* reason to ignore the committee means anyone pointing out how you're wrong automatically makes you the winner and your transparent lies to be true??!? Are Republicans really dumb enough to believe this stuff?
(eta: and you forgot the "highly" part of your "highly partisan")
*note: using the word according to the definition, rather than just making a definition up like Warp12
Last edited:
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
Well, we certainly agree about his actions. But when have you ever seen one of the Republican defense brigade act in a different manner? Or alternative health (grapeseed oil) promoter? Or MLM promotor? Or conspiracy theorist? It's always a bunch of people pointing out that the person who is wrong is wrong, with evidence, while the "proudly wrong" person goes "nuh uh"...
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
OK then.
If you agree, then I still fail to see just what it is that is vexing you so much.
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
So far, we only have one participant (cough Warp12 cough) who is outraged that the panel isn't 9 visibly guilty Reps investigating themselves...
Well, that's the thing...I'm not really vexed about it. I actually find it kind of amusing that so many can't just admit that it is a partisan committee. I would just say, "Yeah, we've got a highly partisan committee, and that's because of dumbass Republicans. Let me know when you see a problem with the actions or results."
But nope. Instead we have to endure people claiming things like, "it is a highly lopsided committee, but it isn't partisan!". It is mind-boggling. I have constantly suggested that I have seen no wrongdoing thus far, and that we should judge the panel on the results.
And just in case you didn't know...this is the "controversial" comment I made that started all of this, on the first night of the hearings:
I mean, hardly a comment teeming with outrage.
Last edited:
But, I'm not outraged. I have said repeatedly that I am not accusing the committee of any wrongdoing, and that we should judge them on their results. The reason this discussion has been going on for so long is because some just can't admit that the committee is partisan. As I said before, I think it is because they are afraid the label will cast a shadow on the proceedings.
I just accept it as fact, and say, show me your findings. I'll judge them on their merit.
Last edited:
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
Is there some reason (other than being wrong on purpose just to own the libs, that is) that you have failed to read any of the multiple definitions for "partisan" that you've been provided? Because, you know, it ain't semantics to understand that "highly partisan" =/= "lopsided".
If one ignores everything except the very first thing you have said, then people responding to the totality of your act are big meanies? Oh, pobrecito