Split Thread Is the Jan 6th committee too partisan?

[Warp12]

Further, the refusal to compromise or work together is also shown to be false by...the committee itself being made up of far right, right, center, and left politicians.

No doubt you believe this. So wonderfully balanced, of course. I mean, I can't imagine a less partisan committee, tbh.

Seriously? No need to answer, as you have floated this before.

ETA: I think we can put our debate to bed at this point. It is just revisiting the same tired points.

 

[Warp12]

The House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol is one that "involves members of two parties", ergo, it is bipartisan by the very definition of that word.

But it is not what we would generally characterize as being legitimately bipartisan.

Why not a vote of 1000 Masters to one Slave, and we call that a bipartisan vote, too? I mean, after all, it fits the definition you have provided, right?

I think we have also arrived at the end of the road in this discussion.

 

[dudalb]

I think any investigation into Jan 6th would be "Partisan" for the OP.

 

[dudalb]

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.

Remember the "2 PLUS 2 don't always make 4 " scene from "1984"?

 

[dudalb]

I see Warp12 has never really responded when it is pointed out that the vast majority of House GOP members chose to basically boycott the Investigation

 

[Warp12]

I see Warp12 has never really responded when it is pointed out that the vast majority of House GOP members chose to basically boycott the Investigation

Huh? I have repeatedly stated that the Republicans screwed up with their handling of the situation. They created the scenario that led to the creation of such a partisan committee. They could have had a fairly balanced representation, otherwise.

Doesn't change a thing in regards to the current reality though, of a 7-2 split.

Seems like we're done, too. This has all been discussed already, extensively.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

But it is not what we would generally characterize as being legitimately bipartisan.

Why not a vote of 1000 Masters to one Slave, and we call that a bipartisan vote, too? I mean, after all, it fits the definition you have provided, right?

I think we have also arrived at the end of the road in this discussion.

To the highlighted: Why the **** not?

To your analogy, it's a fail on multiple levels.

And as to the last sentence, Again?

 

[Stacyhs]

This was the absolute ******* dumbest thread I've read on this forum in a long, long time. Warp12 leading people by the nose for 3 pages while they continue to be Bobbed by some ridiculous definition of "partisan".

I mean, seriously. He's dodged every ******* question and doesn't even pretend to answer them, but there you guys go again. Responding in full just for him to give you some garbage, snarky retort that then triggers another half a page.

I'm ******* dumber for having read this thread. I'm embarrassed that it wasn't dead on arrival.

Yep...and I'm bowing out of this discussion because it's absolute contrarian "look at me!" rubbish. So much for the previous "I'm done " declaration.

 

[Mojo]

It isn't even as though I have accused the committee of any wrongdoing.

What are you trying to say when you keep going, “WAAA! PARTISAN!!!”?

 

[bruto]

Well, that is one way to be noncommittal about the partisanship issue, I guess.

Quite frankly I am bored of the debate as well. The group can't even agree on why I am wrong, they just know I am...except for those who say it is partisan, but must qualify that it is the fault of republicans. It isn't even as though I have accused the committee of any wrongdoing.

You don't have to if you accuse it, as it seems, of wrongbeing.

 

[acbytesla]

My answer to the question is that the committee is not partisan at all. It is bipartisan.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I am not claiming that at all. I have reasonable concerns, but as I have said what seems like 10x now...let us judge the results and weigh them on their own merit.

I have seen no indications of wrongdoing, thus far. I have indicated this multiple times, as well.

The idea behind labeling the committee “highly partisan” is to give cover for dismissing their findings out of hand, regardless. It’s textbook Tucker Carlson slight-of-bow-tie.

The committee isn’t just pejorative, it’s highly pejorative!

 

[Regnad Kcin]

You don't have to if you accuse it, as it seems, of wrongbeing.

Bravo.

 

[smartcooky]

But it is not what we would generally characterize as being legitimately bipartisan.

Wrong!

It is exactly how we do generally characterize legitimately bipartisan, and as previously, you have snipped the context (presumably because you have no answers to respond to it with). I will now remind you of that context, with some extras so that it is easier for you to understand.

- When a House or Senate bill is proposed from members of both parties, regardless of how many members of each party propose that bill, we characterize this as legitimately bipartisan!

- When legislation is passed by the House or Senate with votes from both parties, even though it might be only a few from one of the sides, we characterize this as legitimately bipartisan!

- All of the House and Senate permanent committees such as Judiciary and Intelligence we characterize as legitimately bipartisan!

You are simply using adjectives and other modifiers, in your attempts to try bending, twisting, moulding, and deforming the meaning of a word into what YOU want it to mean rather that accepting what it ACTUALLY means in the context of politics.

Why not a vote of 1000 Masters to one Slave, and we call that a bipartisan vote, too?

Wrong!

Slaves don't get to vote against their masters

I mean, after all, it fits the definition you have provided, right?

Wrong!

It does no such thing. This is about politics, not the master-slave relationship

I think we have also arrived at the end of the road in this discussion.

Translation: You are getting you arse handed to you and you don't like it
.
.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Everyone who testified on Monday was a Republican and someone Trump hired or invited.

Yep, that's hyperpartisan - when do Democrats get their say?

 

[smartcooky]

Everyone who testified on Monday was a Republican and someone Trump hired or invited.

Yep, that's hyperpartisan - when do Democrats get their say?

 

[wareyin]

No doubt you believe this. So wonderfully balanced, of course. I mean, I can't imagine a less partisan committee, tbh.

Seriously? No need to answer, as you have floated this before.

ETA: I think we can put our debate to bed at this point. It is just revisiting the same tired points.

No need to answer, as you didn't ask a question. Oddly enough, I have repeatedly asked you to explain how under your odd usage of partisan you could have a committee that wasn't partisan. You have yet to come up with an answer to that actual question.

Our "debate" never got off the ground in the first place, as it consisted of you making a wrong claim, then sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "la la la I can't hear you" as literally every other participant pointed out your (intentional) errors. Just like every other woo slinger around here, in fact.

 

[JoeMorgue]

At this rate someone's going to prove immortality using Bayesian statistics.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

At this rate someone's going to prove immortality using Bayesian statistics.

I can do immorality using Bayesian statistics.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Mom: Stephanie, I will not allow you to go on a date with Daryl.
Stephanie: Why not?
Mom: Because he's left-handed!
Stephanie: What's the problem with him being left-handed?
Mom: The problem is that we cannot acknowledge that he is left-handed!