|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 15, 2021 12:53:25 GMT -8
Ryan, I do indeed think that the Democratic Party is the greatest threat to the freedoms of American citizens. I supposed that you think that Donald Trump is the greatest threat. I agree he is a threat, but a much lesser threat that can not possibly result in a Mussolini type fascist state.
Here's the thing. Trump is a very old man hated by everyone of the Left and by quite a few in the middle and on the right. He will be a bad memory in just a few years. The Democratic Party is not going anywhere.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 15, 2021 13:38:39 GMT -8
Ryan, I do indeed think that the Democratic Party is the greatest threat to the freedoms of American citizens. I supposed that you think that Donald Trump is the greatest threat. I agree he is a threat, but a much lesser threat that can not possibly result in a Mussolini type fascist state. Here's the thing. Trump is a very old man hated by everyone of the Left and by quite a few in the middle and on the right. He will be a bad memory in just a few years. The Democratic Party is not going anywhere. AzWm This is more fantasy fiction than reality. If you think it ends with Donald Trump, you're mistaken. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Madison Cawthorn and others are reshaping Congress with impunity. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 16, 2021 9:50:27 GMT -8
Ryan, I do indeed think that the Democratic Party is the greatest threat to the freedoms of American citizens. I supposed that you think that Donald Trump is the greatest threat. I agree he is a threat, but a much lesser threat that can not possibly result in a Mussolini type fascist state. Here's the thing. Trump is a very old man hated by everyone of the Left and by quite a few in the middle and on the right. He will be a bad memory in just a few years. The Democratic Party is not going anywhere. AzWm Could you actually explain this in shorthand version why you think the Democratic Party is a greater threat than a party full of anti-vax, science denying, human rights denying insurrectionists? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 16, 2021 12:41:36 GMT -8
The tone-deaf response here is numbing. I'm just curious, what should the officer have done? Allow himself to get beaten to death? Hand over his firearm? You are actively defending terrorism, William.
Ryan, I don't know what to say, except that your response makes no sense. Let's start with the suggestion that the shooter was in danger of being beaten to death. Are you serious? You talk here as if the man were alone in a dead end alley facing an angry mob who was charging toward him. Instead, he was side-by-side with other armed officers. Furthermore, the rioters were on the other side of a locked and barricaded door. He was in danger, but not the imminent threat your statement suggests.
In no way do I, nor would I ever, defend terrorism. That certainly applies to the events in D.C. on the 6th of January. To suggest otherwise is offensive and not justified.
Previously, I have asked what I think are legitimate questions. I'll repeat them, hoping that you will answer them one by one.
1. Was the shooting of Ashli Babbit justified? The DOJ apparently thinks so.
2. What were the circumstances in which the shooting took place? Here's my understanding; correct me if I'm wrong. A crowd of rioters was trying to force its way into the Capital through locked double doors. Inside were perhaps a half dozen (maybe more) armed officers. They had barricaded the doors with benches, desks, chairs, whatever. Clearly, those officers felt threatened. Anybody in the same situation would also have felt threatened. I further understand that at no point did the officers believe that the rioters had firearms. Some of the rioters may well have had other weapons such as clubs; I am not clear on that point. In any case, angry crowds can do damage even if only with their fists.
At some point, an officer fired a shot that hit and killed Ashli Babbit, a 35 year old woman who was, by the way, a veteran of the Air Force.
3. What affect did Babbit's shooting have on the behavior of the crowd that was trying to get inside the building? Did the crowd turn and retreat when Babbit was shot? Of course not. It's possible that most of the rioters, given the noise and confusion of the moment, did not even realize that one of their number had been shot. My guess is that Babbit's death had no influence one way or another on the outcome of the riot, specifically the situation during which the shooting took place.
You cannot have it both ways. If the shooting of Ashli Babbit was justified and, more importantly, contributed to the solution of the problem facing the officers, then why would shooting additional rioters not have been a good idea? If you think that the other officers were right not to fire on the crowd, then what justifies the death of Ashli Babbit? I will put if differently. It's not why did Babbit die, but why was she shot?
Clearly, despite the awful circumstances that faced the officers, Babbit should not have been shot. Her death did nothing to deescalate the situation at the Capitol. Now, at the same time, one has to ask what inspired the shooter (still not officially identified; why not?)? I am willing to entertain the possibility that the shooter should not be too harshly condemned. Any time someone shoots another person, that shooter's state of mind and the over all situation must be taken into account.
He deserves, in other words, his day in court. But that is not likely to happen if the government will not even identify the one who fired the deadly shot. The American people need to know why the shot was fired. If his case is legitimate, they will understand.
What we should reject utterly is the idea that, Well, she was just a terrorist. What's the big deal?
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 16, 2021 12:45:59 GMT -8
Ryan, I do indeed think that the Democratic Party is the greatest threat to the freedoms of American citizens. I supposed that you think that Donald Trump is the greatest threat. I agree he is a threat, but a much lesser threat that can not possibly result in a Mussolini type fascist state. Here's the thing. Trump is a very old man hated by everyone of the Left and by quite a few in the middle and on the right. He will be a bad memory in just a few years. The Democratic Party is not going anywhere. AzWm This is more fantasy fiction than reality. If you think it ends with Donald Trump, you're mistaken. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Madison Cawthorn and others are reshaping Congress with impunity. Well, I have a remedy for that problem. Everybody should vote Libertarian! AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Aug 16, 2021 12:48:47 GMT -8
The tone-deaf response here is numbing. I'm just curious, what should the officer have done? Allow himself to get beaten to death? Hand over his firearm? You are actively defending terrorism, William.Ryan, I don't know what to say, except that your response makes no sense. Let's start with the suggestion that the shooter was in danger of being beaten to death. Are you serious? You talk here as if the man were alone in a dead end alley facing an angry mob who was charging toward him. Instead, he was side-by-side with other armed officers. Furthermore, the officers were on the other side of a locked and barricaded door. He was in danger, but not the imminent threat your statement suggests. In no way do I, nor would I ever, defend terrorism. That certainly applies to the events in D.C. on the 6th of January. To suggest otherwise is offensive and not justified. Previously, I have asked what I think are legitimate questions. I'll repeat them, hoping that you will answer them one by one. 1. Was the shooting of Ashli Babbit justified? The DOJ apparently thinks so. 2. What were the circumstances in which the shooting took place? Here's my understanding; correct me if I'm wrong. A crowd of rioters was trying to force its way into the Capital through locked double doors. Inside were perhaps a half dozen (maybe more) armed officers. They had barricaded the doors with benches, desks, chairs, whatever. Clearly, those officers felt threatened. Anybody in the same situation would also have felt threatened. I further understand that at no point did the officers believe that the rioters had firearms. Some of the rioters may well have had other weapons such as clubs; I am not clear on that point. In any case, angry crowds can do damage even if only with their fists. At some point, an officer fired a shot that hit and killed Ashli Babbit, a 35 year old woman who was, by the way, a veteran of the Air Force. 3. What affect did Babbit's shooting have on the behavior of the crowd that was trying to get inside the building? Did the crowd turn and retreat when Babbit was shot? Of course not. It's possible that most of the rioters, given the noise and confusion of the moment, did not even realize that one of their number had been shot. My guess is that Babbit's death had no influence one way or another on the outcome of the riot, specifically the situation during which the shooting took place. You cannot have it both ways. If the shooting of Ashli Babbit was justified and, more importantly, contributed to the solution of the problem facing the officers, then why would shooting additional rioters not have been a good idea? If you think that the other officers were right not to fire on the crowd, then what justifies the death of Ashli Babbit? I will put if differently. It's not why did Babbit die, but why was she shot? Clearly, despite the awful circumstances that faced the officers, Babbit should not have been shot. Her death did nothing to deescalate the situation at the Capitol. Now, at the same time, one has to ask what inspired the shooter (still not officially identified; why not?)? I am willing to entertain the possibility that the shooter should not be too harshly condemned. Any time someone shoots another person, that shooter's state of mind and the over all situation must be taken into account. He deserves, in other words, his day in court. But that is not likely to happen if the government will not even identify the one who fired the deadly shot. The American people need to know why the shot was fired. If his case is legitimate, they will understand. What we should reject utterly is the idea that, Well, she was just a terrorist. What's the big deal?AzWm Embellishment is a real thing that people try to do, to TRY and make their point of view stronger. That's what you're experiencing with Ryan. I think the officer was the one with the gun, after all. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 16, 2021 13:19:01 GMT -8
This is more fantasy fiction than reality. If you think it ends with Donald Trump, you're mistaken. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Madison Cawthorn and others are reshaping Congress with impunity. Well, I have a remedy for that problem. Everybody should vote Libertarian! AzWm Yeah, no thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 16, 2021 13:35:33 GMT -8
The tone-deaf response here is numbing. I'm just curious, what should the officer have done? Allow himself to get beaten to death? Hand over his firearm? You are actively defending terrorism, William.Ryan, I don't know what to say, except that your response makes no sense. Let's start with the suggestion that the shooter was in danger of being beaten to death. Are you serious? You talk here as if the man were alone in a dead end alley facing an angry mob who was charging toward him. Instead, he was side-by-side with other armed officers. Furthermore, the rioters were on the other side of a locked and barricaded door. He was in danger, but not the imminent threat your statement suggests. In no way do I, nor would I ever, defend terrorism. That certainly applies to the events in D.C. on the 6th of January. To suggest otherwise is offensive and not justified. Previously, I have asked what I think are legitimate questions. I'll repeat them, hoping that you will answer them one by one. 1. Was the shooting of Ashli Babbit justified? The DOJ apparently thinks so. 2. What were the circumstances in which the shooting took place? Here's my understanding; correct me if I'm wrong. A crowd of rioters was trying to force its way into the Capital through locked double doors. Inside were perhaps a half dozen (maybe more) armed officers. They had barricaded the doors with benches, desks, chairs, whatever. Clearly, those officers felt threatened. Anybody in the same situation would also have felt threatened. I further understand that at no point did the officers believe that the rioters had firearms. Some of the rioters may well have had other weapons such as clubs; I am not clear on that point. In any case, angry crowds can do damage even if only with their fists. At some point, an officer fired a shot that hit and killed Ashli Babbit, a 35 year old woman who was, by the way, a veteran of the Air Force. 3. What affect did Babbit's shooting have on the behavior of the crowd that was trying to get inside the building? Did the crowd turn and retreat when Babbit was shot? Of course not. It's possible that most of the rioters, given the noise and confusion of the moment, did not even realize that one of their number had been shot. My guess is that Babbit's death had no influence one way or another on the outcome of the riot, specifically the situation during which the shooting took place. You cannot have it both ways. If the shooting of Ashli Babbit was justified and, more importantly, contributed to the solution of the problem facing the officers, then why would shooting additional rioters not have been a good idea? If you think that the other officers were right not to fire on the crowd, then what justifies the death of Ashli Babbit? I will put if differently. It's not why did Babbit die, but why was she shot? Clearly, despite the awful circumstances that faced the officers, Babbit should not have been shot. Her death did nothing to deescalate the situation at the Capitol. Now, at the same time, one has to ask what inspired the shooter (still not officially identified; why not?)? I am willing to entertain the possibility that the shooter should not be too harshly condemned. Any time someone shoots another person, that shooter's state of mind and the over all situation must be taken into account. He deserves, in other words, his day in court. But that is not likely to happen if the government will not even identify the one who fired the deadly shot. The American people need to know why the shot was fired. If his case is legitimate, they will understand. What we should reject utterly is the idea that, Well, she was just a terrorist. What's the big deal?AzWm There are a host of inaccuracies in your post. Ashli Babbitt was a terrorist, a QAnon-crazed lunatic who was deceived by the former president and his cult-like following. This is just one example of her social media presence, among many others that perpetuate the myth that Joe Biden rapes children and Donald Trump is the leader of a group to hunt Satanic pedophiles: "In late December, the incoming vice-president, Kamala Harris, tweeted about her plans for the first hundred days of the Biden administration. She promised “to ensure Americans mask up, distribute 100M shots, and get students safely back to school”. Among the thousands of responses was an angry tweet from a 35-year-old air force veteran in San Diego. “No the f x x x you will not!” Ashli Babbitt replied to Harris. “No masks, no you, no Biden the kid raper, no vaccines...sit your fraudulent ass down…we the ppl bitch!” That's the person you're defending, despite you saying you aren't, you definitely are by making it about *her* and attempting to put the officer on trial. He wasn't charged with a crime. Please don't act like this is some sort of weird social justice pursuit. The officer was cleared of wrongdoing by a DOJ investigation. Period. End of story. The tape is clear. Yes, the shooting was justified. She broke the law. She ignored orders to stop. She was trespassing. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. You don't get to escape consequences universally. She was climbing through a broken window on which the other side of that window were members of Congress being evacuated. There were all of three officers, heavily outnumbered. The person next to Ashli Babbit had a flagpole that was used to shatter the window. Other people in the crowd were armed with weapons, too. From The Daily Beast: "One witness told WUSA9 that Babbitt was trying to “rush” the window. “A number of police and Secret Service were saying ‘Get back, get down, get out of the way,’” he said. “She didn’t heed the call and as we kind of raced up to grab people and pull them back, they shot her in the neck.” The American people deserve to know? Sorry, but that's comical. She's a tragic footnote that allowed herself to fall into radicalization. I assume you'll hold up social justice signs for other radicals, too? Once again, the officer isn't being identified out of very real threats to his personal safety. He has a family. They would all be in danger. Donald Trump himself threatened the officer's safety. You're getting hung up on the absolute wrong things here. You should be asking yourself why one party is hell-bent on making sure facts don't come to light and is actively spreading lies around like wildfire. You should be angry at people like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Jim Jordan, Mo Brooks, Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz, Tommy Tuberville and Madison Cawthorn. January 6th is NOT about Ashli Babbitt, nor should it be. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 16, 2021 13:44:55 GMT -8
The tone-deaf response here is numbing. I'm just curious, what should the officer have done? Allow himself to get beaten to death? Hand over his firearm? You are actively defending terrorism, William.Ryan, I don't know what to say, except that your response makes no sense. Let's start with the suggestion that the shooter was in danger of being beaten to death. Are you serious? You talk here as if the man were alone in a dead end alley facing an angry mob who was charging toward him. Instead, he was side-by-side with other armed officers. Furthermore, the officers were on the other side of a locked and barricaded door. He was in danger, but not the imminent threat your statement suggests. In no way do I, nor would I ever, defend terrorism. That certainly applies to the events in D.C. on the 6th of January. To suggest otherwise is offensive and not justified. Previously, I have asked what I think are legitimate questions. I'll repeat them, hoping that you will answer them one by one. 1. Was the shooting of Ashli Babbit justified? The DOJ apparently thinks so. 2. What were the circumstances in which the shooting took place? Here's my understanding; correct me if I'm wrong. A crowd of rioters was trying to force its way into the Capital through locked double doors. Inside were perhaps a half dozen (maybe more) armed officers. They had barricaded the doors with benches, desks, chairs, whatever. Clearly, those officers felt threatened. Anybody in the same situation would also have felt threatened. I further understand that at no point did the officers believe that the rioters had firearms. Some of the rioters may well have had other weapons such as clubs; I am not clear on that point. In any case, angry crowds can do damage even if only with their fists. At some point, an officer fired a shot that hit and killed Ashli Babbit, a 35 year old woman who was, by the way, a veteran of the Air Force. 3. What affect did Babbit's shooting have on the behavior of the crowd that was trying to get inside the building? Did the crowd turn and retreat when Babbit was shot? Of course not. It's possible that most of the rioters, given the noise and confusion of the moment, did not even realize that one of their number had been shot. My guess is that Babbit's death had no influence one way or another on the outcome of the riot, specifically the situation during which the shooting took place. You cannot have it both ways. If the shooting of Ashli Babbit was justified and, more importantly, contributed to the solution of the problem facing the officers, then why would shooting additional rioters not have been a good idea? If you think that the other officers were right not to fire on the crowd, then what justifies the death of Ashli Babbit? I will put if differently. It's not why did Babbit die, but why was she shot? Clearly, despite the awful circumstances that faced the officers, Babbit should not have been shot. Her death did nothing to deescalate the situation at the Capitol. Now, at the same time, one has to ask what inspired the shooter (still not officially identified; why not?)? I am willing to entertain the possibility that the shooter should not be too harshly condemned. Any time someone shoots another person, that shooter's state of mind and the over all situation must be taken into account. He deserves, in other words, his day in court. But that is not likely to happen if the government will not even identify the one who fired the deadly shot. The American people need to know why the shot was fired. If his case is legitimate, they will understand. What we should reject utterly is the idea that, Well, she was just a terrorist. What's the big deal?AzWm Embellishment is a real thing that people try to do, to TRY and make their point of view stronger. That's what you're experiencing with Ryan. I think the officer was the one with the gun, after all. Please tell me where I'm embellishing. You add nothing to this conversation besides passive aggressive insults and unnecessary inflammatory remarks. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Aug 16, 2021 14:17:57 GMT -8
Embellishment is a real thing that people try to do, to TRY and make their point of view stronger. That's what you're experiencing with Ryan. I think the officer was the one with the gun, after all. Please tell me where I'm embellishing. You add nothing to this conversation besides passive aggressive insults and unnecessary inflammatory remarks. Not true. You just happen to not like what I wrote. Like I said, the officer was afraid of being beaten to death when he was tbe one with the gun and fellow officers around him had their gins out as well? There's your embellishment. Besides, you interject into others conversations as well, with your own passive aggressive/inflammatory/condescending/ I know it all remarks. I'm just giving you a taste of your own medicine. How does it feel? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 16, 2021 15:10:27 GMT -8
The tone-deaf response here is numbing. I'm just curious, what should the officer have done? Allow himself to get beaten to death? Hand over his firearm? You are actively defending terrorism, William.Ryan, I don't know what to say, except that your response makes no sense. Let's start with the suggestion that the shooter was in danger of being beaten to death. Are you serious? You talk here as if the man were alone in a dead end alley facing an angry mob who was charging toward him. Instead, he was side-by-side with other armed officers. Furthermore, the rioters were on the other side of a locked and barricaded door. He was in danger, but not the imminent threat your statement suggests. In no way do I, nor would I ever, defend terrorism. That certainly applies to the events in D.C. on the 6th of January. To suggest otherwise is offensive and not justified. Previously, I have asked what I think are legitimate questions. I'll repeat them, hoping that you will answer them one by one. 1. Was the shooting of Ashli Babbit justified? The DOJ apparently thinks so. 2. What were the circumstances in which the shooting took place? Here's my understanding; correct me if I'm wrong. A crowd of rioters was trying to force its way into the Capital through locked double doors. Inside were perhaps a half dozen (maybe more) armed officers. They had barricaded the doors with benches, desks, chairs, whatever. Clearly, those officers felt threatened. Anybody in the same situation would also have felt threatened. I further understand that at no point did the officers believe that the rioters had firearms. Some of the rioters may well have had other weapons such as clubs; I am not clear on that point. In any case, angry crowds can do damage even if only with their fists. At some point, an officer fired a shot that hit and killed Ashli Babbit, a 35 year old woman who was, by the way, a veteran of the Air Force. 3. What affect did Babbit's shooting have on the behavior of the crowd that was trying to get inside the building? Did the crowd turn and retreat when Babbit was shot? Of course not. It's possible that most of the rioters, given the noise and confusion of the moment, did not even realize that one of their number had been shot. My guess is that Babbit's death had no influence one way or another on the outcome of the riot, specifically the situation during which the shooting took place. You cannot have it both ways. If the shooting of Ashli Babbit was justified and, more importantly, contributed to the solution of the problem facing the officers, then why would shooting additional rioters not have been a good idea? If you think that the other officers were right not to fire on the crowd, then what justifies the death of Ashli Babbit? I will put if differently. It's not why did Babbit die, but why was she shot? Clearly, despite the awful circumstances that faced the officers, Babbit should not have been shot. Her death did nothing to deescalate the situation at the Capitol. Now, at the same time, one has to ask what inspired the shooter (still not officially identified; why not?)? I am willing to entertain the possibility that the shooter should not be too harshly condemned. Any time someone shoots another person, that shooter's state of mind and the over all situation must be taken into account. He deserves, in other words, his day in court. But that is not likely to happen if the government will not even identify the one who fired the deadly shot. The American people need to know why the shot was fired. If his case is legitimate, they will understand. What we should reject utterly is the idea that, Well, she was just a terrorist. What's the big deal?AzWm There are a host of inaccuracies in your post. Ashli Babbitt was a terrorist, a QAnon-crazed lunatic who was deceived by the former president and his cult-like following. This is just one example of her social media presence, among many others that perpetuate the myth that Joe Biden rapes children and Donald Trump is the leader of a group to hunt Satanic pedophiles: "In late December, the incoming vice-president, Kamala Harris, tweeted about her plans for the first hundred days of the Biden administration. She promised “to ensure Americans mask up, distribute 100M shots, and get students safely back to school”. Among the thousands of responses was an angry tweet from a 35-year-old air force veteran in San Diego. “No the f x x x you will not!” Ashli Babbitt replied to Harris. “No masks, no you, no Biden the kid raper, no vaccines...sit your fraudulent ass down…we the ppl bitch!” That's the person you're defending, despite you saying you aren't, you definitely are by making it about *her* and attempting to put the officer on trial. He wasn't charged with a crime. Please don't act like this is some sort of weird social justice pursuit. The officer was cleared of wrongdoing by a DOJ investigation. Period. End of story. The tape is clear. Yes, the shooting was justified. She broke the law. She ignored orders to stop. She was trespassing. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. You don't get to escape consequences universally. She was climbing through a broken window on which the other side of that window were members of Congress being evacuated. There were all of three officers, heavily outnumbered. The person next to Ashli Babbit had a flagpole that was used to shatter the window. Other people in the crowd were armed with weapons, too. From The Daily Beast: "One witness told WUSA9 that Babbitt was trying to “rush” the window. “A number of police and Secret Service were saying ‘Get back, get down, get out of the way,’” he said. “She didn’t heed the call and as we kind of raced up to grab people and pull them back, they shot her in the neck.” The American people deserve to know? Sorry, but that's comical. She's a tragic footnote that allowed herself to fall into radicalization. I assume you'll hold up social justice signs for other radicals, too? Once again, the officer isn't being identified out of very real threats to his personal safety. He has a family. They would all be in danger. Donald Trump himself threatened the officer's safety. You're getting hung up on the absolute wrong things here. You should be asking yourself why one party is hell-bent on making sure facts don't come to light and is actively spreading lies around like wildfire. You should be angry at people like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Jim Jordan, Mo Brooks, Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz, Tommy Tuberville and Madison Cawthorn. January 6th is NOT about Ashli Babbitt, nor should it be. Ryan, your position is that Ashli Babbit, in your definition a terrorist, deserved to be shot to death. I think it's not so simple as that. By the way, do you not think that local police officers involved in on-duty shootings are not subject to death threats, etc.? Nevertheless, their identities are made public. Let's remember that, no matter what you thought of Babbit, she was a human being. She had a family. I suspect that telling them she was shot because somebody thought she was a terrorist will not make them feel any better. I agree that the death of Ashli Babbit is only one part of the Jan. 6th story. But it's the only case in which a rioter was killed by an officer of the law. I don't disagree that the whole event should be investigated. What troubles me are statements that, I my opinion, imply that the woman was a terrorist who had it coming. Had she not been shot, in all likelihood she would have been charged with a crime far less serious than treason. And, most important, why was this officer the only one who used his weapon? I'd like all the officers involved give their impression of the incident and explain why, if the situation was so critical, they did not also use their weapons. By the way, when did you receive your degree in psychiatry? Babbit was "a QAnon-crazed lunatic". Tell us your procedure for diagnosing someone you never met.  I'm left with two questions: 1. Did shooting Ashli Babbit contribute in any way to the de-escalation of the situation that officers were dealing with? 2. If so, how? I fervently hope that the essence of the death of Ashli Babbit is not that she, a Trump supporter, had it coming. AzWm PS: What does it take for someone to be labelled a terrorist? Is it a legal definition, appropriately used only as a result of a legal proceeding? Or is it enough that someone posts something on he Internet that we find politically offensive? Here's a question that I hope will not be considered from too far out in left field. Should there be negative consequences for anyone who believes that Joe Biden stole the 2020 election? If so, what consequences? |
|
|
|
Post by azson on Aug 16, 2021 15:29:21 GMT -8
This is more fantasy fiction than reality. If you think it ends with Donald Trump, you're mistaken. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Madison Cawthorn and others are reshaping Congress with impunity. Well, I have a remedy for that problem. Everybody should vote Libertarian! AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 16, 2021 16:30:35 GMT -8
Please tell me where I'm embellishing. You add nothing to this conversation besides passive aggressive insults and unnecessary inflammatory remarks. Not true. You just happen to not like what I wrote. Like I said, the officer was afraid of being beaten to death when he was tbe one with the gun and fellow officers around him had their gins out as well? There's your embellishment. Besides, you interject into others conversations as well, with your own passive aggressive/inflammatory/condescending/ I know it all remarks. I'm just giving you a taste of your own medicine. How does it feel? Like you're a petty twelve year old masquerading as an adult? I mean if that's what you want to be proud of, go for it. What you wrote is a misinterpretation. You think just because an officer has a gun they don't fear for their lives? Is this satire? Do you really think dozens against three officers is no cause for alarm? Watch the video, then come back to Earth. What a stupid post. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 16, 2021 16:34:24 GMT -8
There are a host of inaccuracies in your post. Ashli Babbitt was a terrorist, a QAnon-crazed lunatic who was deceived by the former president and his cult-like following. This is just one example of her social media presence, among many others that perpetuate the myth that Joe Biden rapes children and Donald Trump is the leader of a group to hunt Satanic pedophiles: "In late December, the incoming vice-president, Kamala Harris, tweeted about her plans for the first hundred days of the Biden administration. She promised “to ensure Americans mask up, distribute 100M shots, and get students safely back to school”. Among the thousands of responses was an angry tweet from a 35-year-old air force veteran in San Diego. “No the f x x x you will not!” Ashli Babbitt replied to Harris. “No masks, no you, no Biden the kid raper, no vaccines...sit your fraudulent ass down…we the ppl bitch!” That's the person you're defending, despite you saying you aren't, you definitely are by making it about *her* and attempting to put the officer on trial. He wasn't charged with a crime. Please don't act like this is some sort of weird social justice pursuit. The officer was cleared of wrongdoing by a DOJ investigation. Period. End of story. The tape is clear. Yes, the shooting was justified. She broke the law. She ignored orders to stop. She was trespassing. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. You don't get to escape consequences universally. She was climbing through a broken window on which the other side of that window were members of Congress being evacuated. There were all of three officers, heavily outnumbered. The person next to Ashli Babbit had a flagpole that was used to shatter the window. Other people in the crowd were armed with weapons, too. From The Daily Beast: "One witness told WUSA9 that Babbitt was trying to “rush” the window. “A number of police and Secret Service were saying ‘Get back, get down, get out of the way,’” he said. “She didn’t heed the call and as we kind of raced up to grab people and pull them back, they shot her in the neck.” The American people deserve to know? Sorry, but that's comical. She's a tragic footnote that allowed herself to fall into radicalization. I assume you'll hold up social justice signs for other radicals, too? Once again, the officer isn't being identified out of very real threats to his personal safety. He has a family. They would all be in danger. Donald Trump himself threatened the officer's safety. You're getting hung up on the absolute wrong things here. You should be asking yourself why one party is hell-bent on making sure facts don't come to light and is actively spreading lies around like wildfire. You should be angry at people like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Jim Jordan, Mo Brooks, Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz, Tommy Tuberville and Madison Cawthorn. January 6th is NOT about Ashli Babbitt, nor should it be. Ryan, your position is that Ashli Babbit, in your definition a terrorist, deserved to be shot to death. I think it's not so simple as that. By the way, do you not think that local police officers involved in on-duty shootings are not subject to death threats, etc.? Nevertheless, their identities are made public. Let's remember that, no matter what you thought of Babbit, she was a human being. She had a family. I suspect that telling them she was shot because somebody thought she was a terrorist will not make them feel any better. I agree that the death of Ashli Babbit is only one part of the Jan. 6th story. But it's the only case in which a rioter was killed by an officer of the law. I don't disagree that the whole event should be investigated. What troubles me are statements that, I my opinion, imply that the woman was a terrorist who had it coming. Had she not been shot, in all likelihood she would have been charged with a crime far less serious than treason. And, most important, why was this officer the only one who used his weapon? I'd like all the officers involved give their impression of the incident and explain why, if the situation was so critical, they did not also use their weapons. By the way, when did you receive your degree in psychiatry? Babbit was "a QAnon-crazed lunatic". Tell us your procedure for diagnosing someone you never met. I'm left with two questions: 1. Did shooting Ashli Babbit contribute in any way to the de-escalation of the situation that officers were dealing with? 2. If so, how? I fervently hope that the essence of the death of Ashli Babbit is not that she, a Trump supporter, had it coming. AzWm PS: What does it take for someone to be labelled a terrorist? Is it a legal definition, appropriately used only as a result of a legal proceeding? Or is it enough that someone posts something on he Internet that we find politically offensive? Here's a question that I hope will not be considered from too far out in left field. Should there be negative consequences for anyone who believes that Joe Biden stole the 2020 election? If so, what consequences? To be CLEAR: MY position is that if you attempt to enter the US Capitol illegally by breaking down barricades, shattering windows and assaulting police officers, you put your life in your own hands. If you ignore repeated warnings to stop, you put your life in imminent danger. My position is also that you trivialize the life of Ashli Babbitt by making it about her support of Trump, which is a discredit to her and yourself. Beyond that.... Responding to this is a waste. You're not trying to have a good faith discussion. You're trying to promote a false narrative by shifting goalposts and focusing on trivial details while again defending a terrorist. You can focus on what makes a terrorist, I'll not waste my time trying to reason with someone who doesn't want to operate in good faith. Notice how you completely try to falsely equate circumstances? This wasn't a domestic dispute for local LEO's, it was an act of terror against the US Capitol. You being more worried about the officer's identity being sealed than the actual transgressions that took place is...something else. And yes, I think someone who fervently promotes that the world is filled with Satanic pedophiles who eat children is a lunatic. I think people who go down the QAnon rabbit hole are not mentally "there." If we can't agree on that? You have much larger problems that I don't want to contribute to. Absolutely ridiculous that when an act of insurrection occurs (Not a riot, as you repeatedly refer it as) that we can't even fundamentally agree that the people who attacked the Capitol and attacked police officers are to blame for their actions. I imagine this is the fault of Democrats, too? Mindboggling. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Aug 16, 2021 17:06:56 GMT -8
Not true. You just happen to not like what I wrote. Like I said, the officer was afraid of being beaten to death when he was tbe one with the gun and fellow officers around him had their gins out as well? There's your embellishment. Besides, you interject into others conversations as well, with your own passive aggressive/inflammatory/condescending/ I know it all remarks. I'm just giving you a taste of your own medicine. How does it feel? Like you're a petty twelve year old masquerading as an adult? I mean if that's what you want to be proud of, go for it. What you wrote is a misinterpretation. You think just because an officer has a gun they don't fear for their lives? Is this satire? Do you really think dozens against three officers is no cause for alarm? Watch the video, then come back to Earth. What a stupid post. No, I'm not proud of myself when I bring myself down to your level. So I'll stop here. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 16, 2021 18:30:41 GMT -8
Like you're a petty twelve year old masquerading as an adult? I mean if that's what you want to be proud of, go for it. What you wrote is a misinterpretation. You think just because an officer has a gun they don't fear for their lives? Is this satire? Do you really think dozens against three officers is no cause for alarm? Watch the video, then come back to Earth. What a stupid post. No, I'm not proud of myself when I bring myself down to your level. So I'll stop here. If you have something to add regarding January 6th that isn't total hearsay or baseless speculation, I'd actually like to hear it. Because I'm extremely confused as to where the disconnect is coming from. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Aug 16, 2021 21:45:25 GMT -8
No, I'm not proud of myself when I bring myself down to your level. So I'll stop here. If you have something to add regarding January 6th that isn't total hearsay or baseless speculation, I'd actually like to hear it. Because I'm extremely confused as to where the disconnect is coming from. I think the officer thought he was doing his job, since she trespassed and was given warnings not to trespass. I don't think he was afraid that he was going to get beat up as you said, since he had the gun. The gun usually wins especially when you have help from both sides of the door. That's the embellishment on your part. I think he simply felt he was doing his job and one shot did it. Nobody tried to enter after that, I believe. You have a tendency to embellish your remarks to make your point. That's what I see. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 16, 2021 23:01:19 GMT -8
If you have something to add regarding January 6th that isn't total hearsay or baseless speculation, I'd actually like to hear it. Because I'm extremely confused as to where the disconnect is coming from. I think the officer thought he was doing his job, since she trespassed and was given warnings not to trespass. I don't think he was afraid that he was going to get beat up as you said, since he had the gun. The gun usually wins especially when you have help from both sides of the door. That's the embellishment on your part. I think he simply felt he was doing his job and one shot did it. Nobody tried to enter after that, I believe. You have a tendency to embellish your remarks to make your point. That's what I see. Correction: I asked what the officer *should* have done. I didn't say he was going to get beaten to death, I'm saying that even with a gun, you aren't bulletproof. Speaking of bullets, how many do you think these officers had? The officers that day were doused with corrosive chemicals, beaten with poles and pipes, crushed in doorways, tased with their own weapons and otherwise assaulted. There is no embellishment anywhere, only a faulty perception of what you believe I wrote. The danger they faced was *very* real. If you don't think they were afraid for their lives, you are absolutely mistaken. Listen to their testimony. Men who served in combat, in some of the most war-torn regions, said that January 6th was the day they felt like they weren't coming home. I don't know what "both sides of the door" has to do with anything. You can barricade a door with furniture, it's not going to last forever. Trust me, when I was hiding in a back office with 21 of my classmates 20 years ago, we barricaded the door. That didn't ease my mind in the slightest that I could very possibly die. And more importantly, why does this matter? I have no desire to defend Ashli Babbitt's actions. What happened to her, while tragic, was preventable. Unfortunately, one man and his horde of followers was enough to cause her to pay with her life. But January 6th isn't about that, nor is it about putting an officer on trial who hasn't been charged with a crime. When we get stuck on Ashli Babbitt's personality and mental competency, it diminishes the real story. Donald Trump and his loyalists are attempting to use Ashli Babbitt as a martyr to rewrite history and deflect their own personal responsibility for the events that day. That's what the focus should be here. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Aug 17, 2021 0:01:53 GMT -8
I think the officer thought he was doing his job, since she trespassed and was given warnings not to trespass. I don't think he was afraid that he was going to get beat up as you said, since he had the gun. The gun usually wins especially when you have help from both sides of the door. That's the embellishment on your part. I think he simply felt he was doing his job and one shot did it. Nobody tried to enter after that, I believe. You have a tendency to embellish your remarks to make your point. That's what I see. Correction: I asked what the officer *should* have done. I didn't say he was going to get beaten to death, I'm saying that even with a gun, you aren't bulletproof. Speaking of bullets, how many do you think these officers had? The officers that day were doused with corrosive chemicals, beaten with poles and pipes, crushed in doorways, tased with their own weapons and otherwise assaulted. There is no embellishment anywhere, only a faulty perception of what you believe I wrote. The danger they faced was *very* real. If you don't think they were afraid for their lives, you are absolutely mistaken. Listen to their testimony. Men who served in combat, in some of the most war-torn regions, said that January 6th was the day they felt like they weren't coming home. I don't know what "both sides of the door" has to do with anything. You can barricade a door with furniture, it's not going to last forever. Trust me, when I was hiding in a back office with 21 of my classmates 20 years ago, we barricaded the door. That didn't ease my mind in the slightest that I could very possibly die. And more importantly, why does this matter? I have no desire to defend Ashli Babbitt's actions. What happened to her, while tragic, was preventable. Unfortunately, one man and his horde of followers was enough to cause her to pay with her life. But January 6th isn't about that, nor is it about putting an officer on trial who hasn't been charged with a crime. When we get stuck on Ashli Babbitt's personality and mental competency, it diminishes the real story. Donald Trump and his loyalists are attempting to use Ashli Babbitt as a martyr to rewrite history and deflect their own personal responsibility for the events that day. That's what the focus should be here. Ok. But, to clarify, what I meant when I said that he had help from both sides of tbe door, I meant that there were armed officers on both sides of the door. I get your point, I just wanted to clarify what I meant. Sorry you went through that experience, 20 years ago. I remember that. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 17, 2021 9:25:11 GMT -8
Correction: I asked what the officer *should* have done. I didn't say he was going to get beaten to death, I'm saying that even with a gun, you aren't bulletproof. Speaking of bullets, how many do you think these officers had? The officers that day were doused with corrosive chemicals, beaten with poles and pipes, crushed in doorways, tased with their own weapons and otherwise assaulted. There is no embellishment anywhere, only a faulty perception of what you believe I wrote. The danger they faced was *very* real. If you don't think they were afraid for their lives, you are absolutely mistaken. Listen to their testimony. Men who served in combat, in some of the most war-torn regions, said that January 6th was the day they felt like they weren't coming home. I don't know what "both sides of the door" has to do with anything. You can barricade a door with furniture, it's not going to last forever. Trust me, when I was hiding in a back office with 21 of my classmates 20 years ago, we barricaded the door. That didn't ease my mind in the slightest that I could very possibly die. And more importantly, why does this matter? I have no desire to defend Ashli Babbitt's actions. What happened to her, while tragic, was preventable. Unfortunately, one man and his horde of followers was enough to cause her to pay with her life. But January 6th isn't about that, nor is it about putting an officer on trial who hasn't been charged with a crime. When we get stuck on Ashli Babbitt's personality and mental competency, it diminishes the real story. Donald Trump and his loyalists are attempting to use Ashli Babbitt as a martyr to rewrite history and deflect their own personal responsibility for the events that day. That's what the focus should be here. Ok. But, to clarify, what I meant when I said that he had help from both sides of tbe door, I meant that there were armed officers on both sides of the door. I get your point, I just wanted to clarify what I meant. Sorry you went through that experience, 20 years ago. I remember that. There were three armed officers on the other side of the broken glass, protecting an area where members of Congress were being evacuated. I don't know what you're referring to. Beyond that, hard questions need to be asked here. |
|
