Northcountryman

Im trying to make sure its less complicated for you lol

Unbelieveable the hypocrisy

That is absolutely ridiculous what you just said , I dont even know where to begin. Attacking the White Houseand the Supreme Court is not attacking the governement but the Capital Hill building is ?? Wow

Doesnt matter their reasoning; like always , you appear to be making excuses. BE CONSISTENT!! they were wrong to storm the building and so were the rioters against the white house last summer, right??If the Capital Hill riots were attempts at insurrection then so were these!! Were you as equally outraged by those occurrences last year as well?? I doubt it. I'm sorry if this appears too complex for you, but Im merely pointing out the hypocrisy of your position/attitude about protests/ritoting in general. Apparently, if riots/protests happen for causes which you agree with, then you may mildly rebuke it--if at all- but you NEVER miss the opportunity in your assessment of them to implicitly jusitfy their behavior by throwing in: "its to protest policE violence", or ""its for protesting one persons selection to a court": So what?? In contrast, when describing the capital hill rioters, you always describe their "reason" for protesting as " theyre attempting to overthrow the government" WRONG!! they protested the unfair election from 2020, thats why they were there!! Really? I think you missed the real meaning behind their protest, with all due respect. Let me say, unequivocallly, that ALL RIOTING, REGARDLESS OF PURPOSE, REASONING, OR INTENT IS WRONG AND SHOULD BE CONDEMNED, INCLUDING THE CAPITAL HILL, BLM/ANTIFA STUFF, AND ANY OTHER GROUP I MAY HAVE MISSED. Now, can you do the same without inserting and caveats, excuses or disclaimers??

Of course, and I'm basing my response on your words as posted. Refer to your words above and tell me then what the meaning is behind your above post. Pretty much sounds to me like youre justifying one group (i.e., the Antifa idiots( and not the other !! And this: So , you tell me: What is the difference?? As i said, your moral outrage appears to be inconsistent

No, it is inaccurate , period. What youre doing is invalidating the reasoning or "purpose" behind one groups protest but not the other. I get that you agree with one and not the other and that is totally legitamate. But , as always, youre oversimplifying and inaccurately describing the reasoning behind the capital hill riots to vilify them whereas you do the opposite with the Antifa/BLM morons whos reasoning for protest you describe as due to "police violence"as if theyre so virtuous-- Bullshit!! There is NO EXCUSE FOR Destroying private property, looting , burning, assault and EVEN MURDER . I dont care what theyre reasoning is, once they went there, they went too far: PERIOD. Same as the Capital hill rioters: PERIOD. I wonder if you were equally outraged when BLM/Antifa staged riotous marches last July that resulted in the President being ushered down into the White House Bunker for his own personal safety. Is that not an assault on our Democracy ? An insurrection? Thats the way you guys describe the Capital Hill Riots. Also, what about the Kavanaugh Hearings when Leftie loonie rioters stormed the Capital Building and forced their way inside in order to dirupt/interfere with the proceedings. Is that not an insurrection ? An assault on our democracy? You cant have it both ways, my friend because thats hypocrisy, pure and simple.

No, i'm not talking about Chick-filet's action, they didnt do anyhing-- the CEO of Chik Filet expressed an opinion that was unpopular to many on the left. I'm talking about the right of the leftie patrons to react to this by calling for a boycott of Chik -Filet afterward. Im saying they have every right to do so to express their disapproval with the CEO's statement, same as a business has every right to not to do business with a person or entity they diagree with, so long as the action isnt predicated on discriminatory beliefs (i.e., race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc.).

Yes, that is unfortunate, but in an effort to establish consistency in my reasoning, I would say that , although I dont like their decision , these businesses have every right to do so, for whatever reason. Remember the Chick-Filet controversy a number of yrs ago over gay marriage, I believe? Alot of lefties decided to boycott the chain in response to the CEO's public decrying of this and , although I supported his right to express his views, their response was also legitimate and is a classic example why, as a businessman, oftentimes its prudent to keep your views to yourself, lest it hurt your business!! Twitter and google is a different situation, however, as they hold a monopoly currently on the social media market so, in effect, when they ban anyone--for all intents and purposes--they are silecning that indivual/group, etc.

As Ive pointed out many times, your "apples to apples" comparison is inaccurate and invalid

I agree, and the same standard should be applied , of course to the capital hill protestors, right? Very few of them actually engaged in riotous behavior and were simply exercising their rights to free speech by protesting a corrupt and unfair election.

Yes, I did and it has no basis in reality as per todays world IMHO. Youre arguing from a purist point of view and that of an absolutist but thats not too realistic cuz it never could be achieved. Is freedom of speech absolute? Clearly not (Shouting fire in a crowded theater example has held for a LONG TIME demonstrating whty it is not). If thats your position, then Dorsey and his boys at Twitter could start banning people because theyre white straight guys and also, because theyre hunters but hey, its their perogative, right? Private businesses operating without government interference is a pilar of free-market capitalist beliefs, but it is not absolute, nor should it be. I dont think too many would argue against that truth. Especially, considering they currently hold a monoply on the social media market. Nope, no way. This cannot be allowed to continue.

Correct, that was not the point from my original post. I dont believe China intentionally created Coronavirus in the lab as a means of waging biological warfare on the world--although that is a theory that is floating around the internet, I believe-- Im saying that historically, theyre implicated in many past pandemics due to their cultural tradition of holding wet-markets and theyve known it for quite some time. DD is right that it will be difficult for them to discontinue this practice because its so heavily imbedded in their culture, but stop they must!!

They insist on pissing in the wind cuz there’s no other place to turn to Currently in social media ; only one game in town Bro , so it’s not quite as simplistic a situation as you make it out to be . What needs to happen is that their little monopoly of social media needs to be busted up So that all voices and points of view can be heard , fairly .

No doubt ; you wanna place blame on ANYONE , blame the lowlife Mom for creating this situation through YEARS OF NEGLECT AND ABUSE

If he does, then I'd say he cooks for a pretty tough clientele !! lol

This is very disturbing. Apparently, Twitter banned Mike Lindell for repeatedly violating its "Civic Integrity Policy" which means : We think youre spereading disinformation and perpetuating falsehoods so consequently, were banning you--What?? Did they ban all of those perpetuating the Russian collusion hoax which was PROVEN TO BE FALSE?? Nope!!! To be honest, I would ban neither; since when did we start arbitrarily banning people and/or groups for their beliefs?? Ultimately, it may turn out that were all wrong and there was no election fraud at a massive scale , but do we really want to--as a country, that is--head down that road of banning speech and/or views we dont agree with and label them summarily as "Lies" or "Falsehoods"?? Should we thern start banning religious tweets that espouse dogma realted to the Christian or Jewish faiths as well? Come on!!! What do you think? https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/01/26/twitter-bans-mypillow-ceo-mike-lindell-election-fraud-claims/4257458001/

Unless hes spitting in their soup lol

I have absolutely no doubt youre job is stressful, but in no way is that kind of stress comparable to that faced by LEO responding to a domestic issue .

What's a soy boy and a beta cuck??

5, 7 and 8 all the time !!

Otters are cool animals. Ive seen a few over the years while trout fishing. One time, one kept swimming past me , back and forth, over and over--I think-- to see what I was doing . Cute little shit but screwed up my fishing cuz I'm sure he scared the fish away!! Theyre inquisitive creatures, for sure.

Agreed--EXCELLENT analogy btw, very clear

And, so whats your point? Note: He condemend the riots "immediately", unlike Biden and others who said nothing about the BLM/Antifa riots for months , UNTIL they became aware it was hurting them in the polls.

I liked everything you said in your previous post, but have to mildly disagree on one minor point: I truly feel that rioting and violence IS FULLY condemned---consistently and vociferously-- by the right ; the same cannot be said about the left, however.

I could be wrong, but I dont think thats his point. I think hes saying that unless youre a trained professional AND have been in a situation similar to this, you really cant be overly critical about the way they handled things until more is known about the incident. This is not an absolute , of course; but I think that in this situation, specifically, in regards to the pepper spray thing, although it looks pretty bad ostensibly, theyre may be more to it than the video evidence demonstrates. If , at a later time, theyre offically censured by their peers and actually charged with some form of misconduct, then there you go: case closed. They shouldnt have done it and so others judged that they easily could have done A and/or B as an alternative and should have known better. However, until then, keep an open mind!!