Live Feed, Patriots at the Capitol

[jamil]

And while we're on the subject, IMO The Capitol is not a sacred place. Depending on one's point of view, it's a whorehouse or a sausage factory. Nothing pertaining to the country's founding took place there, it didn't even exist yet

Arlington is a sacred place, Gettysburg or Antietam are sacred places, Utah and Omaha beaches are sacred places. They were sanctified by the men who paid the ultimate price in defense of our country

The people that 'labor' in The Capitol might like to think they are cut from the same cloth, but no one else does

So the founding is sacred?

A bunch of fools thought they could just bust in and take over the capital and force them to put Trump back in. That's an attempted coup. Not a very well executed one. It did not appear to me that Sylvain was sacralizing a building. Stay outside the building, you're a protestor. Force your way inside the building, you've broken the law. Try to terrorize congressmen and take over the Capitol? That's not just unhinged, that's insurrection.

It's not a distinction of sacred or not sacred. It's which side of the law you're on and which laws you broke. It's that simple.

That said, it looked to me like the number of unhinged fools were far outnumbered by just regular fools who found themselves on the wrong side of the door.

 

[jamil]

The difference in the atmosphere of this thread vs. any discussing BLM/AntiFa misadventures is noticeable. I can’t help but wonder if the election was being certified for Trump and AntiFa was breaking in whether opinions would be the same.

I think in that case we'd all be pretty much united in our opinions of the unhinged Antifa fools. There's no strife when everyone agrees.

But it appears that the majority INGO opinion is in support of the unhinged Trump rioters who broke into the Capitol. I'm probably one of the most outspoken against it because, 1) it was stupid AF, 2) it has empowered the bat-**** crazies. They didn't need anymore political capital, but those Capitol rioters sure gave them more. I'm still pissed.

 

[BugI02]

Well Christians took over the Roman Empire

After 380 years of persecution, when only counting anno domini, and then only as the state religion [so who conquered who], not the only one and arguably with divine help

Does the Nicene Church currently rule Christendom? Oops, forgot - you might think it does

The trajectory of the United States is unmistakably toward ungodly, how has that worked out historically?

 

[jamil]

Well Christians took over the Roman Empire

Took over? I don't know if I would call it that. Christianity had spread in Rome, but wasn't a dominant religion in Rome until Constantine paved the way. And it looked to me like he and his successors kinda used it as a societal tool.

 

[jamil]

After 380 years of persecution, when only counting anno domini, and then only as the state religion [so who conquered who], not the only one and arguably with divine help

Does the Nicene Church currently rule Christendom? Oops, forgot - you might think it does

The trajectory of the United States unmistakably toward ungodly, how has that worked out historically?

From an agnostic point of view, I'd agree. Ungodly intersects with many behaviors that are destructive of society. And it's not like godliness, at least the way so many perform it, makes a society hum along nicely. People are always ****ing the wrong way, marrying the wrong skin color, saying naughty words on the internet, buying beer on Sundays and whatnot. Not to mention crusading with spears and swords.

 

[BugI02]

So the founding is sacred?

A bunch of fools thought they could just bust in and take over the capital and force them to put Trump back in. That's an attempted coup. Not a very well executed one. It did not appear to me that Sylvain was sacralizing a building. Stay outside the building, you're a protestor. Force your way inside the building, you've broken the law. Try to terrorize congressmen and take over the Capitol? That's not just unhinged, that's insurrection.

It's not a distinction of sacred or not sacred. It's which side of the law you're on and which laws you broke. It's that simple.

That said, it looked to me like the number of unhinged fools were far outnumbered by just regular fools who found themselves on the wrong side of the door.

I was speaking to everyone trying to work the angle that the capitol was somehow different, sacred ground to the republic, and forcing your way in there is more badder (unless your protesting the correct causes, of course) It is just a building, built in the style of the day. Today it would be a glass and steel box

Protestors, lawmaker arrested in Senate building sit-in over immigration

Some 600 protestors were arrested during a clangorous occupation of a U.S. Senate office building in Washington on Thursday, where they decried U.S. President Donald Trump's "zero- tolerance" stance on illegal immigration.

www.reuters.com

Striking photos show demonstration where hundreds of women occupied a US Senate building to protest family separations

Capitol police arrested 575 women for unlawfully demonstrating, and a US congresswoman was among them.

www.businessinsider.com

After Kavanaugh confirmation, protesters chant, pound on Supreme Court door

U.S. Capitol Police said a total of 164 people were arrested during the protests for "crowding, obstructing, or incommoding."

www.nbcnews.com

Oddly enough, no one was shot and killed over these 'breaches' of lawmaker or SC justice security. It's almost as if they wanted these protests to make news. Nor are these the only examples

The incident is like Ruby Ridge and Waco and Malheur, jamil. You can believe what you want to believe and so can I. How many we can each recruit to a particular of the argument doesn't matter, it isn't a popularity contest nor are there social credit points for supporting the government line (yet)

Edit: Decapitalized jamil, which for some reason MacBook has now decided is to be capitalized [and I know how touchy he is about that :stick poke:]

 

[JettaKnight]

I was speaking to everyone trying to work the angle that the capitol was somehow different, sacred ground to the republic, and forcing your way in there is more badder (unless your protesting the correct causes, of course) It is just a building, built in the style of the day. Today it would be a glass and steel box

Makes it easy to keep an eye on the congress critters.

 

[BugI02]

From an agnostic point of view, I'd agree. Ungodly intersects with many behaviors that are destructive of society. And it's not like godliness, at least the way so many perform it, makes a society hum along nicely. People are always ****ing the wrong way, marrying the wrong skin color, saying naughty words on the internet, buying beer on Sundays and whatnot. Not to mention crusading with spears and swords.

I think the claim is always that 'scientific atheists' are working toward the same goals, but without all the God-stuff that just slows down the march to the Star Trek governing system

How has THAT worked out, historically? You know how I believe. Man is incapable of producing perfection without a lot of help, nor is man very good at maintaining it when he comes close to achieving it. I think the agnostics and atheists are blinded by having lived so long in one of mankind's closest approximations ever to perfection, and become hyper-focused on its flaws while ignoring or actively denigrating its many strengths

I find it reminiscent of Californians living in a long period of unusually minimal drought from the 50s through the 90s and just subconsciously believing that that was the norm and things would always be that way - and that despite a good record just within the range of history embodied in tree rings that makes plain that not only is that untrue but decades long droughts are just as common

 

[BugI02]

Makes it easy to keep an eye on the congress critters.

Put the locks on the outside and I'm in!

 

[jamil]

I think the claim is always that 'scientific atheists' are working toward the same goals, but without all the God-stuff that just slows down the march to the Star Trek governing system

How has THAT worked out, historically? You know how I believe. Man is incapable of producing perfection without a lot of help, nor is man very good at maintaining it when he comes close to achieving it. I think the agnostics and atheists are blinded by having lived so long in one of mankind's closest approximations ever to perfection, and become hyper-focused on its flaws while ignoring or actively denigrating its many strengths

I find it reminiscent of Californians living in a long period of unusually minimal drought from the 50s through the 90s and just subconsciously believing that that was the norm and things would always be that way - and that despite a good record just within the range of history embodied in tree rings that makes plain that not only is that untrue but decades long droughts are just as common

I'm not of the opinion that humans can ever be perfect. Best case it's more like an asymptote approaching an ideal. And we're no where near best case because ideologues **** things up with unrealistic ideals to approach.

 

[BugI02]

Even the Star Trek humans are sometimes reckless or greedy or evil. What I take exception with is that the majority of humanity can ever be convinced to do yeoman's work simply for the good of all mankind, without divine intervention

Nothing about humanity and its works seems self-correcting. It is an unstable system, in the absence of some damping component

 

[jamil]

Even the Star Trek humans are sometimes reckless or greedy or evil. What I take exception with is that the majority of humanity can ever be convinced to do yeoman's work simply for the good of all mankind, without divine intervention

Nothing about humanity and its works seems self-correcting. It is an unstable system, in the absence of some damping component

Self-preservation and group preservation is a feature of evolution. But then when a species evolves to a point where individuals can consciously override their programming it turns into a bug. Evolution favors individuals and groups that have developed advantages in reproduction. Now we have people who die their hair pink and think the opposite sex is toxic. You'd think that problem would be self-correcting, but then the offspring of the sane people catch the insanity.

Belief in a god to divinely intervene hasn't helped people get any better. Well. That's not totally true. I'd trust a Pentecostal mechanic not to gyp me on a complicated engine repair more than an atheist. The Pentacostal believes god is watching. Baptist? Eh, not the plastic ones. Oddly I've never run into a plastic Pentacostal. They're strange. But usually fairly honest in my experience. Also in my experience, if booze were virtue, Catholics would be on a tight asymptote towards perfection.

I think generally, if you're temperamentally suited to being a good person, you tend to override the selfish gene whether you're religious or not. And, if your worldview isn't so ****ed up that you're accidentally a horrible person, you're probably gonna be a lot like the Pentacostal mechanic. But not because anyone is watching.

 

[Tombs]

So the founding is sacred?

A bunch of fools thought they could just bust in and take over the capital and force them to put Trump back in. That's an attempted coup. Not a very well executed one. It did not appear to me that Sylvain was sacralizing a building. Stay outside the building, you're a protestor. Force your way inside the building, you've broken the law. Try to terrorize congressmen and take over the Capitol? That's not just unhinged, that's insurrection.

It's not a distinction of sacred or not sacred. It's which side of the law you're on and which laws you broke. It's that simple.

That said, it looked to me like the number of unhinged fools were far outnumbered by just regular fools who found themselves on the wrong side of the door.

I don't think that's what the objective was.

The objective was getting resolution for all the claims of voter fraud, after the SCOTUS made a million excuses not to have a formal case on the matter. Present the evidence, let the arguments be heard, provide a degree of transparency that satisfies the masses.

Even if you don't think there was enough for a case, some televised arguments from those presenting their case and "evidence" would have been enough to settle people down.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The difference in the atmosphere of this thread vs. any discussing BLM/AntiFa misadventures is noticeable. I can’t help but wonder if the election was being certified for Trump and AntiFa was breaking in whether opinions would be the same.

Show me some arson or bodily injury (not a health event after the fact) and we'll talk.

 

[JettaKnight]

I don't think that's what the objective was.

The objective was getting resolution for all the claims of voter fraud, after the SCOTUS made a million excuses not to have a formal case on the matter. Present the evidence, let the arguments be heard, provide a degree of transparency that satisfies the masses.

Even if you don't think there was enough for a case, some televised arguments from those presenting their case and "evidence" would have been enough to settle people down.

There were hearing, there was presented evidence, (like The Four Seasons fiasco), there was ample investigation of the evidence...
If you don't like the justice you're serviced, the appropriate response isn't to burn it down. (I'm speaking to BLM, too)

 

[Tombs]

There were hearing, there was presented evidence, (like The Four Seasons fiasco), there was ample investigation of the evidence...
If you don't like the justice you're serviced, the appropriate response isn't to burn it down. (I'm speaking to BLM, too)

What was burned down in the capitol protest?

 

[JettaKnight]

What was burned down in the capitol protest?

 

[BugI02]

What was burned down in the capitol protest?

Democrat credibility?

 

[jamil]

I don't think that's what the objective was.

The objective was getting resolution for all the claims of voter fraud, after the SCOTUS made a million excuses not to have a formal case on the matter. Present the evidence, let the arguments be heard, provide a degree of transparency that satisfies the masses.

Even if you don't think there was enough for a case, some televised arguments from those presenting their case and "evidence" would have been enough to settle people down.

Ah. So they were marching through the Capitol. searching for Pence so that they could what? Kindly ask him to listen to their evidence? Did you forget the plan to corner pence and make him flip his position on switching delegates to Trump?

Breaking into the Capitol had no such goal. It was to force a way for Trump to remain in office.

But I’m not convinced that some people were not gaslighting those folks through the dark webz to do it. And it could have come from any side that would stand to gain by them making such fools of themselves. Could have been Democrats. Could have been China. Could have been Russia. Or even white nationalists.

I mean these people are probably not that stupid. Being gaslit would explain some things. I’m leaning establishment R+D. Pelosi and McConnell both caught wind of the plan being talked about on social media.

 

[jamil]

Show me some arson or bodily injury (not a health event after the fact) and we'll talk.

So if Antifa only did what the Capitol rioters did, you’d be defending them as vigorously as you guys defend what the “Patriots” did?