Capitol attack and 6th of January hearings

Telling you what attorneys said about Tucker Carlson's show is shooting the messenger? No. It's just telling you why I'm not interested in watching your "evidence."

Does it not move your needle that he lied in the first 3 seconds of the video? At all? Nothing?

Lies isn’t a problem on that side .
Trump never lied in his presidency remember ?
Is a Republican role mode of integrity and good will .

Carlson lies is just another valid point of view in their minds .
There is no lies !

Who lied exactly? And what was the lie?

I knew you wouldn't even know what it was.

Tucker. First words out of his mouth. "Unarmed insurrection." A hilarious lie.

I know. I'm just making you aware that your reasoning as to why I should watch it is not as sound as a judge dismissing a defamation suit against Carlson by concluding, "Carlson is not stating actual facts about the topics he discusses..."

OK. We all know personal attacks are against the rules. I never thought this would come so I didnt specifically address it, but extending the insults to someones parents is also out of line. Leave parents out ot this. Also, I grew up playing with Mr Potato Head, so don't disparage his name either. Or I may have to rearrange your face and put your ears where your eyes should be. .

Thanks.

it was a simple question. i'm trying to understand why he is so broken.

It was a simply inappropriate question. Please don't do it again.

Thanks.

I bet Brian blames Mr Potato Head for trans people.

gems like this are why i miss you whenever i don't see you post for a while

Depends what you defined as armed. Did the protesters show up with weapons?

Many people when referring to armed mean guns . I do not recall seeing those but heck you may have some pictures of individuals with handguns or rifles and prove me wrong

Though individuals did grab poles, fire extinguishers to use as weapons . Only one person was shot on that day and that was a protester/rioter/insurrectionist

Good lord. Is that what you were hyperventilating over? I thought it must have been something major.

Was it an "unarmed insurrection"? Hmm let's see.

There may have been a very small number of rioters carrying firearms that day. I think maybe 3 were charged. Not too sure if they actually went inside the Capitol or not.

But no firearms were discharged by any rioters at the riot. No one was threatened with firearms by any rioters at the riot. Therefore the term "unarmed insurrection" is technically correct imo. Although if you want to get really pedantic you could say that a couple of people were carrying therefore it was an armed riot. So, your little tantrum is basically over a nothing burger really and it has nothing to do with the main point of the video anyway.

Oh I forgot, the Qanon shaman was carrying a spear. I doubt he would hurt a fly though.

By the way here's another more direct source for the pipe bomb video if anyone is interested. Congressman Thomas Massie provided the footage apparently.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/17480...

It has a definition.

"equipped with or carrying a weapon or weapons."

Yes they had weapons.

Words have meanings. But, even with that definition, yes there were guns.

What you have seen is irrelevant.

https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice...
https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics...
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/india...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/...
https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/21/politics/...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice...
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589...
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/pol...

So, no. It doesn't matter how you define it, correctly or incorrectly. It was not an unarmed insurrection. Tucker Carlson is simply lying. Again.

We already know you don't mind when your news lies to you, so no one should be surprised that you don't consider it "something major."

Yes.

https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice...
https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics...
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/india...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/...
https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/21/politics/...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice...
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589...
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/pol...

google is free (btw, this is what citing credible sources looks like)

Your "opinion" here is laughable. If I point a gun at you and don't shoot it, am I unarmed? Good lord. It's amazing you try this stuff with a straight face.

I do insist the places I get news from don't lie. We know that you don't mind it so much, as you are showing here. It's ok, because you can just accuse the people pointing it out of "throwing a tantrum" and call it a "nothing burger."

The main point of the video is irrelevant because it is a demonstrable liar speaking. No one's going to listen except people that like to be lied to.

Make sure to tune in next week.

LOL

I wouldn't attempt a serious reply to that if I were you either. Good choice.

Who pointed a gun at who exactly?

sad state of affairs when the thread is nothing but a back and forth over semantics

you people should post better than this

Only one person here is playing semantic games and it isn't me. Tucker Carlson is a liar and was caught lying yet again. Whether you want to call that "semantics" in order to minimize it changes nothing.

I don't voluntarily listen to liars? Do you?

Well, I did try to keep it on point. Anyway I have posted video links etc for anyone who wants to have a look.

If you don't want to look then don't.

I love it how it's all "true" if someone says it on the internet.

I would agree that carrying a weapon is armed as would be Pepper or bear spray

Have you looked at what he's posted? It's hilarious. It's a distant video where you can't tell at all what's happening, but first Tucker Carlson and now "
Darren J. Beattie" (who is a former speech writer for Trump, but was fired after it was found out he was attending white nationalist conferences) have provided a fanciful narrative to go along with the videos to tell everyone what it shows.

So now, in their head this is direct video evidence, but the only reason they believe it shows anything at all is because of the narrative that was told with the video.

Like literally if you just watch the videos you could make up anything to go along with it. But because the people in it didn't act like they imagine they would, then it's all HIGHLY SUSPECT.

There's a reason it matters who the source is. The video doesn't show anything. It's all about the narrative that was spun around it.