Capitol attack and 6th of January hearings

you all agree that some of those who stormed the capitol were armed

you all agree that there were no instances of those who stormed the capitol opening fire

yet somehow you still find a way to argue over how to label it - which is just dumb and drags down threads into stupid pissing matches

"armed insurrection" very much connotes a military operation where there is a lot of bloodshed

yet saying unarmed is also dishonest because there were armed people present

basically - you're both wrong and it doesn't matter because everyone agrees over what actually happened and now you're just trying to frame it, which shouldn't be your focus

Please don't mistake what I'm doing as "arguing." I'm simply laughing at his denial of the obvious and trying to understand why he isn't bothered by obvious lying.

And only one of those was used, without being asked and to minimize the event.

No, sir. Only one of us is wrong, and you've pretty definitively shown you agree it is not me. So why are you saying we are both wrong now?

I'm not framing anything. I'm pointing out Tucker Carlson lied. Quite demonstrably. Where have I been in error, please?

So you did watch the whole video then? I thought you said you only watched the first 3 seconds.

Lolololololol

No, I did not watch the whole Tucker Carlson video. I looked at your Twitter thread you posted above so I could look at the video without dealing with Tucker's nauseating lying. Don't think you could pay me to listen to more than a few seconds of Tucker Carlson.

Would you agree that there was a small % of folks that were looking at an insurrection and the majority caught in a bad situation? That does not excuse their behaviour

Also one of the most poorly organized insurrection in history

Nope, don't give a crap about scoring points. I'm literally just laughing at the potatoes, though I did honestly want to know if he was even slightly bothered at the lies.

The fact that he bent over backwards to try to excuse the lies answered my question.

Also if you think I need to even exert any effort to "score points" in this then I don't know what to tell you. This isn't exactly a fair game.

So, anyway, what was I wrong about again?

I would not presume to try to estimate the numbers that had bad intentions and the ones that were caught up in a strain that got out-of-hand, nor do I find that particular part very important.

There was an obvious, planned attack that day, and those people should have been dealt with harshly then and should be in prison now and for a long time.

This isn't controversial or even really disputed by the people who participated. The constant minimizing and excusing of it is nauseating.

"unarmed insurrection" is clearly a bad and dishonest way to phrase it, makes it sound like they were doing a hunger strike on the lawn

but in the grand scheme of things, that's a far more accurate description than the opposite - which would be "armed insurrection"

so unarmed is a much closer to the truth than the armed version of events

in which case, it's not something worth fighting over because it comes down to a matter of perspective - to some, the fact that they weren't firing their weapons and proceeded violently instead of sheepishly backing off and going home, they view it as an unarmed insurrection and frankly that perspective - while dishonest, does have merit

it could have gotten 100x worse and it didn't, i've publicly stated here that I think everyone involved, even logisitically and emotionally (providing busses, giving tours the day before, officials tweeting support) was ultimately attempted treason and should be prosecuted as such

however, it was a relatively bloodless event

only one died and it was one of the stormers and it was in fact so unexpectedly bloodless that there were a lot of dishonest linkage of people who died from things like heart attacks the following days as being tied into the attack

While I don't agree that it's more accurate (since it's demonstrably inaccurate and the other is accurate), this isn't even a relevant point since there was no reason to call it either one. He chose to lie there intentionally. That's the entire reason it's objectionable in fact.

And that makes the whole rest of your post nonsense.

Btw that's a whole lot of effort to just score some internet semantic points. What gives?

Carlson was far from being a factual « journalist/news anchor » or w.e u wanted to call him at fox .

Why would he be more factual in his blogs now makes no sense to me shrug .
More likely he would say even more bs …
It’s his own blog !

Ps: u like never lost any video worthwhile that I can remember, I even watch lately one of your on Twitter and it was potful .
Many bad article too.
I dint why we should expect anything better , especially from Carlson

the problem is you guys consider tucker carlson and rachel maddow journalists because they happen to have prominent airtime on news channels

they are hosts of opinion shows - they are as much a journalist as jimmy kimmel or oprah or dave chappelle are

i think once you guys stop treating non journalists as journalists these discussions gain more merit

This is exactly the point I'm making. I'm glad you finally agree with me. A few posts ago you said I was wrong?

Do you ever see us posting rachel meadows as a source ?

How many times I see foxnews idiots being used as sources ….

Yeah we know , thx for informing us .

Who did Brian posted as a source again ?
Ah yes tucker blog ….because you know it’s true !

I think the sensible idea is to use your own brain and assess the story for yourself. You guys are placing far too much importance on who delivers the story.

Think for yourself. A novel concept these days apparently.

When the entire story is the narrative told about a video that shows pretty much nothing, the teller of the narrative is critically important.

+1

maddow is a rhodes scholar that has a phd in politics.

carlson is a frozen food tycoon heir that failsoned his way through a bunch of posh boarding schools into a tv show.

only idiots would even lump them in the same sentence.

they both have the same job, neither are journalists

words have meanings, UNLESS it's Fauci saying two masks are better than one.

Why do you think those words didn't have meaning? He is correct and there are studies showing it.

Every Steamraise post is MSNBC and 1/2 are Rachel

so he didn't recommend it?

As we discussed extensively, he explicitly said "we are not recommending it." Words have meaning.

it's better, but we don't recommend it. le sigh.