Jan 6 footage on Tucker

SilentMajority
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2022 9:10 am

Jan 6 footage on Tucker

Post by SilentMajority » Tue Mar 07, 2023 11:56 am

Anybody see the footage McCarthy had released to Tucker that has the Q-anon Shaman in it being escorted around the capital building? Looks like they were trying to open doors for him, including locked doors and escort him around for the cameras lol. He thanked them in a prayer in the main chamber, thanked them for letting everyone in lolololol.

What a psy-op......

To the democrats here, do you think Ray Epps should be charged with a crime? His released text messages to his family have him bragging that he "orchestrated it". Why won't the government charge him with a crime? Didn't he organize an "insurrection"????
boglerdude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1313
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:40 am
Contact:

Re: Jan 6 footage on Tucker

Post by boglerdude » Tue Mar 07, 2023 7:26 pm

No one's changing their mind. u mad? whatcha gon' do
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4052
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Jan 6 footage on Tucker

Post by Kriegsspiel » Tue Mar 07, 2023 7:34 pm

In one of those coincidences that seem to happen all the time when you read a lot, it's fitting that evidence that Jacob Chansley (among others) was unjustly imprisoned has been exposed now. I'm reading Tuchman's excellent The Proud Tower (A portrait of the world before the War: 1890-1914). So far it's been a real trip to read about the problems of that time, since they so closely parallel what we're dealing with right now.

I just got to chapter 4 a few days ago. It's the story of the Dreyfus Affair in France. In a nutshell, evidence indicated betrayal of military secrets to Geramny by an officer of the French Army. Captain Dreyfus was immediately presumed guilty due to weak circumstantial evidence, and being of the political outgroup (he was a Jew). The government withheld evidence showing that he could not have been guilty, and fabricated evidence to build a stronger case against him. He was found guilty and sentenced to Devil's Island. The case divided the country. Almost everyone nowadays is disgusted by how politicized companies and organizations have become, with Twitter being a popular example for both sides depending on whether you were looking at it pre or post Elon. In France during the Dreyfus Affair, they had the same thing. Dining clubs declared for one side or the other, theater was partisan, and eventually hair salons had to decide which way they leaned. Neighboring towns would be on one team or the other.

You really have to read Tuchman to get the full sense of how much the Dreyfus Affair rhymes with the January 6 trials. She does a good job of calmly impressing on you how banally evil the people were who framed up this innocent guy (he was eventually fully exonerated), how some people were probably genuinely fooled by the evil ones, and how the power of the state protected them even though they also knew it was wrong.

The writer Émile Zola published an essay (I Accuse) where he accused officials of "possessing positive proofs of the innocence of Dreyfus and suppressing them." He accused the War Ministry of conducting an "abominable campaign" in the press to mislead the public and conceal its own misdeeds. His goal was to be accused of libel in order to get to discovery of all the stuff he accused them of. He was attacked in the press, had packages of shit mailed to him, was burned in effigy, a mob broke the windows of his house and his workplace. At his trial, crowds waited outside to assault him and had to be held back by police. "With implied threat La Libre Parole published [the jurors] names and business addresses and letters from readers warning of vengeance if the "Italian" were acquitted."

The Germans even fucked with the French. They would periodically announce that Dreyfus was innocent in order to foment dissent within France. The Kaiser "was not reluctant to inform visitors and royal relatives that France had convicted an innocent man." and a Russian minister told a visiting French mission, "I can see only one thing that could cause great trouble in your country. It is this business of a captain condemned three years ago who is innocent." One may think of a current-day Russian, who said that the US is wrong to criticize crackdowns on anti-government protests overseas when the US government itself treats January 6th protesters unfairly, including holding some in solitary confinement (even Liz Warren said some defendants were being subjected to cruel treatment)..

What finally broke the case was when fresh eyes were ordered to re-examine the evidence (rhyming intensifies), whereupon the new officer discovered that the main piece of evidence was an unmistakable forgery.
Alerted by this find, the investigating officer looked further, was led down dark warrens of discrepancies and dutifully reporting his discoveries, laid ruin in the lap of the Minister of War.
Cavaignac, conqueror of the Affair, saw the whole of the case he had presented to the Chamber and the country shattered like glass. Its crux was a fraud; the statement on which he had won national acclaim was a fraud. For a man of principles, to hush up the discovery was impossible; he had to face the tragedy of being wrong. Not being of the Army made it easier. He ordered the arrest of [the guy who had forged the evidence]. . . That night, August 31 1898, [he] committed suicide with the razor they had left for him.
I'd definitely suggest reading at least this chapter in The Proud Tower. Especially reading it in March 2023 (it was written in the 1960s), you can't help but see the French bureaucrats who knowingly sentenced an innocent man in the January 6th Select Committee. The military courts who convicted Dreyfus repeatedly, while knowingly acquitting one of the officers who forged evidence against him, look a lot like the DOJ. Zola as Tucker Carlson, Tim Pool, or a number of other journalists who've had their homes attacked by mobs. The threatening of jurors by the press and mobs waiting outside the courtroom is reminiscent of the George Floyd and Kyle Rittenhouse trials. The re-examination of the evidence that proved the evidence against Dreyfus was a sham looks like it just found its modern equivalent in the release of the video footage from the Capitol to Tucker Carlson. And maybe as bizarre as is fitting for 2023, maybe even Captain Dreyfus as Q-anon Shaman.

Come 👏 At 👏 Me 👏 Bros 👏
You there, Ephialtes. May you live forever.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Jan 6 footage on Tucker

Post by vnatale » Tue Mar 07, 2023 7:51 pm

On the one hand I have no issues with how the January 6th criminals have been dealt with or the workings of the January 6th Select Committee I can fully see how justice is not always being served.

In the last hour or so I read the following in this book:

Capture.JPG
Capture.JPG (10.55 KiB) Viewed 33995 times


Oppenheimer’s friend Joseph Volpe later said the proceeding was “like a hearing on your wife after you’ve been married twenty years.” In his dozen years of government service Oppenheimer had been through four high-level reviews, among them the 1947 review in which Hoover and Strauss had agreed to clearance.3 This new proceeding was unlike any of the others in that it resembled a criminal trial, with the burden of proof on one side only: the defense. It was held in a dilapidated government building with only lawyers, witnesses, and a handful of officials present. The location was not announced, reporters were not permitted—indeed, they were not formally told that it was happening—and each witness was informed as he took the stand that the proceeding was “confidential,” meaning that he was not supposed to speak about it with anyone outside the hearing room and that government representatives would not do so either. On completion of the proceeding, the Gray board was to vote on whether Oppenheimer’s clearance should be restored, and it was understood that, either way, the verdict would be appealed. The defense decided at the outset that, should it lose, it would not appeal within the federal court system. Instead, the five commissioners would act as the court of final appeal. In an improvised, and egregious, intermediate step, once the Gray board rendered its decision, AEC general manager Kenneth Nichols, who had signed the original letter of charges, sent the commissioners his recommendations. The government made up rules as it went along, and the defense was not consulted about what the rules should be. Lloyd Garrison objected again and again that he did not know what type of proceeding it was—was it a trial, with the normal protections of the courtroom?—but in the fear-laden climate of the day, his objections were overruled, and Chairman Gray even reprimanded him for making them.

The whole affair was after the fact: Oppenheimer’s contract as an AEC consultant was to expire on June 30, and Strauss was free at any time before that to cancel the contract, which would automatically have precipitated revocation of his Q clearance. Instead, paradoxically, members of the Gray board and the AEC commissioners had to rush the writing of their opinions in order to get a verdict in before the contract was to lapse. With common sense turned on its head, it is impossible to escape the conclusion that Strauss’s determination to win at any cost was colored by an implacable desire for revenge.

The week before the hearing began, Gray, Morgan, and Evans were closeted with three thousand pages of documents—Borden’s letter, the denunciations by Pitzer, Teller, and Latimer, other items from Oppenheimer’s FBI file—compiled by the prosecution. Roger Robb, the outside prosecutor hired for the case, and his chief assistant, C. Arthur Rolander, were on hand to interpret, and with the board members taking meals together every day, Robb very often ate with them. Not only was the defense prevented from seeing the documents the board members were reading: it was not told what the documents were or what they contained. Silverman called the board’s prehearing immersion in files that the defense was not allowed to see “unheard of,” while Green later said that the board members emerged “brainwashed,” coming to the presentation of testimony steeped in the prosecution’s case and on friendly terms with the prosecutor himself. But when Garrison asked to meet with the board, he was brusquely refused. There was no discovery process and no rules of evidence. The defense, mistakenly assuming that the proceeding might bear some resemblance to a normal trial, furnished the prosecution with the names of its witnesses ahead of time, but when Garrison asked for a list of prosecution witnesses, Robb refused and was upheld by Gordon Gray. Meanwhile, knowing in advance who the defense witnesses were to be, Robb repeatedly embarrassed them with disclosures from their FBI files.

The biggest handicap of all for the defense was its lack of security clearance. Many of the documents entered in testimony had been confiscated from Oppenheimer’s files and some had even been written by Oppenheimer himself, but now they were classified and no one on the defense team was permitted to see them. Prior to the hearing, the AEC had offered to expedite a clearance for Garrison but refused to extend the offer to Silverman and Marks, and Garrison withdrew his request. (The truth, which the prosecution did not want to tell Garrison, was that they anticipated difficulty clearing Marks, a liberal who had been a close adviser to Acheson in the State Department.) As opening day approached, however, Garrison, anxious that Oppenheimer not be left unrepresented in the hearing room, renewed his request for clearance. Strauss refused outright, instructing Nichols to “make it perfectly clear to Garrison that we offered to do this last January and … we won’t give any special consideration to this and should not give him emergency clearance.” (Robb, of course, had been cleared in just a few days.) Several times Robb declassified a document on the spot, while questioning a witness, but refused to let the defense attorneys see it on grounds that they were not cleared. Barred by classification rules even from seeing Oppenheimer’s FBI file, the defense lawyers were unaware both of derogatory items they should try to answer and positive items that might help their client. It was like trying to defend someone while blindfolded and with one arm tied behind one’s back.4
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Jan 6 footage on Tucker

Post by vnatale » Tue Mar 07, 2023 9:36 pm



Do I take this and all Tucker has to say as condoning what the criminals did to the Capitol police who were trying to prevent them from coming in?

What world does he and these Twitter people live in?
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Jan 6 footage on Tucker

Post by vnatale » Wed Mar 08, 2023 8:04 am



https://www.wsj.com/articles/tucker-car ... s-ac07522f

Tucker Carlson Capitol-Riot Segment Criticized by Democrats, Republicans

Controversy comes amid the Fox News legal battle with Dominion Voting Systems
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: Jan 6 footage on Tucker

Post by Maddy » Wed Mar 08, 2023 12:54 pm

vnatale wrote:
Tue Mar 07, 2023 9:36 pm
Do I take this and all Tucker has to say as condoning what the criminals did to the Capitol police who were trying to prevent them from coming in?

What world does he and these Twitter people live in?
The only criminal in a case where exculpatory evidence is hidden is the prosecutor.
User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Jan 6 footage on Tucker

Post by I Shrugged » Wed Mar 08, 2023 7:11 pm

This is all political on both sides. They are distressed by the efforts by MCarthy and Carlson to mitigate the perceptions, because of all the police who were injured.

During all the “mostly peaceful” antifa riots, did the mainstream media spend much time on how many police were injured?

No doubt there was a lot of bad on January 6. But the coverage has been such a load of political propaganda. Not to mention the prosecutions. It wasn’t an insurrection. It was a fairly minor riot. Which is a lot different.
User avatar
Dieter
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 655
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 10:51 am

Re: Jan 6 footage on Tucker

Post by Dieter » Wed Mar 08, 2023 7:44 pm

Releasing footage just to a guy on the right sure does sound like weaponization of government
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Jan 6 footage on Tucker

Post by vnatale » Wed Mar 08, 2023 8:28 pm

I Shrugged wrote:
Wed Mar 08, 2023 7:11 pm

This is all political on both sides. They are distressed by the efforts by MCarthy and Carlson to mitigate the perceptions, because of all the police who were injured.

During all the “mostly peaceful” antifa riots, did the mainstream media spend much time on how many police were injured?

No doubt there was a lot of bad on January 6. But the coverage has been such a load of political propaganda. Not to mention the prosecutions. It wasn’t an insurrection. It was a fairly minor riot. Which is a lot different.


You may have had a different perception if you were one of the police or one of the Congress people inside the building.

How many gallows did antifa bring to their riots? What specific people were they after? Did they bring implements to tie anyone up?

They were demonstrating and many went overboard.

January 6th stands alone in the annals of our country's history.

It was a poorly planned, ineffective attempt at an insurrection. And, if that is the not the correct word to describe it, it was definitely an attempt to overturn the results of an election.

From my point of view it did not get anywhere the proper attention it deserved, which was a 911 commission type inquiry (in the least).
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
boglerdude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1313
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:40 am
Contact:

Re: Jan 6 footage on Tucker

Post by boglerdude » Thu Mar 09, 2023 2:55 am

My father's one of those who cannot accept anything until The Authorities (CNN and CDC) condone that narrative. He's in NY, I suppose in red states thats Fox for some.

Unrelated: https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comm ... ot_caught/

and FYI you can add banks to TreasuryDirect easily now https://www.doctorofcredit.com/u-s-trea ... -accounts/
User avatar
jalanlong
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:30 am

Re: Jan 6 footage on Tucker

Post by jalanlong » Thu Mar 09, 2023 10:42 am

boglerdude wrote:
Thu Mar 09, 2023 2:55 am

and FYI you can add banks to TreasuryDirect easily now https://www.doctorofcredit.com/u-s-trea ... -accounts/
Finally!! Thank you for the heads up!
User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Jan 6 footage on Tucker

Post by I Shrugged » Thu Mar 09, 2023 12:38 pm

Dieter wrote:
Wed Mar 08, 2023 7:44 pm
Releasing footage just to a guy on the right sure does sound like weaponization of government
This morning I watched a couple of the Tucker Carlson segments. He has a very compelling case. The biggest thing he has shown is that exculpatory evidence against the "QAnon Shaman" was withheld from him and his attorney. Carlson broadcast the evidence. This man was painted as the center of the insurrection, and is now sentenced to four years on prison. In reality, he has been judged by the government in the past as having mental issues, and is a meek person who wandered around inside the building, definitely escorted by police. There is footage of him raving at the crowd, but the whole wandering around with police escort stuff was withheld.

So who has committed weaponization of the government? Carlson? Or the DOJ which withheld exculpatory evidence? They are compelled to provide it. It doesn't have to be requested. They had it, they withheld it. Whether he took a plea or went to trial, I don't know, but it doesn't matter because they had to base their defense on what the government said.

So now I am much more sympathetic to this action by McCarthy and Carlson. Let's get it all out in the sunlight and see what has happened. You know if they released it to CNN it would allow them to do damage control and spin. This way, they have to react to the narrative instead of being able to create it. Let's go.
User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Jan 6 footage on Tucker

Post by I Shrugged » Thu Mar 09, 2023 12:46 pm

vnatale wrote:
Wed Mar 08, 2023 8:28 pm


January 6th stands alone in the annals of our country's history.
Balogna. :)

I have to credit Tucker Carlson's segments for reminding me of this.

In 1954 Puerto Rican separatists killed, yes killed, 5 members of the US Congress in the House.

As far as a riot type thing, in the George Floyd riots in 2020, BLM/Antifa attacked the White House. They burned vehicles, and they burned a famous old church across the street. Remember that? According to the feds, over 180 police were injured during this event. And, the DC police were ordered to stand by and watch. But 3 other agencies did put up resistance.

In Jan 6, they estimate 100 were injured. So there was a similar enough riot the year before. But, it was the darlings of the left wing, and their cause was just! While Jan 6 was Trump voters. I guess I don't care if anyone here thinks Jan 6 was the darkest day in America. But it is portrayed as that because of who it was, much more than what it was.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Jan 6 footage on Tucker

Post by vnatale » Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:02 pm

I Shrugged wrote:
Thu Mar 09, 2023 12:46 pm

vnatale wrote:
Wed Mar 08, 2023 8:28 pm



January 6th stands alone in the annals of our country's history.



Balogna. :)

I have to credit Tucker Carlson's segments for reminding me of this.

In 1954 Puerto Rican separatists killed, yes killed, 5 members of the US Congress in the House.

As far as a riot type thing, in the George Floyd riots in 2020, BLM/Antifa attacked the White House. They burned vehicles, and they burned a famous old church across the street. Remember that? According to the feds, over 180 police were injured during this event. And, the DC police were ordered to stand by and watch. But 3 other agencies did put up resistance.

In Jan 6, they estimate 100 were injured. So there was a similar enough riot the year before. But, it was the darlings of the left wing, while Jan 6 was Trump voters. I guess I don't care if anyone here thinks Jan 6 was the darkest day in America. But it is portrayed as that because of who it was, much more than what it was.


The history books will have the final verdict on this. I know which is going to be considered more historic. But I'd predict that your answer is going to be that does not matter because, somehow, all history books are written by liberals.

Finally this is what you wrote above: "In 1954 Puerto Rican separatists killed, yes killed, 5 members of the US Congress in the House."

Was that verbatim from Tucker Carlson? If so, I'm not surprised that he is completely wrong on that according to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Unit ... l_shooting

" Five Representatives were wounded, one seriously, but all recovered. "

Fits my Tucker Carlson impression that he is strictly out there to pander and to entertain and not to believe on anything that can be factually checked.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Jan 6 footage on Tucker

Post by I Shrugged » Thu Mar 09, 2023 6:09 pm

Vinny, you often seem to strongly to see the forest and not the trees, imo. When you encounter an erroneous statement, your whole focus goes there, to the detriment of a bigger picture.

So yes, apparently they were wounded, not killed. Does that really change the significance of the event that much? No, but it makes you discount the entire line of reasoning, and it satisfies your desire to avoid dissonance by being able to mark off the source, Carlson in this case, as bad.
User avatar
Tortoise
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:35 am

Re: Jan 6 footage on Tucker

Post by Tortoise » Fri Mar 10, 2023 2:49 am

For what it’s worth, Carlson correctly said the five US congressmen in 1954 were shot; he didn’t say killed.

Here is the timestamped video clip:

https://youtu.be/HPg9N_HiLMg?t=350s
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Jan 6 footage on Tucker

Post by vnatale » Fri Mar 10, 2023 8:03 am

I Shrugged wrote:
Thu Mar 09, 2023 6:09 pm

Vinny, you often seem to strongly to see the forest and not the trees, imo. When you encounter an erroneous statement, your whole focus goes there, to the detriment of a bigger picture.

So yes, apparently they were wounded, not killed. Does that really change the significance of the event that much? No, but it makes you discount the entire line of reasoning, and it satisfies your desire to avoid dissonance by being able to mark off the source, Carlson in this case, as bad.


I purposefully made an effort to memorize a statement by Bill James, The Father of modern baseball analysis.

"To be in command of the issues you must be in command of the details."

And, what you accuse of me is true --- except the opposite. I can miss forest (big picture) because I am so focused on the trees (details).

Back to the details of what you'd relayed. When details are incorrect it then casts doubt on the overall picture because, after all, isn't the overall picture just a mass of details?

Getting back to the details of comparing January 6th to that other event.

January 6th went on for how many hours? Four, Five, Six?

From reading this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Unit ... l_shooting

"When Lebrón's group reached the visitor's gallery above the House chamber, they sat while the representatives discussed the Mexican economy and issues of immigration. After Lebrón gave the order, the group quickly recited the Lord's Prayer. She stood up and shouted, "¡Viva Puerto Rico libre!" (approximately, "Long live a free Puerto Rico!") and unfurled the flag of Puerto Rico.[11] The group opened fire with semi-automatic pistols toward the Representatives below.[12]

Some 30 shots were fired (mostly by Cancel, according to his account), wounding five lawmakers.[13] Lebrón said she fired her shots at the ceiling, while Figueroa's pistol jammed. Wounded were Alvin Morell Bentley (R-Michigan), who took a bullet to the chest, Clifford Davis (D-Tennessee), hit in the leg, Ben F. Jensen (R-Iowa), shot in the back, as well as George Hyde Fallon (D-Maryland) and Kenneth A. Roberts (D-Alabama). House pages helped carry Bentley off the House floor.[14][15] The representatives were treated and recovered. Upon being arrested, Lebrón yelled, "I did not come to kill anyone, I came to die for Puerto Rico!"

The Nationalists were immediately arrested in Washington, D.C."

It reads like this was all over in less than 15 minutes?

This was a tiny group with a narrow, specific grievance.

The January 6th group was far, far, far larger with the intent of overthrowing an election and were after specific people - Pence, Pelosi, and others.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Jan 6 footage on Tucker

Post by vnatale » Fri Mar 10, 2023 12:18 pm

I Shrugged wrote:
Thu Mar 09, 2023 6:09 pm

Vinny, you often seem to strongly to see the forest and not the trees, imo. When you encounter an erroneous statement, your whole focus goes there, to the detriment of a bigger picture.

So yes, apparently they were wounded, not killed. Does that really change the significance of the event that much? No, but it makes you discount the entire line of reasoning, and it satisfies your desire to avoid dissonance by being able to mark off the source, Carlson in this case, as bad.


Two additional responses.

1) In anything - school shooting, vehicles accidents, war battle, example you cite - there is a major difference between 5 killed and 5 casualties.

2) If there were documentary movies made of both this 1954 incident and January 6th and 100, 200 years from now a high school or college class were assigned to watch both of them and note their similarities / dissimilarities on both a big picture and detail level ... I'm fully confident that there would be few of the former with the majority being the latter.

What happened in 1954 was an incident. What happened on January 6th was an event. Is that big picture enough?

How many adults who lived through the 1954 incident remember it? Is there any adult alive who will not remember January 6th?
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Jan 6 footage on Tucker

Post by Mountaineer » Fri Mar 10, 2023 12:57 pm

I Shrugged wrote:
Wed Mar 08, 2023 7:11 pm
This is all political on both sides. They are distressed by the efforts by MCarthy and Carlson to mitigate the perceptions, because of all the police who were injured.

During all the “mostly peaceful” antifa riots, did the mainstream media spend much time on how many police were injured?

No doubt there was a lot of bad on January 6. But the coverage has been such a load of political propaganda. Not to mention the prosecutions. It wasn’t an insurrection. It was a fairly minor riot. Which is a lot different.
From my perspective the antifa riots have a much higher ongoing impact on our communities than the January 6 riot. I’m thinking of major cities becoming increasingly unsafe, store looting without consequences, defund the police efforts, prosecutors who won’t enforce the laws, etc. Our society is disengaged, divided and disintegrated. From my perspective, I think as we have and are trying to remove Judeo/Christian teachings and ethics from our society at every turn and minimize the importance of a family headed by one man and one woman who are married it will only get worse. Love of self to the exclusion of caring about others is poisonous.
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Jan 6 footage on Tucker

Post by vnatale » Fri Mar 10, 2023 1:21 pm

Mountaineer wrote:
Fri Mar 10, 2023 12:57 pm

I Shrugged wrote:
Wed Mar 08, 2023 7:11 pm

This is all political on both sides. They are distressed by the efforts by MCarthy and Carlson to mitigate the perceptions, because of all the police who were injured.

During all the “mostly peaceful” antifa riots, did the mainstream media spend much time on how many police were injured?

No doubt there was a lot of bad on January 6. But the coverage has been such a load of political propaganda. Not to mention the prosecutions. It wasn’t an insurrection. It was a fairly minor riot. Which is a lot different.


From my perspective the antifa riots have a much higher ongoing impact on our communities than the January 6 riot. I’m thinking of major cities becoming increasingly unsafe, store looting without consequences, defund the police efforts, prosecutors who won’t enforce the laws, etc. Our society is disengaged, divided and disintegrated. From my perspective, I think as we have and are trying to remove Judeo/Christian teachings and ethics from our society at every turn and minimize the importance of a family headed by one man and one woman who are married it will only get worse. Love of self to the exclusion of caring about others is poisonous.


1) For those reading this how much of bolder above describes where you live? Not where I am but I am not in a major city (What is minimum population to qualify as a "major city"?).

2) Over the last three years have there been any documented exoduses from the "major cities"?
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Jan 6 footage on Tucker

Post by I Shrugged » Sat Mar 11, 2023 5:24 am

Turns out Carlson said shot. Somehow I heard killed. My mistake, not his.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Jan 6 footage on Tucker

Post by Xan » Mon Mar 13, 2023 9:15 pm

I had not heard of Naomi Wolf before this. She wrote a very interesting perspective on the newly-released footage from the perspective of the Left. Seems very fair to me. Vinny, I'd be interested in your opinion, as it doesn't rely on Carlson being trustworthy. Primarily the concern is that those against the release of the footage don't have truth as a rationale, but orthodoxy.

https://naomiwolf.substack.com/p/dear-c ... i-am-sorry
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Jan 6 footage on Tucker

Post by vnatale » Mon Mar 13, 2023 11:34 pm

Xan wrote:
Mon Mar 13, 2023 9:15 pm

I had not heard of Naomi Wolf before this. She wrote a very interesting perspective on the newly-released footage from the perspective of the Left. Seems very fair to me. Vinny, I'd be interested in your opinion, as it doesn't rely on Carlson being trustworthy. Primarily the concern is that those against the release of the footage don't have truth as a rationale, but orthodoxy.

https://naomiwolf.substack.com/p/dear-c ... i-am-sorry


I am somewhat familiar with her. I read at least one of her books long ago.

Here is something I found on her.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Wolf

"Conspiracy theories
In the January 2013 issue of The Atlantic, law and business professor Mark Nuckols wrote: "In her various books, articles, and public speeches, Wolf has demonstrated recurring disregard for the historical record and consistently mutilated the truth with selective and ultimately deceptive use of her sources." He further stated: "[W]hen she distorts facts to advance her political agenda, she dishonors the victims of history and poisons present-day public discourse about issues of vital importance to a free society." Nuckols argued that Wolf "has for many years now been claiming that a fascist coup in America is imminent… n The Guardian she alleged, with no substantiation, that the U.S. government and big American banks are conspiring to impose a 'totally integrated corporate-state repression of dissent'."[73]

Vox journalist Max Fisher in October 2014 urged Wolf's readers "to understand the distinction between her earlier work, which rose on its merits, and her newer conspiracy theories, which are unhinged, damaging, and dangerous."[10]

Charles C. W. Cooke, writing for National Review Online in the same month, commented, "Over the last eight years, Naomi Wolf has written hysterically about coups and about vaginas and about little else besides. She has repeatedly insisted that the country is on the verge of martial law, and transmogrified every threat—both pronounced and overhyped—into a government-led plot to establish a dictatorship. She has made prediction after prediction that has simply not come to pass. Hers are not sober and sensible forecasts of runaway human nature, institutional atrophy, and constitutional decline, but psychedelic fever-dreams that are more typically suited to the InfoWars crowd."[72]

Aaron Goldstein wrote in an October 2014 article in The American Spectator, "Her words must be taken not just with a grain of salt, but a full shaker's worth."[119] In the same month, Sarah Ditum wrote in the New Statesman, "Perhaps it's not that Wolf is a feminist who's degenerated into conspiracism, but instead that she's a conspiracy theorist who happened to fall into feminism first. The Beauty Myth is a conspiracy theory of a sort, and sometimes conspiracies are real: the self-replicating power structure of patriarchy is one of them."[120]"

From that I get that she is somewhat of an extremist in her views.

She fits in with whoever is a "Republican" or a "Democrat" who exhibit no independence aside from what one's chosen party's views are.

Now you may say I am being orthagonal.

But what else should she expect from either the Democrat or Republican party when we almost always see them voting in unanimity - one party all Yes's with the other party all No's.

Nothing that they say is fair to the other party.

One of the major reasons why most of my media exposure is C-Span is that it is totally down the middle to all they present. Callers from both sides constantly solicited.

She had to have ... I don't know .. to have believed this:

"I believed that Pres Trump instigated the riot at the Capitol — because I did not know that his admonition to his supporters to assemble “peacefully and patriotically” had been deleted from all of the news coverage that I read. [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -be-shield]"

I had repeatedly read and heard that Trump has said: “peacefully and patriotically”. Wasn't it several times stated during the 2nd Impeachment hearings?

Maybe she needs to look into the mirror and not blindly accept all that was presented to her and take in other points of view.

So when we come back to January 6th, did she expect the Democrats go about it in a "fair" way? Of course not. The same way that almost no Republicans treated either impeachment in a fair way in their votes.

She was the fool for believing anything that either party had to say without taking in counter information.

She's a fool for believing that either party is putting our interests ahead of their own.

Their general mode of operation is let's do what will most benefit the party and, if by the way, it also benefits the American people, good.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Post Reply