Originally Posted by spence (Post 1213814)

I've been in two "riots" in my life and I can say when you have that many people milling about strange shyt happens. Was tear gassed both times :hihi:

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1213820)

I know Filene’s Basements annual bridal sale can get a bit ugly, Dem Bitches Be Crazy, but you’re really going to classify it as a riot.

The tear gas was probably just over spray from the lady at the perfume counter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1213789)

The plan was to interrupt the certification in congress and continue to push the state lawsuits to throw the election results into jeopardy. It never really had a chance of working but you can't say they didn't try like hell. The message to the insurrectionists was simple, stop the steal.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1213789)

The plan was to interrupt the certification in congress and continue to push the state lawsuits to throw the election results into jeopardy. It never really had a chance of working but you can't say they didn't try like hell. The message to the insurrectionists was simple, stop the steal.

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1213991)

"Interrupting" the certification in Congress is not an insurrection. It is not a revolt against an established government. The established government at the time was the Trump administration. The Biden administration was not yet established. There was no attempt to overthrow the Trump administration. No attempt or plan to overthrow the constitutional system of government, but, instead, somehow to preserve it from being "stolen." Nor were the rioters a single organized group with a coherent unitary plan on how to revolt against the established government. Nor were the vast majority of disparate rioters armed.

From Merriam Webster:
Insurrection--an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government . . . When is uprising a more appropriate choice than insurrection? The meanings of uprising and insurrection largely overlap; however, uprising implies a brief, limited, and often immediately ineffective rebellion . . . REVOLT and INSURRECTION imply an armed uprising that quickly fails or succeeds.

From Dictionary.com (British): the act or an instance of rebelling against a government in power or the civil authorities.

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1214002)

And seeing you put Armed in Bold your suggestion they weren’t?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1214006)

definitely....."armed" robbery typically refers to robbery with guns...no?

an "armed" suspect typically means a suspect with a gun....no?

an well "armed" militia...is not referring to clubs and knives

suggesting that this was an armed insurrection intended to overthrow the US government is a little ridiculous but keep up the good work

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1214007)

Well, at least you got it all wrong.

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1214006)

an "armed" suspect typically means a suspect with a gun....no?

Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1214010)

Wow did you seriously type and believe that, go rob a convenience store with your hunting knife and see what they charge you with, pretty sure you will be described as doing so armed with a dangerous weapon. Only someone desperately trying to make that narrative work would suggest many of these individuals were not armed if they were attempting bodily harm or death on those they beat on because they didn’t do it with a gun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1214002)

Seems your trying to use some linguistic gymnastics to cloud what American saw on TV Jan 6..

If using dictionary definitions is linguistic gymnastics, I guess that's what you do.

They were some how Trying to preserve it!

Definition of preserve (Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb
1 : to keep safe from injury, harm, or destruction : PROTECT
2a : to keep alive, intact, or free from decay

If you're trying to "stop the steal," it would seem that you're trying to keep something safe.

Via insurrection because they lost at the ballot box .. don’t be mistaken their actions had nothing to do with the love of American or the constitution.. it was for the love of Trump

They didn't believe they lost at the ballot box.
They believed that the ballot box was "harmed." That it was "injured."
That it was not "intact." That the election was stolen. That the Constitution suffered a basic "destruction."

it was for the love of Trump

Another mind reader. Why should we even be having these discussions. Just ask you. You have the power to just know things, even what people really think when they say otherwise.

Essential Meaning of insurrection
: a usually violent attempt to take control of a government
He led an armed insurrection [=rebellion, uprising] against the elected government.

Here's another one for you from Cambridge: "an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government or ruler and take control of the country"

The elected executive branch of the government at the time was the Trump administration. There was no attempt to overthrow that duly elected and incumbent government.

Nor was there any proven overall organization of the rioters. There may have been some inconsequential and unrealistic planning by a few groups within the mass of rioters, but there was no overall organization. It seemed to be an incoherent mess. There was no coherent, organized claim to defeat the government and control the country. It is inconceivable how that could have been achieved, especially without some overall plan including a massive force of guns, ammo, and personnel.

If they had breached the congressional chamber, what then? They were going to tell Congress to surrender and that they were going to run the country?


Even Webster sees rebellion and uprising has the same meaning

You're using that sloppy technique of misusing language in order to persuade for a political purpose. The two words do not have "the same" meaning. Synonymity is a similarity or close relationship, not an exact sameness. Webster distinguishes the difference. The same goes for your above equation "an armed insurrection [=rebellion, uprising]" They are not equal. They have their own shade of meanings and connotations.

It is propagandistic technique to make words fluid in meaning in order to use the more inflamatory word that sort of sounds about right.

And seeing you put Armed in Bold your suggestion they weren’t?

Webster Definition of armed (Entry 1 of 2)
1a : furnished with weapons

Definition of weapon (Entry 1 of 2)
1 : something (such as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1214018)

We don’t know the extent of arms present as so many arrests were made after the insurrection. Playing with some stats doesn’t change anything. We know that guns, a lot of pepper spray and blunt objects were there as well as police batons and shields that were used to attack officers.

Lots of verbal run around.

Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1214014)

Go back to that convenience store and this time knock the clerk unconscious damn near killing him with your hockey stick and again dangerous weapon will be part of the charges and the pour bastard will deal with ptsd for years.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1214018)

We don’t know the extent of arms present as so many arrests were made after the insurrection.

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1214020)

be honest...if you hear there was an armed robbery at convenience store on the corner....you assume they had a gun

Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1214022)

^^^^ .

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1214024)

a little honesty would be nice

Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1214025)

Sure, I honestly can’t believe you think a gun is the only dangerous weapon and thus these fu*kheads were not armed, unless you just never watched a minute of the films from that day, your reaching for a conclusion only the really far right are believing.

Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1214025)

Sure, I honestly can’t believe you think a gun is the only dangerous weapon and thus these fu*kheads were not armed, unless you just never watched a minute of the films from that day, your reaching for a conclusion only the really far right are believing.

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1213991)

"Interrupting" the certification in Congress is not an insurrection. It is not a revolt against an established government. The established government at the time was the Trump administration. The Biden administration was not yet established. There was no attempt to overthrow the Trump administration. No attempt or plan to overthrow the constitutional system of government, but, instead, somehow to preserve it from being "stolen." Nor were the rioters a single organized group with a coherent unitary plan on how to revolt against the established government. Nor were the vast majority of disparate rioters armed.

From Merriam Webster:
Insurrection--an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government . . . When is uprising a more appropriate choice than insurrection? The meanings of uprising and insurrection largely overlap; however, uprising implies a brief, limited, and often immediately ineffective rebellion . . . REVOLT and INSURRECTION imply an armed uprising that quickly fails or succeeds.

From Dictionary.com (British): the act or an instance of rebelling against a government in power or the civil authorities.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1214029)

You can play the semantic game all you want, there are federal laws people are charged with. It’s a matter of public record.

Actually, I've been responding to the semantic "game" that you and others play of labeling something as an insurrection for political effect.

The number of federal cases against individuals involved in the Capitol Hill Siege stands at 602. According to the latest analysis of the cases:

The average age of individuals was 39-years-old.
Individuals came from 44 states and the District of Columbia.
Cases have been brought against 523 men (87%) and 79 women (13%).
The largest numbers came from Florida (64), Texas (58), and Pennsylvania (53).
The majority (>85%) were charged in part using evidence from their personal social media accounts, others' accounts, or both
70 (12%) have military experience (65 Veterans, 2 National Guard, 2 Reserve, 1 Active Duty)

What lead these people to believe the election was stolen?

Lawsuits?

The "Kraken" lawsuits failed before every judge that heard their cases: Trump appointees, before Bush appointees (both), and Obama appointees alike.

Every single one rebuked them.

"This lawsuit represents a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process."

A federal judge in Michigan orders sanctions for Sidney Powell, Lin Wood and seven other pro-Trump lawyers for their election fraud lawsuit based on conspiracy theories.

So who and how did some group of people convince these largely middle aged, middle class Americans that the election was stolen?

Who were the proponents and funders of the stop the steal groups, how was this information disseminated?
What would someone gain from this movement and how would it work?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1214027)

He doesn't, his lot in life is to troll.

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1214031)

I don't "know" (a semantic possibility that those who play the semantic game of calling something an armed insurrection without proving that label yet "knowing" it is the correct one) if an actual, semantically correct "insurrection" took place.

And none of your above pieces of information even begins to illustrate that such a thing did take place. On the contrary, you referred to it as a "siege".

The semantic game changes from day to day.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1214036)

There’s no need to guess what the StopTheSteal crew intended to do. They did it. They breached the Capitol. They might even have posted to Facebook a video of themselves doing so: “We’re in! We’re in! Derrick Evans is in the Capitol!” The “strong anti-government views” of those who stormed the Capitol left the realm of merely words and became actual violence.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1214040)

Aha! Now it's seditious conspiracy. Will all 600+ be charged and convicted of this? Will the whole thing be an armed insurrection?

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1214041)

We will see, do you think the DOJ is just playing?

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1214051)

Just keep waiting and seeing, the same guy who refused to honor fallen American soldiers at Bois Belleau because of the rain actually commentated on a boxing match AND addressed the Moonies on 9/11 and you along with the rest of the Trumplicans still support him?
The same guy who without a lick of evidence has convinced the majority of his supporters that lost elections must be rigged
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1214034)

I call it friendly mocking of stupidity...you can call it what you want....free country and all of that...:laugha:

Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1214057)

Well your right about one thing we are mocking stupidity. Hey breaking news capital police arrested a man armed with a knife and machete ahead of Saturday’s rally, oh crap it wasn’t a gun so all the reporting is wrong, he wasn’t armed at all. You better call channel five and the rest of the networks and set them straight.

Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1214057)

Well your right about one thing we are mocking stupidity. Hey breaking news capital police arrested a man armed with a knife and machete ahead of Saturday’s rally, oh crap it wasn’t a gun so all the reporting is wrong, he wasn’t armed at all. You better call channel five and the rest of the networks and set them straight.

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1214059)

So he wasn't part of the Capital riot, insurrection, whatever you want to call it? Of the over 600 of those rioters arrested only one had a gun and only 23 others were armed with other things, bats, spray, flagpole, fire extinguisher, crow bar, riot shield.

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1214059)

So he wasn't part of the Capital riot, insurrection, whatever you want to call it? Of the over 600 of those rioters arrested only one had a gun and only 23 others were armed with other things, bats, spray, flagpole, fire extinguisher, crow bar, riot shield.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1214061)

Highly misleading. Most were arrested later so you can't say only one had a gun, actually there was more than one found on Capital grounds. of the 23 those are just charges, not who actually wielded weapons (i.e. arms) against the Capital police. Watch the videos, that is the truth.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1214073)

Does it strike anyone else as illuminating that President George W. Bush criticized “violent extremists” and Donald Trump took this to be an attack on himself?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1214077)

funny how smart leftists think Bush is now that he's not president anymore...when he was president he was an idiot and cheney was probably actually running the country....maybe they were misunderestimating him or something?