Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
Saul, you’re back
Actually, Reuters seems to have been "provided false information" by those four unnamed sources, perhaps even intentionally. Now the FBI has to investigate overtime! Note they neither commented on the article nor denied it!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
If you're referring to me, I never left. Been mostly tuning in, finding the same old--same old.
Are you supporting calling the Jan. 6 riot an insurrection . . . calling it a coordinated plot instigated by Trump . . . without proof? Those are serious charges on the slimmest evidence . . . if any at all. Is that a good thing to do? Is that "fair"?
At this point, for sure, it was some kind of riot. Call it by its proper name. Unless, of course, you need to politicize language for political ends. It "seems" or "perhaps" (like you so often resort to various conjectures--as in your above post as well) that you approve of calling it an insurrection.
My name is not Saul. Call me by my proper name. Oh, that's right . . . you need to embellish, label, lie in order to convince that your conjectures must be true.
Turley's article referred, ultimately, to a Confucian wisdom. Preferring lies and unproven labels to calling something by its proper name is not wise. It leads to folly and stupidity.