Sobering thoughts from someone who should know

[HisArpy]

Many of the mob have been found guilty of various crimes, so presumably you should find it easy to condemn their actions on that day.

Civil disobedience can only be justified if it serves a larger moral purpose. Overturning a legitimate election does not qualify.

I don't do condemnation of those found guilty and who are given sentences because upon completion they will have served their punishments and have been, under the law, rehabilitated.



So, you're the type who believes that YOUR civil disobedience is okay because it serves a "moral purpose," but the civil disobedience of others isn't okay merely because you don't ascribe to their "moral purpose"?

I hope you understand that makes you nothing more than a hypocrite.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

I don't do condemnation of those found guilty and who are given sentences because upon completion they will have served their punishments and have been, under the law, rehabilitated.



So, you're the type who believes that YOUR civil disobedience is okay because it serves a "moral purpose," but the civil disobedience of others isn't okay merely because you don't ascribe to their "moral purpose"?

I hope you understand that makes you nothing more than a hypocrite.

Unjust laws sometimes exist. There have been many examples in American history of protesters deliberately breaking such laws to shame society into changing them. That's why we celebrate the civil disobedience of Rosa Parks and Marlin Luther King, but condemn the actions of the January 6th mob.

 

[HisArpy]

Unjust laws sometimes exist. There have been many examples in American history of protesters deliberately breaking such laws to shame society into changing them. That's why we celebrate the civil disobedience of Rosa Parks and Marlin Luther King, but condemn the actions of the January 6th mob.

If the law is unjust, there are LEGAL ways to change it. Acting in an illegal manner is not one of those ways and I will never support such conduct. Not from you, not from others.

Basically, what you believe doesn't give you any cover morally or legally. It's just you trying to excuse your own bad behavior.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

If the law is unjust, there are LEGAL ways to change it. Acting in an illegal manner is not one of those ways and I will never support such conduct. Not from you, not from others.

Basically, what you believe doesn't give you any cover morally or legally. It's just you trying to excuse your own bad behavior.

Acting in an illegal manner and accepting the consequences is a valid tactic to shame society into action. By your rationale, Gandhi was wrong to practice civil disobedience against the Raj.

I'm curious how you square your philosophy of legalistic absolutism with the notion that gun owners are justified in taking up arms against a government they disagree with.

 

[HisArpy]

Acting in an illegal manner and accepting the consequences is a valid tactic to shame society into action. By your rationale, Gandhi was wrong to practice civil disobedience against the Raj.

I'm curious how you square your philosophy of legalistic absolutism with the notion that gun owners are justified in taking up arms against a government they disagree with.

Yes he was. There's a saying that 2 wrongs don't make a right. From a purely legal standpoint Ghandi is guilty of committing a second wrong and should not be praised for it. Nor should MLK or any of the civil rights protestors. Certainly not Antifa or BLM in the current iteration of protestors since not only are they violating the law, but they are acting in a violent manner while doing it. Note that this in contrast to the actual peaceful demonstrations by MLK and does not excuse either of them.


And if justification for taking up arms against the government is what you want then apparently you've never read the Declaration of Independence. in it you will find that the founders gave us a written roadmap on when it is not only acceptable, but our duty to throw off the yoke of despotism.

Thus, the law.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Yes he was. There's a saying that 2 wrongs don't make a right. From a purely legal standpoint Ghandi is guilty of committing a second wrong and should not be praised for it. Nor should MLK or any of the civil rights protestors. Certainly not Antifa or BLM in the current iteration of protestors since not only are they violating the law, but they are acting in a violent manner while doing it. Note that this in contrast to the actual peaceful demonstrations by MLK and does not excuse either of them.


And if justification for taking up arms against the government is what you want then apparently you've never read the Declaration of Independence. in it you will find that the founders gave us a written roadmap on when it is not only acceptable, but our duty to throw off the yoke of despotism.

Thus, the law.

The Declaration of Independence is a statement of moral principles. It is not the law. Insurrection is illegal in the United States.

 

[LLCox]

Admitting that you're a lazy assed SOB isn't a good look for anyone. Better luck in the future.

No one cares, son. And your only joy comes from flaming other posters. It's a sad look for you.

 

[jomar]

It can’t be helped. Democrats spent 4 years of accusing Trump of behavior the Dems were doing behind the scenes. Hillary Clinton conspired with the Russians to affect the presidential election and nothing, where was the outrage then.

I’m not going to sway your opinion but in the 70 years I’ve been on this planet I’ve never seen the level of corruption in our political and judicial systems like we have today. The Mueller investigation was predicated on lies and creative prosecutors like Andrew Weissmann. It destroyed Trump’s administration. You hate Trump I get it, but this is not about Trump it’s about equal application of the law and equal protection under the law.

I’ve got no problem with equal application and protection under the law. But it does amuse me that trump claims to be the law and order president while ignoring the law as it suits him.

The Muellor investigation absolutely did not destroy trump’s administration. trump has only himself to blame for that.

 

[icanhelp1]

I’ve got no problem with equal application and protection under the law. But it does amuse me that trump claims to be the law and order president while ignoring the law as it suits him.

The Muellor investigation absolutely did not destroy trump’s administration. trump has only himself to blame for that.

The Mueller investigation was predicated on lies. Crossfire hurricane was predicated on lies. Trump’s impeachment was a political hit job with no statutory relevance.

The Mueller investigation failed to investigate Clinton and the Steele dossier which was exculpatory in nature and would have turned the guns onto Hillary.

When the Russian conspiracy allegation was not chargeable it should’ve been dropped. Weissmann played the obstruction of justice bull shit card and sent it over to the house Dems for the purpose of initiating a sham impeachment proceeding. The phone call to Zelinsky was well within the purview of the executive branch of government. There was enough circumstantial evidence to initiate a probe of Burisma and Hunter Biden’s association with the company especially after Joe Biden forced the firing of Shokin. There is evidence that main stream media bastardized evidence that Shokin found corruption, which, in the long run, resulted in the resumption of a court order to seize Zlochevsky’s personal assets. Trump was spot on and democrats to take the heat of of Joe Biden and the Obama Administration proceeded with their sham impeachment.

 

[jomar]

The Mueller investigation was predicated on lies. Crossfire hurricane was predicated on lies. Trump’s impeachment was a political hit job with no statutory relevance.

The Mueller investigation failed to investigate Clinton and the Steele dossier which was exculpatory in nature and would have turned the guns onto Hillary.

When the Russian conspiracy allegation was not chargeable it should’ve been dropped. Weissmann played the obstruction of justice bull shit card and sent it over to the house Dems for the purpose of initiating a sham impeachment proceeding. The phone call to Zelinsky was well within the purview of the executive branch of government. There was enough circumstantial evidence to initiate a probe of Burisma and Hunter Biden’s association with the company especially after Joe Biden forced the firing of Shokin. There is evidence that main stream media bastardized evidence that Shokin found corruption, which, in the long run, resulted in the resumption of a court order to seize Zlochevsky’s personal assets. Trump was spot on and democrats to take the heat of of Joe Biden and the Obama Administration proceeded with their sham impeachment.

I accept that you believe trump can do no wrong and have bought the rights version of all that. But since we’ve been over all that in length before, I’ll pass on rehashing things and linking credible sources that accurately refute your claims.

 

[Rightguide]

I accept that you believe trump can do no wrong and have bought the rights version of all that. But since we’ve been over all that in length before, I’ll pass on rehashing things and linking credible sources that accurately refute your claims.

That isn't what he said you dumb shit.

 

[jomar]

That isn't what he said you dumb shit.

Stay in your lane boomer

 

[Rightguide]

Stay in your lane boomer

I'm Gen X, butt squeak.

 

[jomar]

I'm Gen X, butt squeak.

butt squeak. I actually laughed at that one

 

[Bray123]

Unfortunately for you, your version of history doesn't quite match up with the videotapes.

Which is fine because it only highlights that you see and hear what you want to see and hear instead of truth.

And your version of history matches up with Tucker Carlson.

You're a disgrace.