Renacci to primary Dewine

bob99

Well-known member
an act or instance of rising in arms or open rebellion against an established government or authority.
What are you missing? It was a rising of arms. Any thing that can be used with deadly force is considered a weapon.
Capitol Protesters Were Armed With Variety of Weapons ...https://www.factcheck.org › 2021/03 › capitol-protester...
Note: It says were ARMED with variety of Weapons.
Are you saying that the Capitol isn't part of an established government? That the Capitol has no lawful authority?
What you posted is the same things I have been posting.
It’s not my fault you are too arrogant and ignorant to read or act like an adult.
You have you no argument and you know it. I will not call you ignorant. Just misinformed.
 

y2h

Well-known member
I tried to help him. Didnt work.

I thought my citation of my fictitious books was quite funny, but it was apparently trumped by "But the dictionary says..."

Perhaps a better question for Bob is whether, as the loons presently in charge allege, the Jan 6 disgrace represented "the worst insurrection since the Civil War"? Does he see any slight exaggeration in there? Lol.

The answer would distinguish between an errant brief departure into a word definition obsession and a complete departure from reality and into Lefty Looneyville.
It was Pearl Harbor! 😂
 

y2h

Well-known member
Thanks for making my point. Your first definition: It has been established that parts of the insurrection was militia groups who planned their attack in advance. Their intent was to stop the government from doing their sworn duty. They named government officials by name and vocalized personal threats toward them. It has been established that weapons were used and bombs were confiscated. Weapons that are considered deadly makes it an ARMED insurrection. Violence? Just watch the film.

Your second definition. Violent action that is taken by a large group of people against the rulers of their country. Watch the film. Violence and a large group attacking the rulers of their country. Police officers, agents of the government. Government officials forced to leave their legal place of work to be locked down and guarded for their own protection. Usually in order to remove them from office. Usually speaks for itself. It may be the most common occurrence but not the only occurrence. It was an insurrection not an attempted coup.

Your third definition. Same as the above. Wrest control from authority. Storming the Capitol and stopping the government procedures that were in progress. Causing the removal of government officials from their workplace. A successful insurrection. I don't believe a coup was the idea. Most definitely a violent opposition to authority.

Your fourth definition. Simple and straight to the point. Armed? yes
ARMED "equipped with or carrying a weapon or weapons"
or open rebellion against an established government or authority? yes If the Capitol isn't part of an established government or authority, we have no government.
Thanks again. (y)
Milita groups....preplanned attack...no guns.

Certainly sounds plausible 😂
 

y2h

Well-known member
Oh please. You are struggling big time. What are you truly afraid of? Do you believe Trump incited the insurrection and should be held accountable? If not, why oppose an investigation? If he is innocent let him be exonerated. If you truly support the insurrectionists and feel they are your "freedom fighters," I applaud your honesty. I don't feel the insurrectionist represent the majority fo the right. They did a disservice to the peaceful attendees at the rally on Jan. 6th and the rest of the law abiding citizens. What truth have I misrepresented? I stated my opinions and I backed my opinions with what I felt explained them. I don't support militia looneys or BLM rioters. I don't see any redeeming qualities in any of them. Do you? What does the right have to hide? Isn't the right the party of law and order? They should have nothing to fear.
Other than propaganda. Trump was exonerated on Russia collusion and you are still here claiming "we dont know"

Trump was exonerated on clearing protesters for a photo op and the left still says he did it.

This "investigation" the left demands on Jan 6th would have nothing to do with finding facts and everything to do with propaganda blame assigning.
 

IVCguy

Well-known member
Oh please. You are struggling big time. What are you truly afraid of? Do you believe Trump incited the insurrection and should be held accountable? If not, why oppose an investigation? If he is innocent let him be exonerated. If you truly support the insurrectionists and feel they are your "freedom fighters," I applaud your honesty. I don't feel the insurrectionist represent the majority fo the right. They did a disservice to the peaceful attendees at the rally on Jan. 6th and the rest of the law abiding citizens. What truth have I misrepresented? I stated my opinions and I backed my opinions with what I felt explained them. I don't support militia looneys or BLM rioters. I don't see any redeeming qualities in any of them. Do you? What does the right have to hide? Isn't the right the party of law and order? They should have nothing to fear.
I'm out. You have jumped the shark.

Hard to converse when someone is willing to just make stuff up.
 

bob99

Well-known member
I'm out. You have jumped the shark.

Hard to converse when someone is willing to just make stuff up.
I don't mind that you are making stuff up. You can't answer my questions. I get it. Anyone who disagrees with you has to be making stuff up? You have been unable to show one thing that I haven't been able to back up. I have nothing to lie about. Why should I prefer one party over the other?
They both suck and are party before country. I want partisanship and honest representation. Not going to happen.
 
Last edited:

bob99

Well-known member
Other than propaganda. Trump was exonerated on Russia collusion and you are still here claiming "we dont know"
You have never been able to prove Trump was exonerated. Barr stopped all investigation. We don't know.
Trump was exonerated on clearing protesters for a photo op and the left still says he did it.
Fine by me. I was never concerned about it in the first place. I never supported the "protesters" that were there.
This "investigation" the left demands on Jan 6th would have nothing to do with finding facts and everything to do with propaganda blame assigning.
And you know this how? It could blow up in the left faces. We will never know at this rate.
 
Last edited:

bob99

Well-known member
who chairs the committee?
How can I answer that? A committee was never allowed to get off the ground. We will never know how it would have been handled. A 50/50 committee sounds fair and doable to me. Can you prove otherwise?
 

Hammerdrill

Well-known member
How can I answer that? A committee was never allowed to get off the ground. We will never know how it would have been handled. A 50/50 committee sounds fair and doable to me. Can you prove otherwise?
Hey Bob, they actually already investigated it when had the impeachment hearing. So I guess what you are telling us now is that they must have rendered their verdict without knowing all of the information? LOL!
 

y2h

Well-known member
How can I answer that? A committee was never allowed to get off the ground. We will never know how it would have been handled. A 50/50 committee sounds fair and doable to me. Can you prove otherwise?
Of course you can answer it. The Dems are in control, they are the ones demanding the show investigation, they would chair it.
 

bob99

Well-known member
Hey Bob, they actually already investigated it when had the impeachment hearing. So I guess what you are telling us now is that they must have rendered their verdict without knowing all of the information? LOL!
Gee Hammer how did that work out? A vote pretty much along party lines. What did that prove? What was the majority vote?
Senate Won't Hear From Witnesses In Trump Impeachment ...https://www.npr.org › sections › 2021/02/13 › agreement-...
Yes, very well investigated.
So I guess what you are telling us now is that they must have rendered their verdict without knowing all of the information? LOL!
If you know all the information, please share. If you believe the majority should rule then I guess you have a verdict🤷‍♂️
 

bob99

Well-known member
Of course you can answer it. The Dems are in control, they are the ones demanding the show investigation, they would chair it.
No I can't answer it and neither can you. A 50/50 committee made up of members of both parties. That is as far as it got. Anything else is pure speculation.
 

y2h

Well-known member
You have never been able to prove Trump was exonerated. Barr stopped all investigation. We don't know.

Fine by me. I was never concerned about it in the first place. I never supported the "protesters" that were there.

And you know this how? It could blow up in the left faces. We will never know at this rate.
Mueller finished his investigation with a finding of no criminal conspiracy i.e. collusion.

The point is the results of any investigation will be twisted by the media. They will claim Trump led an insurrection no matter what facts are brought out in Congress.

The impeachment farce already blew up in their face.
 

Hammerdrill

Well-known member
Gee Hammer how did that work out? A vote pretty much along party lines. What did that prove? What was the majority vote?
Senate Won't Hear From Witnesses In Trump Impeachment ...https://www.npr.org › sections › 2021/02/13 › agreement-...
Yes, very well investigated.

If you know all the information, please share. If you believe the majority should rule then I guess you have a verdict🤷‍♂️
Bob, they investigated or else they didn't and said they did, in order to vote. Kind of a bad look for the part incharge don't you think? And did a single Dem cross party lines? What are the odds of a group of people that large all coming to the exact same conclusion? Not high, I can tel you that. Shows that the Dems all just fall in line, just like sheep. Don't be a sheep Bob.
 

y2h

Well-known member
No I can't answer it and neither can you. A 50/50 committee made up of members of both parties. That is as far as it got. Anything else is pure speculation.
It's not pure speculation. It's common sense if you know how DC works.
 

bob99

Well-known member
Mueller finished his investigation with a finding of no criminal conspiracy i.e. collusion.

The point is the results of any investigation will be twisted by the media. They will claim Trump led an insurrection no matter what facts are brought out in Congress.

The impeachment farce already blew up in their face.
Mueller didn't investigate for collusion. He stated that isn't a legal term. He turned his investigation over to the AG where it was allowed to die.
You don't know what would be turned up in an unbiased investigation. Half of the committee would have been from the right. Are saying nobody on the right can be trusted? More conspiracy theory than substance at this point.
If the impeachment process blew up in the left faces, why couldn't happen again? Are you afraid they have an open and shut case? See bible photo op.
 

IVCguy

Well-known member
I don't mind that you are making stuff up. You can't answer my questions. I get it. Anyone who disagrees with you has to be making stuff up? You have been unable to show one thing that I haven't been able to back up. I have nothing to lie about. Why should I prefer one party over the other?
They both suck and are party before country. I want partisanship and honest representation. Not going to happen.
Last comment - because someone said to not entertain xxxxx by their xxxxx.

A consistent tactic of sophists is the shotgun approach = introduce too many fallacies, distortions, twisted conclusions, mischaracterizations, improper inferences, lies, strawmen, distractions, deflections, reversals, and so on. No one can keep track of them, let alone address every one. When someone does address one of the pellets and refutes it, then the sophist goes to denial and shoots off another shell - claiming nothing has been refuted, cannot be refuted, usually followed by a self-congratulatory spiking of the football.

I recognized this was what you were doing about 6-7 pages back. Surprising, because you usually dont stoop down there. Regardless, that conversation ain't going anywhere because people going there deny any refutation and have tried to rig the game to have 100 escape hatches when they are refuted. IOW, they are just talking. They are not listening or reasoning.
 

bob99

Well-known member
Bob, they investigated or else they didn't and said they did, in order to vote. Kind of a bad look for the part incharge don't you think? And did a single Dem cross party lines? What are the odds of a group of people that large all coming to the exact same conclusion? Not high, I can tel you that. Shows that the Dems all just fall in line, just like sheep. Don't be a sheep Bob.
The vote was tied to Senate rules. How is that a fair investigation? How can you ever get a fair impartial vote. Can you deny that both sides are party before country? Yes it is a bad look. For both parties. Yes the Dems are fall in line sheep. So are the vast majority of the right. The ones who didn't fall in line have been ostracized by their own party. Do you really feel an honest investigation can be done under these conditions?
 

y2h

Well-known member
Mueller didn't investigate for collusion. He stated that isn't a legal term. He turned his investigation over to the AG where it was allowed to die.
You don't know what would be turned up in an unbiased investigation. Half of the committee would have been from the right. Are saying nobody on the right can be trusted? More conspiracy theory than substance at this point.
If the impeachment process blew up in the left faces, why couldn't happen again? Are you afraid they have an open and shut case? See bible photo op.
Yeah...the legal term is criminal conspiracy...for which he found no evidence. He turned his findings over, the investigation was completed.

The chair has the power, its irrelevant how many Republicans would be there.
 

y2h

Well-known member
Last comment - because someone said to not entertain xxxxx by their xxxxx.

A consistent tactic of sophists is the shotgun approach = introduce too many fallacies, distortions, twisted conclusions, mischaracterizations, improper inferences, lies, strawmen, distractions, deflections, reversals, and so on. No one can keep track of them, let alone address every one. When someone does address one of the pellets and refutes it, then the sophist goes to denial and shoots off another shell - claiming nothing has been refuted, cannot be refuted, usually followed by a self-congratulatory spiking of the football.

I recognized this was what you were doing about 6-7 pages back. Surprising, because you usually dont stoop down there. Regardless, that conversation ain't going anywhere because people going there deny any refutation and have tried to rig the game to have 100 escape hatches when they are refuted. IOW, they are just talking. They are not listening or reasoning.
It's clear what Bob's schtick is...he likes arguing for the sake of arguing.
 

bob99

Well-known member
Last comment - because someone said to not entertain xxxxx by their xxxxx.

A consistent tactic of sophists is the shotgun approach = introduce too many fallacies, distortions, twisted conclusions, mischaracterizations, improper inferences, lies, strawmen, distractions, deflections, reversals, and so on. No one can keep track of them, let alone address every one. When someone does address one of the pellets and refutes it, then the sophist goes to denial and shoots off another shell - claiming nothing has been refuted, cannot be refuted, usually followed by a self-congratulatory spiking of the football.

I recognized this was what you were doing about 6-7 pages back. Surprising, because you usually dont stoop down there. Regardless, that conversation ain't going anywhere because people going there deny any refutation and have tried to rig the game to have 100 escape hatches when they are refuted. IOW, they are just talking. They are not listening or reasoning.
Oh my god IVC you have gone off the deep end. Using non political dictionaries and legal terminology to make my point is being dishonest? Find one thing I said that is a lie, a deflection or any other false narrative. I have consistently stuck with my opinions and have backed up my opinions by stating how and why I believe them. I have not taken one party over the other. Both sides can't be right. Let the more truthful party step forward. Or is a truthful party an impossibility in our todays society? I have asked to be proven wrong. It hasn't happened. Show where it has.
 

bob99

Well-known member
Yeah...the legal term is criminal conspiracy...for which he found no evidence. He turned his findings over, the investigation was completed.

The chair has the power, its irrelevant how many Republicans would be there.
No one was named the chair. A 50/50 split on a committee, who names the chair? If one side or the other is feeling they are being played, what is to stop them from walking away?
 

bob99

Well-known member
It's clear what Bob's schtick is...he likes arguing for the sake of arguing.
Arguing just to argue is a schtick. I honestly believe Jan 6th was an insurrection. BLM riots have been insurrections. I am willing to listen if you can show how these events do not fit the definition of an insurrection. The most serious charge you can make in these circumstances is the charge that should be used. Anything less just encourages more such behavior. Look at the summer riots as an example. One right after the other because nothing of appreciable substance was being done. Prosecute all of them to the fullest extent of the law. Send a message that everyone will understand.
 

I enjoy wrestling

Well-known member
Why is it when anybody has a different view point then you they are automatically labeled a Democrat or a Rino? Are you that insecure?
Nothing to do with insecurity. I think of it more as philosophical. Politics is tactical today. Barack Obama was a brilliant user of tactical politics. Saul Alinsky is the foundation of those tactics. Have even bothered to study a little about Alinsky?
 

bob99

Well-known member
I think of it more as philosophical. Politics is tactical today. Barack Obama was a brilliant user of tactical politics. Saul Alinsky is the foundation of those tactics. Have even bothered to study a little about Alinsky?
Agree about Obama. I honestly haven't studied Alinsky. I will look into it. Thanks for the recommendation.
 

I enjoy wrestling

Well-known member
It all starts with a lie.

First article

Update the lie


The Trump hating propagandists are in plain view. They were before 2016 and the still are in 2021. MSM is Democratic. Let's say that again. MSM is now controlled by a political party. No need for further discussion on that topic. FACT !
 

I enjoy wrestling

Well-known member
Arguing just to argue is a schtick. I honestly believe Jan 6th was an insurrection. BLM riots have been insurrections. I am willing to listen if you can show how these events do not fit the definition of an insurrection. The most serious charge you can make in these circumstances is the charge that should be used. Anything less just encourages more such behavior. Look at the summer riots as an example. One right after the other because nothing of appreciable substance was being done. Prosecute all of them to the fullest extent of the law. Send a message that everyone will understand.
Are you aware some individuals have been is solitary confinement since being arrested? That's a tactical move.
 

bob99

Well-known member
Are you aware some individuals have been is solitary confinement since being arrested? That's a tactical move.
Agree it is a tactical move. But do they have anybody to blame but themselves? I still believe making an example out of them is the proper response. Same with the BLM rioters. Trump should have been allowed to bring in federal troops from day one. The leftist mayors and governors dropped the ball big time.
 
.
Top