Oath Keepers Pleading Guilty To Conspiracy For Obstruction Of Govt

Hello Darth,

Darth Omar said:
Ok lol.

There’s two definitions of insurrection: one is the dictionary definition and the other is the formal definition as defined by law.

I’ll be watching to see if you accuse lefties of insurrection next time they attack a federal courthouse. Just for the sake of consistency.
Click to expand...

We are not in a court of law, thus we are using the dictionary definition.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Darth,



Sorry I don't want to play the whataboutism game.

And you have really got to be kidding. Anyone who expects people on one side of the political spectrum to go after their own side is bound to be disappointed.

Even though I sometimes actually do just that, I do not do it because it was demanded as a whataboutism deflection.

You have been arguing this insurrection was not an insurrection, saying there was no planning, no organized effort.

Boom.

That's all gone now.

Just like so many of us told you.

And it is by no means all done.

More to come.
Click to expand...

Bring it on. I’ve changed my mind. I want this whole thing investigated top to bottom because it’s starting to stink.
 
Hey.

I looked up the legal definition of insurrection.

Guess what, Darth.

It applies.

"Insurrection

A rising or rebellion of citizens against their government, usually manifested by acts of violence.

Under federal law, it is a crime to incite, assist, or engage in such conduct against the United States."

Legal definition of Insurrection

Care to dig any deeper?
 
PoliTalker said:
Hey.

I looked up the legal definition of insurrection.

Guess what, Darth.

It applies.

"Insurrection

A rising or rebellion of citizens against their government, usually manifested by acts of violence.

Under federal law, it is a crime to incite, assist, or engage in such conduct against the United States."

Legal definition of Insurrection

Care to dig any deeper?
Click to expand...

Yes, I’d like to dig a lot deeper.

That’s not the wording found in the US Code but at least you’re getting the point. When we see charges of sedition [same thing] 1/6 will become an insurrection.

Then maybe we’ll find out to what extent federal agents were involved in it. What their roles were and if any were in leadership positions and involved in its planning.
 
Hello Darth,

Darth Omar said:
Yes, I’d like to dig a lot deeper.

That’s not the wording found in the US Code but at least you’re getting the point. When we see charges of sedition [same thing] 1/6 will become an insurrection.

Then maybe we’ll find out to what extent federal agents were involved in it. What their roles were and if any were in leadership positions and involved in its planning.
Click to expand...

You're outlier position is getting slimmer and slimmer.

Trying to claim that even though this meets the dictionary definition that it doesn't meet the legal definition. What a bunch of poopycock.

Then I post the legal definition and once again the goalposts move.

Give it up already.

It was an insurrection by definition.

Unless you would like to post the US Code definition and explain why this doesn't meet it, your argument is a lost cause.

And that is reinforced by the attempt to whataboutism it away and start talking about something else.

It was an insurrection. By definition, legal or otherwise.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Darth,



You're outlier position is getting slimmer and slimmer.

Trying to claim that even though this meets the dictionary definition that it doesn't meet the legal definition. What a bunch of poopycock.

Then I post the legal definition and once again the goalposts move.

Give it up already.

It was an insurrection by definition.

Unless you would like to post the US Code definition and explain why this doesn't meet it, your argument is a lost cause.

And that is reinforced by the attempt to whataboutism it away and start talking about something else.

It was an insurrection. By definition, legal or otherwise.
Click to expand...

I’m not a federal prosecutor so I can only give a lay opinion lol.

Which is as good as anyone else’s.
 
Hello Darth,

Darth Omar said:
I’m not a federal prosecutor so I can only give a lay opinion lol.

Which is as good as anyone else’s.
Click to expand...

Then all that hooey about the US Code was just a ruse?

Meaningless words.

You're not prepared to back it up?

Makes sense.

You picked a good time to give up.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Darth,



Then all that hooey about the US Code was just a ruse?

Meaningless words.

You're not prepared to back it up?

Makes sense.

You picked a good time to give up.
Click to expand...

It’s a battle of opinions until we get some indictments that pertain to sedition lol.

You angry that the head of the Oath Keepers is still walking around free?
 
Hello Darth,

Darth Omar said:
It’s a battle of opinions until we get some indictments that pertain to sedition lol.

You angry that the head of the Oath Keepers is still walking around free?
Click to expand...

If something political bothers me, I usually talk about it here. I have not really thought about the Oath Keepers too much. I do hope that if there is this leader and he has done something wrong, that justice will come for him. I am not angry about it.

I don't really get angry about politics, which is why I am able to discuss all these matters without losing my cool or going off on people. I certainly have noticed that most of the conservatives, and a goodly number of liberals do get quite angry about politics, which prevents them from being able to have civil discourse about it. It's like it bothers them so much they are unable to discuss a matter without making things personal, blaming 'the other side' and then unleashing all their pent up frustrations on the first person who voices support for the opposing way of thinking.

I am glad to have people like yourself here to be able to discuss opposing views without getting personal or angry at one another. I thank you for your mature temperance.

I carry these views into real life. When I am talking to people in person, I can engage in a political discussion with conservatives and keep my cool completely. Often the conservatives cannot, and so I routinely break off political conversations with them because of it. And I always think that's sad when people are unable to discuss the matters of great importance to our nation because they get too emotional about it.

I do enjoy a good in-person mutually respectful discussion of politics when it can be found, but because so many people can't keep their cool, that is rare.

I've got a lot of respect for professionals like David Brooks because they do this for a living, are very knowledgeable, and put themselves out there publicly. Can you imagine how it must be for them when a 'fan' meets them in public? Especially somebody with an attitude who cannot discuss these matters while remaining cool? You just know there are all these people who want to rip into them, and an individual like that might be encountered any time. It would have to be a regular repeated occurrence when simply going to the store, for instance. I wonder how they handle that. They probably end up walking away from people who are shouting at them a lot. Maybe they have some really slick way of toning things down in person. I don't know. Glad I don't.
 
Hello ThatOwlWoman,

ThatOwlWoman said:
But... but.... it was just some boisterous and happy tourists!

I wonder if other groups will come to light who planned ahead of time for violence.
Click to expand...

I would expect that the proud boys would have also had some planning for violence.

And the threepers, the boogaloos, etc.
 
Hello ThatOwlWoman,

ThatOwlWoman said:
:rofl2: You're really on a roll today.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

The idea that she was murdered is false by definition. A murder is a lawless killing. She was killed by an officer OF THE LAW, doing his or her duty to defend a public institution and a government body. Not murder at all. Had Ashli Babbit complied with the law she would not have attempted to break and enter into a restricted government building, and she would not have been shot in the act of breaking the law. All she had to do was simply be a law abiding citizen.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Darth,



If something political bothers me, I usually talk about it here. I have not really thought about the Oath Keepers too much. I do hope that if there is this leader and he has done something wrong, that justice will come for him. I am not angry about it.

I don't really get angry about politics, which is why I am able to discuss all these matters without losing my cool or going off on people. I certainly have noticed that most of the conservatives, and a goodly number of liberals do get quite angry about politics, which prevents them from being able to have civil discourse about it. It's like it bothers them so much they are unable to discuss a matter without making things personal, blaming 'the other side' and then unleashing all their pent up frustrations on the first person who voices support for the opposing way of thinking.

I am glad to have people like yourself here to be able to discuss opposing views without getting personal or angry at one another. I thank you for your mature temperance.

I carry these views into real life. When I am talking to people in person, I can engage in a political discussion with conservatives and keep my cool completely. Often the conservatives cannot, and so I routinely break off political conversations with them because of it. And I always think that's sad when people are unable to discuss the matters of great importance to our nation because they get too emotional about it.

I do enjoy a good in-person mutually respectful discussion of politics when it can be found, but because so many people can't keep their cool, that is rare.

I've got a lot of respect for professionals like David Brooks because they do this for a living, are very knowledgeable, and put themselves out there publicly. Can you imagine how it must be for them when a 'fan' meets them in public? Especially somebody with an attitude who cannot discuss these matters while remaining cool? You just know there are all these people who want to rip into them, and an individual like that might be encountered any time. It would have to be a regular repeated occurrence when simply going to the store, for instance. I wonder how they handle that. They probably end up walking away from people who are shouting at them a lot. Maybe they have some really slick way of toning things down in person. I don't know. Glad I don't.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The decision that the opposition is irredeemable, devoid of reason and hate filled monsters is a rational one Mr. Spock would have reached exactly as I have.
Continuing to deal with these vile subhuman fascist treasonous scum as if they were not so is irrational. I have no respect for any of them and will not behave as though I do.

Live long and prosper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top