Read 18323 times

Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #420 on: January 13, 2021, 01:55:28 pm »
“Gobbledygook”.  I think that’s the name of Marty’s book which is just a collection of randomly thrown together stream of consciousness diatribes.
Yup. This is definitely all about genuine concern for the safety of America and not settling personal internet scores.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #421 on: January 13, 2021, 02:05:27 pm »
fwiw my (non-white) friends have been talking in our group chat about how everyone should just stay home when the crazy whites come to the city to do their protest
I mean, I knew white people who thought the same thing with BLM protests. I'd be just as equally worried, which basically means not at all unless I'm dumb enough to drive right into the middle of it.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #422 on: January 13, 2021, 02:15:45 pm »
I imagine it's more that they're the only ones willing to engage with you, American or not. As an American I wholeheartedly disagree with most things you've said here over the last few days here. And though I have started typing responses to you, I decided that it'd be a waste of my time, energy, and sanity.

So as an American, I'm content with them arguing with you.
I must not have been clear, Mr. DeMartino:
And though I have started typing responses to you, I decided that it'd be a waste of my time, energy, and sanity.

I just came here to make you aware that I exist. A person that disagrees with you and agrees with these potential 'non-Americans'. BUT, and again I say, because reading comprehension is godawful on this site: I decided that [arguing with you would] be a waste of my time, energy, and sanity.

Welp, since you called me out by name twice, you opened this can of worms so you don't get to call it off. If you didn't want to deal with me, should have stayed quiet and not mentioned it.

I just want to say that the post above is a perfect example of cognitive dissonance- Pertinent questions that 1) seeks to clarify whether the person's actions match their rhetoric (i.e. If you say hurricanes are coming, but you're renting a beachfront for the weekend, then don't expect people to take your view seriously) 2) Whether you have put this in any historical context regarding danger and threat and rather than addressing them, the person just shuts down because they understand that addressing them would make their point not as strong.

Those ARE important considerations for the topic. Your response to them has basically been to jam your fingers in your ears and declare yourself above it all...after you chose to come down into the muck.

You don't get to call someone out then declare that they should leave you alone and that you won't respond. That's what a coward does. If you're going to dish it out, be prepared to take it.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #423 on: January 13, 2021, 05:36:44 pm »
Welp, since you called me out by name twice, you opened this can of worms so you don't get to call it off. If you didn't want to deal with me, should have stayed quiet and not mentioned it.

I just want to say that the post above is a perfect example of cognitive dissonance- Pertinent questions that 1) seeks to clarify whether the person's actions match their rhetoric (i.e. If you say hurricanes are coming, but you're renting a beachfront for the weekend, then don't expect people to take your view seriously) 2) Whether you have put this in any historical context regarding danger and threat and rather than addressing them, the person just shuts down because they understand that addressing them would make their point not as strong.

Those ARE important considerations for the topic. Your response to them has basically been to jam your fingers in your ears and declare yourself above it all...after you chose to come down into the muck.

You don't get to call someone out then declare that they should leave you alone and that you won't respond. That's what a coward does. If you're going to dish it out, be prepared to take it.

Some people would rent a beachfront property when a storm is coming though; meteorologists, storm chasers, surfers, trumpers if the storm is from msm....


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #424 on: January 13, 2021, 06:00:01 pm »
Some people would rent a beachfront property when a storm is coming though; meteorologists, storm chasers, surfers, trumpers if the storm is from msm....
Dude we're talking normal people, not specialists. Are you the equivalent of one of those? Remember, YOU are the one calling this some sort of serious insurrection/coup attempt. Are you behaving like it really was? No. You're behaving like someone who claims an INSANE hurricane is coming when really you're getting a strong storm that isn't even a tropical depression, all while planning to chill at your beachfront property. Like, have your actions match your words.

That's the tell for why this "INSURRECTION!!!!!" stuff is full of crap- You aren't acting like you should be in a real insurrection and serious threat. You are acting like what the event was- A minor kerfluffle that is great fodder for political debates and scoring points.

As I said, mockery was the better approach. Instead you went with dialing it up to 11 and you overplayed your hand.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #425 on: January 13, 2021, 06:20:50 pm »
This is the point where most conservatives will finally admit that they can't defend this seditious, violent bullshit anymore and just walk away.

This is also the point where soulless, ghoulish morons double down on being wrong because they can't admit defeat.

https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tally-live-updates/2021/01/12/956170188/joint-chiefs-remind-u-s-forces-that-they-defend-the-constitution

Quote
The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff reminded American forces Tuesday of their oath to defend the Constitution following the attacks on the Capitol building last week.

The letter was addressed to the joint force, which is made up of about 1.3 million active-duty service members and more than 811,000 National Guardsmen and reservists — all of whom swore an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

"The violent riot in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021 was a direct assault on the U.S. Congress, the Capitol building, and our Constitutional process," the memorandum said. "We witnessed actions inside the Capitol building that were inconsistent with the rule of law. The rights of freedom of speech and assembly do not give anyone the right to resort to violence, sedition and insurrection."
Quote
Quote from: Mr.DeMartino on Yesterday at 01:40:32
    Trump is a liar and a con man.
Quote
Quote from Mr.DeMartino on June 14, 2019 at 02:28:07
Donald Trump is a lying sack of shit


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #426 on: January 13, 2021, 06:53:20 pm »
Yes, the proportionate response to what happened is to declare it sedition and insurrection. Lets follow it up with some drone strikes and mass hangings.

The scumbags who beat the cop deserve felony murder charges. The people who brought guns into it with the intent to go after the cops deserve stiff felony charges. The people taking selfies and vandalizing? Charge them with unlawful assembly, criminal trespass, vandalism and larceny.

But is this truly about safeguarding the Republic or vengeance?
« Last Edit: January 13, 2021, 06:59:51 pm by Mr.DeMartino »


  • Savant
  • The Legend

    • 2541

    • April 07, 2012, 11:35:31 pm
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #427 on: January 13, 2021, 07:05:23 pm »
Yes, the proportionate response to what happened is to declare it sedition and insurrection. Lets follow it up with some drone strikes and mass hangings.

The scumbags who beat the cop deserve felony murder charges. The people who brought guns into it with the intent to go after the cops deserve stiff felony charges. The people taking selfies and vandalizing? Charge them with unlawful assembly, criminal trespass, vandalism and larceny.

But is this truly about safeguarding the Republic or vengeance?

You tell us since you present yourself  to be more knowledgeable and experienced than the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #428 on: January 13, 2021, 07:13:44 pm »
You tell us since you present yourself  to be more knowledgeable and experienced than the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff.
You're right. The Joint Chiefs are infallible and their views on political and legal questions must be regarded as such by anyone not in a position of federal political power.


  • Mr C
  • The Legend

    • 2360

    • October 17, 2012, 03:00:40 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #429 on: January 13, 2021, 08:23:02 pm »
You're right. The Joint Chiefs are infallible and their views on political and legal questions must be regarded as such by anyone not in a position of federal political power.

Sadly, you can't even begin to realize how pathetic and ridiculous you sound here.  You're arguing against the Joint Chiefs, who never, ever get involved in this kind of thing.  The reason they are is because, read carefully, this was an armed insurrection against the United States.

No one, NO ONE gives a flying f*** about anything you have to say. 

Just a head's up, my old sparring partner. 
Mr. C is not a bad person, in fact is quite a good person here. One of the best people on this forum if you really look at it
-Mr.DeMartino


  • gogators!
  • The Legend

    • 4423

    • March 16, 2016, 04:35:48 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #430 on: January 14, 2021, 12:38:11 am »
Question- As an American, in response to this, what actions or preparations have you and your family taken and is this widespread?

Also, how would you compare all of this to the Vietnam era in terms of tension and genuine chance of upheaval?
During the 60s and early 70s, no one was afraid of peaceful protests against the Vietnam War.  That's a complete red herring.

People were concerned about the potential for civil rights riots to become violent and of people like H Rap Brown.

I, like most people in the US, protect myself by not bringing up politics because the potential for a trumpist to become violent in response is real.  In DC before trump's insurrection,  many businesses in the vicinity had closed and boarded up their windows and residents were steering far clear of the area.

You don't know what you're talking about.


  • gogators!
  • The Legend

    • 4423

    • March 16, 2016, 04:35:48 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #431 on: January 14, 2021, 12:40:27 am »
You do realize that if you turned off the news and its steady diet of fear porn, that is deliberately designed to addict you to its content by appealing to certain emotional sectors of your brain you wouldn't be nearly as concerned, right?

You also realize that for every parallel, there are like 10 reasons it is NOT the same right? Are you looking at the reasons its not or just focusing on one end like a stupid person? You aren't stupid, right?

At least 67% of America doesn't think we're in 1930s Germany. Heck many on the left think that's overblown. Calm the F down.
Give us your 10 red herrings. OK,  three can be false analogies.


  • gogators!
  • The Legend

    • 4423

    • March 16, 2016, 04:35:48 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #432 on: January 14, 2021, 12:42:39 am »
That's what a coward does. 
You should know. You spend a great deal of effort supporting one.


  • waygo0k
  • The Legend

    • 4355

    • September 27, 2011, 11:51:01 am
    • Chungnam
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #433 on: January 14, 2021, 01:30:45 am »
Panic buttons were inexplicably torn out ahead of Capitol riots, says Ayanna Pressley chief of staff

Panic buttons installed in Ayanna Pressley’s congressional office were torn out before rioters stormed the Capitol last week, her staff have said. 

Sarah Groh, who serves as Ms Pressley’s chief of staff, was with the congresswoman when president Donald Trump’s supporters stormed the US Capitol building last Wednesday.

...

According to CNN, two US Capitol Police officers have since been suspended and at least 10 more are under investigation for playing potential roles in the riot.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/capitol-riots-ayanna-pressley-panic-buttons-b1786678.html

But it was just a 'random' mob that happened to get a little over excited...yeah?



Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #434 on: January 14, 2021, 02:09:24 am »
Sadly, you can't even begin to realize how pathetic and ridiculous you sound here.  You're arguing against the Joint Chiefs, who never, ever get involved in this kind of thing.  The reason they are is because, read carefully, this was an armed insurrection against the United States.

No one, NO ONE gives a flying f*** about anything you have to say. 

Just a head's up, my old sparring partner. 
Again, you're overplaying your hand. Thinking like this is how we flew off the handle post 9/11 and invaded Iraq.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #435 on: January 14, 2021, 02:16:37 am »
During the 60s and early 70s, no one was afraid of peaceful protests against the Vietnam War.  That's a complete red herring.
Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about. You had f*cking riots outside the Democratic National Convention in 1968. You had Kent State. You had mass protests after Nixon bombed Cambodia. Campuses across America were shut down due to a general student strike in 1970. You had people setting themselves on fire. You had mass civil disturbances that dwarf the BLM protests in scale.

This is a fart in the wind compared to that.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #436 on: January 14, 2021, 02:21:55 am »
I, like most people in the US, protect myself by not bringing up politics because the potential for a trumpist to become violent in response is real.  In DC before trump's insurrection,  many businesses in the vicinity had closed and boarded up their windows and residents were steering far clear of the area.

You don't know what you're talking about.
Yeah, if there's a real socially unpopular opinion, its being opposed to Donald Trump. Never seen that.

And how many businesses were destroyed during his insurrection?


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #437 on: January 14, 2021, 05:02:05 am »
Guys just stop responding to him, it's what he feeds off of because he is a contrarian troll addicted to defending the indefensible. Just ignore him, don't engage with him. Just stay on topic and continue to discuss details about the fact that his side committed sedition and insurrection tried to assassinate members of Congress and the VP and killed a cop.
Quote
Quote from: Mr.DeMartino on Yesterday at 01:40:32
    Trump is a liar and a con man.
Quote
Quote from Mr.DeMartino on June 14, 2019 at 02:28:07
Donald Trump is a lying sack of shit


  • Mr C
  • The Legend

    • 2360

    • October 17, 2012, 03:00:40 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #438 on: January 14, 2021, 07:42:29 am »
Hey, look!  Waygook's turdburglar-in-residence thinks it was the protesters at Kent State who were violent.
Mr. C is not a bad person, in fact is quite a good person here. One of the best people on this forum if you really look at it
-Mr.DeMartino


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #439 on: January 14, 2021, 07:49:18 am »
Yeah, if there's a real socially unpopular opinion, its being opposed to Donald Trump. Never seen that.

And how many businesses were destroyed during his insurrection?

And how many cops were killed during BLM protests vs Trumpers "peaceful protests"??????