• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Insurrection

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,460
Location
Florida
Hey has anyone seen the videos from inside the Capitol building siege? Specifically, the one where the woman from Arizona was shot?

Any thoughts?
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,054
Location
here nc
You mean...

CBS quote:
an ardent supporter of President Donald Trump and a follower and promoter of many well-known radical conservative activists as well as leaders of the QAnon conspiracy theory movement, according to her social media profiles.

...social media postings offered some insight into possible motivations.

Using the handle CommonAshSense, Babbitt’s Twitter account was almost singularly focused on radical conservative topics and conspiracy theories. Among other fringe beliefs, she tweeted about pizzagate, a viral disinformation campaign that falsely alleged a child abuse ring was being operated by Democrats from a Washington pizza restaurant.

The day before the rally, she tweeted, "Nothing will stop us....they can try and try and try but the storm is here and it is descending upon DC in less than 24 hours....dark to light!”

The Storm is a reference to a QAnon fantasy in which Trump will supposedly punish Democrats and Hollywood elite for their supposed misdeeds.

On forums and platforms like Parler, where followers fled after being banned on Twitter and Facebook, QAnon followers claimed Babbitt’s death was faked and had been engineered as a “false flag” by the so-called Deep State. Unquote?

this individual who supporters claim her death was faked?
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,460
Location
Florida
You mean...

CBS quote:
an ardent supporter of President Donald Trump and a follower and promoter of many well-known radical conservative activists as well as leaders of the QAnon conspiracy theory movement, according to her social media profiles.

...social media postings offered some insight into possible motivations.

Using the handle CommonAshSense, Babbitt’s Twitter account was almost singularly focused on radical conservative topics and conspiracy theories. Among other fringe beliefs, she tweeted about pizzagate, a viral disinformation campaign that falsely alleged a child abuse ring was being operated by Democrats from a Washington pizza restaurant.

The day before the rally, she tweeted, "Nothing will stop us....they can try and try and try but the storm is here and it is descending upon DC in less than 24 hours....dark to light!”

The Storm is a reference to a QAnon fantasy in which Trump will supposedly punish Democrats and Hollywood elite for their supposed misdeeds.

On forums and platforms like Parler, where followers fled after being banned on Twitter and Facebook, QAnon followers claimed Babbitt’s death was faked and had been engineered as a “false flag” by the so-called Deep State. Unquote?

this individual who supporters claim her death was faked?


You said a lot to say nothing at all.
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,460
Location
Florida
1607 - 1775 = 168
1777 - 1861 = 84
1861 - 2021 = 160

fled for religious liberty and founded the first colony in 1607

many things led up to the 1776 declaration of independence, but the fighting began when the second continental congress created an army to overtake Boston

(started at 1777 because that's when the Articles of Confederation were written)
southern states tried to rise up against the United States over slavery - history shows Senators being expelled for challenging the Electoral College, which many say indicates Lincoln did not fairly win the 1861 election. (some say he only got 40% of the vote and didn't have enough electoral votes to win but changes were made) Those expelled senators joined together to form the confederate states. They tried but failed.

if this math means anything, we are 8 years away from another physical fight for some sort of liberty.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,054
Location
here nc
You said a lot to say nothing at all.

alas hammer6, you apparently missed the inferences of my post as it was newspeek media who proffering the other side of the deceased "military vet" who died in the desecration of this nation's capital!
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,054
Location
here nc
1607 - 1775 = 168
1777 - 1861 = 84
1861 - 2021 = 160

fled for religious liberty and founded the first colony in 1607

many things led up to the 1776 declaration of independence, but the fighting began when the second continental congress created an army to overtake Boston

(started at 1777 because that's when the Articles of Confederation were written)
southern states tried to rise up against the United States over slavery - history shows Senators being expelled for challenging the Electoral College, which many say indicates Lincoln did not fairly win the 1861 election. (some say he only got 40% of the vote and didn't have enough electoral votes to win but changes were made) Those expelled senators joined together to form the confederate states. They tried but failed.

if this math means anything, we are 8 years away from another physical fight for some sort of liberty.

Hammer6, not sure of your point of the smattering of disconnected dates coupled with various and varying subject matter all without a cite for any reference.

truth be told, your commentary regarding the southern states raising up against slavery is completely incorrect as the initial succession was precipitated strictly over state rights and commerce trade injustices. Abraham Lincoln repeatedly stated his war was caused by taxes only, and not by slavery, at all.

"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861. https://www.al.com/opinion/2015/06/war-over-slavery_rhetoric_is_i.html


"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.

only after the second year of the conflict where public opinion waned did Lincoln push an anti-slavery agenda...which continued to falter in the judgement of public opinion - both north and south!

so hammer6, your post regarding "insurrection" where you lead off about a post regarding viewing a deceased individual who was trespassing on/inside federal property is relative to the cost of tea in china...how?
 

CJ4wd

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2017
Messages
304
Location
Planet Earth
If this math means anything, we are 8 years away from another physical fight for some sort of liberty.

Depending on the speed with which they move "Plugs" out of the way, do you really think the people will wait 8 years to put a stop to this insanity? :unsure: I suspect it will happen in less than 4 years, possibly in just over two years, depending on how the mid-terms go. ;)
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,460
Location
Florida
Depending on the speed with which they move "Plugs" out of the way, do you really think the people will wait 8 years to put a stop to this insanity? :unsure: I suspect it will happen in less than 4 years, possibly in just over two years, depending on how the mid-terms go. ;)

That's up to subjective interpretation.

As is my subjective opinion on the dates mentioned prior. It's just kinda coincidental that this freedom/liberty thing is coming up again with similarities you can find in the Declaration, and in the similarities you can find surrounding the 1861 POTUS election.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,054
Location
here nc
That's up to subjective interpretation.

As is my subjective opinion on the dates mentioned prior. It's just kinda coincidental that this freedom/liberty thing is coming up again with similarities you can find in the Declaration, and in the similarities you can find surrounding the 1861 POTUS election.

again as mentioned regarding your previous post here...without any type of a cite whatsoever.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,592
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Five states (Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Arizona) have Republican controlled legislatures. None of these state legislatures have convened to decertify the November 3 election results in their respective states. If they had done their job DJT would be president. And VP Pence knows it. The argument is VP Pence could only count the Electoral Votes before him. That is not the case.

Pence took the oath of office to support “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” (5 U.S.C. 3331)

Pence, in effect, cannot allow a fraud to be perpetrated. (See 18 U.S.C. 4 and 1001)

Pence had a duty to reject those Electoral Votes from those five states; send back a message to the legislatures of those five states for them to affirm the proper Electoral Votes as so selected by those state legislatures.
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,460
Location
Florida
...and local LE has a "duty" to serve and protect....except for that whole Warren v DC thing...cops will do as they will, they gotta feed their families too...



i thought "protect and serve" was something made up and the SCOTUS has said they have no duty to do that?
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,054
Location
here nc
i thought "protect and serve" was something made up and the SCOTUS has said they have no duty to do that?

false advertising pure and simple...


 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Hammer6, not sure of your point of the smattering of disconnected dates coupled with various and varying subject matter all without a cite for any reference.

truth be told, your commentary regarding the southern states raising up against slavery is completely incorrect as the initial succession was precipitated strictly over state rights and commerce trade injustices. Abraham Lincoln repeatedly stated his war was caused by taxes only, and not by slavery, at all.

"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861. https://www.al.com/opinion/2015/06/war-over-slavery_rhetoric_is_i.html


"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.

only after the second year of the conflict where public opinion waned did Lincoln push an anti-slavery agenda...which continued to falter in the judgement of public opinion - both north and south!

so hammer6, your post regarding "insurrection" where you lead off about a post regarding viewing a deceased individual who was trespassing on/inside federal property is relative to the cost of tea in china...how?
"truth be told, your commentary regarding the southern states raising up against slavery is completely incorrect as the initial succession was precipitated strictly over state rights and commerce trade injustices. Abraham Lincoln repeatedly stated his war was caused by taxes only, and not by slavery, at all."

Five of the Confederate States ( GEORGIA | MISSISSIPPI | SOUTH CAROLINA | TEXAS | VIRGINIA ) clearly state that slavery was a primary issue for them to secede from the Union. (https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#Georgia). For them, the North wasn't living up to its constitutional obligations to aid in the return of fugitive slaves.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,054
Location
here nc
2a4all, et al.,
Cite provided previously showing Lincoln succinctly stated numerous times, the war was caused by tariff taxes...

Per, http://civilwarcause.com/CWIntroduction.html
Quote:
The institution of slavery was not the cause of the war. The tariff, a tax on imported goods, was the sole cause of the war. Northern manufacturers, who had gained political control in northern states, wanted the government to lay heavy taxes on foreign commerce to "protect" their domestic business. The South, however, was dependent on foreign commerce for its prosperity and wanted low tariffs. Political and business leaders on both sides realized that further argument was useless, that the tariff rate depended on the balance of power in Congress between the northern and southern states. Unquote

further, per http://civilwarcause.com/evidence.html
quote:
There was an enormous amount of money at stake. The country could either have northern manufacturing prosperity under a protective tariff regime or it could have southern agricultural prosperity due to high export prices of cotton, tobacco and rice under a free-trade regime.

High tariffs devastated southern agricultural revenues. Tariff funds spent for internal improvements caused multiplied losses in southern income. Unquote.

finally, if interested, it was a black plantation owner Johnson, who went to the courts to get his negro slave back and the courts ruled the other plantation owner, Parker, had to return "the property" back to to the black plantation owner! 1655 Johnson v. Parker

the Republican president, Lincoln flatly states it is not about slavery, therefore, one must believe, since he initiated said conflict, that must be the truth of the matter and not the emotionalized perception in the future!
 

CJ4wd

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2017
Messages
304
Location
Planet Earth
IIRC, wasn't the "to protect and serve" meant "to protect and serve" the LAW ?? Especially after the Court ruled there is nothing about the police "protecting and serving" the PEOPLE ?
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
2a4all, et al.,
Cite provided previously showing Lincoln succinctly stated numerous times, the war was caused by tariff taxes...

Per, http://civilwarcause.com/CWIntroduction.html
Quote:
The institution of slavery was not the cause of the war. The tariff, a tax on imported goods, was the sole cause of the war. Northern manufacturers, who had gained political control in northern states, wanted the government to lay heavy taxes on foreign commerce to "protect" their domestic business. The South, however, was dependent on foreign commerce for its prosperity and wanted low tariffs. Political and business leaders on both sides realized that further argument was useless, that the tariff rate depended on the balance of power in Congress between the northern and southern states. Unquote

further, per http://civilwarcause.com/evidence.html
quote:
There was an enormous amount of money at stake. The country could either have northern manufacturing prosperity under a protective tariff regime or it could have southern agricultural prosperity due to high export prices of cotton, tobacco and rice under a free-trade regime.

High tariffs devastated southern agricultural revenues. Tariff funds spent for internal improvements caused multiplied losses in southern income. Unquote.

finally, if interested, it was a black plantation owner Johnson, who went to the courts to get his negro slave back and the courts ruled the other plantation owner, Parker, had to return "the property" back to to the black plantation owner! 1655 Johnson v. Parker

the Republican president, Lincoln flatly states it is not about slavery, therefore, one must believe, since he initiated said conflict, that must be the truth of the matter and not the emotionalized perception in the future!
Well, IIRC, the war didn't start before secession, it started afterward, and was a primary cause. Lincoln considered preservation of the union his primary responsibility, and declared he had no right to interfere with any state's standing on slavery (check his 1st inaugural address). The reasons for secession are laid out (by the seceding stats) in my earlier reference. You do realize that most academic scholars identify slavery as the central cause of the war. Just 'cuz Lincoln didn't say it was doesn't make it irrelevant. Slavery (as noted in the various states secession documents), made cotton very profitable because of the low (or free) labor cost.
 
Top