Oh, Oh, I know the answer to this one.
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
Show me where I wrote that Congress ordered it. Some of you need a remedial course in reading comprehension.
I simply wrote that certain members of Congress had the Pentagon feeling jumpy, and when poopondook insisted Congress has virtually no say in the actions of the Pentagon, I corrected and reminded him who holds the purse strings.
If you're going to argue something, argue that.
The Pentagon is run by snowflakes? Is that your point?
The simpler answer is the WH ordered the Pentagon to start shooting stuff down to bolster Biden's image.
Plus, these other objects may not be from China and so Biden and Milley might have been granted permission from the CCP to shoot them down.
Sure, that's what I did and that's what we were talking about. Nice. I'm glad others can read for themselves. Let us know when your island gets lonely.
"If you're going to argue something, argue that."
OK I got this one, Ricky Retardo. You said republicans in Congress had the Pentagon feeling jumpy, and @pooponduke responded that Congress had no control over what the Pentagon did with F-22's and air-to-air missiles...which happens to be true. Congress provides for a national defense and approves budget and budget items, but it doesn't control how the assets are used operationally, even if war is declared.
At that point you should have said 'I know they don't, I just mean they were agitating the Pentagon to act hastily'. But that isn't what you did. You wanted to be right so bad you forgot what little common sense you possess. What you did was say, in order to contradict your opponent, 'oh yeah? Well read the Constitution if you don't think Congress has any control' and you even linked to it...which in fact verified that Congress has no control over what the Pentagon does with F-22's and a-t-a missiles, just like pooponduke said.
Once the Pentagon has F-22's and a-t-a's in the arsenal, Congress is out of the F-22 and a-t-a controlling business. The Pentagon does have those things in its arsenal. That's a fact and you tried to contradict it by stupidly citing that Congress is called on to declare war. What an idiot. Instead of giving up, you just kept trying to dig a hole in the water, and you're still doing it.
If you had half a brain, you'd just STFU and walk away. But you won't, because you don't have half a brain..
It's good to see you are finally willing to acknowledge it. As for my lonely island, I'd rather be alone than sharing it with the three morons on yours.
Your words, Chuckles. Repub's are making the Pentagon jumpy causing F-22's and missiles to scramble all over the Arctic Circle?????? No where do you ever mention the President who actually makes this decision. Instead, you divert and want to argue about funding and influence on what will be next year's budget. If Joe had said for them for them to not engage, exactly what authority would your Repub's have held to have done anything about it? Just stop while you're behind.
That's correct, but more to the point nowhere did I suggest Congress made the decision. (Are you insinuating I think Ted Cruz instructed our military to take action?)
that's right moron, you suggested that Congress COULD HAVE made the decision. You suggested that Congress has that kind of control.
The game you're playing is so third-grade, and even at that you're botching it. Keep putting up contentions that no is contending just so you can argue against what no one is arguing. LMAO, you're a stooge.
ROFL.
"access was limited . . . . . and the public use of footage was coordinated in advance . . . . [due to] the potential security risks if this material were to be used irresponsibly."
What he doesn't say is that the "security" to which he refers is the one sided narrative the J6 commies sought to sell to the public and the revelations that the footage will contain if it is indeed allowed to become public. The truth of what the footage will show: good, bad, or indifferent, is far from irresponsible.
"access was limited . . . . . and the public use of footage was coordinated in advance . . . . [due to] the potential security risks if this material were to be used irresponsibly."
What he doesn't say is that the "security" to which he refers is the one sided narrative the J6 commies sought to sell to the public and the revelations that the footage will contain if it is indeed allowed to become public. The truth of what the footage will show: good, bad, or indifferent, is far from irresponsible.
Question for you. If the new footage shows people putting up a fresh coat of paint and bringing water to the police to help them cool off, does that make what happened any better? Does that offset all the craziness?
I fully understand and embrace your point. So, the answer would be "no" to your specific questions. But that's just the issue: what really happened? Was it really as "crazy" as has been sold to us? Was it an overall insurrection? Was it a very limited amount of assholes acting in this fashion and the vast majority of people just walking around checking things out? Were there other actors at work and involved in what took place? Did the police actually open doors and allow people to enter? You could continue with a hundred questions.
We just don't know and the J6 Committee's release of 30 second video clips hand selected for a certain narrative and impact doesn't answer any of those questions for us. Which is why my original post included the words "good, bad, or indifferent".
Tucker Carlson certainly isn't the one to be answering those questions. It's already been proven that he doesn't believe any of this and he's just doing it for ratings. If you think the committee was political, then Carlson is just as bad, if not worse. McCarthy has to know that, which makes me question his motives as well. If you think your going to learn something from this, then you should probably reevaluate.
I'm certainly not going to defend Carlson, or any media personality whose job it is to get ratings. But, I would appreciate seeing any links to the premise that proves Carlson doesn't believe any of this. The real concern here is that I would have thought you'd have been more open to this possibility. You are not . . . . well, we know who those posters are.
The issue with your suggestion of my "reevaluation" is that we are not in a vacuum. The J6 mini series had it's run with their "version" of events. We can't take it back and it's the only version out there (sadly, it appears that you fully believe it without any doubt and you are not even open to the potential that it was slanted to drive a set of goals). Tucker's "version" may be just as skewed from the other side of things. Time will tell. But, at least it will allow one to take in both sides and make their own judgments. As they say, there are always three versions and the truth is in the middle. The thing is, many of the possibilities of what happened that day can co-exist.
Just as an example of what was wrong with the J6 version, do we really believe that orangeman was being driven in the beast and he wrestled with a secret service driver trying to force the vehicle to the Capitol?
What if the videos show the Capitol Police allowing the peaceful protestors in? Does that make it any better?
Link below. There's also a link to the court filing within the article if you feel the article is lying. I've read on another article that there has also been sworn testimony as well. That hasn't been released, so you can take that with a grain of salt.
Let me also say that I haven't read anything or watched anything from the committee. My information comes from real time viewing of what was happening, which was a lot of people breaking in and destroying shit. Threatening people, not obeying police and being about as dumb as you can be. They don't represent the other peaceful protesters or any other Trump supporters.
Tucker Carlson called Trump a 'demonic force' in a text on January 6, filing reveals
As the Capitol riot unfolded, Tucker Carlson told his producer that Donald Trump is "a demonic force, a destroyer. But he's not going to destroy us."
www.businessinsider.com
No. I would still have no problem with the peaceful protesters. And I would only take issue with the cops if they allowed them to go somewhere they shouldn't be. Also, going somewhere they shouldn't be isn't being peaceful. That's breaking the law. The people you saw just walking through approved areas were fine.
Thanks for the link. I read it, the full article. There's just one (in my best trump voice) huuuuuuge problem.Link below. There's also a link to the court filing within the article if you feel the article is lying. I've read on another article that there has also been sworn testimony as well. That hasn't been released, so you can take that with a grain of salt.
Let me also say that I haven't read anything or watched anything from the committee. My information comes from real time viewing of what was happening, which was a lot of people breaking in and destroying shit. Threatening people, not obeying police and being about as dumb as you can be. They don't represent the other peaceful protesters or any other Trump supporters.
Tucker Carlson called Trump a 'demonic force' in a text on January 6, filing reveals
As the Capitol riot unfolded, Tucker Carlson told his producer that Donald Trump is "a demonic force, a destroyer. But he's not going to destroy us."
The article is all about Tucker's belief and treatment of the election fraud theories, guests regarding same, and the call of Arizona for Biden. It is not about Tucker's belief on and treatment of the actual events of 01/06 and the narrative pushed by the J6 Committee. (I realize that the rally and post rally events were the result of the "election results", but that doesn't address what did or did not happen at the Capitol).
I also find it difficult to believe that you "haven't read anything or watched anything from the committee" such that your entire opinion is derived from what you watched live on January 6th. Finally, since I am not aware of any live coverage whatsoever of Trump being in the beast that day or him fighting with his security, I'm going to assume your answer to my question would be "No" despite not saying so.
I should also add about your linked article, in a backhanded way, it actually gives Carlson more credibility and shows that he is not a zealot. He simply knows his audience and is marketing accordingly.
Alright, I think there is a misunderstanding between us. I was trying to say that Carlson couldn't be trusted because he obviously has an agenda when it comes to Trump related matters and what would help his ratings. But he also said on January 6th, "As the Capitol riot unfolded, Carlson texted his producer Alex Pfeiffer to say that Trump is "a demonic force, a destroyer." I think that shows that he wasn't a fan of what happened and that Trump played a role leading up to that day. Note that I said "leading up to that day," and not while it was actually happening in real time.
If you don't chose to believe me, then that's fine. There's no way I can prove a negative other than to say I didn't pay attention to the committee's work. I know there were a lot of people who testified that were close to Trump and a couple of people were held in contempt, which I'm assuming is because they didn't show up. So, I guess I paid attention enough to know that, but I don't know if they pleaded the fifth or actually answered questions. And I haven't read the committee's report. I don't know what you mean by being in the beast that day. That's not what I was referring to. I was talking about live coverage of the protesters/rioters or whatever you chose to call them, breaking into the capital and going to places they weren't allowed to be. I was flipping between Fox News and CNN, so if there was any bias on the coverage, you can say I got it from both sides.
There's a ton to unpack there and I just don't have time to do it justice at the moment, but fair enough, especially the misunderstanding. The part that I have acknowledged and will do so again is that Carlson, like everyone, has their own agenda of what he presents on his entertainment program versus his personal belief. That's where our own personal filters have to come into play when we consider a source.
On this particular topic, I think it's fair to assume that of all the video captured that day (it is now rumored to be a whopping 41,000 hours, not the previously thought 12 to 14,000), the J6 committee presented the absolute worst as it relates to Trump and his actions or inactions. Clearly, there were boneheads outside of and within the Capitol that day who need to be prosecuted and treated accordingly. However, even if Carlson shows video from the complete opposite viewpoint to appease his viewers, all that does is demonstrate that there were plenty of other people there doing basically nothing wrong and that the broad brush painting of "Trump supporters" all being insurrectionists is not accurate. How is that a bad thing unless one's agenda is just simply being entrenched against orangeman and his policies?
How do those who were let inside know what area is off limits and what isn't?
@pooponduke I think you are leading the pack here in being objective and listening to both sides.
Here are the couple things I hope the release and review of the tapes help substantiate - or get to the truth of, regardless of what that truth may show:
1) was the J6 protest / riot instigated or led in some part or large part by FBI or antifa members? There is already significant evidence showing this to be the case even before this additional footage was released
2) what did the prisoners from J6 do - that was so criminal - that it has disallowed them their right to due process, their right to a fair and speedy trial? Since it’s governed by DC (leftist) courts - these people have been horribly abused - left to be tortured and mistreated, left to rot in prison with no court date in sight.
End note: it is hilarious to me how people discredit Carlson as some right wing propagandist I assume on par with Keith olberman or about anyone you’d see on cnn - except the persons discrediting generally admit to never watching or reading his points in context. First and foremost TC is against the establishment- both parties - and in US and abroad - fighting for ever increasing power to fk over, and trample on US citizens’ individual constitutional rights. Maybe that is “right wing propaganda” idk. If so, still sign me up.
Why don't you try looking for footage other than what J6 committee released? There are live streams and things WAY longer than 30 seconds which show people being destructive, beating cops, breaking thru doors and windows.
There is a weird fear among several folks here that ALL trump supporters are being viewed as rioters. If you didn't storm the capitol, then you aren't a rioter.
Nobody has said all "Trump supporters" are insurrectionists, BUT if you support the people who were insurrectionists then what does that make you?
Edit to add:
I have relatives who were there. They didn't storm the capitol. They were simply duped into believing the election was fraudulent and wanted to carry signs that mixed trumpism and jesus. I don't consider them insurrectionists at all.
Last edited:
If you have to beat a cop with a flag-pole, throw objects at the cop, or spray him with pepper-spray to get around that cop, then you are heading somewhere off limits.
If you are entering a window you are going somewhere off limits.
If you are going around a barrier on the grounds you are going somewhere off limits.
Lol what evidence? Show us anything substantial that indicates this is true. Otherwise, you’re heading into conspiracy territory, which I’ve noticed you flirt with on several topics.
TC is a toxic grifter whose sole purpose is to profit from riling up his viewers. Anyone should take whatever he says about J6 with a massive grain of salt.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing and I'm not painting anyone with a broad brush. I specifically said I wasn't in my last post. My point was that Carlson is obviously not the guy to trust with this. If you want to watch the tapes for yourself and determine that it somehow makes what happened less of an issue, then you certainly have that right.
Did the Capitol Police make those rules known when they let them in? If not, it could be kind of confusing.
Maybe I'll watch Carlson's expose on it and inform myself. You? He's as trustworthy as anyone sitting on the Jan 6th committee.
The outcome of J6 affects my life absolutely 0% unlike the inflation inflicted on this nation by this administration.
I wasn't aware of Carlson's exposé so I did a little research. Is this the same thing as his three-part Patriot Purge series which aired in early November? I read where that series is now available on YouTube, but all I can locate there are opinion pieces and excerpts regarding the series.
Unlike those who refuse to watch anything from the other guy's perspective, I am eager to watch this so-called exposé. Any idea when and where I might catch it?
Some combination of the police telling them not to go there, signage and/or common sense. You're just being obtuse.
I don't think Carlson has released anything yet with regard to the rest of the J6 video as his producers just reportedly got access last week. So, you are wasting time looking for it at this point.
As to watching other stuff that he has done, like every other entity in the world, they have a paid streaming service that I am sure you can watch anything you want produced by Carlson's team. Here's the link:
Fox Nation: Start Your Free Trial | Shows, Documentaries, & Specials
Fox Nation is an entertainment streaming service brought to you by FOX News. Stream exclusive shows, documentaries, and news stories that celebrate America.
nation.foxnews.com
Similar threads
