So much for the rule of law

Evidently I am not the one with comprehension difficulties.

I specifically remember you saying that none of them condemned it "AT ALL".....

You did not add any addendums, asterisk or qualifiers.

At all has a specific meaning...... In your context that you used it in it means they did not condemn it at all, ever in any way shape or form.

So please save your projection for somewhere else.

Much appreciated and much obliged. You may want to put some grease on the axles of those goal post wheels so they are easier to move next time.

And I am sure there are other articles that prove you wrong as well that was just the first one on the list.

So it is evident that you're one of those folks who cannot admit when you were incorrect.

I mean it might stick in your craw a little bit, but if you reach deep down inside and dig it up I'm sure you can admit it and own it.

 

At this point considering the double standards between how the people participating in 500+ riots and looting, etc episodes in 2020 were treated compared to the 1-6-21 people, we no longer care what you all think and will no longer be critical of 1-6 people. You can rail about what happened on 1-6 and howl at the moon over it. We no longer care.

 

I'll jump in. Would you say that someone who convinced a group of supporters to go picket and protest at say city hall, and one of those that showed up at the protest (who might or might not been part of the original convinced group) throws dynamite into the building and blows up city hall, that the principal is guilty of inciting and abetting the destruction of government property? If your answer is yes (as it seems to be) does it require accepting the false populace meme that the original complaint was based on a lie? I say false meme because there was considerable indications and evidence of massive voter fraud and manipulation in a number of states, more material than the three times since 2000 the Democrats protested the electoral college vote.

 

It there was evidence that the person did it alone, then the person who threw the dynamite, that individual, is responsible for the violence, not the group. Furthermore, I have always argued, that when it came to January 6th, my concern was the 1000 or so people who were involved with the violence, all of whom have been arrested, charged, and ongoing criminal proceedings with some awaiting trial, most have pled guilty, and have been sentenced. The remaining group, the ones that attended the rally away from the capital violence, is not my concern when it comes to violence.

We need to stop using guilty by association no matter what the group. The scenario you have did just that by implying a single individual makes the group guilty.

However, that has nothing to do with the question at hand. Is it condemning the violence when in the same breadth also justifies why the violence occurred and in greater length than the apology was given? Have you ever had a person truly apologize or condemn the action of a person? If you have, that person would condemn or apologize while offering no explanation or try to give an explanation.

 

No double standard. Some 18000 people have been arrested with most either pled guilty, awaiting trial, and sentenced, depending on the local jurisdiction. There have been some that their charges have been rescinded, but that is how our justice system works.

https://apnews.com/article/records-rebut-claims-jan-6-rioters-55adf4d46aff57b91af2fdd3345dace8

 

You are not comprehending anything. In fact, you are totally avoiding the question at hand, intentionally I might add.

So, let's put it this way. Would you call this scenario an act of condemning the violence? The person makes a brief statement condemning the violence but then goes on a 30-minute rant where the person justifies the actions of why the violence occurred. Is that truly condemnation or are you just looking for the words and not the intent by behind the words?

What I highlighted in bold is what I want you to answer based on the scenario provided? The intent is what I am getting at.

 

You said that none of them condemned it at all.

You said at all...

You don't get to weasel out of that.

Words have meaning and those meanings matter.