Legitimate Political Discourse?

[Moksha]

Whatever you call it, that’s what I call it.

See? Common ground.

Okay, I see them all as acts of criminal hooliganism. The insurrection is particularly worrisome since it was designed to end our American democracy. I hope Merrick Garland can wind up his courage and determination sufficiently to prosecute those who sought to end America as we know it.

[Binger]

Whatever you call it, that’s what I call it.

See? Common ground.

Okay, I see them all as acts of criminal hooliganism. The insurrection is particularly worrisome since it was designed to end our American democracy. I hope Merrick Garland can wind up his courage and determination sufficiently to prosecute those who sought to end America as we know it.

So, both acts were hooliganism. But you like what one group did and had no interest in seeing it prosecuted, and you dislike what one group did and you want the AG to prosecute them.

A deal is a deal, if you call it hooliganism, then it is hooliganism. But prosecuting only one act of hooliganism was not part of the deal.

Hey Mokshy, good job on the drama. That was great.

[Chap]

prosecuting only one act of hooliganism was not part of the deal.

Where did Moksha (and we are talking about what he posted, right?) say he was only in favour of prosecuting one act of hooliganism and not the other?

[canpakes]

Binger, try holding off on accusing the black community of being hooked on crack at least long enough to answer the question:

Does screaming for two months about an ‘illegitimate election’ against all evidence - then smashing your way into the Capitol building because no one took your faux victimhood seriously - constitute ‘legitimate political discourse’?

panny, have you ever considered having an intelligent conversation?

You can’t answer the question, apparently.

[K Graham]

Again, pretending to be serious when any child can see your question is downright stupid and insulting. But yeah, you're the victim here.

Just like Tucker Carlson, "I'm only asking questions!"

No. I am not a victim here. Not at all. You are trying to make this about me, but that did not work. You clearly do not understand what victimization means.

You said you were a victim of insult. You made it about you.

So, you agree that Moksha wants the AG to prosecute some hooligans, but not all hooligans. Mokshy wants the hooligans he dislikes to be prosecuted, but other hooligans to not be prosecuted. Correct? We agree on that, whether I am a victim or not, we agree on that?

See, there you go again. Suggesting someone answered your dumb question the way you wanted even though they've ignored it. It is a dumb question because it suggests Mokshy believes people should be prosecuted only if he "dislikes" them. That's not what he said, it is what you're suggesting he said. That makes it disingenuous.

[Chap]

So, you agree that Moksha wants the AG to prosecute some hooligans, but not all hooligans

What evidence do you have that Moksha wants serious criminal acts by one lot of hooligans to be treated differently from serious criminal acts by another lot of hooligans?

Please cite some statement by him that show that to be his view.

[Moksha]

So, both acts were hooliganism. But you like what one group did and had no interest in seeing it prosecuted, and you dislike what one group did and you want the AG to prosecute them.

Binger, get with the program. I described these acts as criminal hooliganism. They were wrong. When we talk about death and destruction, don't you know that you can count me out?

Since my post was short and I wrote in a concise manner, perhaps Canpakes suggestion about concentrating on reading comprehension should be considered.

Did everyone catch Sen. Mitch McConnell's pronouncement about this insurrection not being legitimate political discourse?

[Binger]

No. I am not a victim here. Not at all. You are trying to make this about me, but that did not work. You clearly do not understand what victimization means.

You said you were a victim of insult. You made it about you.

So, you agree that Moksha wants the AG to prosecute some hooligans, but not all hooligans. Mokshy wants the hooligans he dislikes to be prosecuted, but other hooligans to not be prosecuted. Correct? We agree on that, whether I am a victim or not, we agree on that?

See, there you go again. Suggesting someone answered your dumb question the way you wanted even though they've ignored it. It is a dumb question because it suggests Mokshy believes people should be prosecuted only if he "dislikes" them. That's not what he said, it is what you're suggesting he said. That makes it disingenuous.

No, not going there again. I agree to agree with Moksha that both acts are hooliganism. However, he appears to only be concerned about the hooliganism that does not work in concert with his political affiliation. Show me that I am wrong.

[Binger]

So, both acts were hooliganism. But you like what one group did and had no interest in seeing it prosecuted, and you dislike what one group did and you want the AG to prosecute them.

Binger, get with the program. I described these acts as criminal hooliganism. They were wrong. When we talk about death and destruction, don't you know that you can count me out?

Since my post was short and I wrote in a concise manner, perhaps Canpakes suggestion about concentrating on reading comprehension should be considered.

Did everyone catch Sen. Mitch McConnell's pronouncement about this insurrection not being legitimate political discourse?

So, was I correct that you want the members of one of the hooligan acts to be prosecuted by the AG? Or, are you retracting that short suggestion?

[Binger]

So, you agree that Moksha wants the AG to prosecute some hooligans, but not all hooligans

What evidence do you have that Moksha wants serious criminal acts by one lot of hooligans to be treated differently from serious criminal acts by another lot of hooligans?

Please cite some statement by him that show that to be his view.

I am basing this on his suggestion that the AG should prosecute one group of hooligans.