DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Unity Without Accountability?

Those charges are probably just the beginning and they already add up to a very long, maybe even life or death sentence. With all the chatter about politicians, senior officials, and police being involved, this is going to get ugly.

As many of you were wondering how this happened on the 6-8, I kept referring to “Killing In The Name” by Rage Against the Machine and posted plenty of information from reports in years past about law enforcement filled with white supremacists.

I can give you a few more links if you’re interested on the subject.

You didn't use any big words in your post. arch hates big words. You are wrong to have an expanded vocabulary. It's not a sign at all that you're educated or have good use of the English language. It's only a tool to make yourself feel superior. Just as arch.

I'm disappointed in you.

Language is how we think as a group. It's important to put it under the microscope, rip it apart, and get at what people are actually saying.

It's not an unimportant detail. People are conflating unity with peace and accountability with justice for a reason.

The point is to be able to identify empty rhetoric and differentiate that from when people are speaking with sincerity.

If Biden's speech writer had not used "unity" and used words like "reconciliation" and "forgiveness", Biden would have given it back to him and told him to fix it. No politician ever uses these words because they don't actually want peace. They simply want everyone to meet their demands.

I can give you an example of how important this is. I assume you have a significant other or have at some point in the past. Let's say you have an argument with them. Here are three options to consider in resolving the argument:
1. Negotiate a compromise.
2. Let the other party have their way. (some battles aren't worth fighting)
3. Call for unity. (This should just confuse them)
4. Attempt to hold them accountable. (I am not responsible for what happens if you actually try this)

So it was the verbiage. Thanks.

Re-read his post. I don't think it is the verbiage, but that the verbiage confuses him.

Very subtle difference yes, but I think that is his argument

I have no problem with anyone's choice of words if they mean what they are actually saying.
If you want unity, then it is easy to achieve. Just give up the things you want and meet the desires of your opposition.

Once again it's not the concept he is describing, it's the wording he used.

Typically when I describe things, I use words that make sense make sense in the context of what I am trying to describe.

Rocket asked the question "Do we need unity without accountability?"

I answered the question.
In short, unity is not needed, accountability needs to be handled through the justice system.

You seem to want me to agree with you that unity means something that it doesn't, and you don't seem to be open to the idea that politicians actually mean what they are saying and believe that their words have something to do with not seeing each other as enemies. That's fine.
Should U.S citizens stop seeing each other as the enemy? Maybe, I don't know yet.

My entire point is going way above your head.



I think you missed the article that shows the justice system and law enforcement is rife with white supremacist elements.

Please read a bit more on this subject before spending post after post splitting the tiniest hairs on semantics.

If only people would seek to understand someone else's perspectives then maybe we wouldn't keep seeing these Bill Clinton arguments on definitions and semantics.

"You may not realize you have engaged in a Soviet Totalitarian propaganda technique known as a whataboutism."

Hah, Mr. I’m going to go post QAnon theories is trying to claim I used a whataboutism.

Fish, I clarified how the poster didn’t get the idea of the OP and made the point his argument about the subject at hand is analogous to Clinton’s impeachment defense.

That’s on-topic.

Please catch up.

Rand is another one that needs to go, total nutjob.

Rand Paul is a straight shooter and that libtard on ABC couldn't handle it.

I did miss it and I find the idea extremely hard to believe. Police have many issues, I doubt large scale infiltration by white supremacist organizations is one of them.

In my opinion, George is grasping at straws in that interview. Regardless of the outcome of this last election or the severity of the election fraud issue, it is hard to argue against fixing election related problems if for no reason other than to not have to go through this again in four years.

Of course, the news benefits from the chaos. The viewership on FOX news, CNN, and NBC news doubled after the election, so you have to wonder if they actually want this to happen again in the future.

3000 taken away in handcuffs, that's what detained means.
In Communist Russia, people protest over the arrest of Alexi Navalny, opposition to communist Russia.

Happy if anyone wants to point out the contrasts between the USA under the Democrats and the Soviots' under the communists, but imo, they're becoming harder to find, any differences.

Here is Bbc on Navalny's arrest protests'.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55778334

Coming soon, or here already?

He is getting more and more fringe.

From an objective level, the two of them are talking past each other. George is saying that the election was not fraudulent because it was certified by the states, that court cases threw out the challenges, and that Barr said there was no evidence. He’s right. That is the truth and that is not disputable.

However, Rand is saying that he did not feel it was appropriate to overturn the certification. He’s saying that there were examples of fraud and that states changed their methodology of collecting votes in a way that is unconstitutional, which is different from what George was talking about.

Now, that’s trying to be fair.

Now let’s call it out for what it is. Rand is trying to further the notion this was a fraudulent election. He hammers the standing aspect but also ignores the substantive dismissals. He also repeatedly talks over Stephanopolous and says that George is calling him a liar and all Republicans liars. He’s putting words in his mouth big time. This is an obvious use of hyperbole and it stokes a very dangerous notion. Nothing George said was false. What Rand should have said is that the two of them were making different points. He should have emphasized that this election was settled and that it was not appropriate to overturn but that he wants to ensure future efforts avoid the same quagmire. Instead, he went the Ted Cruz route

Kentucky does not know how to pick good Senators.

You find an official FBI report hard to believe?

Too bad the FBI isn't all that trustworthy.

Watch "The Scheme" on HBO. A documentary about Christian Dawkins, a basketball scout who the FBI totally set up.

The USA has watched a peaceful transfer of power 44 times, until trump came along. Russia has had evil dictators ruling over them for hundreds of years. Face it trump and his supporters incited insurrection. They need to be held accountable for their crimes. Pffft the GOP, the party of law and order is a joke.

I've said it before - your world must be scary.

Straight Shooter?

HE was asked to agree / state the election was not stolen. And he wouldn't.

Ergo he thinks or he is trying to promote and continue the idea the election was stolen. That's not being straight.

I do, and if they don't get similarly called out, then I do so. I'd put her against Olberman's worst in terms of bat-ish crazy political stupidity.

So Olberman is, "The Worst Person In The World!"

I'm no fan of Olberman at all, so I'm not the right person to ask if you were looking for an argument to that statement.

It's actually a joke. He used to do a segment on his show every night he called, "The Worst Person In The World". He would pick a story about someone doing or saying something stupid and call them out in that segment.

No, it really isn't.

You don't have faith in your top law enforcement agency in the country. You indicated you believe the fraudulent voters changed the result of the election and that they are smarter (unable to be caught) than the people running our countries election. . . . that sounds like the definition of living in a very corrupt country.

In my opinion, news organizations have a financial interest in magnifying the importance and scale of information in order to create shocking headlines.

I could be wrong, but I have to balance this information against my own life experience. I have been alive for awhile now and been all over this country. I have yet to knowingly meet a person that was a member of a white supremacist organization (not that I am trying to find them). I have met plenty of police and never seen any indicators of extremism of any kind. So I don't know how to square this with news outlet stories that make it seem like this is a giant problem everywhere.

Again, this isn’t a media thing. The FBI, a federal bureau of investigation which is not a media organization, released a report that warned of white nationalist infiltration.

A lot of it is covert these days. I have more reports and investigations to help you identify common symbols of white national sympathies. Let me know if you’re interested in this material.

When the FBI says things they don't want to hear, the answer is to say the FBI isn't trustworthy. Yet the people who were running it were appointed by Republicans. Actually, appointed by Trump. When the Department of Homeland security reports that White supremacists and other far-right-wing extremists are the most significant domestic terrorism threat facing the our nation, even though it's Republican appointees running homeland security, they don't want to believe it. When the DHS reports that white supremacist groups have killed more people than any other domestic violent extremist group in our nation, they don't want to believe it.

I mean look at it. Bill Barr, a Trump appointee, said after investigating there was no wide spread voter fraud. Look at how many of them refuse to believe him too.

We now live in a world where facts no longer matter and people base their beliefs on "feelings".

You are constructing strawmen. Nobody suggested that the FBI was not trustworthy nor that white supremacist organizations should not be watched for terrorist threats.

Given the intent of that FBI report, the amount of information redacted, the date it was authored, and the difficulty in carrying out such a planned infiltration of police departments, I find it a little difficult to see as a significant threat. It is like something from a Robert Ludlum novel.

Moving the goalposts AND flip-flopping faster than John Kerry.

No, actually peen said he didn't trust the FBI. In black and white. (Or orange and black)

I've lost count of the number of times I've read posts like the type you've described. Each time, I've been reminded of a quote by Adam Savage on "Mythbusters."

The results of an experiment contradicted Adam's hypotheses, and Jamie Hyneman laid out the pain truth for everyone- on camera, and in Adam's face. Based on facts. With visual evidence, filmed in real time. There was only one response Savage could make, in light of the smoke that Jamie blew up his skirt that day.

Adam: "I reject your reality, and substitute my own."

What was the experiment.

I said I didn't think they were all that trustworthy. That isn't the same as me not not trusting them.

I think they can be motivated by politics and thus, can bend the investigation to one side or the other to make the shoe fit.

I mean, look at the uproar over local police. The call is for police reform. Their trustworthiness comes in to question all the time. Just because the FBI is the federal hammer doesn't make them sacred.

Think about it. Who investigates them?

Absolutely. You see it all over the place, this board included.

"I think such and such" is stated as fact... while also being deliberately obtuse in response to facts that are inconvenient.

Really? Really? You needed to ask this question? Didn’t they teach you anything in school? No wonder this country is so screwed up.

“The attorney general. Within the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI is responsible to the attorney general, and it reports its findings to U.S. Attorneys across the country. The FBI's intelligence activities are overseen by the Director of National Intelligence.”