CSNbbs

(02-24-2023 02:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-24-2023 02:41 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-24-2023 02:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-24-2023 02:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-24-2023 02:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]What rioters? What rioting did they do? What did they destroy, burn, or steal?

OK... what would you call them? Did you see the clips played at their trials that displayed the violence against the Capitol police?

I'm not sure how accurately a bunch of isolated and out-of-context clips portrayed the totality of the event.

I would call rioters what happened in Seattle and Minneapolis and Portland--massive property destruction, burning, and looting. I saw none of that at the capitol.

OK... agree to disagree that there was no rioting at the Capitol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXnHIJkZZAs

Just some light police beating, no biggy.

Smashing windows of the US Capitol building, breaching entrances and storming in, beating Capitol police officers. You know... a usual Wednesday morning.

(02-24-2023 02:41 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-24-2023 02:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-24-2023 02:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-24-2023 02:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-24-2023 02:18 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Or a rioter that was organizing some of his fellow rioters.

What rioters? What rioting did they do? What did they destroy, burn, or steal?

OK... what would you call them? Did you see the clips played at their trials that displayed the violence against the Capitol police?

I'm not sure how accurately a bunch of isolated and out-of-context clips portrayed the totality of the event.
I would call rioters what happened in Seattle and Minneapolis and Portland--massive property destruction, burning, and looting. I saw none of that at the capitol.

OK... agree to disagree that there was no rioting at the Capitol.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXnHIJkZZAs
If you've got 5 minutes watch that clip and let me know if you still stand by the idea that there was no rioting (out-of-context or not).

I would say this was a "mostly peaceful" protest that got a bit rowdy at the edges. And Bennie Thompson is a f-ing evil commie bastard.

Compared to Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, and others that we were told by the left were "mostly peaceful" protests, no I didn't see anything approaching a riot. And again, those were detached, isolated, out-of-context shots that did not even attempt to portray the whole event.

Don't tell me that Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, et al, were "mostly peaceful" but this was a riot. If you want to revise the description of those other events, and start jailing people involved in them willy-nilly without regard to constitutional rights, feel free to tell me this was a riot. But until then, don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

(02-24-2023 02:51 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-24-2023 02:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-24-2023 02:41 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-24-2023 02:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-24-2023 02:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]OK... what would you call them? Did you see the clips played at their trials that displayed the violence against the Capitol police?

I'm not sure how accurately a bunch of isolated and out-of-context clips portrayed the totality of the event.

I would call rioters what happened in Seattle and Minneapolis and Portland--massive property destruction, burning, and looting. I saw none of that at the capitol.

OK... agree to disagree that there was no rioting at the Capitol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXnHIJkZZAs

Just some light police beating, no biggy.

Smashing windows of the US Capitol building, breaching entrances and storming in, beating Capitol police officers. You know... a usual Wednesday morning.

A significant and notable difference from rioting - no fire? That must be the threshold that needs to be crossed. Looks like I've been rioting multiple times in the Blue Ridge mountains for the last year or so...

But seriously, I still can't understand the need to try and diminish the violence and damage and destruction on Jan 6. I understand the purpose of pointing out that plenty of people there, if not the vast majority, weren't involved in the rioting. But to try and argue that technically it wasn't a riot (or whatever that is above) is beyond me.

Then again, there are now two posters positing that someone wearing an ear piece during the Jan 6 riot means they are likely a federal agent.

(02-24-2023 02:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]But seriously, I still can't understand the need to try and diminish the violence and damage and destruction on Jan 6.

Whatever violence and damage and destruction took place on January 6 pales by comparison to what was daily/nightly occurrences in what we were told were "mostly peaceful protests" in Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, and elsewhere.

All I'm asking is that you apply the rule evenly and objectively to both sets of events. Either Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, et al were not "mostly peaceful" or January 6 was. Have it either way, just apply the same standard for both.

Quote:Then again, there are now two posters positing that someone wearing an ear piece during the Jan 6 riot means they are likely a federal agent.

Not necessarily "likely," but definitely "more likely" than if they were not. Don't put words in my mouth.

(02-24-2023 03:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-24-2023 02:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]But seriously, I still can't understand the need to try and diminish the violence and damage and destruction on Jan 6.

Whatever violence and damage and destruction took place on January 6 pales by comparison to what was daily/nightly occurrences in what we were told were "mostly peaceful protests" in Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, and elsewhere.

All I'm asking is that you apply the rule evenly and objectively to both sets of events. Either Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, et al were not "mostly peaceful" or January 6 was. Have it either way, just apply the same standard for both.

Quote:Then again, there are now two posters positing that someone wearing an ear piece during the Jan 6 riot means they are likely a federal agent.

Not necessarily "likely," but definitely "more likely" than if they were not. Don't put words in my mouth.

Here's what you said:

"Wearing an earpiece sitting around the fire pit at your place means one thing. Wearing an earpiece around the capitol means that you are probably some flavor of federale."

Are you differentiating between "likely" and "probably" as bolded?

(02-24-2023 03:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-24-2023 02:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]But seriously, I still can't understand the need to try and diminish the violence and damage and destruction on Jan 6.

Whatever violence and damage and destruction took place on January 6 pales by comparison to what was daily/nightly occurrences in what we were told were "mostly peaceful protests" in Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, and elsewhere.

All I'm asking is that you apply the rule evenly and objectively to both sets of events. Either Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, et al were not "mostly peaceful" or January 6 was. Have it either way, just apply the same standard for both.

The same rule is being applied by me - which is pretty obvious by the statement you left out. As I said "I understand the purpose of pointing out that plenty of people there, if not the vast majority, weren't involved in the rioting."

So speaking to the protests/riots you specifically called out. Many, if not all, were peaceful protests that devolved into riots. January 6 similarly was a peaceful protests that devolved into a riot. The full extent of the property damage during the rioting portions of the BLM protest/riots was more extensive and cost more.

Quote:

Quote:Then again, there are now two posters positing that someone wearing an ear piece during the Jan 6 riot means they are likely a federal agent.

Not necessarily "likely," but definitely "more likely" than if they were not. Don't put words in my mouth.

You are the one that said "Wearing an earpiece around the capitol means that you are probably some flavor of federale."

Is there a difference between likely and probably?

But let's say you misspoke - no worries. Let's revise:

"Then again, there are now two posters who are, at best, positing that someone wearing an ear piece during the Jan 6 riot means they are more likely a federal agent than if they were not wearing an ear piece."

Still coocoo.

(02-24-2023 02:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-21-2023 06:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I was wearing an earpiece this weekend ---- at 2 am on the porch watching the fire. One part of me thought I was being considerate and saving the wife the speaker sound of AC/DC and Social Distortion in the crisp, hill country starlit early morning.
Turns out it apparently means I am a Fed. Imagine that.

Wearing an earpiece sitting around the fire pit at your place means one thing. Wearing an earpiece around the capitol means that you are probably some flavor of federale.

That is only if/when you studiously and actively discount the possibility of the person being involved with the riot. Seems to me the recent Proud Boys trial highlighted an extensive use of radio communication amongst those conspirators. Photos of the same even showing them employing (gasp) earpieces.

The presence of an earpiece isnt anywhere *near* the conclusion of federale ipso facto.

Or I guess if we want to be consistent, you would have to amend your statement as follows:

Quote:Wearing an earpiece sitting around the fire pit at your place means one thing. Wearing an earpiece around the capitol means when there are nothing but a bunch of people strolling around taking selfies that you are probably some flavor of federale.

Interestingly the context you paint the riot for others in this thread detracts enormously from the point you are trying to make above.

(02-24-2023 02:41 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-24-2023 02:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-24-2023 02:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-24-2023 02:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-24-2023 02:18 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Or a rioter that was organizing some of his fellow rioters.

What rioters? What rioting did they do? What did they destroy, burn, or steal?

OK... what would you call them? Did you see the clips played at their trials that displayed the violence against the Capitol police?

I'm not sure how accurately a bunch of isolated and out-of-context clips portrayed the totality of the event.

I would call rioters what happened in Seattle and Minneapolis and Portland--massive property destruction, burning, and looting. I saw none of that at the capitol.

OK... agree to disagree that there was no rioting at the Capitol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXnHIJkZZAs

If you've got 5 minutes watch that clip and let me know if you still stand by the idea that there was no rioting (out-of-context or not).

I have watched the clip. Around the 2;40 mark is video of a Capitol Police officer standing calmly in front of a door while a "rioter' punches the wall and yells at him. Does anybody think a lone officer facing the "mostly peaceful" rioters in Seattle would have been safe? Or calm?

I have said this was a protest that got out of hand. I still do. I have been in a riot. This was no riot.

I guess if we graded riots like we do hurricanes, 1-6 was a category 1, or maybe just a TS. One time. One place. The BLM riots were Category four or five, night after night after night. Many places. They were often planned to be violent, and usually expected to be violent.

Call it a riot if you want. But I know in which one(s) I would have been in the most danger. I think most of you do too.

I don't know or care about earpieces. Y'all will interpret as you want.

If Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, et al, were "peaceful protests," as we were told repeatedly, then January 6 was not a riot or insurrection. Or maybe it was a "mostly peaceful" riot or insurrection.

If you want to maintain otherwise, then please propound an objective set of criteria by which Seattle, Portland. Minneapolis, et al, were "peaceful protests" but January 6 was a riot or insurrection.

(02-24-2023 10:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]If Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, et al, were "peaceful protests," as we were told repeatedly, then January 6 was not a riot or insurrection. Or maybe it was a "mostly peaceful" riot or insurrection.

If you want to maintain otherwise, then please propound an objective set of criteria by which Seattle, Portland. Minneapolis, et al, were "peaceful protests" but January 6 was a riot or insurrection.

They can't. They won't. To them, the difference is rooted in politics. Declaring 1-6 to be less than the worst thing in history is like saying nice things about Trump. Cannot have that.

I like my weather analogy. Weather can range from a light drizzle to a Cat 5 hurricane, and they are still all called weather events.

Sometimes a storm can escalate very rapidly, other times it just kind of limps along or fades away.

I think the jan-6 event escalated more than it should have, but it fell way short of Katrina or Sandy.

The BLM Summer of Rioting were Cat 4 or Cat 5 events. Most of them, anyway.

Which takes us to another point - there were dozens, hundreds of them. Hardly spontaneous. Planned. Instigated. Maybe in some cases, events got out of hand to a point even the organizers did not want. I don't think anybody planned to kill David Dorn. But the violence was at least, expected, and probably desired. And it continued until it no longer served a political purpose - then, voila! - turned off.

and yet the Automatic Defenders say, dutifully, mostly peaceful.

I wish 1-6 had remained a peaceful protest. or better yet, no protest at all. This one-off event just gave some moral justification to the same instigators of the Summer of Rioting. It's like when a husband is caught fooling around with the neighbor's wife - his wife will never let him hear the end of it. And the Dems are doing just that.

I think the antielection rioters had more substance in their protests than the antipolice rioters. But neither was likely to have the substance. If I were a betting man, I would say the stolen election protesters were about 5-10% likely to be right. The ones protesting systemic police bias nationally leading to repeated race murder had zero percent chance of being right.

(02-24-2023 10:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]If Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, et al, were "peaceful protests," as we were told repeatedly, then January 6 was not a riot or insurrection. Or maybe it was a "mostly peaceful" riot or insurrection.

If you want to maintain otherwise, then please propound an objective set of criteria by which Seattle, Portland. Minneapolis, et al, were "peaceful protests" but January 6 was a riot or insurrection.

Who are speaking to on here?

(02-24-2023 05:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-24-2023 02:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-21-2023 06:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I was wearing an earpiece this weekend ---- at 2 am on the porch watching the fire. One part of me thought I was being considerate and saving the wife the speaker sound of AC/DC and Social Distortion in the crisp, hill country starlit early morning.
Turns out it apparently means I am a Fed. Imagine that.

Wearing an earpiece sitting around the fire pit at your place means one thing. Wearing an earpiece around the capitol means that you are probably some flavor of federale.

That is only if/when you studiously and actively discount the possibility of the person being involved with the riot. Seems to me the recent Proud Boys trial highlighted an extensive use of radio communication amongst those conspirators. Photos of the same even showing them employing (gasp) earpieces.

The presence of an earpiece isnt anywhere *near* the conclusion of federale ipso facto.

Or I guess if we want to be consistent, you would have to amend your statement as follows:

Quote:Wearing an earpiece sitting around the fire pit at your place means one thing. Wearing an earpiece around the capitol means when there are nothing but a bunch of people strolling around taking selfies that you are probably some flavor of federale.

Interestingly the context you paint the riot for others in this thread detracts enormously from the point you are trying to make above.

(02-25-2023 07:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-24-2023 10:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]If Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, et al, were "peaceful protests," as we were told repeatedly, then January 6 was not a riot or insurrection. Or maybe it was a "mostly peaceful" riot or insurrection.

If you want to maintain otherwise, then please propound an objective set of criteria by which Seattle, Portland. Minneapolis, et al, were "peaceful protests" but January 6 was a riot or insurrection.

They can't. They won't. To them, the difference is rooted in politics. Declaring 1-6 to be less than the worst thing in history is like saying nice things about Trump. Cannot have that.

What are two even on about right now? Challenging us to call the Pacific Northwest protests completely peaceful? What an epically stupid discussion to have. Nobody here has called them totally peaceful protests.

Thank you for speaking for us, but my opinion on what happened on January 6 is not political anymore than my opinion that Joe Biden is a complete disaster is. Most people in the Capitol that day were peaceful, but there was a significant faction that was frankly rioting.

(02-25-2023 10:42 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]What are two even on about right now? Challenging us to call the Pacific Northwest protests completely peaceful? What an epically stupid discussion to have. Nobody here has called them totally peaceful protests.
Thank you for speaking for us, but my opinion on what happened on January 6 is not political anymore than my opinion that Joe Biden is a complete disaster is. Most people in the Capitol that day were peaceful, but there was a significant faction that was frankly rioting.

Not completely peaceful, but many have called them "mostly peaceful." And you cannot enunciate any objective standard whereby Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, et al, were "mostly peaceful" but January 6 was not. If you want to call it a "mostly peaceful" riot, then go ahead, although that seems decidedly oxymoron-ish.

(02-25-2023 10:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-25-2023 10:42 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]What are two even on about right now? Challenging us to call the Pacific Northwest protests completely peaceful? What an epically stupid discussion to have. Nobody here has called them totally peaceful protests.
Thank you for speaking for us, but my opinion on what happened on January 6 is not political anymore than my opinion that Joe Biden is a complete disaster is. Most people in the Capitol that day were peaceful, but there was a significant faction that was frankly rioting.

Not completely peaceful, but many have called them "mostly peaceful." And you cannot enunciate any objective standard whereby Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, et al, were "mostly peaceful" but January 6 was not. If you want to call it a "mostly peaceful" riot, then go ahead, although that seems decidedly oxymoron-ish.

This is why I was asking who you were speaking to on here - has anyone here said that about Jan 6/BLM protests?

Speaking for myself, both can be described as a peaceful protest that got out of hand and resulted in riots.

(02-25-2023 10:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-25-2023 10:42 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]What are two even on about right now? Challenging us to call the Pacific Northwest protests completely peaceful? What an epically stupid discussion to have. Nobody here has called them totally peaceful protests.
Thank you for speaking for us, but my opinion on what happened on January 6 is not political anymore than my opinion that Joe Biden is a complete disaster is. Most people in the Capitol that day were peaceful, but there was a significant faction that was frankly rioting.

Not completely peaceful, but many have called them "mostly peaceful." And you cannot enunciate any objective standard whereby Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, et al, were "mostly peaceful" but January 6 was not. If you want to call it a "mostly peaceful" riot, then go ahead, although that seems decidedly oxymoron-ish.

*sigh*

Did you not see the part of my post where I literally typed: “ Most people in the Capitol that day were peaceful, but there was a significant faction that was frankly rioting.”

How is it not clear to you that I am saying that both protests were similar in that most people were there peacefully but then some fraction of the crowd got completely out of control?

(02-25-2023 11:35 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-25-2023 10:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-25-2023 10:42 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]What are two even on about right now? Challenging us to call the Pacific Northwest protests completely peaceful? What an epically stupid discussion to have. Nobody here has called them totally peaceful protests.
Thank you for speaking for us, but my opinion on what happened on January 6 is not political anymore than my opinion that Joe Biden is a complete disaster is. Most people in the Capitol that day were peaceful, but there was a significant faction that was frankly rioting.

Not completely peaceful, but many have called them "mostly peaceful." And you cannot enunciate any objective standard whereby Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, et al, were "mostly peaceful" but January 6 was not. If you want to call it a "mostly peaceful" riot, then go ahead, although that seems decidedly oxymoron-ish.

*sigh*
Did you not see the part of my post where I literally typed: “ Most people in the Capitol that day were peaceful, but there was a significant faction that was frankly rioting.”
How is it not clear to you that I am saying that both protests were similar in that most people were there peacefully but then some fraction of the crowd got completely out of control?

Have you heard any leading democrat ever use the word "peaceful" with respect to January 6? I have not, particularly including those who persist in insisting that the others were "peaceful" or "mostly peaceful."

(02-25-2023 11:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-25-2023 11:35 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-25-2023 10:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-25-2023 10:42 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]What are two even on about right now? Challenging us to call the Pacific Northwest protests completely peaceful? What an epically stupid discussion to have. Nobody here has called them totally peaceful protests.
Thank you for speaking for us, but my opinion on what happened on January 6 is not political anymore than my opinion that Joe Biden is a complete disaster is. Most people in the Capitol that day were peaceful, but there was a significant faction that was frankly rioting.

Not completely peaceful, but many have called them "mostly peaceful." And you cannot enunciate any objective standard whereby Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, et al, were "mostly peaceful" but January 6 was not. If you want to call it a "mostly peaceful" riot, then go ahead, although that seems decidedly oxymoron-ish.

*sigh*
Did you not see the part of my post where I literally typed: “ Most people in the Capitol that day were peaceful, but there was a significant faction that was frankly rioting.”
How is it not clear to you that I am saying that both protests were similar in that most people were there peacefully but then some fraction of the crowd got completely out of control?

Have you heard any leading democrat ever use the word "peaceful" with respect to January 6? I have not, particularly including those who persist in insisting that the others were "peaceful" or "mostly peaceful."

LOL! Why is it not surprising that we are back to Pacific Northwest. I don’t know what leading democrat that you are referring to but I’m sure there are ones that said something stupid about those riots. Leading democrats and leading republicans say stupid **** every day. What’s bonkers is that you and OO seem to be demanding that Lad and I defend what somebody else said when it couldn’t be more clear over the course of the last two years that we do not agree.

The biggest differences to me are:

1. Degree of violence

Thus the Cat 1 vs. cat 5 comparison. And yes, Lad, the lack of arson is a factor in that. Property damage was very small on 1-6 compared to even one of the BLM riots. The video of a single officer standing calmly in front of a door while the mob shouted at him would have been impossible in Portland or Seattle. On the West Coast that lone cop would have been dead.


2. Repetition of the BLM riots night after night

The 1-6 was a one-off. One-offs to me are more indicative of a group losing control. When rioters go home, have a meal, get some sleep, then come back, night after night to "riot', it is no longer a protest that got out of hand, but a planned event. What did Wal-green's do to upset the "protesters"?

3. Sudden cessation of BLM riots when they started to be become a political liability.

This tells me who was doing the planning, as do subsequent events. The BLM rioters are, in effect, excused. The 1-6 crowd, is sent to prison.

The two events are as comparable as tennis and badminton. Similar, but with big differences. Of the two, I find the Summer of Rioting to be much worse, in every way. And the excuse for the worse one is that it was "mostly peaceful".

(02-25-2023 12:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]The biggest differences to me are:

1. Degree of violence

Thus the Cat 1 vs. cat 5 comparison. And yes, Lad, the lack of arson is a factor in that. Property damage was very small on 1-6 compared to even one of the BLM riots. The video of a single officer standing calmly in front of a door while the mob shouted at him would have been impossible in Portland or Seattle. On the West Coast that lone cop would have been dead.


2. Repetition of the BLM riots night after night

The 1-6 was a one-off. One-offs to me are more indicative of a group losing control. When rioters go home, have a meal, get some sleep, then come back, night after night to "riot', it is no longer a protest that got out of hand, but a planned event. What did Wal-green's do to upset the "protesters"?

3. Sudden cessation of BLM riots when they started to be become a political liability.

This tells me who was doing the planning, as do subsequent events. The BLM rioters are, in effect, excused. The 1-6 crowd, is sent to prison.

The two events are as comparable as tennis and badminton. Similar, but with big differences. Of the two, I find the Summer of Rioting to be much worse, in every way. And the excuse for the worse one is that it was "mostly peaceful".

Back to which one was "worse"? Who cares? They were both bad in their own way. I can't believe that we're back at this again.

Oh wait... yes I can. This all started because the most unhinged poster on here breathlessly reported that the Jan 6 "event" was an inside job because one of his unhinged fellow-travelers noticed that some dude was wearing an earpiece in one of the videos from the Capitol. Then #'s started gaslighting us (and himself) by claiming that the rioting that we can plainly see from the Jan. 6 videos was not rioting. Then when we responded to him that (well of course) there was rioting going on, the usual suspects changed the subject back to the Pacific NW.

Peak Quad, ladies and gentlemen.

(02-25-2023 12:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-25-2023 12:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]The biggest differences to me are:

1. Degree of violence

Thus the Cat 1 vs. cat 5 comparison. And yes, Lad, the lack of arson is a factor in that. Property damage was very small on 1-6 compared to even one of the BLM riots. The video of a single officer standing calmly in front of a door while the mob shouted at him would have been impossible in Portland or Seattle. On the West Coast that lone cop would have been dead.


2. Repetition of the BLM riots night after night

The 1-6 was a one-off. One-offs to me are more indicative of a group losing control. When rioters go home, have a meal, get some sleep, then come back, night after night to "riot', it is no longer a protest that got out of hand, but a planned event. What did Wal-green's do to upset the "protesters"?

3. Sudden cessation of BLM riots when they started to be become a political liability.

This tells me who was doing the planning, as do subsequent events. The BLM rioters are, in effect, excused. The 1-6 crowd, is sent to prison.

The two events are as comparable as tennis and badminton. Similar, but with big differences. Of the two, I find the Summer of Rioting to be much worse, in every way. And the excuse for the worse one is that it was "mostly peaceful".

Back to which one was "worse"? Who cares? They were both bad in their own way. I can't believe that we're back at this again.

Oh wait... yes I can. This all started because the most unhinged poster on here breathlessly reported that the Jan 6 "event" was an inside job because one of his unhinged fellow-travelers noticed that some dude was wearing an earpiece in one of the videos from the Capitol. Then #'s started gaslighting us (and himself) by claiming that the rioting that we can plainly see from the Jan. 6 videos was not rioting. Then when we responded to him that (well of course) there was rioting going on, the usual suspects changed the subject back to the Pacific NW.

Peak Quad, ladies and gentlemen.

I care. Is that permitted?

The usual suspects don't want to discuss the Pacific NW. The way to not discuss them is to not post on the topic.

I agree both were bad. I just don't agree they were equally bad, for the reasons I listed.