Trump supporters storm the white house

[Nom De Plume]

There's plenty of video evidence out there and law enforcement confirmation fingering many as well.

Cool. Where?

If there really is video evidence, or law enforcement 'fingering' people (gross), then you can present it to me.

Try using something other than Google which will only give you half the story and that half is always skewed.

Sorry, but my enclyclopedia hasn't been updated recently enough, so I don't have much choice. Maybe I should try reading tea leaves?

Never forget that Blacky rarely provides evidence.

[Black Orchid]

I provide links most times Nommy and considering your only contribution has been ...

"I know your pain. I know your hurt. But you have to go home now."

"We can't play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You're very special."

I wouldn't be talking if I were you.

[neverforget7/11]

I provide links most times Nommy and considering your only contribution has been ...

"I know your pain. I know your hurt. But you have to go home now."

"We can't play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You're very special."

I wouldn't be talking if I were you.

You're actually mental thats a direct quote from a video he put on his own twitter before it was suspended, and one of the key reasons it was. Its sufficiently notable that a source isnt as necessary as the claim that over 200 antifa supporters were at the capitol riots. Your 'sources' are Trump fan blogs masqurading as journalists and I'm really not sure they count. Back when I was in primary school, we did a unit on what makes a source credible and I really think you could benefit from maybe taking a trip back there yourself.

There's plenty of video evidence out there and law enforcement confirmation fingering many as well.

If you can't give a source for this than why did you make the point? Where's the video? Where's the law enforcement confirmation? Nowhere, because it doesn't exist. YOU MADE IT UP.

Prove me wrong.

[Black Orchid]

I've provided many links in this thread and if you don't like them too bad. For a start it was law enforcement who fingered John Sullivan. His brother is the one who claimed there were over 200 Antifa there, not me. Is it true? We will probably never know but you'd have to be extremely naive to think Antifa were not there amongst the group with the intent to cause trouble.

The Capital was breeched some 20 minutes before Trump's speech even ended.

The FBI confirmed on Tuesday that it had received information prior to Jan. 6 that individuals were planning a “war” on the Capitol.

And the official timeline of the events in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6, constructed by The New York Times through videos, shows protesters began breaching the perimeter of the Capitol a full 20 minutes before President Donald Trump finished his speech.

“This new evidence raises the first compelling question that remains unanswered,” John Solomon wrote for Just the News on Jan. 13. “How could Trump incite an attack that had already been pre-planned and was in motion before his speech ended?”

https://www.worldtribune.com/law-enforc ... ed-speech/

Believe what you will but try using a source other than the very restricted Google once in awhile.

This is also an opinion forum where people post guess what? Opinions. You are acting like we are all at our desks in school and have to provide a bibliography at the end of every post.

Have fun though.

[neverforget7/11]

I've provided many links in this thread and if you don't like them too bad.

And yet none I've actually asked for. Your idea of a source reminds me a lot of Frank Abignale. He was a con artist who could pass himself off as a doctor or a pilot very well, but if you actually asked him about the technical details of those careers he would fall apart; just like how your 'sources' look like journalism, but meet none of the real standards. A source can only add as much authority to a point as the source itself holds, and the conspiracy touting non-sense you use doesn't hold much.

For a start it was law enforcement who fingered John Sullivan.

Cool, see the link I posted which clearly states his status within the left was dubious at best.

His brother is the one who claimed there were over 200 Antifa there, not me.

You do this a lot. When a fact that you present is disputed, you pretend you never had anything to with it at all, and were presenting it as some kind of neutral force. But you clearly aren't, and your political bias can be seen everywhere throughout this thread. When you use a source in a debate, it means that you take ownership for it and to pretend otherwise is simply impossible.

you'd have to be extremely naive to think Antifa were not there amongst the group with the intent to cause trouble.

Antifa = BAD
Trump = GOOD

I wish all moral quandries could be so simple. This isn't Star Wars with a good guy and a bad guy, in real life either side is just as capable of 'trouble' as another. In fact, you could call it "extremely naive" to believe anything else.

The Capital was breeched some 20 minutes before Trump's speech even ended.

The FBI confirmed on Tuesday that it had received information prior to Jan. 6 that individuals were planning a “war” on the Capitol.

And the official timeline of the events in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6, constructed by The New York Times through videos, shows protesters began breaching the perimeter of the Capitol a full 20 minutes before President Donald Trump finished his speech.

“This new evidence raises the first compelling question that remains unanswered,” John Solomon wrote for Just the News on Jan. 13. “How could Trump incite an attack that had already been pre-planned and was in motion before his speech ended?”

https://www.worldtribune.com/law-enforc ... ed-speech/

Stop pretending this debate is limited as to whether Trump incited the riot, it is far wider than that. It's about whether or not his supporters are responsible for the storming of the capitol building. Since you served it up for me on a platter, lets take a closer look at your source, the 'World Tribune'. Interestingly, It's code of ethics lists all 10 of the commandments given to Moses, It's partners are universally right-leaning, and its 'contract' section conatins a very enlightening document, a media kit for partners who would like to advertise with them. It openly states that it's readers skew incredibly heavily to the republican side of politics. At the bottom of it's articles it lists the Tribune's legal counsel as 'Roy M. Cohn', who died in 1986. Cohn was most famous for helping Senator Joseph McCarthy in his hunt for communists tied to the famous 'Hollywood Blacklist' and also has incredibly strong ties to Trump, as can be read about below.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/06 ... lationship

To say this source might have bias is simply an understatement, which can be seen all throughout its reporting. It's also very interesting how much of your argument ties back to the Solomon brothers. In fact, without the word of a single individual, your argument falls to pieces.

Believe what you will but try using a source other than the very restricted Google once in awhile.

That's literally you. All you use for sources is the most right leaning drivel that you could ONLY find online, because offline sources tend to have to have some stricter codes of ethics than the 10 commandments. Anyways, as much as you say it, you have totally failed to ever adequately disprove one of my points. ever.

However I have been trying to expand my sources at your request. Now I not only read tea leaves, I also throw bones on the ground for omens and my Tarot deck is in the mail. I can't wait to see what insights it gives me so one day I can become a real debater, just like you.

This is also an opinion forum where people post guess what? Opinions.

Cool, but a fact is a fact. No two ways about this. It can be my opinion that Trump is good or bad, but it is fact that the Earth orbits the Sun. You can't have an opinion on whether Antifa were or were not at the riots, because it is a true or false statement. If you post about that, it is not an opinion, it is a claim. Claims can be verified one way or the other, and while you don't need proof to make one, you will need evidence if you expect it to stand up to scrutiny.

You are acting like we are all at our desks in school and have to provide a bibliography at the end of every post.

If you make a claim, then you either back it up with a source or it's irrelevant. That's how a debate works. Hitchen's Razor, The Sagan Standard, burden of proof, whatever you want to call it, it falls with the claimant (you). I source my claims because I believe it's important. If that isn't the way you (and by extension your forum) sees it, than I will never get anywhere. Either you accept the basic rules of argument that have been around since Socrates, or this board is frankly useless to anyone actually trying to debate, and I'll find somewhere else.

I already know the answer. You're incapable of arguing in good faith and I won't ever get the debate I thought I would when I joined. I'm going to find somewhere else, but I'll keep an eye out just in case.

In the mean time...

Have fun though.

[Black Orchid]

This is where you fall down flat. I'm not here to 'argue' nor to try to convince you of anything. You are apparently here to argue and that's fine too. Do carry on and maybe someone else will engage with you because I'm done!

[Nom De Plume]

I would very much like to debate/ discuss, 'free speech' before you disappear... given that BO will never concede any points...
Oh, and I also wanted to discuss, 'Socialism and Education in a market economy'
I've just been quietly waiting until you were done with BO.

[neverforget7/11]

I would very much like to debate/ discuss, 'free speech' before you disappear... given that BO will never concede any points...
Oh, and I also wanted to discuss, 'Socialism and Education in a market economy'
I've just been quietly waiting until you were done with BO.

Always happy to! If you start a thread somewhere I'll take a look tomorrow

[Black Orchid]

How incredibly rude rude to keep 7/11 waiting like this.

[Nom De Plume]

How incredibly rude rude to keep 7/11 waiting like this.

Some of us have work commitments. Anyway, what has this got to do with you aside from nothing!
Just leave me in peace. Leave me alone. Stop replying to my comments and I will do likewise.