Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

January 6th - what will happen?


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, The Z Machine said:

1) what's the difference between "bias" and "agenda"?

It doesn't matter....regular people have both these things too.  This isn't why we are programmed to believe "regular people".  We believe "regular people" because we naturally gravitate to those who have a similar world view and reject those that don't.  This is all an exercise in confirmation bias.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The President told MAGA to do it MAGA said they were going to do it MAGA filmed themselves doing it Afterwards, MAGA bragged about it Clearly, it was ANTIFA’s fault

One is an ugly, decrepit wasteland ruled by an assortment of villains hoping to impose their will on peace-loving people everywhere who otherwise just want to be left alone to tend to their gardens.

So they're finally following the CDC guidelines for the pandemic?

On 2/24/2021 at 4:16 PM, sho nuff said:

The reported a story told to them by more than one law enforcement official.

To say there is not much difference between that and fabricating a story is not logical.

We dont actually know this to be true since it was anonymous. Law enforcement official could have been the janitor. They arent always honest with the titles they give to sources. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, parasaurolophus said:

We dont actually know this to be true since it was anonymous. Law enforcement official could have been the janitor. They arent always honest with the titles they give to sources. 

Oh stop...the NYT is not calling a janitor a law enforcement official.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2021 at 3:06 PM, Sea Duck said:

As @Doug B indicated in a different thread, the only part about the fire extinguisher narrative that has been debunked is that the officer did not die from blunt force trauma. I don't think any official reports have confirmed that he was never hit by a fire extinguisher, and as far as I know, the NY Times has not retracted their reporting about that claim.

The times said he had a gash on his forehead ffs. I think the family would have seen that. 

On Wednesday, pro-Trump supporters attacked that citadel of democracy [i.e., the Capitol], overpowered Mr. Sicknick, 42, and struck him in the head with a fire extinguisher, according to two law enforcement officials. With a bloody gash in his head, Mr. Sicknick was rushed to the hospital and placed on life support. He died on Thursday evening.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Oh stop...the NYT is not calling a janitor a law enforcement official.

 

Your faith in the media is truly astounding when they've proven over and over that they are not only perfectly capable of lying, most do it as their jobs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Insein said:

Your faith in the media is truly astounding when they've proven over and over that they are not only perfectly capable of lying, most do it as their jobs.

And you all distrusting and proclaiming lies without a shred of proof is laughable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

And you all distrusting and proclaiming lies without a shred of proof is laughable.

Much harder to prove a lie is a lie if proof is dismissed as laughable. 

Edited by Insein
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Insein said:

Much harder to prove a lie is a lie if proof is dismissed as laughable. 

Better to just assume they lied about law enforcement officials and claim it was someone outside the station or a janitor.  That way you can bash the media source all you want.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, parasaurolophus said:

NYT claims Sicknick has a gash on his head. 

NYT has previously lied about sourcing.

Sicknick did not have a gash on his head.

NYT sourcing therefore shouldnt be questioned.

Solid logic.

The issue, IMO, is that people are not just questioning the NYT; they're calling the police liars. And they're hiding behind the tired "bash the mainstream media" trope to do it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Better to just assume they lied about law enforcement officials and claim it was someone outside the station or a janitor.  That way you can bash the media source all you want.

When it's shown that a source lied, then they no longer need to be anonymous. "Law enforcement officials" also don't need to be anonymous when reporting a public incident. Who's identity are we hiding here?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Insein said:
29 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Better to just assume they lied about law enforcement officials and claim it was someone outside the station or a janitor.  That way you can bash the media source all you want.

When it's shown that a source lied, then they no longer need to be anonymous. "Law enforcement officials" also don't need to be anonymous when reporting a public incident. Who's identity are we hiding here?

There are many legitimate reasons for "law enforcement officials" to justifiably remain anonymous when sourcing information. The very fact that keyboard warriors think it's no big deal to dox sources is one of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

There are many legitimate reasons for "law enforcement officials" to justifiably remain anonymous when sourcing information. The very fact that keyboard warriors think it's no big deal to dox sources is one of them.

Who are we doxing? A public official that put out false information that caused more unrest in the public. From what I understand, that's an impeachable offense according to you. 

If there were "law enforcement officials" that came out and said there were no deaths and that everything is great but it was later found out that there were deaths, wouldn't it be logical to question who those sources are and why they reported that?

Edited by Insein
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Insein said:
12 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

There are many legitimate reasons for "law enforcement officials" to justifiably remain anonymous when sourcing information. The very fact that keyboard warriors think it's no big deal to dox sources is one of them.

Who are we doxing? A public official that put out false information that caused more unrest in the public. From what I understand, that's an impeachable offense according to you.

Well, you're kind of proving my point here. You want to go after cops because you feel that "unrest" was caused? That's really dangerous rhetoric. Who gets to decide what "unrest" is, anyway? If one guy claims he feels unrest, but another guy claims he doesn't, do they cancel each other out? What if we dox a cop and that leads to even more unrest?

Nonetheless, I do agree that the media has an obligation to follow-up on previous sourcing when new information comes out. But what we're seeing with the Sicknick story goes far beyond that. The media criticism has become a cloak for attacks on the police, in addition to an attempt to downplay and/or shift blame for the Capitol riot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

Well, you're kind of proving my point here. You want to go after cops because you feel that "unrest" was caused? That's really dangerous rhetoric. Who gets to decide what "unrest" is, anyway? If one guy claims he feels unrest, but another guy claims he doesn't, do they cancel each other out? What if we dox a cop and that leads to even more unrest?

Nonetheless, I do agree that the media has an obligation to follow-up on previous sourcing when new information comes out. But what we're seeing with the Sicknick story goes far beyond that. The media criticism has become a cloak for attacks on the police, in addition to an attempt to downplay and/or shift blame for the Capitol riot.

There is no attack on the police from me. This is holding the media accountable for shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Either they lied or their sources did. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Insein said:

There is no attack on the police from me.

You proclaimed that Sicknick's death wasn't caused by the riot. It's a direct contradiction of law enforcement statements. Cloaking the attack in media criticism doesn't change that.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sea Duck said:

You proclaimed that Sicknick's death wasn't caused by the riot. It's a direct contradiction of law enforcement statements. Cloaking the attack in media criticism doesn't change that.

Law enforcement statements said he was struck by a fire extinguisher, had a gash on his head and later died from his injuries. Turns out he wasn't struck by a fire extinguisher, didn't have a gash on his head but still died a day later. That's a pretty big discrepancy to make. 

Calling a source BS is not an attack. It's called accountability. Trying to shift the narrative of questioning a source as "attacking the police" is exactly what I would expect from the people who ####ed up the original story and are trying to hide from the consequences.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Insein said:

Law enforcement statements said he was struck by a fire extinguisher, had a gash on his head and later died from his injuries. Turns out he wasn't struck by a fire extinguisher, didn't have a gash on his head but still died a day later. That's a pretty big discrepancy to make. 

Calling a source BS is not an attack. It's called accountability. Trying to shift the narrative of questioning a source as "attacking the police" is exactly what I would expect from the people who ####ed up the original story and are trying to hide from the consequences.

Sorry to jump in but why are people so hung up on this one part of the events that day?

I don’t get this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Insein said:
3 hours ago, Sea Duck said:

You proclaimed that Sicknick's death wasn't caused by the riot. It's a direct contradiction of law enforcement statements. Cloaking the attack in media criticism doesn't change that.

Law enforcement statements said he was struck by a fire extinguisher, had a gash on his head and later died from his injuries. Turns out he wasn't struck by a fire extinguisher, didn't have a gash on his head but still died a day later. That's a pretty big discrepancy to make. 

Calling a source BS is not an attack. It's called accountability. Trying to shift the narrative of questioning a source as "attacking the police" is exactly what I would expect from the people who ####ed up the original story and are trying to hide from the consequences.

I'm not talking about the NY Times source. I'm talking about the official police statement (here).

THAT statement says he was injured during the riot and died as a result. When you proclaim that he didn't die from the riot, you're contradicting that statement.

You want accountability, that's great. But there are ways to call for accountability without undermining law enforcement.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, The General said:

Sorry to jump in but why are people so hung up on this one part of the events that day?

I don’t get this.

It's standard playbook for conspiracies. If you can dispute one fact, then you can imply that the rest of the facts must be wrong as well. And once you do that, then you can shift blame away from the Trump supporters.

  • Like 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

I'm not talking about the NY Times source. I'm talking about the official police statement (here).

THAT statement says he was injured during the riot and died as a result. When you proclaim that he didn't die from the riot, you're contradicting that statement.

You want accountability, that's great. But there are ways to call for accountability without undermining law enforcement.

Yea we're done discussing things if that's your angle. Questioning the authenticity of a media created story is not undermining law enforcement. You know this but carry on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, The General said:

Sorry to jump in but why are people so hung up on this one part of the events that day?

I don’t get this.

Because the officers "murder" was pushed as the flag for impeachment and the lynch pin of this being an organized insurgency. To find out that it didnt even happen and that he died of a stroke a day later completely changes the narrative.

Having to unprove a lie is the burden placed on the public while the people that used this as a tool for their cause just move on to the next thing or keep repeating the lie as if nothing changed. 

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Insein said:
17 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

I'm not talking about the NY Times source. I'm talking about the official police statement (here).

THAT statement says he was injured during the riot and died as a result. When you proclaim that he didn't die from the riot, you're contradicting that statement.

You want accountability, that's great. But there are ways to call for accountability without undermining law enforcement.

Yea we're done discussing things if that's your angle. Questioning the authenticity of a media created story is not undermining law enforcement. You know this but carry on.

Do you even realize that you're not just questioning the media-created story, but questioning the official police statement as well?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Insein said:
41 minutes ago, The General said:

Sorry to jump in but why are people so hung up on this one part of the events that day?

I don’t get this.

Because the officers "murder" was pushed as the flag for impeachment and the lynch pin of this being an organized insurgency. To find out that it didnt even happen and that he died of a stroke a day later completely changes the narrative.

Just because something didn't happen exactly the way that some media outlets reported it, that doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

Also: FBI has pinpointed Officer Sicknick's attacker

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Insein said:

Because the officers "murder" was pushed as the flag for impeachment and the lynch pin of this being an organized insurgency. To find out that it didnt even happen and that he died of a stroke a day later completely changes the narrative.

Having to unprove a lie is the burden placed on the public while the people that used this as a tool for their cause just move on to the next thing or keep repeating the lie as if nothing changed. 

So you don't think Trump gets impeached a 2nd time if the police officer doesn't die?  That's nuts!

It's this kind of mentality that proves Sea Duck's post:

"If you can dispute one fact, then you can imply that the rest of the facts must be wrong as well. And once you do that, then you can shift blame away from the Trump supporters."

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

It's standard playbook for conspiracies. If you can dispute one fact, then you can imply that the rest of the facts must be wrong as well. And once you do that, then you can shift blame away from the Trump supporters.

Kind of like you can't prove the 'golden shower', so the whole dossier is BS.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Insein said:

Because the officers "murder" was pushed as the flag for impeachment and the lynch pin of this being an organized insurgency. To find out that it didnt even happen and that he died of a stroke a day later completely changes the narrative.

Having to unprove a lie is the burden placed on the public while the people that used this as a tool for their cause just move on to the next thing or keep repeating the lie as if nothing changed. 

Really?

There were cops beaten, tazed, nuts wandering the Capitol, guns drawn all over the place, Congress stopped the selection of our Prez, on and on. 

This cop’s death was part of the narrative and tragic but not anywhere close to being the reason Trump was impeached.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Chaz McNulty said:

So you don't think Trump gets impeached a 2nd time if the police officer doesn't die?  That's nuts!

It's this kind of mentality that proves Sea Duck's post:

"If you can dispute one fact, then you can imply that the rest of the facts must be wrong as well. And once you do that, then you can shift blame away from the Trump supporters."

I'm not saying they wouldn't have still done it but he was given a memorial in the Capitol and presented as if he was a fallen soldier defending freedom. The lie about him being beaten to death by rioters was used numerous times in the arguments made during the impeachment trial. 

Why is everyone so hung up on shifting blame from Trump supporters? Is that really the issue here? We're talking about the media lying to the public about the circumstances of a police officers death in order to sensationalize an event. That alone is plenty to get worked up over.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Insein said:

I'm not saying they wouldn't have still done it but he was given a memorial in the Capitol and presented as if he was a fallen soldier defending freedom. The lie about him being beaten to death by rioters was used numerous times in the arguments made during the impeachment trial. 

Why is everyone so hung up on shifting blame from Trump supporters? Is that really the issue here? We're talking about the media lying to the public about the circumstances of a police officers death in order to sensationalize an event. That alone is plenty to get worked up over.

This has been covered a ton and frankly I skipped over a lot of it. But want the story corrected very early on.

That this officer wasn’t beaten in the head with a fire extinguisher is what turns this whole thing into not being Trump’s doing?

The whole day was built around his lies and disinformation. None of this should have happened, none of it needed to happen. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Insein said:
22 minutes ago, Chaz McNulty said:

So you don't think Trump gets impeached a 2nd time if the police officer doesn't die?  That's nuts!

It's this kind of mentality that proves Sea Duck's post:

"If you can dispute one fact, then you can imply that the rest of the facts must be wrong as well. And once you do that, then you can shift blame away from the Trump supporters."

I'm not saying they wouldn't have still done it but he was given a memorial in the Capitol and presented as if he was a fallen soldier defending freedom. The lie about him being beaten to death by rioters was used numerous times in the arguments made during the impeachment trial. 

Do you honestly believe that if impeachment managers had said "He died as a result of being attacked by rioters", that it would have changed a single thing about the outcome of the impeachment? Do you think that the officer wouldn't have been given a memorial??

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Insein said:

I'm not saying they wouldn't have still done it but he was given a memorial in the Capitol and presented as if he was a fallen soldier defending freedom. The lie about him being beaten to death by rioters was used numerous times in the arguments made during the impeachment trial. 

Why is everyone so hung up on shifting blame from Trump supporters? Is that really the issue here? We're talking about the media lying to the public about the circumstances of a police officers death in order to sensationalize an event. That alone is plenty to get worked up over.

You are saying only if this wasn’t reported incorrectly that Trump shouldn’t have or wouldn’t have been impeached. 

Come on :lol:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sea Duck said:

You proclaimed that Sicknick's death wasn't caused by the riot. It's a direct contradiction of law enforcement statements. Cloaking the attack in media criticism doesn't change that.

How do we know any law enforcement said anything.  Are they using original sourcing or maybe it was second hand.   The New York Times tends to be looser with their facts when the facts support their narrative. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jon_mx said:
5 hours ago, Sea Duck said:

You proclaimed that Sicknick's death wasn't caused by the riot. It's a direct contradiction of law enforcement statements. Cloaking the attack in media criticism doesn't change that.

How do we know any law enforcement said anything. 

https://www.uscp.gov/media-center/press-releases/loss-uscp-colleague-brian-d-sicknick

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The General said:

You are saying only if this wasn’t reported incorrectly that Trump shouldn’t have or wouldn’t have been impeached. 

Come on :lol:

 

He probably woukd not have.  Reporting it as an armed insurgence when the only 'arms' used was a flag pole.  Reporting it as a deadly assault, when it is not known if the protestors/rioters directly cause a single death.  Calling it a well organized attack, when that is really only a few kooks making some internet posting which 99.9 percent of the protestors never saw.   Characterizing the mob breeching barracades when there were really no barracades put up.  The failure of the day lays nearly 100 percent in the laps of those in charge of security for failing to prepare for a situation which was broadcasted a month in advance.  

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

He probably woukd not have.  Reporting it as an armed insurgence when the only 'arms' used was a flag pole.  Reporting it as a deadly assault, when it is not known if the protestors/rioters directly cause a single death.  Calling it a well organized attack, when that is really only a few kooks making some internet posting which 99.9 percent of the protestors never saw.   Characterizing the mob breeching barracades when there were really no barracades put up.  The failure of the day lays nearly 100 percent in the laps of those in charge of security for failing to prepare for a situation which was broadcasted a month in advance.  

They broke into the Capitol at the urging of Trump. That in and of itself is beyond the pale, and those who broke in should face significant jail time.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, Kal El said:

They broke into the Capitol at the urging of Trump. That in and of itself is beyond the pale, and those who broke in should face significant jail time.

Trump told them to peacefully excercize their first amendment rights and be heard.  He never told anyone to break into the capitol. 

Edited by jon_mx
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jon_mx said:

 

Trump told them to peacefully excercize their first amendment rights and be heard.  He never told anyone to break into the capitol. 

He peddled the lie that the election was stolen, told his supporters to March on the Capitol to “stop the steal,” in this case meaning interfere with the processing of an election that he clearly lost.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

 

Trump told them to peacefully excercize their first amendment rights and be heard.  He never told anyone to break into the capitol. 

You don’t need to give specific orders to be guilty of incitement

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

He probably woukd not have.  Reporting it as an armed insurgence when the only 'arms' used was a flag pole.  Reporting it as a deadly assault, when it is not known if the protestors/rioters directly cause a single death.  Calling it a well organized attack, when that is really only a few kooks making some internet posting which 99.9 percent of the protestors never saw.   Characterizing the mob breeching barracades when there were really no barracades put up.  The failure of the day lays nearly 100 percent in the laps of those in charge of security for failing to prepare for a situation which was broadcasted a month in advance.  

You take being wrong to dizzying heights.

  • Like 3
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

He probably woukd not have.  Reporting it as an armed insurgence when the only 'arms' used was a flag pole.  Reporting it as a deadly assault, when it is not known if the protestors/rioters directly cause a single death.  Calling it a well organized attack, when that is really only a few kooks making some internet posting which 99.9 percent of the protestors never saw.   Characterizing the mob breeching barracades when there were really no barracades put up.  The failure of the day lays nearly 100 percent in the laps of those in charge of security for failing to prepare for a situation which was broadcasted a month in advance.  

People rioting to stop the process at the Capitol because the president makes up a bunch of crap about the election stolen from him is impeachable.

Pretty much the end of the story.

Why the police weren’t better prepared is a whole other issue that should be looked into. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sea Duck said:

I'm not talking about the NY Times source. I'm talking about the official police statement (here).

THAT statement says he was injured during the riot and died as a result. When you proclaim that he didn't die from the riot, you're contradicting that statement.

You want accountability, that's great. But there are ways to call for accountability without undermining law enforcement.

That statement also says they are investigating. 

Also if the police were so knowledgable about the exact cause of death why werent they out there debunking the gash on the forehead narrative? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, The General said:

People rioting to stop the process at the Capitol because the president makes up a bunch of crap about the election stolen from him is impeachable.

Pretty much the end of the story.

Why the police weren’t better prepared is a whole other issue that should be looked into. 

The list of Republicans who agree with this is long. The list of Republicans who agree and have a spine is much smaller.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:
5 hours ago, Sea Duck said:

I'm not talking about the NY Times source. I'm talking about the official police statement (here).

THAT statement says he was injured during the riot and died as a result. When you proclaim that he didn't die from the riot, you're contradicting that statement.

You want accountability, that's great. But there are ways to call for accountability without undermining law enforcement.

That statement also says they are investigating. 

Also if the police were so knowledgable about the exact cause of death why werent they out there debunking the gash on the forehead narrative? 

Wat? The police statement didn't say that they knew his exact cause of death. There's no need to twist words here.

It said he was injured while engaging with the rioters, and it said he died from his injuries.

If you don't believe that, OK, that's your prerogative. But don't use the NYT as an excuse to impugn the police.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sea Duck said:

Wat? The police statement didn't say that they knew his exact cause of death. There's no need to twist words here.

It said he was injured while engaging with the rioters, and it said he died from his injuries.

If you don't believe that, OK, that's your prerogative. But don't use the NYT as an excuse to impugn the police.

Their audience is each other - they are not having honest debate..

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   1 member


×
×
  • Create New...