Rumor What's going on in Portland? (1 Viewer)

[Lanny]

so in what world is setting a state judicial building on fire or a police precinct on fire with people inside, not the equivalent or in excess of of trespassing and vandalizing the capital?

I never said it was. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

 

[Orion Bailey]

I have no idea who you're addressing this to unless it's you.
I just don't understand how you can not see the difference in magnitude. Do you consider the Capitol as just another one of many federal buildings? And do you consider the intent of disrupting Congress from doing it's Constitutionally required duty as just disrupting federal employees from doing their business from any of thousands of other federal buildings? Or do you consider lighting fires in the streets or in buildings that are by building code relatively fireproof with sprinklers and fire resistant materials to be the same as searching for U.S. Congressional legislators to kill or beat up? Please tell me you see a difference.

i consider lighting a police precinct with people trespassing inside attempted murder.
Do you not?

 

[Lanny]

what happens when many not breaking the law provide cover for those that do to prevent convicting evidence to be had for a just prosecution?

Could you simplify that statement a little better?
I'll make an attempt to answer it. Not breaking the law means they're not providing cover for those breaking the law. I hope this answers your question.

 

[Orion Bailey]

I never said it was. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

when did i put words in your mouth? Thats a false accusation. I never said you said that. I asked a question. Here is another question. Will you answer the original question or deflect again?

 

[Orion Bailey]

Could you simplify that statement a little better?
I'll make an attempt to answer it. Not breaking the law means they're not providing cover for those breaking the law. I hope this answers your question.

How? They are peacefully protesting en mass. Peaceful protest in mass is not breaking the law. Do you mean to say that those peaceful protestors who do not report those around them breaking the law are then also breaking the law?

 

[Lanny]

i consider lighting a police precinct with people trespassing inside attempted murder.
Do you not?

Depends on the fire of course but the Fire Protective code, which is essentially the building code, provides for non combustible materials and a good sprinkler system in order for the fire department to declare the building habitable. I'm professionally acquainted with those codes. You're going to have a tough time killing someone by building a fire in a modern or updated building and all federal buildings are either new or updated to the latest standards. It's some of the older commercial buildings that you have to worry about.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Listen my friend, no matter how you spin it cop killing bomb throwing racists trying to take over our government is not the same as fucking idiots trying to burn down a steel building.

Both are idiots, but to very different degrees.

@Orion Bailey I never said all the Jan 6th idiots are cop killers, just like I didn't say all the Antifa idiots are arsonists.

That is a strawman you have built.

You're the one who keeps trying to argue that these two acts are equal. IMO they are not.

What I have repeatedly said is that when you look at the crimes committed during both incidences there is no way a person can claim the are the same.

oh yeah? Read above. You certainly implied it.
You denying you typed that?

if not, then maybe you should clarify yourself with a bit more of an up and up conversation?

when you accused me of stating they are the same i clarified my point and stance.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Depends on the fire of course but the Fire Protective code, which is essentially the building code, provides for non combustible materials and a good sprinkler system in order for the fire department to declare the building habitable. I'm professionally acquainted with those codes. You're going to have a tough time killing someone by building a fire in a modern or updated building and all federal buildings are either new or updated to the latest standards. It's some of the older commercial buildings that you have to worry about.

So because one building has better fire protection than the other its a lesser crime? To attempt to light a building on fire with people inside with better protection than a building without is a lesser crime?
In what law book may i ask?

 

[Orion Bailey]

This is too easy. Next? Lol

 

[Lanny]

when did i put words in your mouth? Thats a false accusation. I never said you said that. I asked a question. Here is another question. Will you answer the original question or deflect again?

Several places but I'll start with one:
"You are wrong to generalize." I answered this one in the many many retorts that you trap me into answering.
This is getting beyond ridiculous. If you can't see it now then I predict that you will never get it.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Several places but I'll start with one:
"You are wrong to generalize." I answered this one in the many many retorts that you trap me into answering.
This is getting beyond ridiculous. If you can't see it now then I predict that you will never get it.

you are right. Your sidestepping is ridiculous. i quoted what you said and replied to that. I didn't know you were stating ever in history....

but i didnt think you could actually answer the question. Just spin spin spin. So ridiculous is correct.

 

[Lanny]

So because one building has better fire protection than the other its a lesser crime? To attempt to light a building on fire with people inside with better protection than a building without is a lesser crime?
In what law book may i ask?

If I try to build a fire to damage your pet rock am I really doing damage? A building is not a pet rock but it's going to be extremely unlikely that you're going to kill anyone in today's federal buildings. When is the last time you heard of that happening, probably somewhere in the 1880s.

 

[Lanny]

you are right. Your sidestepping is ridiculous. i quoted what you said and replied to that. I didn't know you were stating ever in history....

but i didnt think you could actually answer the question. Just spin spin spin. So ridiculous is correct.

Can you get anyone in here to agree with you? That should be a clue right there.

 

[Orion Bailey]

If I try to build a fire to damage your pet rock am I really doing damage? A building is not a pet rock but it's going to be extremely unlikely that you're going to kill anyone in today's federal buildings. When is the last time you heard of that happening, probably somewhere in the 1880s.

i understand your logic. I do not however agree the law differentiates. Not referring to the pet rock. There arent people trapped inside a pet rock, so thats a moot and irrelevant point. Please keep it within context.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Can you get anyone in here to agree with you? That should be a clue right there.

You are kidding right? This echo chamber? Lol. Its why so many of tou spend so much time here. You get to kiss each others opinions amd think you are correct. All ten or fifteen of ya. Lol.

 

[Lanny]

i understand your logic. I do not however agree the law differentiates. Not referring to the pet rock. There arent people trapped inside a pet rock, so thats a moot and irrelevant point. Please keep it within context.

I was making a point about setting a fire. That is and was the context.

 

[Lanny]

You are kidding right? This echo chamber? Lol. Its why so many of tou spend so much time here. You get to kiss each others opinions amd think you are correct. All ten or fifteen of ya. Lol.

That's the way you see it. I see it as arriving at the truth simultaneously.

 

[Orion Bailey]

That's the way you see it. I see it as arriving at the truth simultaneously.

and thats the fatal flaw. You think because a few other people agree with your opinion, it makes it truth.
Making any realistic conversation to be had futile...

 

[SlyPokerDog]

oh yeah? Read above. You certainly implied it.
You denying you typed that?

if not, then maybe you should clarify yourself with a bit more of an up and up conversation?

when you accused me of stating they are the same i clarified my point and stance.

Yes, in the statement of mine you are quoting I pointed out the worst crimes committed by each group.

Bomb throwing cop killing racists vs idiot arsonists.

What's weird is that you only have issue with one side of that statement. That not all of the Jan 6th idiots are bomb throwing cop killing racists, but no such defending of Antifa.

 

[Lanny]

and thats the fatal flaw. You think because a few other people agree with your opinion, it makes it truth.
Making any realistic conversation to be had futile...

Agreed, futile.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Yes, in the statement of mine you are quoting I pointed out the worst crimes committed by each group.

Bomb throwing cop killing racists vs idiot arsonists.

What's weird is that you only have issue with one side of that statement. That not all of the Jan 6th idiots are bomb throwing cop killing racists, but no such defending of Antifa.

First question: what defense should i provide for antifa in this instance?

second question, what actions of antifa should i defend at all?

if you mean their cause? I support it.
If you mean thier attempts to rid fascism with fascism? I dont support it.

third question. Did you missed where i repeatedly separated the few cop killers for the masses who were at the capital protesting?

 

[Orion Bailey]

Agreed, futile.

see? We agree! But that doesn't also make it true does it?
because we have had good Conversations in the past that were fR from futile. So just because some people agree on something, doesnt make it a fact.
See how that truth thing works?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

First question: what defense should i provide for antifa in this instance?

second question, what actions of antifa should i defend at all?

if you mean their cause? I support it.
If you mean thier attempts to rid fascism with fascism? I dont support it.

third question. Did you missed where i repeatedly separated the few cop killers for the masses who were at the capital protesting?

You've had a very strong defense of the Jan 6th idiots correctly pointing out that not all of them are bomb throwing cop killing racists, but not such defense that not all of the antifa idiots are arsonists.

You're only concerned about the accurate portrayal of only one of these groups of idiots.

 

[Orion Bailey]

You've had a very strong defense of the Jan 6th idiots correctly pointing out that not all of them are bomb throwing cop killing racists, but not such defense that not all of the antifa idiots are arsonists.

You're only concerned about the accurate portrayal of only one of these groups of idiots.

not true at all. Its the continual inaccurate portrayal of downtown that has me pointing things no one says because they only care about dividing antifa and blm from law breakers. But when the capital happens they are all the same.
So in return then all arsonists hanging with antifa make all those antifa the same.

Your logic im using. You dont like it, change your logic.

 

[Phatguysrule]

oh bullshit. I never said murder.
Im talking about the insurrection and attempt to take over a federal building.

spin spin spin.

the effects of it will always vary. The innitial act was the same. You can make excuses all you want.

But someone got murdurered!
By a few. Ot the masses that tried to take over the building. Just like those who tried to take over the building on friday in Portland.

Typical spin bullshit.

Nobody has a problem with anybody protesting on the 6th. The problem is with a political leader inciting violence (fight like hell!) against our capital. And with the brutal deaths and injuries that resulted from it.

If I tell you to kill somebody and you don't do it, it's not really a big deal. Maybe I'm just joking...

It's a whole different ball game if you actually do what I ordered you to do and people get hurt.

So no. Not the same thing. Not even in the same ballpark.

 

[Phatguysrule]

not true at all. Its the continual inaccurate portrayal of downtown that has me pointing things no one says because they only care about dividing antifa and blm from law breakers. But when the capital happens they are all the same.
So in return then all arsonists hanging with antifa make all those antifa the same.

Your logic im using. You dont like it, change your logic.

Who said everybody at the capital that day deserved to be punished?

Anybody who broke in or hurt anybody should definitely be punished.

 

[RR7]

LOL

 

[Minstrel]

So, what I'm learning is insurrection with intent to murder ("hang Mike Pence!"), intimidate law-makers and loot ("secure the electoral votes and evidence of wrong-doing!") is exactly equal with vandalism and arson.

The fact that one ended up in murder and the other didn't is just minor facts that had nothing to do with the actual actions, just luck of the draw.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

imma have to agree with sly here. You’ve laid out many arguments as to why I agree with Sly. I just feel like they line up more with the opposite perspective of your opinion.

no disrespect intended.

Nope. I disrespectfully decline. And the amount of talking you’re doing justifies my perspective.

 

[Lanny]

see? We agree! But that doesn't also make it true does it?
because we have had good Conversations in the past that were fR from futile. So just because some people agree on something, doesnt make it a fact.
See how that truth thing works?

Look, you're a good guy. I like you for that reason and I just wanted to end it before I turned you against me.