You can ask a question, while still being done with the consequences and optics.
Jan 6th was a mess the moment they stepped into the capitol, but in the end, I think it was the best.
At the end of the day, yes they might be trying to plant another false flag, but if we stay huddled in our houses doing nothing, always afraid of retaliation, we will never get anything done.
Please enlighten me to your perspective, it doesn't seem internally consistent from what I've observed.
Also you're an ass if you don't think people can both question and approve of something.
but if we stay huddled in our houses doing nothing, always afraid of retaliation, we will never get anything done.
That is a strawman argument for this specific situation. I am certainly not arguing for doing nothing and suggesting otherwise is unsupported by anything I have said.
Also you're an ass if you don't think people can both question and approve of something.
Perhaps you should re read the context of what has been said thus far. You seem to be missing out on the inconsistency (done worrying about consequences, time to just take action) compared to the (who let them through) posts.
Are we rushing in charging like the light brigade, or are we strategically and tactically analyzing what is happening around us in context of whom are enemy is and what counter moves our actions or inaction open up to our opponent?
I'm simply asking for his perspective as I see these two responses to be internally inconsistent. I have not made any assertion that people cannot both support and question something. After all I both support and question what is happening in Canada.
It is odd to me that asking for his perspective and relating my observations is characteristic of being an ass in your book. Dare I say your assertion that I am saying something that isn't said is yet another strawman argument.
VetforTrump said:
Given your response to my "chicken little bullshit" post in this thread, I find it very odd to see this post by you in the same thread.
Who let them through is precisely one of my points, as I have considered the implications of that.
Besides, I thought we are done worrying about the consequences, so really why would it matter at all to consider who let them through?
Please enlighten me to your perspective, it doesn't seem internally consistent from what I've observed.
You can ask a question, while still being done with the consequences and optics.
Jan 6th was a mess the moment they stepped into the capitol, but in the end, I think it was the best.
At the end of the day, yes they might be trying to plant another false flag, but if we stay huddled in our houses doing nothing, always afraid of retaliation, we will never get anything done.
Also you're an ass if you don't think people can both question and approve of something.
That is a strawman argument for this specific situation. I am certainly not arguing for doing nothing and suggesting otherwise is unsupported by anything I have said.
Perhaps you should re read the context of what has been said thus far. You seem to be missing out on the inconsistency (done worrying about consequences, time to just take action) compared to the (who let them through) posts.
Are we rushing in charging like the light brigade, or are we strategically and tactically analyzing what is happening around us in context of whom are enemy is and what counter moves our actions or inaction open up to our opponent?
I'm simply asking for his perspective as I see these two responses to be internally inconsistent. I have not made any assertion that people cannot both support and question something. After all I both support and question what is happening in Canada.
It is odd to me that asking for his perspective and relating my observations is characteristic of being an ass in your book. Dare I say your assertion that I am saying something that isn't said is yet another strawman argument.
If you are confused I understand. You confused me too. Don't think I was addressing the same post.