-
@LuFins-Dad said in FFS:
But we have the word of an independent journalist. That I’ve never heard of. That didn’t have anything to back up his claim.
And in the original tweet we have a third hand report that the Capitol Police said it might ‘offend’ someone.
It seems far more likely that they were asked to stop because the rules just dont allow it.
No, in the thread you see attributed quotes to several people by name. Not “my sources”. The original poster might be some anonymous asshat, but they did back up their assertion.
Beyond that, the very fact that singing Patriotic Songs is considered an inappropriate demonstration?! That doesn’t warrant a FFS?
@LuFins-Dad said in FFS:
@LuFins-Dad said in FFS:
But we have the word of an independent journalist. That I’ve never heard of. That didn’t have anything to back up his claim.
And in the original tweet we have a third hand report that the Capitol Police said it might ‘offend’ someone.
It seems far more likely that they were asked to stop because the rules just dont allow it.
No, in the thread you see attributed quotes to several people by name. Not “my sources”. The original poster might be some anonymous asshat, but they did back up their assertion.
Beyond that, the very fact that singing Patriotic Songs is considered an inappropriate demonstration?! That doesn’t warrant a FFS?
Surely a rule that said “no singing the national anthem” would merit a FFS. But a “no singing” rule wouldn’t, though reasonable people could disagree about whether there should be such a rule
-
@LuFins-Dad said in FFS:
@LuFins-Dad said in FFS:
But we have the word of an independent journalist. That I’ve never heard of. That didn’t have anything to back up his claim.
And in the original tweet we have a third hand report that the Capitol Police said it might ‘offend’ someone.
It seems far more likely that they were asked to stop because the rules just dont allow it.
No, in the thread you see attributed quotes to several people by name. Not “my sources”. The original poster might be some anonymous asshat, but they did back up their assertion.
Beyond that, the very fact that singing Patriotic Songs is considered an inappropriate demonstration?! That doesn’t warrant a FFS?
Surely a rule that said “no singing the national anthem” would merit a FFS. But a “no singing” rule wouldn’t, though reasonable people could disagree about whether there should be such a rule
@LuFins-Dad said in FFS:
@LuFins-Dad said in FFS:
But we have the word of an independent journalist. That I’ve never heard of. That didn’t have anything to back up his claim.
And in the original tweet we have a third hand report that the Capitol Police said it might ‘offend’ someone.
It seems far more likely that they were asked to stop because the rules just dont allow it.
No, in the thread you see attributed quotes to several people by name. Not “my sources”. The original poster might be some anonymous asshat, but they did back up their assertion.
Beyond that, the very fact that singing Patriotic Songs is considered an inappropriate demonstration?! That doesn’t warrant a FFS?
Surely a rule that said “no singing the national anthem” would merit a FFS. But a “no singing” rule wouldn’t, though reasonable people could disagree about whether there should be such a rule
Again you are practicing selective understanding. The rule is that you need permission to perform, and that rule was not broken. The Capitol police originally reached out to the leftist 'journalist' with an email stating that a congressional staffer accompanying the choir, said they had permission. The police accused that person of lying. Then the police admitted the choir did have permission, and that no rule was broken.
So, putting the pieces together, the police were told, by a congressional staffer, that permission had been given for the choir to perform. The police decided that staffer was lying, and shut down the performance mid-song. They then proceeded to bend the narrative to attempt to justify their actions, backtracking through various lies (we waited until the song was done, the staffer was lying), and eventually landing on an admission of an unspecified "miscommunication".
Go ahead and frame that in some sort of way that the Capitol Police aren't in the wrong.
