Stroke?
-
See how risky this is Horace?
What if it turns out that 100 police were injured and 15 hospitalized and no spray was used at all? Do you really think I could survive such pwnage?
See how risky this is Horace?
What if it turns out that 100 police were injured and 15 hospitalized and no spray was used at all? Do you really think I could survive such pwnage?
Well it’s an interesting reframe but the point I think is the media spread an untruth that everyone still believes and yet a month later the truth is hidden and still coming out. But was it simply a mistake, hell no, it was rhetorical gasoline and some of us know, that is the MO of the so called truth seekers.
-
So you do not recognize a moral difference between bludgeoning a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher and spraying an officer with what is considered a non-lethal device used for self protection?
Please note that spraying a human being with bear spray IS illegal and you are subject to arrest.
-
So you do not recognize a moral difference between bludgeoning a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher and spraying an officer with what is considered a non-lethal device used for self protection?
Please note that spraying a human being with bear spray IS illegal and you are subject to arrest.
@lufins-dad said in Stroke?:
So you do not recognize a moral difference between bludgeoning a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher and spraying an officer with what is considered a non-lethal device used for self protection?
Please note that spraying a human being with bear spray IS illegal and you are subject to arrest.
I actually don’t see much of a difference in the context of an insurrection. They are both nearly equally horrible. What’s worse to me is the lying about what actually happened because people know the reaction to blunt force trauma carries rhetorical weight. This is the group that calls themselves the vanguards of the truth, the paper of record if you will. It’s propaganda on the same level they accuse the partisans on the other side of.
-
@lufins-dad said in Stroke?:
So you do not recognize a moral difference between bludgeoning a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher and spraying an officer with what is considered a non-lethal device used for self protection?
Please note that spraying a human being with bear spray IS illegal and you are subject to arrest.
I actually don’t see much of a difference in the context of an insurrection. They are both nearly equally horrible. What’s worse to me is the lying about what actually happened because people know the reaction to blunt force trauma carries rhetorical weight. This is the group that calls themselves the vanguards of the truth, the paper of record if you will. It’s propaganda on the same level they accuse the partisans on the other side of.
@lufins-dad said in Stroke?:
So you do not recognize a moral difference between bludgeoning a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher and spraying an officer with what is considered a non-lethal device used for self protection?
Please note that spraying a human being with bear spray IS illegal and you are subject to arrest.
I actually don’t see much of a difference in the context of an insurrection. They are both nearly equally horrible. What’s worse to me is the lying about what actually happened because people know the reaction to blunt force trauma carries rhetorical weight. This is the group that calls themselves the vanguards of the truth, the paper of record if you will. It’s propaganda on the same level they accuse the partisans on the other side of.
Well they're both ridiculous in the context of an "insurrection" against a government with the most powerful military in the history of the world. If you have 100 people armed with bear spray, or 100 people armed with fire extinguishers, neither of them have a hope to take over the government. So in fact there is no distinction between the two in terms of coups.
-
@lufins-dad said in Stroke?:
So you do not recognize a moral difference between bludgeoning a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher and spraying an officer with what is considered a non-lethal device used for self protection?
Please note that spraying a human being with bear spray IS illegal and you are subject to arrest.
I actually don’t see much of a difference in the context of an insurrection. They are both nearly equally horrible. What’s worse to me is the lying about what actually happened because people know the reaction to blunt force trauma carries rhetorical weight. This is the group that calls themselves the vanguards of the truth, the paper of record if you will. It’s propaganda on the same level they accuse the partisans on the other side of.
Well they're both ridiculous in the context of an "insurrection" against a government with the most powerful military in the history of the world. If you have 100 people armed with bear spray, or 100 people armed with fire extinguishers, neither of them have a hope to take over the government. So in fact there is no distinction between the two in terms of coups.
@lufins-dad said in Stroke?:
So you do not recognize a moral difference between bludgeoning a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher and spraying an officer with what is considered a non-lethal device used for self protection?
Please note that spraying a human being with bear spray IS illegal and you are subject to arrest.
I actually don’t see much of a difference in the context of an insurrection. They are both nearly equally horrible. What’s worse to me is the lying about what actually happened because people know the reaction to blunt force trauma carries rhetorical weight. This is the group that calls themselves the vanguards of the truth, the paper of record if you will. It’s propaganda on the same level they accuse the partisans on the other side of.
Well they're both ridiculous in the context of an "insurrection" against a government with the most powerful military in the history of the world. If you have 100 people armed with bear spray, or 100 people armed with fire extinguishers, neither of them have a hope to take over the government. So in fact there is no distinction between the two in terms of coups.
I do get your point, however, I do see violation of sacred space as a threshold moment and I do believe we are extraordinarily lucky something much bigger didn’t happen. Literally anything can happen when a mob mentality starts and is driven only by and seeking out only the next spark.
-
@lufins-dad said in Stroke?:
So you do not recognize a moral difference between bludgeoning a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher and spraying an officer with what is considered a non-lethal device used for self protection?
Please note that spraying a human being with bear spray IS illegal and you are subject to arrest.
I actually don’t see much of a difference in the context of an insurrection. They are both nearly equally horrible. What’s worse to me is the lying about what actually happened because people know the reaction to blunt force trauma carries rhetorical weight. This is the group that calls themselves the vanguards of the truth, the paper of record if you will. It’s propaganda on the same level they accuse the partisans on the other side of.
Well they're both ridiculous in the context of an "insurrection" against a government with the most powerful military in the history of the world. If you have 100 people armed with bear spray, or 100 people armed with fire extinguishers, neither of them have a hope to take over the government. So in fact there is no distinction between the two in terms of coups.
I do get your point, however, I do see violation of sacred space as a threshold moment and I do believe we are extraordinarily lucky something much bigger didn’t happen. Literally anything can happen when a mob mentality starts and is driven only by and seeking out only the next spark.
@lufins-dad said in Stroke?:
So you do not recognize a moral difference between bludgeoning a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher and spraying an officer with what is considered a non-lethal device used for self protection?
Please note that spraying a human being with bear spray IS illegal and you are subject to arrest.
I actually don’t see much of a difference in the context of an insurrection. They are both nearly equally horrible. What’s worse to me is the lying about what actually happened because people know the reaction to blunt force trauma carries rhetorical weight. This is the group that calls themselves the vanguards of the truth, the paper of record if you will. It’s propaganda on the same level they accuse the partisans on the other side of.
Well they're both ridiculous in the context of an "insurrection" against a government with the most powerful military in the history of the world. If you have 100 people armed with bear spray, or 100 people armed with fire extinguishers, neither of them have a hope to take over the government. So in fact there is no distinction between the two in terms of coups.
I do get your point, however, I do see violation of sacred space as a threshold moment and I do believe we are extraordinarily lucky something much bigger didn’t happen. Literally anything can happen when a mob mentality starts and is driven only by and seeking out only the next spark.
We should lock the Capitol doors next time.
-
@lufins-dad said in Stroke?:
So you do not recognize a moral difference between bludgeoning a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher and spraying an officer with what is considered a non-lethal device used for self protection?
Please note that spraying a human being with bear spray IS illegal and you are subject to arrest.
I actually don’t see much of a difference in the context of an insurrection. They are both nearly equally horrible. What’s worse to me is the lying about what actually happened because people know the reaction to blunt force trauma carries rhetorical weight. This is the group that calls themselves the vanguards of the truth, the paper of record if you will. It’s propaganda on the same level they accuse the partisans on the other side of.
Well they're both ridiculous in the context of an "insurrection" against a government with the most powerful military in the history of the world. If you have 100 people armed with bear spray, or 100 people armed with fire extinguishers, neither of them have a hope to take over the government. So in fact there is no distinction between the two in terms of coups.
I do get your point, however, I do see violation of sacred space as a threshold moment and I do believe we are extraordinarily lucky something much bigger didn’t happen. Literally anything can happen when a mob mentality starts and is driven only by and seeking out only the next spark.
We should lock the Capitol doors next time.
@lufins-dad said in Stroke?:
So you do not recognize a moral difference between bludgeoning a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher and spraying an officer with what is considered a non-lethal device used for self protection?
Please note that spraying a human being with bear spray IS illegal and you are subject to arrest.
I actually don’t see much of a difference in the context of an insurrection. They are both nearly equally horrible. What’s worse to me is the lying about what actually happened because people know the reaction to blunt force trauma carries rhetorical weight. This is the group that calls themselves the vanguards of the truth, the paper of record if you will. It’s propaganda on the same level they accuse the partisans on the other side of.
Well they're both ridiculous in the context of an "insurrection" against a government with the most powerful military in the history of the world. If you have 100 people armed with bear spray, or 100 people armed with fire extinguishers, neither of them have a hope to take over the government. So in fact there is no distinction between the two in terms of coups.
I do get your point, however, I do see violation of sacred space as a threshold moment and I do believe we are extraordinarily lucky something much bigger didn’t happen. Literally anything can happen when a mob mentality starts and is driven only by and seeking out only the next spark.
We should lock the Capitol doors next time.
Historically security has always been the root cause. Interestingly the left wants to minimize in this case. I agree.
-
@lufins-dad said in Stroke?:
So you do not recognize a moral difference between bludgeoning a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher and spraying an officer with what is considered a non-lethal device used for self protection?
Please note that spraying a human being with bear spray IS illegal and you are subject to arrest.
I actually don’t see much of a difference in the context of an insurrection. They are both nearly equally horrible. What’s worse to me is the lying about what actually happened because people know the reaction to blunt force trauma carries rhetorical weight. This is the group that calls themselves the vanguards of the truth, the paper of record if you will. It’s propaganda on the same level they accuse the partisans on the other side of.
Well they're both ridiculous in the context of an "insurrection" against a government with the most powerful military in the history of the world. If you have 100 people armed with bear spray, or 100 people armed with fire extinguishers, neither of them have a hope to take over the government. So in fact there is no distinction between the two in terms of coups.
I do get your point, however, I do see violation of sacred space as a threshold moment and I do believe we are extraordinarily lucky something much bigger didn’t happen. Literally anything can happen when a mob mentality starts and is driven only by and seeking out only the next spark.
We should lock the Capitol doors next time.
Historically security has always been the root cause. Interestingly the left wants to minimize in this case. I agree.
@lufins-dad said in Stroke?:
So you do not recognize a moral difference between bludgeoning a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher and spraying an officer with what is considered a non-lethal device used for self protection?
Please note that spraying a human being with bear spray IS illegal and you are subject to arrest.
I actually don’t see much of a difference in the context of an insurrection. They are both nearly equally horrible. What’s worse to me is the lying about what actually happened because people know the reaction to blunt force trauma carries rhetorical weight. This is the group that calls themselves the vanguards of the truth, the paper of record if you will. It’s propaganda on the same level they accuse the partisans on the other side of.
Well they're both ridiculous in the context of an "insurrection" against a government with the most powerful military in the history of the world. If you have 100 people armed with bear spray, or 100 people armed with fire extinguishers, neither of them have a hope to take over the government. So in fact there is no distinction between the two in terms of coups.
I do get your point, however, I do see violation of sacred space as a threshold moment and I do believe we are extraordinarily lucky something much bigger didn’t happen. Literally anything can happen when a mob mentality starts and is driven only by and seeking out only the next spark.
We should lock the Capitol doors next time.
Historically security has always been the root cause. Interestingly the left wants to minimize in this case. I agree.
Those idiots don't make it into that building unless they are allowed into the building.
-
While two individuals have been accused of spraying a chemical irritant at Sicknick on Jan. 6, Diaz in an interview with the Washington Post said that the autopsy did not uncover any evidence that Sicknick experienced an allergic response to chemical irritants, and he also noted that there was not any evidence of the officer having any internal or external injuries.
Diaz noted that Sicknick was involved in handling the rioters at the Capitol and said that "all that transpired played a role in his condition," according to the outlet.
"Diaz said Sicknick suffered two strokes at the base of the brain stem caused by a clot in an artery that supplies blood to that area of the body. Diaz said he could not comment on whether Sicknick had a preexisting medical condition, citing privacy laws," the outlet reported.
A press release from the D.C. Office of the Chief Medical Examiner listed Sicknick's cause of death as "acute brainstem and cerebellar infarcts due to acute basilar artery thrombosis." The manner of Sicknick's death was listed as "natural," a term that describes "when a disease alone causes death. If death is hastened by an injury, the manner of death is not considered natural," according to the release.
You really don't want a basilar artery thrombosis. Really. You don't.
-
Interesting piece on whether stress can cause a stroke. Very complicated answer, so dying of natural causes is quite plausible and perhaps the only medical conclusion you could draw.
https://www.unitypoint.org/livewell/article.aspx?id=c5c081af-e041-4816-9225-df5472cea19c
-
Greenwald:
The Media Lied Repeatedly About Officer Brian Sicknick's Death. And They Just Got Caught.
Read it all.
-
Greenwald:
The Media Lied Repeatedly About Officer Brian Sicknick's Death. And They Just Got Caught.
Read it all.
He had just become their toy, to be played with and exploited in order to depict the January 6 protest as a murderous orgy carried out by savages so primitive and inhuman that they were willing to fatally bash in the skull of a helpless person or spray them with deadly gases until they choked to death on their own lung fluids. None of it was true, but that did not matter — and it still does not to them — because truth, as always, has nothing to do with their actual function. If anything, truth is an impediment to it.
A few doofusses taking selfies
-
Now, let's tie this story to COVID, masks and vaccines...
Bill Maher made the comment recently on his show, that if people need to castigate
the Right-leaning media for what they said after the election concerning election fraud, why is the Left-leaning media not taken to task about the way they have reported on COVID?Doesn't the MSM's reporting on this story, just perpetuate a narrative and not a Truth?
Is this all media is today?
