Who was behind the siege on the Capital?
- Thread starter Cortez88
- Start date
Well, no, not exactly.
The guy in the "Chuck Norris photo" (to me) looked a lot like a 45-year-old version of the present 80-year-old horribly radical right-wing Chuck Norris, but the identification of the protestor as the real "Chuck Norris" was not established by anyone that actually knew him. Plus, after seeing my 80-year-old relatives, it's not likely that the real 80-year-old Chuck Norris still looks like he did when he was 45.
Her message referred to "members of Congress." Although she didn't name them, it is absolutely not implausible that she recognized them.
I say it because it's true and have many friends and family who are conservative but not part of the cult. I say it to people on the left far more than to people on the right to help inform differentiate and separate the good guys from the bad.
I'm basically saying to my "radical" "woke" brothers and sisters than not all conservatives are jacked up nut balls .. and to my "unwoke" "unradical" brothers and sisters on the conservative side that are not part of the cult that I still accept them..
I find it offensive that anyone would assume I or anyone else that states that truth and still treating real conservatives as humans and not a label, has any other intent..
Last edited:
Some of you may never have seen an affidavit in a criminal case before. Here is a link to the affidavit in the Mark Leffingwell case.
right on cue and right on my point. Damn dude.
I would love to hear how you could possibly come to this conclusion based on my posts (which is all you have).
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
To flesh it out a bit more, it does seem obvious that some of the people who rioted on Wednesday were Trump cultists, and some of the people were varieties of white nationalists/fascists. I'm not sure if the former would qualify as "right-wing violence," but the latter definitely would, so the question is really just how much of the violence was ideologically motivated.
However, if your concern is less about how much of it is ideological, and more about lumping in extremists with conservatives, then I would agree with your concern. I would not want anyone to confuse fascists with mainstream conservatives and use the term "right-wing violence" as a means to accuse others of being complicit merely for the fact of being conservative. However, to be fair to the cesspool this forum has become, it would be equally as unfair to use the term "left-wing violence" to accuse mainstream liberals of being complicit with violence carried out by anarchists, and that accusation has been flying around this place quite freely over recent months.
For my part, I have no problem referring to anarchists as left-wing or fascists as right-wing, but I don't intend to lump them in with mainstream members of the political spectrum in either case. To the extent that individuals are complicit with the radical extremes on their end, it is only in their individual tacit (or sometimes even vocal) support of extreme causes, and not for the fact of their identification as either a conservative/Republican or liberal/Democrat.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Again: Fair - but this well thought post deserves more of a response so:
i agree with everything you just said. The problem I have - and it’s not limited to this cesspool as you’ve coined it - is that Democrats are pounding their chests and raising their imaginary Sabres of Virtue high and mighty as if they have the moral high ground because a few hundred inbreds did what they did last week. They’re furthering the divide - furthering the animosity - and not doing what they should be to win hearts and minds because of their rabid, hyper-emotional base. They’re missing a golden opportunity.
Last edited by a moderator:
It is not only uncommon, visitation and tours are forbidden under COVID restrictions.
That is why Rep. Sherrill and 30+ other house members REPORTED IT as suspicious activity, has sworn to this, and have called for an investigation.
She was just interviewed on MSNBC
What is Ted Cruz doing with his hair these days? The beard is a good look, classic fat guy move to cover up a chubby face.
But this weird bushy mullet thing he has going on in just gross.
As a moderator you are a major contributor to the “cesspool”. Just saying
He was complicit in the removal of IDontWannaLargeFarva and I will not rest until justice is served.
That's like being charged with being complicit in flushing a toilet
Farva sucked eggs. You suck eggs, too, but you're way better than Farva was.
You might be right. However, I still keep going back to the same thing on that point. And I know it's emotional and reactionary and might be strategically stupid, but I'm just sick and damn tired of it being the left's job to reach out to the right when the right goes crazy. No one has ever said, "Well, if we really want to marginalize those crazy lefties, the Republicans should reach out to reasonable Democrats instead of catering to their rabid base." Never.
Again, that might not be the smartest way to look at things, but it is what it is. This shit gets frustrating after a while.
Cruz is trying to appear “roguish” I guess. It’s Hawley that scares me. He reminds of Patrick Bateman from American Psycho. And I’m talking the book version not the movie.
They deserve each other. We (except maybe a few of us) don't deserve either of them. Let's hope we have an uneventful week!
Looks like Amazon has provided a pretty strong rebuttal to Parler's attempts to portray them as guilty of "anti-trust" violations. Some very specific examples of posts that Amazon objected to and Parler refused to delete...
"Amazon filed its response Tuesday to an antitrust suit brought against it by Parler, arguing that the social media upstart's refusal to remove violent content from its platform violated its contract, and that Parler had failed to prove any antitrust claims.
Parler sued Amazon on Monday after the tech giant booted the platform from its web-hosting service, Amazon Web Services, amid public outcry over Parler's role in enabling far-right insurrectionists to organize and plan last week's attacks on the US Capitol.
"This case is not about suppressing speech or stifling viewpoints. It is not about a conspiracy to restrain trade," Amazon claimed in the court filing. "Instead, this case is about Parler's demonstrated unwillingness and inability to remove... content that threatens the public safety, such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture, and assassination of named public officials and private citizens."
Parler did not respond to a request for comment on this story.
Amazon cited more than a dozen examples of content posted to Parler that it said violated Amazon's policies.
"We are going to fight in a civil War on Jan.20th, Form MILITIAS now and acquire targets," one post said, according to the document, while another read: "White people need to ignite their racial identity and rain down suffering and death like a hurricane."
Others included death threats against prominent Democrats such as former President Barack Obama, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, as well as Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google parent company Alphabet.
Parler users also took aim at people of color, Black Lives Matter activists, Jews, teachers, the media, and professional sports leagues including the NBA, NFL, MLB, and NHL."
Amazon hits back at Parler's antitrust lawsuit with extensive examples of its violent content, including death threats against Democrats, GOP, tech CEOs, and BLM
Amazon cited Section 230 in refuting Parler's claims that Amazon conspired with Twitter to hurt Parler's business by banning it from using AWS.
A more in-depth analysis and look at some of the more incendiary posts, including those from people like Lin Wood, Dan Bongino, and the "official" Proud Boys account...
"The official account of the Proud Boys, which has 349,000 followers on Parler, posted a photo when rioters broke into the Capitol: "Patriots have made it to the doors of the Senate chamber."
Parler users cheered the rioters on. "More! More! More!" one wrote. "Drag them out of the Capital."
Others wrote, "Beat the snot out of the cops," and, "Hang all the traitors!"
Many posts called for the lynching of Democratic leaders and Pence. One named a half-dozen lawmakers and said, "Drag em in the street. Burn em!" Others urged the rioters to burn the Capitol down because of the election fraud the president has alleged despite a lack of proof.
"All nearby should drop all plans, grab all weapons and head to DC," one user posted. "Storm the castle!"
About 1,500 users liked a post that read, "HARD DRIVES FROM CAPITOL BUILDING HAVE BEEN CAPTURED – NOW WE WILL LEARN THE TRUTH."
One user simply posted beneath an image of the rioting the word "BEAUTIFUL."
Parler has been knocked offline for not moderating threats. Screenshots show what Capitol riot supporters posted before, during, and after the unrest.
Amazon and many others say Parler has not moderated posts that encourage violence and threats to the US government.
www.businessinsider.com
So exactly what is it the Parler CEO is saying that you implore us to "listen to"?....
Looks like Amazon has provided a pretty strong rebuttal to Parler's attempts to portray them as guilty of "anti-trust" violations. Some very specific examples of posts that Amazon objected to and Parler refused to delete...
"Amazon filed its response Tuesday to an antitrust suit brought against it by Parler, arguing that the social media upstart's refusal to remove violent content from its platform violated its contract, and that Parler had failed to prove any antitrust claims.
Parler sued Amazon on Monday after the tech giant booted the platform from its web-hosting service, Amazon Web Services, amid public outcry over Parler's role in enabling far-right insurrectionists to organize and plan last week's attacks on the US Capitol.
"This case is not about suppressing speech or stifling viewpoints. It is not about a conspiracy to restrain trade," Amazon claimed in the court filing. "Instead, this case is about Parler's demonstrated unwillingness and inability to remove... content that threatens the public safety, such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture, and assassination of named public officials and private citizens."
Parler did not respond to a request for comment on this story.
Amazon cited more than a dozen examples of content posted to Parler that it said violated Amazon's policies.
"We are going to fight in a civil War on Jan.20th, Form MILITIAS now and acquire targets," one post said, according to the document, while another read: "White people need to ignite their racial identity and rain down suffering and death like a hurricane."
Others included death threats against prominent Democrats such as former President Barack Obama, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, as well as Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google parent company Alphabet.
Parler users also took aim at people of color, Black Lives Matter activists, Jews, teachers, the media, and professional sports leagues including the NBA, NFL, MLB, and NHL."
Amazon hits back at Parler's antitrust lawsuit with extensive examples of its violent content, including death threats against Democrats, GOP, tech CEOs, and BLM
Amazon cited Section 230 in refuting Parler's claims that Amazon conspired with Twitter to hurt Parler's business by banning it from using AWS.www.yahoo.com
A more in-depth analysis and look at some of the more incendiary posts, including those from people like Lin Wood, Dan Bongino, and the "official" Proud Boys account...
"The official account of the Proud Boys, which has 349,000 followers on Parler, posted a photo when rioters broke into the Capitol: "Patriots have made it to the doors of the Senate chamber."
Parler users cheered the rioters on. "More! More! More!" one wrote. "Drag them out of the Capital."
Others wrote, "Beat the snot out of the cops," and, "Hang all the traitors!"
Many posts called for the lynching of Democratic leaders and Pence. One named a half-dozen lawmakers and said, "Drag em in the street. Burn em!" Others urged the rioters to burn the Capitol down because of the election fraud the president has alleged despite a lack of proof.
"All nearby should drop all plans, grab all weapons and head to DC," one user posted. "Storm the castle!"
About 1,500 users liked a post that read, "HARD DRIVES FROM CAPITOL BUILDING HAVE BEEN CAPTURED – NOW WE WILL LEARN THE TRUTH."
One user simply posted beneath an image of the rioting the word "BEAUTIFUL."
Parler has been knocked offline for not moderating threats. Screenshots show what Capitol riot supporters posted before, during, and after the unrest.
Amazon and many others say Parler has not moderated posts that encourage violence and threats to the US government.
So exactly what is it the Parler CEO is saying that you implore us to "listen to"?....
I agree the anti-trust will be thrown out.
The CEO’s side of the story is essentially that Parler and Amazon had been working hand in glove around content moderation up until the 6th. Understandably Parler had seen a recent explosion in users and did not just have the necessary algorithms or necessary staff to monitor the amount of content they were seeing. There was not the slightest indication though that AWS would boot Parler until after the 6th in fact talks up until that time had been about EXPANDING their relationship.
Parler even inquired about Amazon’s own content moderation tool “Rekognition” and Amazon indicated that the tool would not help. Basically Amazon knew that the content moderation mission they sent Parler on post January 6th was a fools errand and if Twitter was held to the same standard they’d be booted off AWS tomorrow.
Like I said, maybe you should listen to the podcast.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I think the problem exists on both sides. I didn’t see a lot of aisle reaching during the summer’s events from the GOP either. Any critique of the narrative though, is swiftly met with responses like “ok white guy” even by smart people on this board.
The country is in serious trouble. I would love to see major reforms to social media and fake news but I don’t know how we do that.
If found it interesting to see the owner of Parler is married to a Russian he married in 2017. Why are so many Russians involved with Republicans?Looks like Amazon has provided a pretty strong rebuttal to Parler's attempts to portray them as guilty of "anti-trust" violations. Some very specific examples of posts that Amazon objected to and Parler refused to delete...
"Amazon filed its response Tuesday to an antitrust suit brought against it by Parler, arguing that the social media upstart's refusal to remove violent content from its platform violated its contract, and that Parler had failed to prove any antitrust claims.
Parler sued Amazon on Monday after the tech giant booted the platform from its web-hosting service, Amazon Web Services, amid public outcry over Parler's role in enabling far-right insurrectionists to organize and plan last week's attacks on the US Capitol.
"This case is not about suppressing speech or stifling viewpoints. It is not about a conspiracy to restrain trade," Amazon claimed in the court filing. "Instead, this case is about Parler's demonstrated unwillingness and inability to remove... content that threatens the public safety, such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture, and assassination of named public officials and private citizens."
Parler did not respond to a request for comment on this story.
Amazon cited more than a dozen examples of content posted to Parler that it said violated Amazon's policies.
"We are going to fight in a civil War on Jan.20th, Form MILITIAS now and acquire targets," one post said, according to the document, while another read: "White people need to ignite their racial identity and rain down suffering and death like a hurricane."
Others included death threats against prominent Democrats such as former President Barack Obama, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, as well as Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google parent company Alphabet.
Parler users also took aim at people of color, Black Lives Matter activists, Jews, teachers, the media, and professional sports leagues including the NBA, NFL, MLB, and NHL."
Amazon hits back at Parler's antitrust lawsuit with extensive examples of its violent content, including death threats against Democrats, GOP, tech CEOs, and BLM
Amazon cited Section 230 in refuting Parler's claims that Amazon conspired with Twitter to hurt Parler's business by banning it from using AWS.
A more in-depth analysis and look at some of the more incendiary posts, including those from people like Lin Wood, Dan Bongino, and the "official" Proud Boys account...
"The official account of the Proud Boys, which has 349,000 followers on Parler, posted a photo when rioters broke into the Capitol: "Patriots have made it to the doors of the Senate chamber."
Parler users cheered the rioters on. "More! More! More!" one wrote. "Drag them out of the Capital."
Others wrote, "Beat the snot out of the cops," and, "Hang all the traitors!"
Many posts called for the lynching of Democratic leaders and Pence. One named a half-dozen lawmakers and said, "Drag em in the street. Burn em!" Others urged the rioters to burn the Capitol down because of the election fraud the president has alleged despite a lack of proof.
"All nearby should drop all plans, grab all weapons and head to DC," one user posted. "Storm the castle!"
About 1,500 users liked a post that read, "HARD DRIVES FROM CAPITOL BUILDING HAVE BEEN CAPTURED – NOW WE WILL LEARN THE TRUTH."
One user simply posted beneath an image of the rioting the word "BEAUTIFUL."
Parler has been knocked offline for not moderating threats. Screenshots show what Capitol riot supporters posted before, during, and after the unrest.
Amazon and many others say Parler has not moderated posts that encourage violence and threats to the US government.
So exactly what is it the Parler CEO is saying that you implore us to "listen to"?....
John Matze: Wiki, Biography, Height, Age, Family, Wife,Parler
I wonder what Trump supporters would say if they knew "parler" was French for "talk".
What’s interesting is that Parler required SMS verification to create an account. It was actually much more difficult to create a Parler than a Twitter account and identifying the party behind the account was actually easier.
This dramatically reduced the amount of foreign actors and bots on Parler as compared to Twitter.
So I’m not sure what you’re insinuating, but it’s likely FOS. 😁
First, I think we need to revisit the definition of what constitutes anti-trust. Currently, unless a plaintiff can show harm to consumers in the form of higher prices, there's no anti-trust. My take is that revisiting what RFK's justice department had as a definition for anti-trust would be a good start, to see where we went off course.
Amen. The right also have a tendency to act like they are the religious party, the high moral party, especially with the Clinton scandal.
They don't want to realize that the Trump scandal(s) are a lot more morally corrupt than the Clinton one.
While I'll admit I had little interest in listening to the podcast, it seems you failed to read all of the article that I linked as well...
"Amazon also pushed back against Parler's claims that Amazon's actions were politically motivated and violated antitrust laws by deliberately favoring Twitter, which also uses AWS, and not taking similar action against it.
"AWS does not host Twitter's feed, so of course it could not have suspended access to Twitter's content," Amazon said in the filing, noting that Twitter eventually blocked the violent content, while Parler refused to take similar steps.
Amazon also cited Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which gives companies that operate an "interactive computer service" the legal right to remove content as they see fit."
Amazon hits back at Parler's antitrust lawsuit with extensive examples of its violent content, including death threats against Democrats, GOP, tech CEOs, and BLM
Amazon cited Section 230 in refuting Parler's claims that Amazon conspired with Twitter to hurt Parler's business by banning it from using AWS.
While I'll admit I had little interest in listening to the podcast, it seems you failed to read all of the article that I linked as well...
"Amazon also pushed back against Parler's claims that Amazon's actions were politically motivated and violated antitrust laws by deliberately favoring Twitter, which also uses AWS, and not taking similar action against it.
"AWS does not host Twitter's feed, so of course it could not have suspended access to Twitter's content," Amazon said in the filing, noting that Twitter eventually blocked the violent content, while Parler refused to take similar steps.
Amazon also cited Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which gives companies that operate an "interactive computer service" the legal right to remove content as they see fit."
Amazon hits back at Parler's antitrust lawsuit with extensive examples of its violent content, including death threats against Democrats, GOP, tech CEOs, and BLM
Amazon cited Section 230 in refuting Parler's claims that Amazon conspired with Twitter to hurt Parler's business by banning it from using AWS.
Well it's a classic he said - she said here I guess. Parler claims they did take action to remove all the content AWS requested be taken down. Easy enough for AWS to see any content up for any amount of time and claim Parler didn't act fast enough or "refused" to act. By all means though, go with the corporate overlords over the little guys word. They'd never lead you astray.
AWS is undoubtedly talking out of both sides of their mouth on this issue.
I think what you're missing is the Amazon answer to the Parler CEO's claim that Twitter was treated "differently"...
Don't know why Amazon would lie about this- should be fairly easy to verify...
"AWS does not host Twitter's feed, so of course it could not have suspended access to Twitter's content"
On top of that is the reality that Parler's "growth" was basically a result of Twitter CLAMPING DOWN on violent,racial content... Since numerous people who left Twitter basically said they did so because they felt "FREER" on Parler, it's pretty ludicrous for the Parler peep to try and argue that Amazon applied tougher standards to Parler than they did to Twitter...
Was basically the point I cared to make...
And how in the world is Matze a "little guy"? The CEO may be a figurehead, but the investors include Dan Bongino and Rebekah Mercer...
This is as lame as people who try to argue Trump isn't an "elitist", because he made his money as a corrupt businessman who ripped people off and isn't a "politician". Imho, Trump has just turned some pretty stupid people into complete morons...
Meet Rebekah Mercer, the deep-pocketed co-founder of Parler, a controversial conservative social network | CNN Business
Rebekah Mercer, a prominent conservative donor, revealed Saturday that she is helping to bankroll Parler, the rapidly growing but controversial conservative social media platform that was at the top of App Store charts last week.
I think what you're missing is the Amazon answer to the Parler CEO's claim that Twitter was treated "differently"...
Don't know why Amazon would lie about this- should be fairly easy to verify...
"AWS does not host Twitter's feed, so of course it could not have suspended access to Twitter's content"
On top of that is the reality that Parler's "growth" was basically a result of Twitter CLAMPING DOWN on violent,racial content... Since numerous people who left Twitter basically said they did so because they felt "FREER" on Parler, it's pretty ludicrous for the Parler peep to try and argue that Amazon applied tougher standards to Parler than they did to Twitter...
Was basically the point I cared to make... And how in the world is Matze a "little guy"? The CEO may be a figurehead, but the investors include Dan Bongino and Rebekah Mercer...
Meet Rebekah Mercer, the deep-pocketed co-founder of Parler, a controversial conservative social network | CNN Business
Rebekah Mercer, a prominent conservative donor, revealed Saturday that she is helping to bankroll Parler, the rapidly growing but controversial conservative social media platform that was at the top of App Store charts last week.www.cnn.com
Again. None of this was an issue to AWS before the 6th. AWS's actions are entirely reactionary. There is plenty of blame to go around for that day. Yet Facebook and Twitter haven't lost any partnerships.
While AWS doesn't host the majority of Twitter's feed (yet) if they shut the servers off tomorrow it would irreparably crater Twitter's ability to function.
I don't know why it's so difficult for you to admit that the standards weren't applied equally when the truth is slapping you in the face. In fact there were no standards other than, we don't like right leaning content.
And all tech startups start off with big investors or VC funding that how business works...... It doesn't mean they're not the David to the Twitter/ FB/ AWS goliath.
Well, I'm not saying this woman was intent on conducting an assassination plot. But I'd say this is a pretty in-depth display of knowledge that likely didn't result from a single public guided tour she took for an hour with other tourists... (No doubt you'll disagree)...
The difference is that twitter was actually moderating their content to some extent. Parler was just letting everyone say whatever they want.
That is like if Mr Parler got arrested for robbing a bank and saying "why didn't you arrest Mr. Twitter, he was in the bank too"
Mr Amazon responds "He was just in the bank doing business, he wasn't robbing it so why would we arrest him, too?"
Last edited:
Similar threads
