• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Loose continuation of "J6" thread.

Reynolds

Reynolds

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
@JonC stated that he did not trust our govt.
I agree. Our govt has been highly untrustworthy since the JFK assassination. It has been untrustworthy since the establishment of The Federal Reserve. Kennedy bucked the system and was killed. Trump bucked the system and was politically and financially assassinated. The true power in this nation does not rest with The People. It rests in the hands of global elitists and the defense industry.
 
KenH

KenH

Well-Known Member
Human governments are inherently untrustworthy and always have been and always will be.

"The act of individual disobedience culminated in the effort of man to organize a government of his own, so that he himself might permanently conduct the affairs of earth, free from the control of God, and independent of God's government. The first account we have of organized human government, is ( Genesis 10:8 ).

"And Cush begat Nimrod, he began to be a mighty one in the earth. ... The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar."

Nimrod was the grandson of Ham, and the founder of the first government organized outside of the family institution, ordained by God from the beginning. Nimrod made other families tributary to himself, and established a kingdom of which he was the head. The declaration, "Let us build us a city and a tower whose top may reach unto heaven, and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the earth," ( Genesis 11:4 ), shows the animus and the spirit of the movement, and that it was intended to resist the purpose of God to govern them and to distribute them over the face of the earth, and to maintain themselves in a government of their own organizing. The effort to unite themselves more closely than God's rule united them, resulted in the confusion of their language and their division and dispersion. The design and purpose of this beginning of human government on earth was to oppose, counteract, and displace the government of God on earth. The institution of human government was an act of rebellion and began among those in rebellion against God, with the purpose of superseding the Divine rule with the rule of man."

- excerpt from David Lipscomb's On Civil Government
 
R

RipponRedeaux

Well-Known Member
Lt. Michael Byrd murdered Ashli Babbitt. He is a mentally unstable individual and has been so long before Jan. 6, 2021.

Unrelated to the above I believe that a number of people in police uniforms were not police.

I believe that a fair number of Federal assets were used to rile the crowds up --to instigate violence. I believe that some of the destruction of property was done by the hands of non-MAGA people.
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
RipponRedeaux said:
Lt. Michael Byrd murdered Ashli Babbitt. He is a mentally unstable individual and has been so long before Jan. 6, 2021.

Unrelated to the above I believe that a number of people in police uniforms were not police.

I believe that a fair number of Federal assets were used to rile the crowds up --to instigate violence. I believe that some of the destruction of property was done by the hands of non-MAGA people.
Click to expand...
How do you think the officer should have responded to prevent entrance (either by Babbitt or others) into that area (beyond the barricaded doors)?

I ask because I see a lot of comments about the force used, but I am not sure what alternatives were available (I have no idea what resources the officers on the other side of the door had).

Also, what do you think of those people breaking the windows and doors in the Capitol?

I'm curious because it reminded me of the Floyd riots.....except then you could actually burn down buildings and just get a small fine the Democrats would pay in your stead.
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
KenH said:
Human governments are inherently untrustworthy and always have been and always will be.

"The act of individual disobedience culminated in the effort of man to organize a government of his own, so that he himself might permanently conduct the affairs of earth, free from the control of God, and independent of God's government. The first account we have of organized human government, is ( Genesis 10:8 ).

"And Cush begat Nimrod, he began to be a mighty one in the earth. ... The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar."

Nimrod was the grandson of Ham, and the founder of the first government organized outside of the family institution, ordained by God from the beginning. Nimrod made other families tributary to himself, and established a kingdom of which he was the head. The declaration, "Let us build us a city and a tower whose top may reach unto heaven, and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the earth," ( Genesis 11:4 ), shows the animus and the spirit of the movement, and that it was intended to resist the purpose of God to govern them and to distribute them over the face of the earth, and to maintain themselves in a government of their own organizing. The effort to unite themselves more closely than God's rule united them, resulted in the confusion of their language and their division and dispersion. The design and purpose of this beginning of human government on earth was to oppose, counteract, and displace the government of God on earth. The institution of human government was an act of rebellion and began among those in rebellion against God, with the purpose of superseding the Divine rule with the rule of man."

- excerpt from David Lipscomb's On Civil Government
Click to expand...
Not a Lipscomb fan but it doesn't seem like a good idea to trust the government.

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.". Ronald Reagan
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
RipponRedeaux said:
Read my post.
Click to expand...
I did read your post.

I can't say what each person believed. Those non-MAGA people were carrying Trump signs (and flags). But I agree that they were not making America great again.

I already said that I believe most were there to protest, but that there were also bad actors (people that were pro-Trump but breaking the law, beating police officers, carrying weapons).



What do you believe the officers should have done about the non-MAGA people breaking the windows and doors of the Capitol?
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
We also have to remember people drew lines at different places.

Some who were breaking windows and doors were concerned about others also beating police officers.


What is strange is that you could torch a building protesting Floyd and that was a minor thing.....but if you walked on the Capitol lawn on Jan 6 the FBI would hunt you down and arrest you.

That does not excuse criminal behavior (what @RipponRedeaux believes was done by the non-MAGA rioters) but it does call into question the integrity of the FBI and DOJ.
 
KenH

KenH

Well-Known Member
JonC said:
Not a Lipscomb fan but it doesn't seem like a good idea to trust the government.

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.". Ronald Reagan
Click to expand...

That I why I am a minarchist libertarian and not in league with conservatives. I find that nowadays conservatives are really no different than liberals or moderates - they all want government to promote and/or subsidize and/or to approve of what they support and they want the government to ban and/or tax and/or bash what they do not support.

I agree with Frank S. Meyer about the necessity to strictly limit government. Period. -

"The state therefore has two natural functions, functions essential to the existence of any peaceful, ordered society: to protect the rights of citizens against violent or fraudulent assault, and to judge in conflicts of right with right. It has a further third function, which is another aspect of the first, that is, to protect its citizens from assault by foreign powers. These three functions are expressed by three powers: the police power, which protects the citizen against domestic violence; the military power, which protects the citizen against violence from abroad; and the courts of law, which judge between rights and rights, as well as sharing with the police power the protection of the citizen against domestic violence.
…
But since this institution must possess a monopoly of legal physical force, to give to it in addition any further power is fraught with danger; that monopoly gives to the state so much power that its natural functions should be its maximum functions."

- Frank S. Meyer, In Defense of Freedom: A Conservative Credo, published in 1962

Back in Meyer's day and Reagan's day, there was a lot of conservatism and libertarianism that overlapped, so much so that Ronald Reagan said, “If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”

I wish conservatism was still that way today.
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
KenH said:
I wish conservatism was still that way today.
Click to expand...
One problem today is our nation as a whole has changed. Our politicians reflect, rather than dictate, that change.

The conservativism of the past was not transferred to following generations in a meaningful way. It exists in minority.

Think about the American people, the younger generations.

My father had one credit card he used for business and paid off every month.

Today most people have credit cards not for money management but to buy things they cannot afford.

When I was young I was taught to always have at least 2 months pay set aside for emergencies.

Today much of our younger working citizens live from hand to mouth - check to check.

College students get student loans they will spend decades paying back - often loans for degrees they will never earn, or in under employable fields of study.

Young students are offered credit cards that far exceed their income.


How can we expect citizens to support fiscal conservatism in government when they are not fiscally conservative with their own money?


So we end up frustrated with the government. We blame the politicians....BUT they ultimately reflect the nation and a gap in values.
 
Reynolds

Reynolds

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
JonC said:
How do you think the officer should have responded to prevent entrance (either by Babbitt or others) into that area (beyond the barricaded doors)?

I ask because I see a lot of comments about the force used, but I am not sure what alternatives were available (I have no idea what resources the officers on the other side of the door had).

Also, what do you think of those people breaking the windows and doors in the Capitol?

I'm curious because it reminded me of the Floyd riots.....except then you could actually burn down buildings and just get a small fine the Democrats would pay in your stead.
Click to expand...
The Floyd riots and the atmosphere of toleration of rioting set a standard. If you are black, you can burn loot and murder without being stopped. If you are Maga, you got shot. Definite double standard existed.
How many Antifa trying to burn the Federal court house got shot? Attempted arson of an occupied building is justification to use deadly force.
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Reynolds said:
The Floyd riots and the atmosphere of toleration of rioting set a standard. If you are black, you can burn loot and murder without being stopped. If you are Maga, you got shot. Definite double standard existed.
How many Antifa trying to burn the Federal court house got shot? Attempted arson of an occupied building is justification to use deadly force.
Click to expand...
It set a double standard, I agree.

Burn down a building in a leftist riot you get a $500 fine which a Democrat origination will pay for you.

Dare to set foot on the Capitol steps on Jan 6 and the FBI will spend years hunting you down and arrest you.


I have no problem with peaceful protests. I don't like most of them these days (I disagree with the protestors position). But that's free speech.

Even civil disobedience can have its place in protest (although result in arrest).


My issue is with violent protests - burning down restaurants and buildings, destroying property, breaking out windows, beating police officers, busting down doors, threatening people......that kind of thing.


My argument would be that crimes largely overlooked during Floyd protests do not change the actual standard (it may contribute to, but does not excuse, crimes during Jan 6).


The people who beat the officers should be arrested and jailed. The people who broke Capitol windows and doors should be arrested and jailed (and pay for damages). The people who burned down buildings and damaged vehicles in protest of Floyd's death should be arrested and jailed.

BUT those people who were actually peacefully protesting, who did not commit a crime, should not be lumped into the group who did. Today we see this happening. Why is the FBI still trying to hunt down people from Jan 6 who committed no violence?
 
canadyjd

canadyjd

Well-Known Member
Reynolds said:
The Floyd riots and the atmosphere of toleration of rioting set a standard. If you are black, you can burn loot and murder without being stopped. If you are Maga, you got shot. Definite double standard existed.
How many Antifa trying to burn the Federal court house got shot? Attempted arson of an occupied building is justification to use deadly force.
Click to expand...
Our elected representatives weren’t in those buildings, doing their constitutional duty to count electors and declare the winner of 2020 elections and they weren’t being targeted for execution as traitors by those mobs.

The whole “their mob got better treatment than our mob” really isn’t a good argument.

As tragic as Babibit’s death was, it wasn’t murder. It was, in fact (legally) justified use of force.

peace to you
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
RipponRedeaux said:
She was absolutely murdered by a mentally deranged cop who should been released from his job long before Jan. 6, 2021.
Click to expand...
You still have not presented what you would have done were you the officer on the other side of those barricaded doors.

In your opinion, what should that officer have done to prevent the people from entering that lobby?

Also, you mentioned that Lt. Byrd had a history of mental illness and should have been dismissed from the Capitol police long before Jan 6.

I agree that police officers should undergo psychiatric evaluations (they do in SC). And I agree that mental illness is grounds to me medically released from actively being an officer in the field (not necessarily terminated, but moved to a different type of position).

What evidence do you have that Lt. Byrd had a history of mental illness?


I ask because you have been offering subjective statements but not actually engaging the issue or facts. That makes your posts appear more emotional than substantial.
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
RipponRedeaux said:
You apparently have not viewed the newly released footage.
Click to expand...
I did view the video showing Babbitt put her hand on the guys backpack, and I saw where she attacked the guy wearing glasses. I listened to the guy say Babbitt was trying to keep people from entering the Senate Lobby.

But I also watched the two videos taken by the oro-Trump protesters outside the door that occurred afterwards when she was entering through the window in the left door (her head ducked in, left leg already in).


This is the department policy:

"an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that action is in the defense of human life, including the officer’s own life, or in the defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury,”


Now, Lt. Byrd is on the other side of the barricaded charged with protecting Capitol officials (and his fellow officers).

He has a radio and heard about the mob outside, that they had attacked police officers.

The guy on the other side of the door has just told the three officers that the mob has injured officers outside and the mob is coming to the Senate Lobby (and that those officers need to leave or they will be beaten by the mob, which that protestor didn't want).

The three officers left and the rioters on the other side of the door started smashing the window on the right (and the wood from the door was also breaking).


Now....you are the officer.

One of those people outside the door climbs up and starts stepping in the broken window on the left door.


What do you do?


Also, what evidence do you have that Lt. Byrd had a history of mental illness?
 
Reynolds

Reynolds

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
JonC said:
You still have not presented what you would have done were you the officer on the other side of those barricaded doors.

In your opinion, what should that officer have done to prevent the people from entering that lobby?

Also, you mentioned that Lt. Byrd had a history of mental illness and should have been dismissed from the Capitol police long before Jan 6.

I agree that police officers should undergo psychiatric evaluations (they do in SC). And I agree that mental illness is grounds to me medically released from actively being an officer in the field (not necessarily terminated, but moved to a different type of position).

What evidence do you have that Lt. Byrd had a history of mental illness?


I ask because you have been offering subjective statements but not actually engaging the issue or facts. That makes your posts appear more emotional than substantial.
Click to expand...
The psychiatric evaluations are worthless. They give you a set of questions that you know "how to" answer. When I took my last psyche, I asked the examiner "What kind of fool can actually fail this?". He just laughed.
One of the questions was "Have you ever had deep thoughts of having sexual relations with your sibling?". What kind of moron would answer that one wrong?
It would take an HONEST psycho or sociopath to fail the psyches I was given.
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Reynolds said:
The psychiatric evaluations are worthless. They give you a set of questions that you know "how to" answer. When I took my last psyche, I asked the examiner "What kind of fool can actually fail this?". He just laughed.
One of the questions was "Have you ever had deep thoughts of having sexual relations with your sibling?". What kind of moron would answer that one wrong?
It would take an HONEST psycho or sociopath to fail the psyches I was given.
Click to expand...
Funny....one of my wife's coworkers was trying to join the PD and failed the psych. But they think he is a real psycho.


I guess my question is about Lt. Byrd. @RipponRedeaux indicated he had a history of mental illness and shouldn't even have been on the force in Jan 6.

This is the first I have heard of it.


My experience with law enforcement is that most (that I have known) are good people. But I have known a few that were there because they carved authority. I have found the same time be true with the military. There are always bad apples.

But that's anywhere I guess. So I also believe that in terms of the protestors. I do not believe most there went to beat police officers or damage government buildings. But there were bad apples in the bunch (is it a "bunch" of apples....or bushel?).



I think that we should consider the options available to Lt. Boyd before we condemn his actions.

I don't know what they were (did he have a taser?).


My criticism is not towards Lt. Boyd but towards an undermanned force. The Capitol had been closed, there was a crowd gathering, and by the time Babbitt started stepping through the window officers outside had already been attacked and beaten.

The priority, IMHO, should have been shifted towards those outside that barricade. Deal with those destroying property later. I doubt the majority would be breaking windows...at worst they'd just be trespassing. Get the people away from government officials then deal with the rest later.
 
canadyjd

canadyjd

Well-Known Member
RipponRedeaux said:
She was absolutely murdered by a mentally deranged cop who should been released from his job long before Jan. 6, 2021.
Click to expand...
She was justifiably stopped from entering the chamber through a shattered window after being warned to turn back.

Whatever the cop’s prior or even current mental state at the time of the shooting doesn’t change the facts. it was justified based on those facts.

The results? She died and no one else attempted to breach the chamber.

peace to you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top