XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics, alt.politics.liberalism
XPost: alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.usa.republican
Look for yourself, lazy fuck
keywords:
jan 6 protesters solitary confinement still jail no trial
https://duckduckgo.com
https://www.google.com/
If you're combining the "or locked in solitary confinement for years without trial", maybe you need to recognize when someone, in this case, the author, left out a word OR two.
or locked in solitary confinement OR held for years without trial.
Pretending to be ignorant is so like a liberal.
How come *I* can discern what people mean, but you can't?
Oh...
... yeah...
... I'm NOT a liberal.
If you're too lazy and stupid to take the 30 seconds, like I did, to find EASILY findable material...
https://i.imgur.com/1aMF04D.mp4
The politicians highlighted a report published after touring the D.C. Jail unit. Titled "Unusually Cruel," it notes that people in the D.C. Jail spent much of 2021 locked in cells for 22 or 23 hours a day (quibble all you want... unless they in with another person, THAT is the definition of solitary confinement), and that one man held on January 6 charges spent 200 days in solitary confinement.
https://solitarywatch.org/2023/01/09/the-right-finally-protests-brutal-u-s- jail-conditions-but-only-for-january-sixers/
There's your one, man-fucker.
Ronald Sandlin
There are many more, but since you only asked for one.
If there's been no solitary confinement WITH no trial, then why is/was Elizabeth Warren on the Warpath (LOL) with Dick Durbin, to have those conditions eliminated?
Jan. 6 Defendants Win Unlikely Dem Champions As They Face Harsh Detainment
"Solitary confinement is a form of punishment that is cruel and psychologically damaging," Sen. Elizabeth Warren said.
...(S)he and another Senate Democratic leader are standing up for their attackers' rights as criminal defendants.
"Solitary confinement is a form of punishment that is cruel and psychologically damaging," Warren said in an interview. "And we're talking about people WHO HAVEN'T BEEN CONVICTED OF ANYTHING YET." (means, no trial, stupid)
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/19/capitol-riot-defendants-warren-483125
=====
The Liberal Argument Outline
1. Use spun facts:
These can be found on Huffington Post, Daily Kos, MSNBC, and many other liberal sources. What they do is take facts, polls or arguments and add a liberal spin in a weak attempt to make bad news for liberals look good. These are easily debunked and exposed as lies by going to the original source and posting the hard, cold facts with NO spin.
Note: At this point, you have won. It should never take more than one
post to win an argument with a liberal. It is recommended that you claim victory and disengage at this point. If you continue, for fun or
experimental purposes, no further logic will be forthcoming from the
liberals.
2. The Next Step For The Liberal Will Be To Attempt To Discredit Your
Source
If it is Fox or any perceived "right wing" source, they will refuse to
believe it. If it is a non-partisan source, they will claim it is right
wing, if it is a left of center source, they will find another lefty
source to "prove" you are wrong. They will not discuss the facts
themselves, as they know they have lost. If you must go down this road
(there is a high entertainment value), don't allow this diversion. Go
back to the facts.
3. The Limbaugh Defense:
This is one that comes out early and often. Although you know they never listen to Rush Limbaugh and have no idea what he says, they will drag him out and claim you are a Ditto head. This is another diversionary tactic. It has no relevance and is an attempt to change the subject. The more desperate they are, the more childish and ridiculous the reference to Limbaugh becomes: Flush, LimpBag, etc. Ignore this and re-post the facts. DO NOT BE DIVERTED.
4. The Personal Attack:
Another common thread. Also designed to divert the lost argument. NEVER give any hint of personal information. Even something as innocuous as "I am a chef".
They will attempt to engage you and call you a liar to divert attention
from the original lost argument. Ignore this and re-post the facts yet
to be refuted.
5. Name Calling:
Still another diversion. If you fail to give them any personal information, they will attempt to draw you out to gain more insight into your personal side. Then they will return to step 4. Ignore this.
6. The Liberal Bat Signal:
When they find out they are unable to engage
you, divert you or goad you into a completely irrelevant topic, they
will send out the Bat Signal. This is where a bunch of Liberals (or
often, the same one using several names, i.e., Rudy) post a number of
rapid fire posts congratulating the Liberal on handing you your head on
a platter. This tactic often works on even the most logical and
disciplined of us. The urge to rant must be resisted. Your rant will
supply them with all the personal insight they need to spew hatred and
personal attacks. The best tactic here is to use the same tactic back at
them.
Keep in mind, a Liberal will never admit you have a valid point (Dutch
did, once), much less that you won a debate. So, the only reasons to
continue a dialog with a liberal after the initial statement of facts
that established your victory are for entertainment and educational
purposes. If you refuse to take the bait and demand the topic remain on
the original premise, they will eventually just go away and try to find
someone else that will engage them on their terms.
Now, go away, Snowflake.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)