[stokesjokes]

Quoting him is not misrepresenting him.

Look, I get that you don’t want to see what he’s become. I don’t think any of us do. But you can’t give him a pass on this stuff now just because of who he used to be.

[JK37]

The distortions, misrepresentations, and accusations are excessive. I think the line, "lighten up, Francis," may apply here.

Instead of arguing that it’s not as bad as it seems or that it’s being misrepresented, I believe a better question would be, “What is the virtue of having someone on payroll who says/does such things, misrepresentation or not?”

Why go through having to explain it away? To me, the juice isn’t worth the squeeze.

[Just John]

That's very unrealistic when you say they have to represent you personally. Only you can represent you. Universities have diversity. Ideally, you learn how to think and not what to think.

This is just absurd, and I think you are being obtuse. There is a long thread in this forum about who would be the best president of LU and much of that discussion is rightly based on their ideology. Somebody, even at a university, has to draw a line on who works there or represents the school. Or do you not have a line? Paula White? Kenneth Copeland? Alex Jones? I'm not equating Metaxas with them (at least theologically) but the point remains, there is, or should be, a line that a Christian university is willing to hold.

[paradox]

Quoting him is not misrepresenting him.

Look, I get that you don’t want to see what he’s become. I don’t think any of us do. But you can’t give him a pass on this stuff now just because of who he used to be.

I have an opinion about all that, but won't share it here. Everyone is a work in progress. Some have suggested that Tim Keller, who everyone respects btw, occasionally burns the candle on both ends, but he's too ideological now. He may be caught up in the fury of the moment, but I'm not gonna write him off as an ideologue. That's not his legacy. Does he burn the candle at both ends sometimes? Yeah, he does that sometimes. But, he always comes around, and gets back on course.

[paradox]

That's very unrealistic when you say they have to represent you personally. Only you can represent you. Universities have diversity. Ideally, you learn how to think and not what to think.

This is just absurd, and I think you are being obtuse. There is a long thread in this forum about who would be the best president of LU and much of that discussion is rightly based on their ideology. Somebody, even at a university, has to draw a line on who works there or represents the school. Or do you not have a line? Paula White? Kenneth Copeland? Alex Jones? I'm not equating Metaxas with them (at least theologically) but the point remains, there is, or should be, a line that a Christian university is willing to hold.

You can go on if you want. But blaming the riot on him is not even remotely sustainable.

[stokesjokes]

To not see any link is not even remotely sustainable either.

He was literally at the capitol a few weeks before the riot blowing into an American flag shofar and going on his radio show telling people to fight and die. It’s not a leap.

I believe in repentance and reconciliation, but as long as he remains off the reservation, we need to keep our distance and continue to speak up so that our Christian brothers and sisters don’t follow him there.

[cruzan_flame13]

I see a lot of bickering going on, which you guys can continue doing. Nonetheless, please do not compare of what occurred last week as a riot. In all honesty, many things do not make any sense to what is claimed to have happened. If people are going to blame others for promoting any violence, at least know what actually occurred there instead of looking at one narrative that the media regurgitate to the masses. I'm sure that wouldn't matter to you guys anyway, so carry on I suppose.

[Just John]

That's very unrealistic when you say they have to represent you personally. Only you can represent you. Universities have diversity. Ideally, you learn how to think and not what to think.

This is just absurd, and I think you are being obtuse. There is a long thread in this forum about who would be the best president of LU and much of that discussion is rightly based on their ideology. Somebody, even at a university, has to draw a line on who works there or represents the school. Or do you not have a line? Paula White? Kenneth Copeland? Alex Jones? I'm not equating Metaxas with them (at least theologically) but the point remains, there is, or should be, a line that a Christian university is willing to hold.

You can go on if you want. But blaming the riot on him is not even remotely sustainable.

Ridiculous strawman. I never made such a statement. I only offered his statements (with minimal editorial by the author of the article whom you would probably agree with and his anti-woke views about 90% of the time). They stand on their own. You can assign blame or not. Up to you.

[Just John]

I see a lot of bickering going on, which you guys can continue doing. Nonetheless, please do not compare of what occurred last week as a riot. In all honesty, many things do not make any sense to what is claimed to have happened. If people are going to blame others for promoting any violence, at least know what actually occurred there instead of looking at one narrative that the media regurgitate to the masses. I'm sure that wouldn't matter to you guys anyway, so carry on I suppose.

I have purposely avoided describing it one way or the other. It was certainly more than a "protest". We know this but to recall for purposes of discussion, damage was done throughout the capitol, offices were invaded and in some cases tossed, objects were broken or stolen. Officers were intimidated and in at least one case we know of, assaulted. Participants tried to breach locked doors and broke windows. There is plenty of recorded statements from participants about their intentions.

What would you call it?


https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-c ... ction.html

Rebellion and Insurrection, Sedition, and Treason

The prohibition on rebellion and insurrection arises in a brief passage found in 18 U.S.C. Section 2383. The law prohibits the incitement, assistance, and participation in a rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States and its laws. The punishment for this crime is a fine, a maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison, and ineligibility for public office.

Rebellion and insurrection refer specifically to acts of violence against the state or its officers. This distinguishes the crime from sedition, which is the organized incitement to rebellion or civil disorder against the authority of the state. It also separates the crime from treason, which is the violation of allegiance owed to one's country by betrayal or acting to aid the country's enemies.

The crimes are easily confused, but if the party wasn't acting on behalf of (or giving aid to) a foreign government they are unlikely to be charged with treason. Calls to rise up against the authority of the government by staging non-violent protests and strikes might be characterized as sedition (if they violated laws relating to these acts), but wouldn't be considered rebellion or insurrection unless the incitement included calls for violent acts such as the destruction of government property or the assault of officers of the state.

[stokesjokes]

One of the benefits of being in the Information Age is that we don’t have to rely on “media narratives.” We have first-hand videos of mobs rushing into the capitol, beating a police officer to death, almost crushing another. We’ve got videos of the crowd chanting “hang Mike Pence.” We’ve got pictures of offices with debris everywhere and windows broken out. We’ve got a video of people trying to break through a barricaded door into an inner chamber and one of them getting shot.

I’d love to know what you might call all that.

[thepostman]

It is obviously being exaggerated by the left but as much as it is being exaggerated by them, it is being downplayed just as much by the right.

I'm not sure what you would call it but it was absolutely a violent act. Did everybody who made it into or onto the Capitol become violent? Not even close but enough were that made it a violent act. Simple as that.

Now what that has to so with our next university president? I'm not sure.

One thing is certain, after Jr's most recent comments I'm glad he isn't still given free reign to use the school as his poltical tool.

[stokesjokes]

Do we have any sort of timetable? I haven’t heard a peep about the investigation or next steps. Hope the board doesn’t think we’ve forgotten what they were supposed to be doing.

[paradox]

You guys can rave on with the trigger show, if you want, but let's just say that the probability is likely pretty high that these weren't Metaxas followers storming the Capital. Condemning this guy and blaming him for anarchy is completely reckless.

[Just John]

You guys can rave on with the trigger show, if you want, but let's just say that the probability is likely pretty high that these weren't Metaxas followers storming the Capital. Condemning this guy and blaming him for anarchy is completely reckless.

Making blanket statements are intellectually lazy and dishonest. I did not "blame" him (or anyone) nor "condemn" him. I simply offered his own words and troubling interview with Milo and asked if that is what we want to officially represent LU.

That's all I will have to say about that.

[cruzan_flame13]

I see a lot of bickering going on, which you guys can continue doing. Nonetheless, please do not compare of what occurred last week as a riot. In all honesty, many things do not make any sense to what is claimed to have happened. If people are going to blame others for promoting any violence, at least know what actually occurred there instead of looking at one narrative that the media regurgitate to the masses. I'm sure that wouldn't matter to you guys anyway, so carry on I suppose.

I have purposely avoided describing it one way or the other. It was certainly more than a "protest". We know this but to recall for purposes of discussion, damage was done throughout the capitol, offices were invaded and in some cases tossed, objects were broken or stolen. Officers were intimidated and in at least one case we know of, assaulted. Participants tried to breach locked doors and broke windows. There is plenty of recorded statements from participants about their intentions.

What would you call it?


https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-c ... ction.html

Rebellion and Insurrection, Sedition, and Treason

The prohibition on rebellion and insurrection arises in a brief passage found in 18 U.S.C. Section 2383. The law prohibits the incitement, assistance, and participation in a rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States and its laws. The punishment for this crime is a fine, a maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison, and ineligibility for public office.

Rebellion and insurrection refer specifically to acts of violence against the state or its officers. This distinguishes the crime from sedition, which is the organized incitement to rebellion or civil disorder against the authority of the state. It also separates the crime from treason, which is the violation of allegiance owed to one's country by betrayal or acting to aid the country's enemies.

The crimes are easily confused, but if the party wasn't acting on behalf of (or giving aid to) a foreign government they are unlikely to be charged with treason. Calls to rise up against the authority of the government by staging non-violent protests and strikes might be characterized as sedition (if they violated laws relating to these acts), but wouldn't be considered rebellion or insurrection unless the incitement included calls for violent acts such as the destruction of government property or the assault of officers of the state.

I call it somewhat of a staged event. I'll just mention this and this was even on the news. Intelligence knew ahead thay something was going to occur, specifically stating that an " armed group calls for " storming"(although the metro police opened the gates) of government buildings." By the way only a handful of people went up to capital and then a smaller group of those people walked in in orderly fashion taking pictures and making videos as a couple cops just watched them. If it was a storm, the riot police would've not been able to handle the crowd "stroming" in as everyone would later see a little after some people were allowed in. I think most of those people allowed in were just plants (not saying Anti fa) and will never be found(or they will tell us they are with photo on the screen just to make people believe something was done). I've seen this play many times in history before through my studies ( although people think it can happen in history but not in present day America ) and there's a reason that the F.B.I is playing a role. What is even bogus is that they want to give the people of interest with petty charges when it is a higher crime to even trespass a federal building. To add to the drama, they added a possible pipe bomb perpetrator(although the image show someone that will never be identified and somehow no one saw this person? Does that even make sense with thousands of people around the capital that day?) And then racism(though live there were 'block' people walking in the rotunda on their phones). I'm not buying this story and this is another sham to create a Hegelian reaction so that the government will create more mandates that will completely eliminate more rights "for our safety" since we are a democratic society (we are not and never had been but repeating something over and over again always convince people that something is true).

[paradox]

You guys can rave on with the trigger show, if you want, but let's just say that the probability is likely pretty high that these weren't Metaxas followers storming the Capital. Condemning this guy and blaming him for anarchy is completely reckless.

Making blanket statements

It's a valid summation of the conversation. We all know that the political environment is ballistic right now. It would be wise to avoid excess.

[stokesjokes]

I hear Russell Moore might be available soon . Would make a great LU president. Too political?

[Just John]

I see a lot of bickering going on, which you guys can continue doing. Nonetheless, please do not compare of what occurred last week as a riot. In all honesty, many things do not make any sense to what is claimed to have happened. If people are going to blame others for promoting any violence, at least know what actually occurred there instead of looking at one narrative that the media regurgitate to the masses. I'm sure that wouldn't matter to you guys anyway, so carry on I suppose.

I have purposely avoided describing it one way or the other. It was certainly more than a "protest". We know this but to recall for purposes of discussion, damage was done throughout the capitol, offices were invaded and in some cases tossed, objects were broken or stolen. Officers were intimidated and in at least one case we know of, assaulted. Participants tried to breach locked doors and broke windows. There is plenty of recorded statements from participants about their intentions.

What would you call it?


https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-c ... ction.html

Rebellion and Insurrection, Sedition, and Treason

The prohibition on rebellion and insurrection arises in a brief passage found in 18 U.S.C. Section 2383. The law prohibits the incitement, assistance, and participation in a rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States and its laws. The punishment for this crime is a fine, a maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison, and ineligibility for public office.

Rebellion and insurrection refer specifically to acts of violence against the state or its officers. This distinguishes the crime from sedition, which is the organized incitement to rebellion or civil disorder against the authority of the state. It also separates the crime from treason, which is the violation of allegiance owed to one's country by betrayal or acting to aid the country's enemies.

The crimes are easily confused, but if the party wasn't acting on behalf of (or giving aid to) a foreign government they are unlikely to be charged with treason. Calls to rise up against the authority of the government by staging non-violent protests and strikes might be characterized as sedition (if they violated laws relating to these acts), but wouldn't be considered rebellion or insurrection unless the incitement included calls for violent acts such as the destruction of government property or the assault of officers of the state.

I call it somewhat of a staged event. I'll just mention this and this was even on the news. Intelligence knew ahead thay something was going to occur, specifically stating that an " armed group calls for " storming"(although the metro police opened the gates) of government buildings." By the way only a handful of people went up to capital and then a smaller group of those people walked in in orderly fashion taking pictures and making videos as a couple cops just watched them. If it was a storm, the riot police would've not been able to handle the crowd "stroming" in as everyone would later see a little after some people were allowed in. I think most of those people allowed in were just plants (not saying Anti fa) and will never be found(or they will tell us they are with photo on the screen just to make people believe something was done). I've seen this play many times in history before through my studies ( although people think it can happen in history but not in present day America ) and there's a reason that the F.B.I is playing a role. What is even bogus is that they want to give the people of interest with petty charges when it is a higher crime to even trespass a federal building. To add to the drama, they added a possible pipe bomb perpetrator(although the image show someone that will never be identified and somehow no one saw this person? Does that even make sense with thousands of people around the capital that day?) And then racism(though live there were 'block' people walking in the rotunda on their phones). I'm not buying this story and this is another sham to create a Hegelian reaction so that the government will create more mandates that will completely eliminate more rights "for our safety" since we are a democratic society (we are not and never had been but repeating something over and over again always convince people that something is true).

I said to a number of people days in advance there would be violence. I said during the event that we would be lucky if no one was killed. (We weren't "lucky). No kudo's to me...it didn't take a genius to expect violence. Up until 2 days ago I still had people saying to me that Trump will be inaugurated on the 20th of this year. You cannot reason with people like this. That's just nut-job thinking. (I bet two people on Twitter $100 a month ago Trump would not be the Pres after 1/20. I sent them both a kind message saying it was just a point-made for me and they were not expected to pay. They both bailed. LOL).

Respectfully, your description above is laughable. Face recognition has ID'd many of these people already. Some are QAnon nuts, others are just extremist hard-core Trumper's. (And there was also video of some Trump supporters who bravely tried to protect the media from others). Many have already said they shouldn't have done what they did. No one to my knowledge has yet been identified as a legit Antifa nut. Fortunately even some hardcore apologists like Laura Ingraham have told the truth and said it wasn't Antifa. But many want to live in the fantasy it wasn't what it was. You will never convince them otherwise. They don't want to believe anything else.

[JK37]

We choose our truth nowadays.

[cruzan_flame13]

I have purposely avoided describing it one way or the other. It was certainly more than a "protest". We know this but to recall for purposes of discussion, damage was done throughout the capitol, offices were invaded and in some cases tossed, objects were broken or stolen. Officers were intimidated and in at least one case we know of, assaulted. Participants tried to breach locked doors and broke windows. There is plenty of recorded statements from participants about their intentions.

What would you call it?


https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-c ... ction.html

I call it somewhat of a staged event. I'll just mention this and this was even on the news. Intelligence knew ahead thay something was going to occur, specifically stating that an " armed group calls for " storming"(although the metro police opened the gates) of government buildings." By the way only a handful of people went up to capital and then a smaller group of those people walked in in orderly fashion taking pictures and making videos as a couple cops just watched them. If it was a storm, the riot police would've not been able to handle the crowd "stroming" in as everyone would later see a little after some people were allowed in. I think most of those people allowed in were just plants (not saying Anti fa) and will never be found(or they will tell us they are with photo on the screen just to make people believe something was done). I've seen this play many times in history before through my studies ( although people think it can happen in history but not in present day America ) and there's a reason that the F.B.I is playing a role. What is even bogus is that they want to give the people of interest with petty charges when it is a higher crime to even trespass a federal building. To add to the drama, they added a possible pipe bomb perpetrator(although the image show someone that will never be identified and somehow no one saw this person? Does that even make sense with thousands of people around the capital that day?) And then racism(though live there were 'block' people walking in the rotunda on their phones). I'm not buying this story and this is another sham to create a Hegelian reaction so that the government will create more mandates that will completely eliminate more rights "for our safety" since we are a democratic society (we are not and never had been but repeating something over and over again always convince people that something is true).

I said to a number of people days in advance there would be violence. I said during the event that we would be lucky if no one was killed. (We weren't "lucky). No kudo's to me...it didn't take a genius to expect violence. Up until 2 days ago I still had people saying to me that Trump will be inaugurated on the 20th of this year. You cannot reason with people like this. That's just nut-job thinking. (I bet two people on Twitter $100 a month ago Trump would not be the Pres after 1/20. I sent them both a kind message saying it was just a point-made for me and they were not expected to pay. They both bailed. LOL).

Respectfully, your description above is laughable. Face recognition has ID'd many of these people already. Some are QAnon nuts, others are just extremist hard-core Trumper's. (And there was also video of some Trump supporters who bravely tried to protect the media from others). Many have already said they shouldn't have done what they did. No one to my knowledge has yet been identified as a legit Antifa nut. Fortunately even some hardcore apologists like Laura Ingraham have told the truth and said it wasn't Antifa. But many want to live in the fantasy it wasn't what it was. You will never convince them otherwise. They don't want to believe anything else.

Respectfully, continue enjoying and consuming statism.

[stokesjokes]

I figured it out!

This is the only real RIOT:

[JK37]

Wow, a Carmen reference?

[stokesjokes]

This was the 2nd CD ever purchased in my house growing up. All cassettes before then.

[paradox]

So sorry to hear that

[Sly Fox]

Which begs the question: What was CD #1?