Jim Halpert Explains

"Shoot the messenger"

Party On -595vd4.jpg (click to show) - Upvote for you!

I'm sure there were people who felt that Nazism or Communist Russia weren't a big deal when they first started.

The FBI was not the keynote speaker just before it became a riot!

And let me guess, you were told that this inconclusive drivel is a smoking gun on reddit?

I never called it a "smoking gun". Those are your words.

You called it something worth mentioning. Because you mentioned it. You used your comment box to bring it up.

But it's worthless. It could just as easily be a conversation setting up an office meeting.

"Something worth mentioning" or "needs to be investigated further" ≠ "smoking gun"

Also, how do you know "it's worthless"? What direct connection to you have to the FBI investigation that supports your point? What kind of FBI clearance do you have that you're not telling us?

Fine, I'll rephrase it then.

"And let me guess, you were told that this inconclusive drivel needs to be investigated further on reddit?"

What a useful way to spend my time but at least you're happy now.

Re-read what you just wrote and you'll see multiple problems. Notice how you simultaneously claimed it was "inconclusive" and "drivel" (nonsense) at the same time. However, it can't be both. Pick one or the other.

But we can go further. If you really think it's "inconclusive", then your criticism that it needs to be investigated further is almost contradictory. *Of course* it would need to be further investigated if it's inconclusive".

If you really think it's "drivel" (nonsense), then that begs the question as to what secret FBI information you know which proves that the story is untrue.

In either situation, your criticism is highly flawed.

Ummmmm... yes it can! Nonsense from which one cannot draw a conclusion. You appear to be under the impression that nonsense is generally conclusive by definition SO I THINK I'VE FOUND THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM HERE!

We're not going to investigate every menial conversation that every office manager in the FBI had in the DC area on January 6th - that's ridiculous. That's a waste of everyone's time.

You're doing logical gymnastics here.

Now you're arguing that nonsense can be "inconclusive" (which isn't a persuasive point, but for the sake of argument...) which means you have less grounds now to dismiss the FBI's potential role in the Capitol riots.

And no, this isn't a "menial conversation". Do you know that the FBI was a significant presence within the group that allegedly tried to kidnap Gov. Whitmer?

...how are you not getting this? If you talk nonsense, your conclusions haven't settled anything. If you have any further questions then look up the word "inconclusive" in the dictionary. You're online right now, you have access to these things. There's really no excuse for this level of gibberish.

I think the problem is that you have made a claim with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Your claim is that the allegation that the FBI may have been involved in Capitol rioting is "nonsense" or "inconclusive". Of course it is "inconclusive", which is why additional evidence is being gathered. However, you have presented exactly zero evidence to support your claim that it's "nonsense".

If you want to have an actual discussion, then please provide your evidence.

OK, while you're at it, look up the word "claim" in the dictionary. You made a claim, you failed to support your claim, so putting the burden of evidence on me for your failure makes no sense at all. Again, the FBI office managers organize meetings in the DC area all the time. There's one point in that thing that literally talks about f**king parking. What do you think you're entitled to here? Nothing suspicious, nothing investigated, you lose, you get nothing, good day sir.

*Of course* you have the burden of evidence to support your claim.

My *claim* is simply that there's evidence that suggests the FBI may have instigated the Capitol riots. The evidence points to the FBI's involvement in the Whitmer kidnapping plot, as well as other suspicious evidence about supposed leaders of the Capitol riot whose names have been withheld.

All I need to say is that this demands further investigation.

So what's your evidence *against* this? Up to this point, it's that that "FBI office managers organize meetings in the DC area all the time". I don't know how that's evidence against this.

There's you using the word "proven" again when you never actually did that whole, you know, proving thing.

Don't need to. It was done by others already. You just never bothered seriously looking into it.

Wasn't it you too that was claiming Ashley Biden's claim that Joe molested her was all nonsense too? I consider this a reasonable lead for inquirers on the subject:

https://en-volve.com/2021/06/14/scandal-joe-bidens-daughter-claims-he-sexually-molested-her-as-a-child-according-to-leaked-diary/

Just because something's not in Wikipedia doesn't mean it's inconceivable.

No. It hasn't. I've been telling you that for years!!

1/6 was approximately half a year ago.

You seem to be using Biden math. Imagine that.

You've actually forgotten that we've been arguing about your general tendancy to believe in bullshit for about two years now?

You're just not competent enough to phrase with basic clarity. Your bad, not mine.

And the stuff you dismiss as bullshit that is in fact true would probably fill volumes.

You have not yet remotely learned what questioning authority actually means.

A bad trait in a self-professed adherent of science.

Well, it shouldn't be news to you that something isn't true just because it questions authority, should it? "Dogs can fly" doesn't become true just because you add "in spite of what the liberal media tells you" at the end of it.

But that's how easy it is to get YOU to believe it. You'll believe ANYTHING as long as somewhere in there is the phrase "and that's the question they don't want you to ask".

> You'll believe ANYTHING as long as somewhere in there is the phrase "and that's the question they don't want you to ask".

Enjoy the reassurance of your self-delusion. It won't last forever.

See, that's the thing: it actually will. That's the thing about this self-sustaining attitude of seeing things that aren't there and then insisting that the evidence will sort of appear at a non-specific date in the future - that can literally last forever, and it's entirely due to the fact that you were always wrong to begin with.