On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 07:52:58 -0500, Snag wrote:

On 3/30/2021 11:51 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 23:47:51 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 21:51:04 -0400, micky
wrote:

In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 30 Mar 2021 16:57:05 -0400, micky
wrote:

In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 30 Mar 2021 05:46:48 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, March 30, 2021 at 3:28:55 AM UTC-4, Jim Joyce wrote:
On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 00:14:55 -0400, micky wrote:

In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 29 Mar 2021 19:28:02 -0400, Dan
wrote:


https://populist.press/this-is-liter...-plan-unfolds/

WATCH: Press secretary confirms that White House is working with corporate sector to formulate 'vaccine passports'

I hope that's true. I'm glad to hear it. It means people with sense
enough to get vaccinated will have some of their freedom of movement
restoreable, and won't thave to suffer as much because of the morons who
won't get vaccinated.

Businesses could then use this credential to allow vaccinated persons admittance to events and places to which non-vaccinated persons would be denied entrance.

Damn right.
Sounds good to me. Like I heard on TV a few weeks ago, we need to make it
very inconvenient to be an anti-vaxer. I think the idiots will come around
fairly quickly.

Or stage another insurrection.

Like I said before, I wish the police had killed a few on Jan 6. I
suppose they weren't there when they were spraying poison into the cop's
face or when they were hitting someone with the flag pole, but when they
were ramming something ito the door glass of the Capitol I wish they had
fired one warning shot, then the next one into the arm that showed and
whatever else happened to be behind that arm. If that person retreated
and was replaced with someone else, afaic the next bullet should have
gone in any part of his body that was available, and if it killed him,
that would be good. I would have liked to see the crowd turn and run
when that happened. But I wouldn't want the capitol police to break
more glass than was already broken. Waste not, want not.

I suppose they were unwilling to use lethal force when the attack they
watched was only aimed at the door, and they deserve credit for
restraint, but otoh "minimum force necessary" is aiui minimum force
necessary to stop someone, and is not determined by the nature of the
force he's using. If by dint of numbers he/they can accomplish their
crime without using guns, that doesn't mean a gun shouldn't be fired to
stop them, imo. Don't want to shoot every one of them, only enough to
see them turn and leave. I really don't know either what propriety or
the law is on this, but I think if they'd killed a few, the next time
most would stay home and a few would come with guns. And when they saw
how few were there, they'd go home too. Well, maybe.

Maybe I just want them killed to make a statement that rebellion and
violence is not cost-free.

And btw, I'm not want of those who think of DC or the Capitol as a holy
place, or the embodiment of either democracy or liberty. I think it's
important, but not the extent some describe it. However because so many
others think of it that way, attacking the Capitol probably is the
embodiment of attacking democracy, liberty. and a duly eleected
government. So I wish they had killed a few.


They got one breaking into "the holy of holies" as she climbrd into
the senate chamber?

Clare doesn't see this but point out to him Babbitt was shot in the
Speaker's lobby, on the other side of the Capitol from the Senate.


Liberals are not known for letting facts get in the way of a good
narrative .
And roghties don't see question marks or know what they mean. I said
senate? - meaning I wasn't sure if it WAS the senate or the house.