# Hearings about January 6 capital



## Deleted User (Jul 29, 2021)

This is the raw footage from one of the hearings (if there are going to be multiple)


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 29, 2021)

The officers noted them as terrorists, and also not antifa, but calling them trump supporters directly.
I point these things out since some of the misinformation and propaganda that republicans have pushed about the situation.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jul 29, 2021)

I'm having a hard time seeing why I should care about a mostly peaceful protest that resulted in a few hundred people breaking off from the main hundreds of thousands to trespass and harass lawmakers in a building that they left standing when the Left won't even acknowledge that their tens of thousands of riots that took place in which people were murdered, buildings looted and burnt to the ground were uncalled for. One single incident pales in comparison to the tens of thousands from the "other side". Saying a single incident is worse than tens of thousands reminds me of ...


----------



## Dakitten (Jul 29, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm having a hard time seeing why I should care about a mostly peaceful protest that resulted in a few hundred people breaking off from the main hundreds of thousands to trespass and harass lawmakers in a building that they left standing when the Left won't even acknowledge that their tens of thousands of riots that took place in which people were murdered, buildings looted and burnt to the ground were uncalled for. One single incident pales in comparison to the tens of thousands from the "other side". Saying a single incident is worse than tens of thousands reminds me of ...



Ah, let me break that down for you then, comrade!

The "protest" in DC was a terrorist action aimed at overruling the will of the people at large, and murder did occur amongst those "hundreds of thousands" (good joke, by the by) when they actively assaulted the country's central point of legislation. Those that weren't charged do not condemn the actions, but handwave them. They were also rallied by a twice impeached traitor to his office to do this, which has grand and frightening implications and shows the ugly underbelly of a whole party (since this was at a partisan political rally).

BLM and similar groups were protesters engaged with violence and returned the violence in kind. The vast majority of their protests were peaceful, and they largely denounce senseless destruction of property and assault, and there wasn't any partisan politics involved. The number of arrests were far greater than at the White House, the amount of brutality against protesters was greater than at the White House, and the number of idiots shitposting about how everything was just fine and not worth investigating in the aftermath is far greater, too.

Seriously, kid, go serve your country before you mock those that actually have. Maybe some fresh air in the service will help get the scent of your bs off of ya.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 29, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm having a hard time seeing why I should care about a mostly peaceful protest


So your disagreeing with what the police said? You know, calling them trump supporters and terrorists?
awfully convenient


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jul 29, 2021)




----------



## Deleted User (Jul 29, 2021)

spotanjo3 said:


>


Sorry, I would decide to show highlights, been then most republicans would call it click bait or "the media is wrong" or some other equivalent. So I decided to show as raw footage as possible

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

go to 59 minutes in if you want to hear the point were officers start saying fairly damning shit.


----------



## notimp (Jul 29, 2021)

Reual said:


> The officers noted them as terrorists, and also not antifa, but calling them trump supporters directly.
> I point these things out since some of the misinformation and propaganda that republicans have pushed about the situation.


Mostly for you personally, The first officer (the one from the domenican republic) had an element in the introduction of his speech, (which according to protocol was "reading a summery of his statements"), which went as follows:
We cant let other people relativize the happenings on said day, as we still need to maintain the US role as a moral rolemodel domestic and abroad.

Officer two (the one with a beard) had an element in his speech that went as follows: "We cant let other people relativize the happenings on said day, -- because it hurts my feelings and is a disgrace."

The bearded officer also had a clear dramaturgic structure in his speech that talked about him walking through the eerie scenario of abandoned checkpoints and empty cars towards the capitol, where then he experienced the most touching and impactful moment in his life seeing his superiors cough breathing gas, in the evening sun. Before pivoting into the part where he was almost beaten to death.

What do you think - where those speeches manufactured with a purpose?

(Are you keen on propagating it?  )

(See also: Acting as if 1/6 was some sort of serious "insurrection" is just pitiful.None of the defendants has been charged with sedition, fomenting insurrection, attempted murder or anything like that. Because it wasn't that. It was a protest that turned into a 3-hour riot.— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) July 26, 2021
 )

And to our friends on the far right, this is as much room as I'm giving you, I'll argue against your position on anything exceeding that in an instance.. 

The fourth officer talked about protesters/insurrectionists as terrorists, and then went into, that he didnt know why he was defending an entrance. They "thought they were the last line".

The other two officers there, were squaring off with (the main group of) protesters, one hour after the first breach of the Capitol building, apparently for no reason (we dont know why). Two people were killed as a result of their efforts. But they also secured an entrance. (Usually you give the mob space for the "group emotion" to discharge (including violently), then you enter with many more men (numbers), once the group identity/emotion of a mob starts to crumble, because it cant grow, and has 'reached', whatever they want to reach at that time. That is after evacuation. (First breach of the Capitol occured at 2:15 p.m. what the two officers were describing should have happened at 3:15 or later.)

They (capitol police and national guard) did that (letting group emotion discharge, and then confront in large numbers) in the rotunda of the Capitol in the evening, and took it in about 20 minutes.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm having a hard time seeing why I should care about a mostly peaceful protest that resulted in a few hundred people breaking off from the main hundreds of thousands to trespass and harass lawmakers in a building that they left standing when the Left won't even acknowledge that their tens of thousands of riots that took place in which people were murdered, buildings looted and burnt to the ground were uncalled for. One single incident pales in comparison to the tens of thousands from the "other side". Saying a single incident is worse than tens of thousands reminds me of ...


Can I downvote this? Our riots are better than your riots, where poeple died? 

On 6/1 at least 4 people did die, you know? (Didnt doublecheck, might have been five.)


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 29, 2021)

notimp said:


> What do you think - where those speeches manufactured with a purpose?


Your point being? I'd imagine that yes the speeches were manufactured, probably checked with their police department, which is not new. But what does it change? Unless your telling me that you know, the terrorists there, trying to stop an election (remember congress was there certifying the election)  and actively looking for members of congress with weapons on them, (which we did see on camera) was not terrorists.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Because the police only confirmed the exact same evidence seen.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

and if you really want to know the purpose, the purpose was to maintain the states a country and not have the government overthrown.


----------



## notimp (Jul 29, 2021)

Reual said:


> Your point being?


I'm pretty sure they (police administration) wrote the "statement" the first officer read, and that those (in large parts) werent his words.

I'm pretty sure "We cant let other people relativize the happenings on said day" was the common narrative that needed to be transported.

And I'm pretty sure, that those werent "whitness accounts" at least for the introduction and the "moral conclusion" that followed in all of them.

The rest of me "relativizing" what those statements were, already is in my first posting.

I'm mostly mentioning that, because the role of the police action on that day, isn't part of the public narrative anymore. And I think its cheap to let them get away with this.

At least dont let your officers read out preprepared statements, with the talking points you want to perpetuate, as "eye whitness accounts".

You are mixing genres.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 29, 2021)

Yeah I ain't watching 3 and a half hours of grown ass men crying like a bunch of cunts because of them leading the protesters inside the capital themselves, I watched the highlights lol


----------



## smf (Jul 29, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm having a hard time seeing why I should care about a mostly peaceful protest that resulted in a few hundred people breaking off from the main hundreds of thousands to trespass and harass lawmakers in a building that they left standing when the Left won't even acknowledge that their tens of thousands of riots that took place in which people were murdered, buildings looted and burnt to the ground were uncalled for.



Probably because of the picture of you with your head up your arse.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 29, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm having a hard time seeing why I should care about a mostly peaceful protest that resulted in a few hundred people breaking off from the main hundreds of thousands to trespass and harass lawmakers in a building that they left standing when the Left won't even acknowledge that their tens of thousands of riots that took place in which people were murdered, buildings looted and burnt to the ground were uncalled for. One single incident pales in comparison to the tens of thousands from the "other side". Saying a single incident is worse than tens of thousands reminds me of ...


Who was surprised that the conservative response would be whataboutism?

What, nobody?



BitMasterPlus said:


> Yeah I ain't watching 3 and a half hours of grown ass men crying like a bunch of cunts


Who was surprised conservatives would go full toxic-masculinity and condemn men for crying, all while using anti-woman language (they're already being sexist by condemning a trait perceived to be feminine, so why not use anti-woman language too?)?

What, nobody?


----------



## notimp (Jul 29, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Yeah I ain't watching 3 and a half hours of grown ass men crying like a bunch of cunts because of them leading the protesters inside the capital themselves, I watched the highlights lol


Its only about an hour. And everyone is always encouraged to watch primary sources. Otherwise you are ending up with some youtuber again, telling you what to think, you know.. 

So dont do that - dont downplay actually watching what happend if you can.

Here:


----------



## smf (Jul 29, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Who was surprised that the conservative response would be whataboutism?
> 
> What, nobody?
> 
> ...



You won the far right bullshit bingo.

What a whiny salty bunch the far right have become these days.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 29, 2021)

smf said:


> You won the far right bullshit bingo.
> 
> What a whiny salty bunch the far right have become these days.


We all knew many conservatives were broadly anti-woman, but I didn't think they'd say the quiet part out loud.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 29, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Who was surprised conservatives would go full toxic-masculinity and condemn men for crying, all while using anti-woman language (they're already being sexist by condemning a trait perceived to be feminine, so why not use anti-woman language too?)?
> 
> What, nobody?



Dude, they're crying like they just witnessed their entire family being slaughtered in front of them, but they're crying over name calling and "the stress" of it all.
Ever hear of "Stick and Stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me"? If you cry over words and name calling and you're a grown adult, you deserve to be made fun of, period. As for the stress, if you can't handle the job, why are you even fucking working as a cop or security officer?


----------



## smf (Jul 29, 2021)

notimp said:


> Can I downvote this? Our riots are better than your riots, where poeple died?
> 
> On 6/1 at least 4 people did die, you know? (Didnt doublecheck, might have been five.)



January 6th was mostly white people, the BLM protests were mostly black people.

Is it any surprise that they would minimize what the white people did while making out the black people were worse?



BitMasterPlus said:


> Ever hear of "Stick and Stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me"? If you cry over words and name calling and you're a grown adult, you deserve to be made fun of, period.



You're a cruel excuse for a human being. Nobody deserves to be made fun of, especially someone who is suffering. It's disturbing that someone would even think it was acceptable behavior. One has to wonder how messed up you are to get pleasure from making fun of them.


----------



## notimp (Jul 29, 2021)

smf said:


> January 6th was mostly white people, the BLM protests were mostly black people.
> 
> Is it any surprise that they would minimize what the white people did while making out the black people were worse?


No, no surprise. If you want to see it that way. I'd not even go into race, but just do that argument on political affiliation alone.

Again, my argument was mostly to Reual (just to think about a few concepts  ) and not meant to represent the entirety of what happened on 6/1 or in the political control commitees.

Bad argument for someone whos new to this stuff, because its neither simple, nor one dimensional.  (And could get dragged out of proportion very easily.)


----------



## Xzi (Jul 29, 2021)

This has absolutely nothing to do with BLM or the murderous cops they protest (though there were also cops among the Jan 6 mob).  This was a terrorist act, carried out by people who hate democracy and prefer authoritarianism/dictatorship.  I'm not interested in dissecting why they believe the things they do, that obviously comes down to decades of right-wing propaganda.  I'm only interested in deporting or jailing these criminals.  You can't fix stupid, especially when it runs so deep that you think committing a terrorist act on behalf of a billionaire pedophile is a good idea that will earn you a reward in the end.


----------



## Tri-Z (Jul 30, 2021)

smf said:


> January 6th was mostly white people, the BLM protests were mostly black people.
> 
> Is it any surprise that they would minimize what the white people did while making out the black people were worse?
> 
> ...




I think they meant people are just too sensitive sometimes. Everyone has the right to feel how they want to feel though and don’t deserve to be put down, harassed, belittled, bullied. But there’s much worse things going on in the world in comparison.

as the events were unfolding the victims involved didn’t know what was gonna happen and that is scary. It def could have turned out much worse than it was.


----------



## smf (Jul 30, 2021)

Tri-Z said:


> I think they meant people are just too sensitive sometimes.



He clearly wasn't saying that, but who is arrogant enough to decide on how sensitive people should be? I'm not, are you ?

We appear to be suffering the opposite problem, of people not being sensitive enough.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jul 30, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Ah, let me break that down for you then, comrade!
> 
> The "protest" in DC was a terrorist action aimed at overruling the will of the people at large, and murder did occur amongst those "hundreds of thousands" (good joke, by the by) when they actively assaulted the country's central point of legislation. Those that weren't charged do not condemn the actions, but handwave them. They were also rallied by a twice impeached traitor to his office to do this, which has grand and frightening implications and shows the ugly underbelly of a whole party (since this was at a partisan political rally).



Trump never instructed anyone to riot. That's more horseshit that was fabricated by the Left.  As a matter of fact when the few hundred people broke off from the peaceful protesting and started to riot Trump condemned their actions and told everyone to go home. However, I see you're just a normal leftist liar going around making shit up to hurt others.

As you see fit to lie and insult me you've been added to my ignore list.


----------



## Viri (Jul 30, 2021)

I was actually at the Jan 6 thingy, it was fun.


----------



## Dakitten (Jul 30, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Trump never instructed anyone to riot. That's more horseshit that was fabricated by the Left.  As a matter of fact when the few hundred people broke off from the peaceful protesting and started to riot Trump condemned their actions and told everyone to go home. However, I see you're just a normal leftist liar going around making shit up to hurt others.
> 
> As you see fit to lie and insult me you've been added to my ignore list.



Wow, another right wing snowflake down. I'm honestly astonished, I thought I was being pretty benign compared to some other folk, but I'm guessing that ignore list is larger than I know. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2021_United_States_Capitol_attack

The timeline doesn't match up the the idea that Trump tried to encourage the mob to disperse, nor did he condemn anybody. His tweets are logged and there to view for anybody curious. I honestly feel a little bad for Johnny, he seems to be genuinely ignorant by his own choice.


----------



## jimbo13 (Jul 31, 2021)

The Capital routinely has rowdy demonstrations for all of modern history, Hundreds of thousands of people announced they were showing up.  If Capital security was not prepared for a few hundred to have a little "Mostly peaceful spaghetti potluck" they should be fired, hard to blame the rioters for this level of incompetence.

The protesters were allowed in and having cordial conversations with the police, Some of that "Community policing to diffuse the situation" everyone is so fond of unless it's used when it's white conservatives.

No one other than liberal partisans give a shit or buy this baloney, anyone breaking triple digits in the IQ department see this for the politicized nonsense it is.

The hypocrisy is all over the place.












https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1347211001985429511?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1347211001985429511|twgr^|twcon^s1_c10&ref_url=https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/bumping-hypocrisy-leftists-took-over-capital-building-before-too-media-praised-them/

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1347015745851555842?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1347015745851555842|twgr^|twcon^s1_c10&ref_url=https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/bumping-hypocrisy-leftists-took-over-capital-building-before-too-media-praised-them/


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 31, 2021)

So... Sorry if I'm insensitive, but when are they going to prosecute Donald Trump?
All this is like piling blame on the 9/11 plane hijackers for their action and letting Osama off the hook because he 's popular with people in power.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 31, 2021)

Taleweaver said:


> So... Sorry if I'm insensitive, but when are they going to prosecute Donald Trump?
> All this is like piling blame on the 9/11 plane hijackers for their action and letting Osama off the hook because he 's popular with people in power.


Never, because that will definitely lead to a civil war.


----------



## Dakitten (Jul 31, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Never, because that will definitely lead to a civil war.



That would be quite a short lived war, particularly now that he is out of office and is losing people in his circle to criminal charges left and right. Why would anybody wage a war over a washed up steak salesman with maybe another 4 years of life left in 'em?

Also, you're doing great, pumpkin! Keep up those one liners, very easy to drown those out~


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 31, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Never, because that will definitely lead to a civil war.




Where's your civil war now that those terrorists (Trump's most loyal soldiers) face jail time?
Where's your civil war when Biden took office as the next president?
Where's your civil war when Trump's top lawyers get barred from their practice?
Where's your civil war when that whole 'the vote is a lie' thing turned out to be an absolute turd?


Your emperor has no clothes, dude. There 's a large chunk of sore losses, I won't deny that. But Trump can be happy if they remain calm. It's only a matter of time before it dawn's on them they've been conned for their gullibility. They wanted to hang Pence on a whim... My bet is they'll be first in line to rip Trump to shreds.
But a civil war? With those dumb fucks fighting for Trump? Against American values and the US army? Not a fucking chance in hell.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 31, 2021)

Taleweaver said:


> Where's your civil war now that those terrorists (Trump's most loyal soldiers) face jail time?
> Where's your civil war when Biden took office as the next president?
> Where's your civil war when Trump's top lawyers get barred from their practice?
> Where's your civil war when that whole 'the vote is a lie' thing turned out to be an absolute turd?
> ...


Laugh now, but the checks and balances of the law in the US is hanging by thread now, only one more push of something drastic happening before all hell breaks loose.


----------



## jimbo13 (Jul 31, 2021)

Trumps never going to be convicted of anything. It never happens, One he didn't do anything illegal and it brings too much instability to the system.  The most you ever see is things like Nixon or Bill Clinton, minor formalities pardoned or completely paper based.

The U.S. having a traditional civil war is unlikely, we already are having a civil cold war.  California has already banned travel to nearly half the country.  You see countless states blue and red ignoring federal laws or passing laws at a state level saying "we aren't going along with that".

The likely outcome is varying degree's of dissolution. Whether it's a formal dissolution of the U.S breaking off in to smaller territories or states flexing their power and generally ignoring the federal government it's already happening.

The degree that it continues is how much civil unrest and partisan over reach takes place.


----------



## weatMod (Jul 31, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Ah, let me break that down for you then, comrade!
> 
> The "protest" in DC was a terrorist action aimed at overruling the will of the people at large, and murder did occur amongst those "hundreds of thousands" (good joke, by the by) when they actively assaulted the country's central point of legislation. Those that weren't charged do not condemn the actions, but handwave them. They were also rallied by a twice impeached traitor to his office to do this, which has grand and frightening implications and shows the ugly underbelly of a whole party (since this was at a partisan political rally).
> 
> ...


no it wasn't it was just a  bunch of ghey larpers peppered with agent provocateurs  and a total cringe fest    and everyone there was setup by BOTH sides of the system
BOHT sides wanted them there, BOTH sides allowed this
useful idots  who were set up

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



jimbo13 said:


> The Capital routinely has rowdy demonstrations for all of modern history, Hundreds of thousands of people announced they were showing up.  If Capital security was not prepared for a few hundred to have a little "Mostly peaceful spaghetti potluck" they should be fired, hard to blame the rioters for this level of incompetence.
> 
> The protesters were allowed in and having cordial conversations with the police, Some of that "Community policing to diffuse the situation" everyone is so fond of unless it's used when it's white conservatives.
> 
> ...



>Sally Kohn 
 wow really makes ya think


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 31, 2021)

Heard a few snippets of the hearings, the level of fiction-writing is pretty funny and the credibility of some of the witnesses is at best questionable. Still, I'm glad that this will result in some book deals.

As a matter of public record I'll add that 5 people died during the riot - 3 deaths were ruled to be of natural causes (2x cardiovascular disease and 1x stroke), one death was accidental (amphetamine overdose) and one was a homicide (by gunshot). The only fatality caused directly by the riot was Ashli Babbit who was shot by the security detail.

https://www.klkntv.com/officers-death-after-insurrection-was-ruled-natural-causes/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...e-death-released-4-5-not-sicknick/7128040002/


----------



## Lacius (Jul 31, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Heard a few snippets of the hearings, the level of fiction-writing is pretty funny and the credibility of some of the witnesses is at best questionable. Still, I'm glad that this will result in some book deals.


I haven't seen any testimony that wasn't corroborated by physical evidence, like video footage. What are you talking about?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 31, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I haven't seen any testimony that wasn't corroborated by physical evidence, like video footage. What are you talking about?


One of the officers requested a minute of silence in memory of Officer Sicknick who, he claimed, was murdered during the riot. This is inconsistent with the medical examiner's report which lists his cause of death as a double stroke due to natural causes. His injuries did not cause his death or hasten it. I quote:


> Sicknick's official cause of death was "*acute brainstem and cerebellar infarcts due to acute basilar artery thrombosis*," according to the medical examiner's office.
> 
> The officer's manner of death — the circumstances surrounding his passing — was determined to be "*natural*," the office said. That term is used when a death is caused *solely by a disease and is not hastened by an injury*.


https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/19/bri...fter-capitol-riot-medical-examiner-rules.html

Nobody corrected the officer at the stand, the whole room went along with it, even though it's untrue. I'm all for a minute of silence for officers who die in the line of duty, but not when it's done on the basis of a lie to create a spectacle. According to the data available Sicknick wasn't "murdered".


----------



## Dakitten (Jul 31, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Laugh now, but the checks and balances of the law in the US is hanging by thread now, only one more push of something drastic happening before all hell breaks loose.



Wow, that is very edgelord of you. Are you so hungry for blood that you don't care if it comes from your fellow Americans? This isn't even just blind ignorance, it is actual zealotry, and that kind of thing is responsible for all manner of tragedies. You ARE aware that there are a much higher number of Democrats than Republicans in the USA, right? Are you okay with overturning the will of the masses for your own warped and disgusting ideology?




Foxi4 said:


> Heard a few snippets of the hearings, the level of fiction-writing is pretty funny and the credibility of some of the witnesses is at best questionable. Still, I'm glad that this will result in some book deals.



Peculiarities about how long it took for the officer's autopsy to get ruled on aside, Sicknick was assaulted and died the next day. It was determined to be in the line of duty, and the coroner did also say of his death "all that transpired played a role in his condition." It also doesn't change the fact that this was a violent raid on the center of US legislation by an unruly minority...



jimbo13 said:


> Trumps never going to be convicted of anything. It never happens, One he didn't do anything illegal and it brings too much instability to the system.  The most you ever see is things like Nixon or Bill Clinton, minor formalities pardoned or completely paper based.
> 
> The U.S. having a traditional civil war is unlikely, we already are having a civil cold war.  California has already banned travel to nearly half the country.  You see countless states blue and red ignoring federal laws or passing laws at a state level saying "we aren't going along with that".
> 
> ...



And Foxi says the police wrote fan fiction. I'm actually in the process of moving from California to Tennessee, haven't had a lick of trouble switching between the states, so I'm really unsure what the fluff that is about. I won't deny that the Republican party has been performing something of a soft coup in the sense that they've manipulated the tools of the democracy to provide extremely unpopular methods of rigging the system in their favor, but that has been the case for a while. Problem is... their numbers are shrinking, and events like this, where they can hold a "blue lives matter" sign in one hand, and a taser to shock a police officer in the other, actually does hurt their numbers with younger audiences. At this point, most republicans are aging, both in and out of the chambers, and it looks like it may only be a matter of time before it views that final sunrise~


----------



## Valwinz (Jul 31, 2021)

The clown meetings because Biden is a shitty president lol


----------



## Lacius (Jul 31, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> One of the officers requested a minute of silence in memory of Officer Sicknick who, he claimed, was murdered during the riot. This is inconsistent with the medical examiner's report which lists his cause of death as a double stroke due to natural causes. His injuries did not cause his death or hasten it. I quote:
> 
> https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/19/bri...fter-capitol-riot-medical-examiner-rules.html
> 
> Nobody corrected the officer at the stand, the whole room went along with it, even though it's untrue. I'm all for a minute of silence for officers who die in the line of duty, but not when it's done on the basis of a lie to create a spectacle. According to the data available Sicknick wasn't "murdered".


It's more than plausible, if not more than likely, that the stress and trauma of the riots led to his death, and he died in the line of duty regardless. The medical report doesn't contradict this, and the medical examiner says it all "played a role" in his death.

Given the misreporting that occurred about being hit with a fire extinguisher, you also can't fault someone even if they got it egregiously wrong.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 31, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Peculiarities about how long it took for the officer's autopsy to get ruled on aside, Sicknick was assaulted and died the next day. It was determined to be in the line of duty, and the coroner did also say of his death "all that transpired played a role in his condition." It also doesn't change the fact that this was a violent raid on the center of US legislation by an unruly minority...


The peculiarities are all that matters in a case like this. Sicknick was definitely assaulted, that much we know, but if the examiner is correct then he was not murdered. The testimony is doubly suspect considering some of the officers displayed strong anti-trump (to put it mildly) sentiment on Twitter long before the riot, but I presume they've all disabled their social media now since I can't find the relevant accounts - I'd have to look through archived copies to provide a snippet or two. All it seemed to me was a very tearful play that relied on emotions as opposed to hard facts, but admittedly I didn't watch the entire hearing just yet since it's intensely boring.


Lacius said:


> It's more than plausible, if not more than likely, that the stress and trauma of the riots led to his death, and he died in the line of duty regardless. The medical report doesn't contradict this, and the medical examiner says it all "played a role" in his death.
> 
> Given the misreporting that occurred about being hit with a fire extinguisher, you also can't fault someone even if they got it egregiously wrong.


"Natural causes" means that whatever injuries are present on the body at the time of the examination did not lead to or accelerate the death. In other words, it's not a homicide. Stress might've had some impact, but there's no way to measure that accurately. As it stands, the injuries sustained did not hasten Sicknick's death, but *the events* possibly could've. If his health was so poor that he succumbed to stroke due to stress, especially stress which is inherently tied to being a law enforcement officer, he should've been retired at this point. I feel for his family, I really do, but it appears that his poor health was the primary cause of his death.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 1, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Laugh now, but the checks and balances of the law in the US is hanging by thread now, only one more push of something drastic happening before all hell breaks loose.


Ever noticed that since Biden became president, those 'pushes' have completely vanished?
The US didn't start a civil war over Helsinki (Trump almost literally sucking Putin's cock), the longest government shutdown, Mueller's report, the Supreme Court stacking, pressuring Ukraine to create political dirt, (at least) 100'000 unnecessary covid deaths or the terrorist attack on the capitol. All those (and probably more) deeply divided the already divided political us landscape more and more.
But while under Trump's watch, he always had the back of the majority of Republicans on these situations (and thus the people). Without Trump, though, would be a welcome new start for Republicans. Right now they're aligning themselves with him because they've got no other option. The prosecution would give them an excuse to distance themselves from it (expect a lot of 'I disagreed with him personally but it was my job to leverage his will). Of course it's a political suicide for most of them, but you can bet they'll turn on him like Trump turned on most of them who chose their ideals over Trump's whims.

Result : that 'civil war' you talk about will have even less people on Trump's side than January 6th.
I won't lie : it'd be a while different situation if Trump was actually smart. But he's not. At least not smart enough to successfully undermine the US democracy (which, in all fairness, isn't easy).


----------



## Dakitten (Aug 1, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The peculiarities are all that matters in a case like this. Sicknick was definitely assaulted, that much we know, but if the examiner is correct then he was not murdered. The testimony is doubly suspect considering some of the officers displayed strong anti-trump (to put it mildly) sentiment on Twitter long before the riot, but I presume they've all disabled their social media now since I can't find the relevant accounts - I'd have to look through archived copies to provide a snippet or two. All it seemed to me was a very tearful play that relied on emotions as opposed to hard facts, but admittedly I didn't watch the entire hearing just yet since it's intensely boring.
> "Natural causes" means that whatever injuries are present on the body at the time of the examination did not lead to or accelerate the death. In other words, it's not a homicide. Stress might've had some impact, but there's no way to measure that accurately. As it stands, the injuries sustained did not hasten Sicknick's death, but *the events* possibly could've. If his health was so poor that he succumbed to stroke due to stress, especially stress which is inherently tied to being a law enforcement officer, he should've been retired at this point. I feel for his family, I really do, but it appears that his poor health was the primary cause of his death.



What exactly are you looking for here? Vindication for the rioters by not having been primarily responsible for this murder? It is a bit of a hard sell, but take that as you will. It still doesn't change the cruelty and violence of the day, and the officers genuinely experienced trauma at the hands of traitors to the country intent on overturning the will of the people. Most Americans happen to be anti-Trump, he had absolute garbage approval numbers and sold people terrible steak and video landline phones in the age of cellular. He clearly is not and was not in touch with reality, and spun a narrative that promoted ignorance and incited violence. His rally prior to the event was a call to action, and he can boo hoo AFTER most of the damage was done (while still not denouncing the protesters) but at the end of the day, he was ONCE AGAIN responsible for subverting the rule of law. 

Also, most Americans can't afford to just abandon their job because of health issues. If you feel for his family, maybe look at systems of governance that would have helped him retire from his post without jeopardizing the basic needs of himself and his kin?


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 1, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> What exactly are you looking for here? Vindication for the rioters by not having been primarily responsible for this murder? It is a bit of a hard sell, but take that as you will. It still doesn't change the cruelty and violence of the day, and the officers genuinely experienced trauma at the hands of traitors to the country intent on overturning the will of the people. Most Americans happen to be anti-Trump, he had absolute garbage approval numbers and sold people terrible steak and video landline phones in the age of cellular. He clearly is not and was not in touch with reality, and spun a narrative that promoted ignorance and incited violence. His rally prior to the event was a call to action, and he can boo hoo AFTER most of the damage was done (while still not denouncing the protesters) but at the end of the day, he was ONCE AGAIN responsible for subverting the rule of law.
> 
> Also, most Americans can't afford to just abandon their job because of health issues. If you feel for his family, maybe look at systems of governance that would have helped him retire from his post without jeopardizing the basic needs of himself and his kin?


I'm not looking for anything. It was stated earlier in the thread that 4-5 people died that day (or immediately thereafter). That paints the impression that 4-5 people were killed during the riot, which is not the case - one person was killed - Ashli Babbit, shot by the security detail.

As for being or not being able to afford to quit your job, physical fitness is a prerequisite for being a law enforcement officer. If a given officer is no longer fit to serve, they must necessarily be relieved of duty, specifically to prevent tragedies like this. They take periodical fitness tests for a reason - it's a mentally and physically demanding occupation.

The rest of your statement is completely unevidenced - at no point did Donald Trump tell anyone to storm the Capitol building and overturn the election. We've been through this during the second impeachment.


----------



## Jayro (Aug 1, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm having a hard time seeing why I should care about a mostly peaceful protest that resulted in a few hundred people breaking off from the main hundreds of thousands to trespass and harass lawmakers in a building that they left standing when the Left won't even acknowledge that their tens of thousands of riots that took place in which people were murdered, buildings looted and burnt to the ground were uncalled for. One single incident pales in comparison to the tens of thousands from the "other side". Saying a single incident is worse than tens of thousands reminds me of ...


There's a big difference between us not wanting to be killed in the streets unarmed by police, and your candidate losing an election. You may remove your head from your ass now.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 1, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> That paints the impression that 4-5 people were killed during the riot, which is not the case - one person was killed.


Certainly not for lack of trying given the pipe bombs and weapons caches that were found, the noose that was hung outside, and the various restraints carried by the insurrectionist mob.  Thankfully the terrorists were mostly incompetent _this time_.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 1, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Certainly not for lack of trying given the pipe bombs and weapons caches that were found, the noose that was hung outside, and the various restraints carried by the insurrectionist mob.  Thankfully the terrorists were mostly incompetent _this time_.


I'm a libertarian. My position has always been that there should be gallows in front of Congress 24/7 - not necessarily to hang anyone, but just to keep them honest.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 1, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm a libertarian. My position has always been that there should be gallows in front of Congress 24/7 - not necessarily to hang anyone, but just to keep them honest.


Lol maybe so, but hanging a noose on that specific day was a specific threat made over the results of the election.  The mob demonstrated definitively that conservatives no longer respect democracy.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 1, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Lol maybe so, but hanging a noose on that specific day was a specific threat made over the results of the election.  The mob demonstrated definitively that conservatives no longer respect democracy.


It sure is an interesting insurrection when the insurrectionist are let in by the officer at the door, not one shot is fired inside the building (besides the one that killed Ashli) and the mob disperses politely before curfew. Sounds more like an unguided tour of the building, but who am I to judge.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Aug 1, 2021)

Jayro said:


> There's a big difference between us not wanting to be killed in the streets unarmed by police, and your candidate losing an election. You may remove your head from your ass now.



You simply claim your reason for protesting is valid while the other sides isn't. I am an adult and see both sides have their own reasons and both are executing their constitutional rights. I may not agree with either reason (BLM or Trump), but I'm not going to try to justify one cause over the other when both are valid reasons to protest. We have the right to protest regardless if you agree with the reasoning behind it.

Now that doesn't mean we have the right to *riot *as I see the left gets protesting and rioting confused a lot. People being attacked and killed, minority owned businesses and government agencies buildings burnt to the ground, the trespassing, vandalism, looting, arson, etc ... all of that was uncalled for and is not protesting. I just don't easily dismiss one side over the other because I personally agree with their reasoning. Personally I think both reasons are fucking stupid.

I'm just having a hard time seeing how your side can simply dismiss all of their illegal activity and then claim the shit on the 6th was worse when 1 single occurrence can't compare to the thousands of instances coming from your side.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Foxi4 said:


> It sure is an interesting insurrection when the insurrectionist are let in by the officer at the door, not one shot is fired inside the building (besides the one that killed Ashli) and the mob disperses politely before curfew. Sounds more like an unguided tour of the building, but who am I to judge.



The riot on the 6th pales in comparison to the thousands of instances of crime that BLM and Antifa caused throughout the last two years. On one hand you have a bunch of rowdy people who were trespassing, talking shit, taking selfies, some small theft happened and one single person was shot. On the other hand you have the thousands of instances of violence, including murder, arson, theft, trespassing, destruction of property, looting, etc ... from the left. Sorry, but thousands of instances is way worse then a single one. Now, I'm not saying I agree with the riot on the 6th, which I don't, but I condemn both sides for rioting and the rioting from the left was way worse then the single riot from the right.

Then to top it off the left claims that Trump instructed the rioters to riot, which is a complete fabrication. Trump did invite anyone who wanted to come protest to the Capitol, but that's the extent of it. He never encouraged lawlessness and once the 300-400 people out of the 100,000 broke off and started to riot he condemned their actions and told everyone, including the 100,000+ peaceful protesters to "go home".

The left really lives with their heads up their own asses. I believe they all suffer from some condition where they are cut off from reality (or they just lie so much they believe themselves).


----------



## Xzi (Aug 1, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> It sure is an interesting insurrection when the insurrectionist are let in by the officer at the door, not one shot is fired inside the building (besides the one that killed Ashli) and the mob disperses politely before curfew. Sounds more like an unguided tour of the building, but who am I to judge.


Again, nobody claimed that the mob had an overabundance of competence or a long-term plan for keeping Joe Biden from being inaugurated.  They were high on adrenaline from all the rage jockey Republicans screaming "FIGHT" at them earlier in the day, and they probably assumed Trump would do something for them other than watch on TV.


----------



## Jayro (Aug 1, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> You simply claim your reason for protesting is valid while the other sides isn't. I am an adult and see both sides have their own reasons and both are executing their constitutional rights. I may not agree with either reason (BLM or Trump), but I'm not going to try to justify one cause over the other when both are valid reasons to protest. We have the right to protest regardless if you agree with the reasoning behind it.
> 
> Now that doesn't mean we have the right to *riot *as I see the left gets protesting and rioting confused a lot. People being attacked and killed, minority owned businesses and government agencies buildings burnt to the ground, the trespassing, vandalism, looting, arson, etc ... all of that was uncalled for and is not protesting. I just don't easily dismiss one side over the other because I personally agree with their reasoning. Personally I think both reasons are fucking stupid.
> 
> ...


We're done talking, as it just falls on deaf ears, and nothing changes. That's why we burn shit down until we get your attention and things actually change for the better. Basic Human rights are not political.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Aug 1, 2021)

Jayro said:


> We're done talking, as it just falls on deaf ears, and nothing changes. That's why we burn shit down until we get your attention and things actually change for the better. Basic Human rights are not political.



Human rights? You mean the right of the drug addict women abusing criminal that tried passing off fake cash and then died due to being under the influence of deadly drugs while restrained for resisting arrest? Yeah, right. Floyd got what he asked for in the end. He deserved every last ounce of what happened to him. If he wouldn't have been doing *deadly *drugs, driving while under the influence, trying to pass off fake cash and resisted arrest he'd probably still be alive right now. His bad choices are why he's dead.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 1, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Again, nobody claimed that the mob had an overabundance of competence or a long-term plan for keeping Joe Biden from being inaugurated.  They were high on adrenaline from all the rage jockey Republicans screaming "FIGHT" at them earlier in the day, and they probably assumed Trump would do something for them other than watch on TV.


If this was an actual attempt at an insurrection, there would be no Capitol building anymore. That's all there is to it. There was a handful of violent protesters who showed up there to cause trouble, the remainder stayed outside or got inside briefly out of plain curiosity. I can recognise an IRL shitpost when I look at one - a crowd that size could not be stopped if they put their mind to something.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Aug 1, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> If this was an actual attempt at an insurrection, there would be no Capitol building anymore. That's all there is to it. There was a handful of violent protesters who showed up there to cause trouble, the remainder stayed outside or got inside briefly out of plain curiosity. I can recognise an IRL shitpost when I look at one - a crowd that size could not be stopped if they put their mind to something.



What you didn't see in the liberal media was the 100,000+ other people in the capitol. All they reported on was the 300-400 people that broke off from the main group and started to riot. If per say, the entire 100,000 were to be in an actual insurrection there would be no building standing and most of Congress would be dead. However, it was only a fraction of the total that went to riot .. again, the leftist media completely leaves out the other 100,000+ peaceful protesters.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 1, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> What you didn't see in the liberal media was the 100,000+ other people in the capitol. All they reported on was the 300-400 people that broke off from the main group and started to riot. If per say, the entire 100,000 were to be in an actual insurrection there would be no building standing and most of Congress would be dead. However, it was only a fraction of the total that went to riot .. again, the leftist media completely leaves out the other 100,000+ peaceful protesters.


It was a huge event, yes, and a fraction of people there got the boneheaded idea to enter the Capitol. The ones who broke the law or engaged in violence should be prosecuted and put in prison, other than that, I struggle to care.


----------



## Jayro (Aug 1, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Human rights? You mean the right of the drug addict women abusing criminal that tried passing off fake cash and then died due to being under the influence of deadly drugs while restrained for resisting arrest? Yeah, right. Floyd got what he asked for in the end. He deserved every last ounce of what happened to him. If he wouldn't have been doing *deadly *drugs, driving while under the influence, trying to pass off fake cash and resisted arrest he'd probably still be alive right now. His bad choices are why he's dead.


Wow, none of what you said was true. But thanks for confirming that you're human trash.

(It was proven in a court of law, as well as on video, that George died from Derek being on his neck. But you don't seem like the type of person that cares about proven facts...)


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Aug 1, 2021)

Jayro said:


> Wow, none of what you said was true. But thanks for confirming that you're human trash.
> 
> (It was proven in a court of law, as well as on video, that George died from Derek being on his neck. But you don't seem like the type of person that cares about proven facts...)



The bad cop did indeed kill him, but his choices before and during the arrest are what lead him to his own demise. He was already complaining about not being able to breathe before he was restrained for resisting arrest and he did just try to pass off fake cash and was high on deadly substances. The cop killing him was simply the end of a wrong path he decided to take.

His death was no big loss for society. I wonder what the women who he abused think of it.

I'd advise young people to not take the path he did in life, but we see how stupid young people are with wanting to keep trying things that have failed and they don't listen to people with experience so we may yet see more people die from the bad choices they make. Take deadly drugs, win deadly prizes.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 1, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> If this was an actual attempt at an insurrection, there would be no Capitol building anymore. That's all there is to it.


Rubbish, they did as much damage as they possibly could with what little they could sneak past security.  A large mob of yokels was never any real threat to the National Guard, and the only reason they weren't forced off the property sooner is because Trump procrastinated in giving that order.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 1, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Rubbish, they did as much damage as they possibly could with what little they could sneak past security.  A large mob of yokels was never any real threat to the National Guard, and the only reason they weren't forced off the property sooner is because Trump procrastinated in giving that order.


What National Guard? The guard that showed up late, effectively after the fact? The Capitol Police did not invite the National Guard until after the Capitol was breached, and they don't just "show up" - that's not their job. There would've been precisely jack sh*t they could do if an armed mob of a couple hundred people felt like barricading themselves inside the building and having an actual stand-off. Even more so if the tens of thousands of protestors that were there were all like-minded and wanted to pick a fight, which they obviously weren't and obviously didn't. To me this is clear as day - aside from a small handful of looneys thinking they're Yosemite Sam, there was never any plan to "overtake" anything and no "insurrection" - it was a protest that turned into a riot, like many protests before, and a small group of people seized the opportunity to get inside because *they opened the door* for them, so why wouldn't they? Unguided tour of the Capitol is a far more apt description of what actually happened. The whole area is monitored by snipers 24/7 - clearly the security detail didn't think the "insurrectionist" were dangerous enough to open fire on them.

Trump does not have the power to deploy the D.C. Guard on Capitol grounds per se - the process is far more complicated than that. Their presence was requested by Mayor Bowser, that request had to go to the Pentagon for approval because DC is not a state, so it falls under the purview of the Defense Department. Any requests are approved by the Army Secretary (at the time McCarthy) to whom this power is delegated by the President and the Secretary of Defense and *then* finally the guard can show up, but *only* when invited by the Capitol Police because the Capitol grounds are controlled by a specific set of rules. The request for 340 troops was approved, but the Capitol Police did not invite the guard until late Wednesday, so guess what? They weren't there, because they weren't requested to be there. They're not the president's personal posse that just shows up whenever and wherever the president wants them to - quite the opposite, I don't know where you get this weird idea that it's Trump's fault somehow. They *report* solely to the President, but the power to activate them is delegated to the Secretary of Defense, and then further delegated to the Secretary of the Army. It's the only unit of the National Guard that works like this.


> The D.C National Guard was formed in 1802 by President Thomas Jefferson to defend the newly created District of Columbia. As such, the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard is subordinate solely to the President of the United States.  *This authority to activate the D.C. National Guard has been delegated*, by the President, *to the Secretary of Defense* and further delegated *to the Secretary of the Army*.  The D.C. National Guard is the only National Guard unit, out of all of the 54 states and territories, which reports only to the President.
> 
> https://dc.ng.mil/About-Us/


----------



## Xzi (Aug 1, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> What National Guard? The guard that showed up late, effectively after the fact?


Yes that's what I said.  They were called in late because Trump enjoyed what he was seeing.



Foxi4 said:


> a small group of people seized the opportunity to get inside because *they opened the door* for them, so why wouldn't they?


Some of the capitol police being on the insurrectionists' side here does not excuse anyone's behavior, it only further demonstrates the need for thorough investigation into the day's events.



Foxi4 said:


> Unguided tour of the Capitol is a far more apt description of what actually happened.


Angry rednecks tried to prevent the peaceful transition of power, unsuccessfully.  That's an entirely apt description of what actually happened.  If I'm adding more detail, it was mostly on behalf of the then-president himself, who gave a rousing speech in favor of violence prior to the day's festivities.



Foxi4 said:


> They're not the president's personal posse that just shows up whenever and wherever the president wants them to - quite the opposite, I don't know where you get this weird idea that it's Trump's fault somehow.


It's a matter of record that Pence and several other people called Trump directly and begged him to deploy the National Guard that day.  He obviously had that authority.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 1, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Yes that's what I said.  They were called in late because Trump enjoyed what he was seeing.


This is untrue as stated above. They showed up late because the Capitol Police refused to invite them - the request was already approved by the Pentagon long before the first shoe stood on the first step of the stairs. Trump literally cannot deploy them in the Capitol on a whim, it is not up to him, it's up to the Capitol authorities.


> *Some of the capitol police being on the insurrectionists' side* here does not excuse anyone's behavior, it only further demonstrates the need for thorough investigation into the day's events.


Evidence-free statement.


> Angry rednecks tried to prevent the peaceful transition of power, unsuccessfully.  That's an entirely apt description of what actually happened.


What are you talking about? The transition of power didn't take place on the 6th, it took place on the 20th and was peaceful.


> It's a matter of record that Pence and several other people called Trump directly and begged him to deploy the National Guard that day.  He obviously has that authority.


The National Guard does not have the authority to enter Capitol grounds unless invited. This is a safety precaution to prevent the President or the Pentagon from just executing Congress at will. The Guard was already authorised for deployment - requested by the Mayor and approved by the Army Secretary. They were waiting to be invited by the Capitol, and they came as soon as they were invited. If you don't know how this process works, perhaps you shouldn't speak about it with conviction.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 1, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Evidence-free statement.


You just said yourself that some of the capitol police let the mob through.  Those that acted appropriately that day knew people weren't allowed in the capitol building and resisted them.



Foxi4 said:


> What are you talking about? The transition of power didn't take place on the 6th, it took place on the 20th and was peaceful.


You know damn well the vote had to be certified by Congress that day and that plenty of Republicans voted against certifying legitimate election results.  Don't play dumb with me.



Foxi4 said:


> The National Guard does not have the authority to enter Capitol grounds unless invited. This is a safety precaution to prevent the President or the Pentagon from just executing Congress at will. The Guard was already authorised for deployment - requested by the Mayor and approved by the Army Secretary. They were waiting to be invited by the Capitol, and they came as soon as they were invited. If you don't know how this process works, perhaps you shouldn't speak about it with conviction.


The issue was not that they were waiting outside to be invited in like goddamn vampires, it was that they showed up so late to begin with.  And I can assure you Trump had EVERYTHING to do with that delay, especially if you're telling me everybody else had already given the green light prior (duh).


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 1, 2021)

Xzi said:


> You just said yourself that some of the capitol police let the mob through.  Those that acted appropriately that day knew people weren't allowed in the capitol building and resisted them.


I'm pretty sure that the Capitol was technically open for tourist visits on that day, but I'd have to double-check. Normally it's open Monday-Friday 8:00 AM till 5:00 PM. The doors were closed because, y'know, there's was a hundred thousand strong demonstration outside. The doors were opened because, presumably, someone gave the order to do so. Investigate that, by all means.


> You know damn well the vote had to be certified by Congress that day and that plenty of Republicans voted against certifying legitimate election results.  Don't play dumb with me.


...and this would've stopped certification... how exactly? Delayed, maybe - stopped? No.


> The issue was not that they were waiting outside to be invited in like goddamn vampires, it was that they showed up so late to begin with.  And I can assure you Trump had EVERYTHING to do with that delay, especially if you're telling me everybody else had already given the green light prior (duh).


Sure. He also controls the weather.

The Guard should've been there *the day before*, like they were supposed to. They were not "delayed" by anything other than the Capitol's reluctance in terms of accepting help. Trump had nothing to do with any of this - he couldn't delay *or* hasten their arrival. The troops were already mobilised, but they don't deploy at the drop of a hat - it's an armed unit, not a queue in front of Target on Black Friday. Takes a hot minute to move men and gear around.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 1, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The doors were opened because, presumably, someone gave the order to do so. Investigate that, by all means.


Indeed.  Several among the capitol police leadership resigned in shame after January 6th, but that doesn't mean they should be let off the hook if they gave orders that endangered lives.



Foxi4 said:


> ...and this would've stopped certification... how exactly?


_Again_, nobody has ever accused Republicans of being the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree.  They hoped the hours-long delay they caused for the process would be enough.  Obviously they were wrong.  It's always referred to as an _attempted_ insurrection for a reason.



Foxi4 said:


> Sure. He also controls the weather.


So now we're pretending "commander-in-chief controls a branch of the US armed forces" is a conspiracy theory?  Unless Trump has paid you off personally, I don't think the mental gymnastics used to reason that one out were worth it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 1, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Indeed.  Several among the capitol police leadership resigned in shame after January 6th, but that doesn't mean they should be let off the hook if they gave orders that endangered lives.


Cool.


> _Again_, nobody has ever accused Republicans of being the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree.  They hoped the hours-long delay they caused for the process would be enough.  Obviously they were wrong.  It's always referred to as an _attempted_ insurrection for a reason.


Last I checked, it was the Democrats who were in charge of Congress when a bunch of turbo autists smeared feces all over the walls of the seat of Government because they "didn't expect a big demonstration" and "they figured they'll just let them in and nothing will happen" - I would be careful about discussing competence in regards to this event. As far as I'm concerned, the stars aligned perfectly to make everyone on the scene temporarily dumber than a kumquat.


> So now we're pretending "commander-in-chief controls a branch of the US armed forces" is a conspiracy theory?  Unless Trump has paid you off personally, I don't think the mental gymnastics used to reason that one out were worth it.


1. The sitting president does not have the authority to deploy armed forces in the Capitol, whether it be the National Guard, the Army or any other branch. If he did, he would have the power to single-handedly overturn the entire Congress on a whim.

2. If you have evidence that he ordered them personally to stay put, please present it. As it stands, Mayor Bowser requested the help of D.C. National Guard on the 31st and the request was approved, this was widely reported on, so it's not a "conspiracy theory", it's fact.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/04/politics/muriel-bowser-dc-national-guard-protests/index.html

As far as the Guard was concerned, they could've deployed there beforehand, had they been invited - nobody "delayed" them besides the Capitol authorities themselves. Why were they not allowed on the grounds beforehand? Or even requested to be there? Let's investigate that. January 6th wouldn't have happened at all if the area was cordoned off like it should've been. Who delayed who, exactly? We're not talking about hours, we're talking about days.

Edit: The Pentagon confirms that there was *no Capitol Police request for DoD support* as early as January 3rd, the Capitol authorities repeat that they see no need for additional support in the following days as well. They were offered help and refused each time. It's in their official timeline. The Guard literally had the green light to march right in, had they been allowed to do so.

https://media.defense.gov/2021/Jan/...Y-6-2021-VIOLENT-ATTACK-AT-THE-US-CAPITOL.PDF

If the Pentagon's spokesperson Jonathan Hoffman is to be believed and the timeline above is accurate, the Guard could've been deployed days in advance, but wasn't asked to enter the grounds until it was too late. They were asked to perform traffic duty, and they did just that until a new request was filed and the Guard was graciously invited to help.

Edit2: In case the point isn't driven into the ground yet, here's the testimony of the Acting U.S. Capitol Police Chief Yogananda Pittman, who says pretty much the same thing.


> "The Department failed to meet its own high standards as well as yours (...) Let me be clear: the Department should have been more prepared for this attack (...) By January 4th, the Department knew that the January 6th event would not be like any of the previous protests held in 2020. We knew that militia groups and white supremacists organizations would be attending. We also knew that some of these participants were intending to bring firearms and other weapons to the event. We knew that there was a strong potential for violence and that Congress was the target."


Oh, so they knew, but...


> Despite the early warning signs, Pittman writes, the Capitol Police Board *refused a request* from former USCP Chief Steven Sund to declare a state of emergency and *authorize a request for National Guard support*. The board consists of the Sergeant at Arms of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the U.S. Senate, and the Architect of the Capitol. (...) Instead, the Board directed Sund to reach out to D.C. National Guard to determine how many could be sent to the Capitol *on short notice*.


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/yogananda-pittman-capitol-police-chief-apologizes-riot/

To translate from pencil pusher speak to English, _"we won't ask for support now, but if something dooooes happen then we'll give you a call"_. Good job.

Trump's fault though, not a collective f*ck-up of the Capitol authorities. If it's too cold, Trump's fault, if it's too warm, Trump's fault, if it rains, if it shines, it's always on Trump.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 1, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Last I checked, it was the Democrats who were in charge of Congress when a bunch of turbo autists smeared feces all over the walls of the seat of Government because they "didn't expect a big demonstration" and "they figured they'll just let them in and nothing will happen" - I would be careful about discussing competence in regards to this event.


The capitol police did reject additional help despite all the warnings that the crowd was going to be massive and angry, which again makes you wonder how many Trump loyalists there were among their leadership.  Greater numbers wouldn't have helped much if half the security detail still just let terrorists right through.



Foxi4 said:


> If you have evidence that he ordered them personally to stay put, please present it.


It's not that a order was given to stay put, it's that the order (which came from Trump's Defense Department) came three hours late.  It was well within the president's power to expedite that, but he was more concerned with using the National Guard to keep Vanilla ISIS safe.

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/03/9732...guard-request-during-capitol-riot-commander-s

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/co...botched-capitol-riot-preparations-2021-05-12/

Trump's personal role in the January 6 insurrection attempt is only one of several reasons why Republicans didn't want a bipartisan commission to investigate, and why they're now trying to memory hole the events of the day (with your assistance apparently).


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Aug 1, 2021)

OH BOY...

another thread that will do sweet fuck all to change anyone's minds since fake news and misinformation is a fucking disease and gullible people believe it....


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 1, 2021)

Xzi said:


> The capitol police did reject additional help despite all the warnings that the crowd was going to be massive and angry, which again makes you wonder how many Trump loyalists there were among their leadership.  Greater numbers wouldn't have helped much if half the security detail still just let terrorists right through.


I bet many of them were Russian too.


> It's not that a order was given to stay put, it's that the order (which came from Trump's Defense Department) came three hours late.  It was well within the president's power to expedite that, but he was more concerned with using the National Guard to keep Vanilla ISIS safe.
> 
> https://www.npr.org/2021/03/03/9732...guard-request-during-capitol-riot-commander-s
> 
> ...


With all due respect, I posted a play-by-play timeline of events, as recorded by the Pentagon - they went through all the required red tape as quickly as possible. It's nice that you have some articles that claim the DoD took its sweet time with the matter, but ultimately the Capitol authorities had multiple chances to request the Guard's presence prior to the event and chose to wait until the very last minute - they couldn't have possibly expected the guardsmen to just go straight to the armory, suit up and teleport there, that's not how that works. They're guardsmen, not the Power Rangers. I also see nothing wrong with Trump saying that the guardsmen should "protect protestors who are exercising their rights" - clearly he's not referring to the riot, which he immediately condemned.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Aug 1, 2021)

so....@Foxi4, how do you like Duda?


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 1, 2021)

stanleyopar2000 said:


> @Foxi4, how do you like Duda?


I don't live in Poland and I don't keep tabs on the political climate back at home since I have no intention of ever returning. The only Polish politician I like will never get to enjoy any kind of legislative power. I don't like any of the "electable" parties, and wouldn't vote for any of them.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Aug 1, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't live in Poland and I don't keep tabs on the political climate back at home since I have no intention of ever returning. The only Polish politician I like will never get to enjoy any kind of legislative power. I don't like any of the "electable" parties, and wouldn't vote for any of them.



Sorry mate saw the flag and thought you lived there. From the way things are going, I do not blame you.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 1, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I bet many of them were Russian too.


I'm sure their vetting during recruitment is quite lacking, but there's no reason to hire Russians when confederates hate the US just as much.



Foxi4 said:


> It's nice that you have some articles that claim the DoD took its sweet time with the matter, but ultimately the Capitol authorities had multiple chances to request the Guard's presence prior to the event and chose to wait until the very last minute - they couldn't have possibly expected that guardsmen will just go straight to the armory, suit up and teleport there, that's not how that works.


"It's nice that you blew apart my narrative in its entirety, but I'm just gonna go on pretending that never happened."

This is why we need further investigation and clarification.  Any number of people who should be facing criminal charges continue to live their lives as normal, and some even continue to wield power in Congress.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 1, 2021)

stanleyopar2000 said:


> Sorry mate saw the flag and thought you lived there. From the way things are going, I do not blame you.


I'm proud of my heritage, not necessarily proud of where Poland is right now in terms of sociopolitical climate - now and in at least the last 10 years, to be perfectly honest.


Xzi said:


> I'm sure their vetting during recruitment is quite lacking, but there's no reason to hire Russians when confederates hate the US just as much.


I tend not to attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. They just made a stupid decision at the time, it doesn't have to be a conspiracy. I'm okay with charges of negligence though, since they were negligent.


> "It's nice that you blew apart my narrative in its entirety, but I'm just gonna go on pretending that never happened."
> 
> This is why we need further investigation and clarification.  Any number of people who should be facing criminal charges continue to live their lives as normal, and some even continue to wield power in Congress.


Blew apart the narrative? With an NPR article? Okay. These are official calls to and from the Pentagon, they're recorded. There's a very detailed record of what happened when and who was involved.


----------



## Dakitten (Aug 1, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm a libertarian. My position has always been that there should be gallows in front of Congress 24/7 - not necessarily to hang anyone, but just to keep them honest.



Just kind of a general observation... Jimbo, 8bit, TMNT Crazyfly, all of you "Libertarians" seem pretty quick to dismiss the value of a human life. Isn't the freedom to live the most important one of all? The way many of you folk talk, it seems less like traditional conservative values and more a desire to see the world turn into an authoritarian state working on the behalf of the status quo, hating government when it is convenient but placing unrivaled trust in a few like-minded individuals.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 2, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Just kind of a general observation... Jimbo, 8bit, TMNT Crazyfly, all of you "Libertarians" seem pretty quick to dismiss the value of a human life. Isn't the freedom to live the most important one of all? The way many of you folk talk, it seems less like traditional conservative values and more a desire to see the world turn into an authoritarian state working on the behalf of the status quo, hating government when it is convenient but placing unrivaled trust in a few like-minded individuals.


I would appreciate it if you didn't compare me to conservatives, especially not Republicans, since our values and objectives do not align. I don't dismiss the value of human life - I acknowledge the amount of power and responsibility vested in the members of government. They enjoy certain privileges us peons do not for the express purpose of representing our interests. If they betray the trust vested in them, that's treasonous, and treason has a set punishment in law. The gallows line is obviously tongue in cheek - perhaps the joke flew over your head, but the sentiment is very real. The government consists of civil servants, not rulers, and I treat that principle very seriously.


----------



## Dakitten (Aug 2, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I would appreciate it if you didn't compare me to conservatives, especially not Republicans, since our values and objectives do not align. I don't dismiss the value of human life - I acknowledge the amount of power and responsibility vested in the members of government. They enjoy certain privileges us peons do not for the express purpose of representing our interest. If they betray the trust vested in them, that's treasonous, and treason has a set punishment in law. The gallows line is obviously tongue in cheek - perhaps the joke flew over your head, but the sentiment is very real. The government consists of civil servants, not rulers, and I treat that principle very seriously.



It isn't very tongue in cheek if you mean it all but entirely literally. I'll apologize for comparing you with some of those other folk mentioned, in truth I've enjoyed your input a great deal more and you do have a bit of my respect in turn! I still feel as though you don't engage in absolute sincerity as an interlocutor, however, as you do generally come off as looking down at those you converse with.

I've been in public service just about my entire life. As an airman, a non-profit instructor, a nurse, and even doing... well, I signed on to do IT for the registrar's office but fluff all if I haven't been used in every department by now, it has been my distinct pleasure to work for the betterment of my fellow man. There are a LOT of people who make questionable decisions all the way through the chain of command, both in the military and civilian service, but at the end of the day, nobody is there because they are aiming for the pinnacle of profit or self gain... unless they're paid to be there by the folks outside of those halls. As soon as off-site money crosses hands, everything I just said flies right out of the window.

My point in this is that the police officers in those riots, they weren't being lobbied by one side or another. They might have their own views, which they are very much entitled to hold and even voice so far as it doesn't conflict with their personal job duties, and they suffered in the line of duty while defending this country. Their patriotism is the last thing anybody should question, unlike those who held the rally which, like it or not, drew in the rioters and did nothing but stoke their rage and peddle lies. Lies told by people who do not receive the bulk of their humble earnings by the sweat of their brow, but by the draw to the wealthy and powerful interests which bribe them.

I don't love either party. Red and Blue doesn't matter a whole lot when it comes to what ails this country behind the scenes... but if just in honour of those who put their bodies in harms way, these hearings should be taken seriously and those officers should be treated with at least enough respect to hear them out without sneering. Some might be over-blowing their experiences, but that is no excuse to dismiss their service outright. And if you want to criticize them without ever having served yourself (not speaking to foxi directly), you probably ought to consider walking a mile in their shoes first so you can understand what it means to work for the benefit of others as a whole.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 2, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I tend not to attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. They just made a stupid decision at the time, it doesn't have to be a conspiracy. I'm okay with charges of negligence though, since they were negligent.


I don't think "Trump supporters within the capitol police sided with Trump supporters in the insurrectionist mob" is complicated enough to be called a conspiracy.  But I'm willing to withhold judgment on their exact motivations until we get more details.



Foxi4 said:


> These are official calls to and from the Pentagon, they're recorded. There's a very detailed record of what happened when and who was involved.


Right, just as the three hour delay caused by the DoD is a matter of record, one that nobody seems to have a suitable explanation for.


----------



## jimbo13 (Aug 2, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Just kind of a general observation... Jimbo, 8bit, TMNT Crazyfly, all of you "Libertarians" seem pretty quick to dismiss the value of a human life. Isn't the freedom to live the most important one of all? The way many of you folk talk, it seems less like traditional conservative values and more a desire to see the world turn into an authoritarian state working on the behalf of the status quo, hating government when it is convenient but placing unrivaled trust in a few like-minded individuals.



I don't really have traditional conservative values, I appreciate Foxi's comments but I'm not as idealistic as he is anymore. 

I have two wives, a girl friend and a good weekend for us consists of DMT, Mushrooms, weed and hanging out in our woods and playing Djembe's.

No one would consider my lifestyle conservative.

I vote GOP generally out of practicality and compromise, in the past I've liked as many traditional Liberals as Republicans, I loathe McConnell, Bush, Cheney, Romney, and the entirety of the Neocon wing and would never vote for anyone in that branch, not much for the evangelicals either.  Rand Paul is the most recent approximation to "my brand".

Bernie Sanders for example, *if I don't include recent years* I've liked him more often than not.  Politically the only substantive difference between Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders when it comes to issues I care about is Economics.

I would of voted for the Bernie Sanders that was elected to the senate on a NRA endorsement, not 2016/2020 Bernie.

My mount Rushmore is Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Jesse Ventura & Penn Jillette.

I write Ted Kaczynski monthly and send care packages, I consider the man a friend.  I have a signed Manifesto framed on my wall, it's not exactly an ideology at home in the Republican party.

What you perceive as dismissing the value of a human life is a disdain for modern society and collectivism, it bares no resemblance to how I treat an individual.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 2, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> It isn't very tongue in cheek if you mean it all but entirely literally. I'll apologize for comparing you with some of those other folk mentioned, in truth I've enjoyed your input a great deal more and you do have a bit of my respect in turn! I still feel as though you don't engage in absolute sincerity as an interlocutor, however, as you do generally come off as looking down at those you converse with.
> 
> I've been in public service just about my entire life. As an airman, a non-profit instructor, a nurse, and even doing... well, I signed on to do IT for the registrar's office but fluff all if I haven't been used in every department by now, it has been my distinct pleasure to work for the betterment of my fellow man. There are a LOT of people who make questionable decisions all the way through the chain of command, both in the military and civilian service, but at the end of the day, nobody is there because they are aiming for the pinnacle of profit or self gain... unless they're paid to be there by the folks outside of those halls. As soon as off-site money crosses hands, everything I just said flies right out of the window.
> 
> ...


I consider making the conversation lively as my primary purpose - my main motivator is entertainment. This means that often times I will purposefully play the devil's advocate, which may or may not reflect my actual positions. I hate echo chambers, which is how most political boards tend to operate. In contrast, I would like ours to be an actual forum for exchange of ideas, which will by extension often include unpopular ones. I like to pull people's legs every now and then, but don't mistake that for ignorance of the issues or anything of the sort - I usually have a good reason to say what I say, and that reason tends to reveal itself in the course of conversations here. You've heard of 4D Chess, now try 5D upside-down underwater Hungry Hungry Hippos. I think I told you this before - I don't look for respect or social brownie points, I'm looking to have some fun, and maybe learn something new, which is what we should all be aiming for instead of fence sitting.


----------



## Dakitten (Aug 2, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> I don't really have traditional conservative values, I appreciate Foxi's comments but I'm not as idealistic as he is anymore.
> 
> I have two wives, a girl friend and a good weekend for us consists of DMT, Mushrooms, weed and hanging out in our woods and playing Djembe's.
> 
> ...



D'aww, you do care! I knew you couldn't keep me on block, silly billy!

But seriously though, you sound like you're literally saying you live the modern neo-con ideal lifestyle. Libertarian, "super skeptic", still rocking the alpha-male concept while indulging in personal choices that at least mildly break the law, and your views on individuals versus the masses completely embraces this notion that you, individually, matter more than others because you're doing okay and you're absolutely super smart and has biggus wang. You still vote right, with the added caveat that "I'm a special exception snowflake though, they're just closest to MY viewpoints. I got better ones, though!"

The recreational drug use does explain a fair bit of your writing errors, though...



Foxi4 said:


> I consider making the conversation lively as my primary purpose - my main motivator is entertainment. This means that often times I will purposefully play the devil's advocate, which may or may not reflect my actual positions. I hate echo chambers, which is how most political boards tend to operate. In contrast, I would like ours to be an actual forum for exchange of ideas, which will by extension often include unpopular ones. I like to pull people's legs every now and then, but don't mistake that for ignorance of the issues or anything of the sort - I usually have a good reason to say what I say, and that reason tends to reveal itself in the course of conversations here. You've heard of 4D Chess, now try 5D upside-down underwater Hungry Hungry Hippos. I think I told you this before - I don't look for respect or social brownie points, I'm looking to have some fun, and maybe learn something new, which is what we should all be aiming for instead of fence sitting.



That isn't 4D chess, though. To many people involved, this sort of thing isn't a game. Politics and current events go hand in hand and drastically alter their daily lives. Protests, uncertainty, increasing costs in rent and goods, persecution against race and gender, this is all relevant stuff. I'm glad you're able to ignore that aspect and try to draw amusement out of things, but this means you aren't really engaging at an equal level with others at all. You're taunting from a place of safety with the promise that you have benign intentions all the while.

Also, just straight up, the "echo chamber" you proclaim to try and break up is almost always to the one side that you at least purport to dislike. I respect your ability to fight right wing points better than your peers, you seem like an intelligent enough fellow, but you also seem to have a really bad habit of citing the first source on google you can find with a viewpoint that matches your own, treating it like gospel, and ignoring anything else the person you were talking to said.

You seem to harbor genuine animosity the left, but don't want to align to the right. You prod at little things without taking a firm stance, then proclaim you're just trying to stir the pot. That sounds like you're on the fence while leaning off the side, comrade. Everyone else is taking a side, maybe you should be more genuine in your stance too.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 2, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> That isn't 4D chess, though. To many people involved, this sort of thing isn't a game. Politics and current events go hand in hand and drastically alter their daily lives. Protests, uncertainty, increasing costs in rent and goods, persecution against race and gender, this is all relevant stuff. I'm glad you're able to ignore that aspect and try to draw amusement out of things, but this means you aren't really engaging at an equal level with others at all. You're taunting from a place of safety with the promise that you have benign intentions all the while.
> 
> Also, just straight up, the "echo chamber" you proclaim to try and break up is almost always to the one side that you at least purport to dislike. I respect your ability to fight right wing points better than your peers, you seem like an intelligent enough fellow, but you also seem to have a really bad habit of citing the first source on google you can find with a viewpoint that matches your own, treating it like gospel, and ignoring anything else the person you were talking to said.
> 
> You seem to harbor genuine animosity the left, but don't want to align to the right. You prod at little things without taking a firm stance, then proclaim you're just trying to stir the pot. That sounds like you're on the fence while leaning off the side, comrade. Everyone else is taking a side, maybe you should be more genuine in your stance too.


I do harbor an animosity towards the left, but that doesn't automatically align me with the religiously fundamentalist right. A debte on an Internet forum is not a place to get emotional over "people's living experiences". You bring up raising costs of rent and goods now, but when you were warned that printing money 24/7 with no clear end goal was going to cause this, your side argued that there is no evidence that inflation affects the daily lives of Joe Shmoes. Just because this is a game we're all participating in doesn't mean that it's not a game.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Aug 2, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> You bring up raising costs of rent and goods now, but when you were warned that printing money 24/7 with no clear end goal was going to cause this, your side argued that there is no evidence that inflation affects the daily lives of Joe Shmoe.



Unfortunately I doubt the left is going to learn their lesson and will continue to the blame others for rising prices. What they're also going to come to realize is once prices go up they rarely ever come back down. They were indeed warned that this would happen, but like most idiots they are in denial and blame others. So go on, pass another trillion dollar taxpayers expense bill and watch what happens. Oh and lots of ROFL if they get their $15 minimum wage hike then all of the prices go up even more and cancels the raise out.


----------



## jimbo13 (Aug 2, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> D'aww, you do care! I knew you couldn't keep me on block, silly billy!
> 
> But seriously though, you sound like you're literally saying you live the modern neo-con ideal lifestyle. Libertarian, "super skeptic", still rocking the alpha-male concept while indulging in personal choices that at least mildly break the law, and your views on individuals versus the masses completely embraces this notion that you, individually, matter more than others because you're doing okay and you're absolutely super smart and has biggus wang. You still vote right, with the added caveat that "I'm a special exception snowflake though, they're just closest to MY viewpoints. I got better ones, though!"




Nope your still blocked, I skim occasionally to see what others are replying to and on the rare occasion you said anything other than nonsense and insults I might reply.  The hall marks of neo-conservatism are globalism and foreign interventionism and nothing I support. Just because I prefer the GOP to regressives doesn't default to liking them.  

Without ballot reforms excluding third parties and ranked choice voting I have two options at the end of the day, not ideal but I still have a preference. 

People like you make it a very easy choice.


----------



## Dakitten (Aug 2, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I do harbor an animosity towards the left, but that doesn't automatically align me with the religiously fundamentalist right. A debte on an Internet forum is not a place to get emotional over "people's living experiences". You bring up raising costs of rent and goods now, but when you were warned that printing money 24/7 with no clear end goal was going to cause this, your side argued that there is no evidence that inflation affects the daily lives of Joe Shmoe. Just because this is a game we're all participating in doesn't mean that it's not a game.



Well, it IS a two party system, and... you are leaning on the side with all the religiously fundamentalist folk... I don't presume to know your actual faith nor exact principals, and based on your earlier statements I don't think I could believe them even if you state them here, but you are in fact playing with people's emotions. You might try to bow out of any responsibility by saying it is a game and you're just trolling around in the megabrain corner for cool kids above the noise, but you've kinda overplayed your hand at this point. You're emotional discussing this stuff, you've got a bias, you don't want to seem like you care about who you might hurt or how you might be spreading information you worry might not be true, it's all for your lulz if things get ugly... But most folks here are discussing in earnest because things mean something to them. It is the nature of the beast, particularly in important topics like politics.

Also, I don't presume you to be a bible thumper or anything, so I'd appreciate you extending the kindness that you might not know what "my side" is. I'm sure it is a bit unsurprising, but I'm all in for communism. Dems don't do anything with the economy I approve of, they just aren't actively pushing as hard as Republicans to ruin the things that are dear to me, like social safety nets, job guarantees, and the right to food, threads, and homesteads for all. The richest country in the world having so much poverty and inequality is an absolute shame.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> Unfortunately I doubt the left is going to learn their lesson and will continue to the blame others for rising prices. What they're also going to come to realize is once prices go up they rarely ever come back down. They were indeed warned that this would happen, but like most idiots they are in denial and blame others. So go on, pass another trillion dollar taxpayers expense bill and watch what happens.



I don't really even think you know what you're talking about here, but I appreciate your comment to help me make a point! As Foxi can see here, bad faith arguments by somebody with a bit of knowledge on a subject is like a lightning rod for the uninformed to rally behind. Bugman obviously has no earthly idea what he's talking about, but when he spots somebody sporting an opinion that he likes, he'll hop onto the bandwagon, spout some nonsense, and create an... oh, what is the phrase... something about sound bouncing back between walls around a group of people...

Republicans have been running up debt, lowering taxes, and pumping up inflation just fine even when controlling all branches of government outright. I don't care for how the Dems have been handling it either, but for the past 50 years they've been largely the underdog in terms of policies passed and power utilized to get things to the current day... which sucks pretty badly compared to before that point for the middle class.



jimbo13 said:


> Nope your still blocked, I skim occasionally to see what others are replying to and on the rare occasion you said anything other than nonsense and insults I might reply.  The hall marks of neo-conservatism are globalism and foreign interventionism and nothing I support. Just because I prefer the GOP to regressives doesn't default to liking them.
> 
> Without ballot reforms excluding third parties and ranked choice voting I have two options at the end of the day, not ideal but I still have a preference.
> 
> People like you make it a very easy choice.



Oh, you can say that, yet here we are, still dancing~

I actually agree with you on third parties and ranked choice voting, for what its worth... And on how to handle the two party system. And how we seem to view one another as examples for why we vote the way we do. I actually disagree with you on the views of neocons insofar as globalism goes. The running theory seems to be more about bringing foreign governments to heel beneath the US, rather than establishing cooperative trade agreements, and many supporters of neocon beliefs... happen to embrace Libertarians. There is a reason you're voting red, after all. It maintains the status quo you're used to and enjoy, right? You might not want to participate in any hugathons for their candidates, but they'll get your vote because you align.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 2, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Well, it IS a two party system, and... you are leaning on the side with all the religiously fundamentalist folk... I don't presume to know your actual faith nor exact principals, and based on your earlier statements I don't think I could believe them even if you state them here, but you are in fact playing with people's emotions. You might try to bow out of any responsibility by saying it is a game and you're just trolling around in the megabrain corner for cool kids above the noise, but you've kinda overplayed your hand at this point. You're emotional discussing this stuff, you've got a bias, *you don't want to seem like you care* about who you might hurt or how you might be spreading information you worry might not be true, it's all for your lulz if things get ugly... But most folks here are discussing in earnest because things mean something to them. It is the nature of the beast, particularly in important topics like politics.
> 
> Also, I don't presume you to be a bible thumper or anything, so I'd appreciate you extending the kindness that you might not know what "my side" is. *I'm sure it is a bit unsurprising, but I'm all in for communism*. Dems don't do anything with the economy I approve of, they just aren't actively pushing as hard as Republicans to ruin the things that are dear to me, like social safety nets, job guarantees, and the right to food, threads, and homesteads for all. The richest country in the world having so much poverty and inequality is an absolute shame.


Correction - I don't "try to not care", I don't care. Policy is not based on emotion, it's based on what works and what doesn't. Basing your policy prescriptions on emotions is how you create an authoritarian distopia where some people are more equal than others.

No, it's not the least bit surprising. I apologise for assuming what "your side" is, but in all fairness, I wasn't exactly way off in my assessment.


----------



## Dakitten (Aug 2, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Correction - I don't "try to not care", I don't care. Policy is not based on emotion, it's based on what works and what doesn't. Basing your policy prescriptions on emotions is how you create an authoritarian distopia where some people are more equal than others.
> 
> No, it's not the least bit surprising. I apologise for assuming what "your side" is, but in all fairness, I wasn't exactly way off in my assessment.




You... do realize that we're experiencing a "more equal than others" sort of system right now, right? Medical, legal, and financial systems are all rigged to support those with wealth instead of those who work hard, hence the disparity of wealth and health in the USA. As for policy, they lead us to this point, emotions attached or not (we aren't robots and neither are you so naturally they seep in no matter what) we're at a point where the planet is dying, people are dying, the middle class and class mobility is dying, and your credibility is dying~ Change needs to occur, and we need to recognize the problems that got us here, unless we want to repeat the same mistakes going forward.


----------



## jimbo13 (Aug 3, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> You... do realize that we're experiencing a "more equal than others" sort of system right now, right? Medical, legal, and financial systems are all rigged to support those with wealth instead of those who work hard, hence the disparity of wealth and health in the USA. As for policy, they lead us to this point, emotions attached or not (we aren't robots and neither are you so naturally they seep in no matter what) we're at a point where the planet is dying, people are dying, the middle class and class mobility is dying, and your credibility is dying~ Change needs to occur, and we need to recognize the problems that got us here, unless we want to repeat the same mistakes going forward.




And instead of doing anything to address those issues the left spends the entirety of their political capital on 1/6 witch hunts, policing pronouns and making sure biological men can compete in women's sports.

They don't say the words "Student debt relief" outside of campaign season.

Energy sector jobs are the highest paid unskilled/willing to train jobs in the country, I know guys who didn't graduate highschool who were making over a 100k year now sitting on the couch laid off as a direct result of Bidens priorities.

Where's the green energy jobs and training Biden ran on when he pledged to eliminate these workers positions?

And no one is obligated to "work hard", it's 2021 we developed a technologically advanced to ease burdens.  People generally develop wealth based on a talent or expertise, not this communist fantasy of working people like livestock.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 3, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> You... do realize that we're experiencing a "more equal than others" sort of system right now, right? Medical, legal, and financial systems are all rigged to support those with wealth instead of those who work hard, hence the disparity of wealth and health in the USA. As for policy, they lead us to this point, emotions attached or not (we aren't robots and neither are you so naturally they seep in no matter what) we're at a point where the planet is dying, people are dying, the middle class and class mobility is dying, and your credibility is dying~ Change needs to occur, and we need to recognize the problems that got us here, unless we want to repeat the same mistakes going forward.


You're talking about equality of outcome, not equality under the law - I'm not interested in making people unequal under the law just to make a few people feel like they've done something about the world's plights when they've done nothing. As a side note, no, the planet is not "dying" - the planet will be just fine, even long after our civilisation perishes.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 5, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> not equality under the law - I'm not interested in making people unequal under the law


People are already unequal under law, we want to fix that. The United States has over 100 years of prejudice against groups of people. Laws that still effect groups of people to this day made in the past. The United States at it's conception was unequal.

And people are still fighting for rights. Around 1980 came around, we lost unions. There's a reason companies or CEO's don't like them. It forces them to be equal with the worker. Because inherently, without Unionization, the deck is stacked, and it's not towards the worker. There's a reason BLM is happening. Because there are laws surrounding those groups of people, and or past laws, and previous prejudice that has existed for generations


Laws that effected the ability for black people to gain economic mobility.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 5, 2021)

Reual said:


> People are already unequal under law, we want to fix that. The United States has over 100 years of prejudice against groups of people. Laws that still effect groups of people to this day made in the past. The United States at it's conception was unequal.
> 
> And people are still fighting for rights. Around 1980 came around, we lost unions. There's a reason companies or CEO's don't like them. It forces them to be equal with the worker. Because inherently, without Unionization, the deck is stacked, and it's not towards the worker. There's a reason BLM is happening. Because there are laws surrounding those groups of people, and or past laws, and previous prejudice that has existed for generations
> 
> ...


If you'd like to point out one law on the books that specifically discriminates based on race, now would be the time to mention it.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Aug 5, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> And instead of doing anything to address those issues the left spends the entirety of their political capital on 1/6 witch hunts, policing pronouns and making sure biological men can compete in women's sports.
> 
> They don't say the words "Student debt relief" outside of campaign season.



This seems eerily similar to Trumps campaign, where he promised to arrest Hilary (didn't happen), build a wall (barely happened), and made at least quite a few other declarations that didn't pan out either. I also remember the last year or so of his presidency focusing on dumping tons of money into the voter fraud witch hunt, which I believe is still ongoing, which I believe still has yet to pan out any results so.. 

With disregard to political affiliation, I find it's hard to go based on what a politician says in regards to how they're going to run their presidency. Yeah maybe the left has a bad habit of misappropriation and backwards allocation in terms of money, but to define the left as such is kind of hypocritical. 



jimbo13 said:


> Energy sector jobs are the highest paid unskilled/willing to train jobs in the country, I know guys who didn't graduate highschool who were making over a 100k year now sitting on the couch laid off as a direct result of Bidens priorities.
> 
> Where's the green energy jobs and training Biden ran on when he pledged to eliminate these workers positions?



Where's that wall we were supposed to get? Jk, jk. But really, Bidens only been in office less than a year. Who really expects him to create so many turn of the century jobs in such a short time? Without proper funding, market interests, and corporate backing, there's not much he can do, which is kind of a good thing. If any president could step into the White House, snap their fingers and instantly make good on all their campaign promises, well... that would just be dictatorship, right? If people are laid off, it's more than likely a localized economy problem or a result of people over compensating in regards to Covid. You can't make a living as a home installer, for example, if people won't let you into their house because of rampant disease. Thank God Trump acted soon enough to prevent this problem when covid first came around. /s

QUOTE="jimbo13, post: 9544383, member: 307373"]And no one is obligated to "work hard", it's 2021 we developed a technologically advanced to ease burdens.  People generally develop wealth based on a talent or expertise, not this communist fantasy of working people like livestock.[/QUOTE]

What. I hope that's satire.


----------



## Dakitten (Aug 5, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> If you'd like to point out one law on the books that specifically discriminates based on race, now would be the time to mention it.



You're doing it again, comrade. You're trying to skirt off the letter of the law while ignoring the purpose and effect of laws, trying to win a technical victory instead of an actual one. This is disingenuous as all get-out, and really makes you seem like a pompous not-nice person. Just saying. In the 80s, the drug wars were put forth with racist intentions. In the 90s, media censorship and rating systems was largely targeted at minority groups. In the new millennium, voting rights issues are more aggressively targeted in order to disadvantage minority communities. If you really need more citing of how the recent wave of voting rights bills disenfranchises minorities because you pretend not to know how to use google, I can provide some... But you've already confessed to sometimes playing devil's advocate for the sake of "promoting discourse" so I really don't take your comment seriously.



SyphenFreht said:


> This seems eerily similar to Trumps campaign, where he promised to arrest Hilary (didn't happen), build a wall (barely happened), and made at least quite a few other declarations that didn't pan out either. I also remember the last year or so of his presidency focusing on dumping tons of money into the voter fraud witch hunt, which I believe is still ongoing, which I believe still has yet to pan out any results so..
> 
> With disregard to political affiliation, I find it's hard to go based on what a politician says in regards to how they're going to run their presidency. Yeah maybe the left has a bad habit of misappropriation and backwards allocation in terms of money, but to define the left as such is kind of hypocritical.
> 
> ...



What. I hope that's satire.[/QUOTE]

You missed it earlier, but Jimbo is a privileged individual claiming to be in a three girls/two of them wives wives drug hazed libertarian orgy paradise who doesn't need to work for a living. At best, he's lacking the ability to sympathize with working class people and wouldn't want to if he could, but at worst he's taking a page from his second favorite person James O'Keefe's book and trolling to try and coax negative reactions out of his peers on the site~ As such, he is full of comedy gold like that.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 5, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> You're doing it again, comrade. You're trying to skirt off the letter of the law while ignoring the purpose and effect of laws, trying to win a technical victory instead of an actual one. This is disingenuous as all get-out, and really makes you seem like a pompous not-nice person. Just saying. In the 80s, the drug wars were put forth with racist intentions. In the 90s, media censorship and rating systems was largely targeted at minority groups. In the new millennium, voting rights issues are more aggressively targeted in order to disadvantage minority communities. If you really need more citing of how the recent wave of voting rights bills disenfranchises minorities because you pretend not to know how to use google, I can provide some... But you've already confessed to sometimes playing devil's advocate for the sake of "promoting discourse" so I really don't take your comment seriously.


I'll take that as a "no" then.

It's the same old spiel - "some laws disproportionately affect minority offenders therefore racism". Yeah, no. The rules we play by are the same for everybody, and this is coming from someone who's decriminalise large swathes of drugs, not because they put "black offenders" in jail disproportionately (they do) but because people have bodily autonomy and can do whatever they want with their own bodies, including ingesting substances and engaging in self-destructive behaviour. If we *just* stopped criminalising vices, more black families would have a dad, but that's not a result of the law being racist, it's a result of the ridiculous war on drugs.


----------



## Dakitten (Aug 5, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I'll take that as a "no" then.
> 
> It's the same old spiel - "some laws disproportionately affect minority offenders therefore racism". Yeah, no. The rules we play by are the same for everybody, and this is coming from someone who's decriminalise large swathes of drugs, not because they put "black offenders" in jail disproportionately (they do) but because people have bodily autonomy and can do whatever they want with their own bodies, including ingesting substances and engaging in self-destructive behaviour. If we *just* stopped criminalising vices, more black families would have a dad, but that's not a result of the law being racist, it's a result of the ridiculous war on drugs.



Not only is that just wrong on its face (I offered a source if you wanted, I just didn't post one for you in specific because it is a broad request where I voice my suspicion it is being asked for in bad faith), but your further post kinda proves the point. Even if the law is made to "apply to everyone", it is targeted and utilized to specifically hinder certain groups. Law is not perfect, infallible, or made by robot arbiters of a defined concept of justice and public safety. It also can largely be circumvented with money. Bail, plea deals with cash penalties, and private representation all can be utilized so that those with resources can avoid the punitive measures the court places on the poor, and if the economy is rigged to keep minorities poor... It all chains together in a terrible network of destructive capitalism.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 5, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Not only is that just wrong on its face (I offered a source if you wanted, I just didn't post one for you in specific because it is a broad request where I voice my suspicion it is being asked for in bad faith), but your further post kinda proves the point. Even if the law is made to "apply to everyone", it is targeted and utilized to specifically hinder certain groups. Law is not perfect, infallible, or made by robot arbiters of a defined concept of justice and public safety. It also can largely be circumvented with money. Bail, plea deals with cash penalties, and private representation all can be utilized so that those with resources can avoid the punitive measures the court places on the poor, and if the economy is rigged to keep minorities poor... It all chains together in a terrible network of destructive capitalism.


Sure, laws are often made in order to tackle a specific problem in a specific demographic. For instance, Biden's crime bill specifically targeted the crack cocaine epidemic and had provisions for harsher sentences for users of crack cocaine as opposed to powdered cocaine which was more of an upper class drug. This led to more arrests/longer jail time for black offenders since crack was more prevalent in "the hood". Do you know who requested that measure specifically? Black community leaders trying to tackle the crackhead epidemic in their neighbourhoods. Is that racist, or is that a measure against crack use? *Most* laws that concern violent crime and drugs "disproportionately" affect people of colour - is that racist, or do POC neighbourhoods have a crime problem? You can draw references from the 80's and 90's all you want - it's 2021. I'm not interested in law 40-30 years ago, I asked about here and now, and here and now you can't come up with one thing holding people back besides poor life choices.


----------



## jimbo13 (Aug 5, 2021)

SyphenFreht said:


> This seems eerily similar to Trumps campaign, build a wall (barely happened),









There's the wall, progress satisfactory, promise kept.




> Bidens only been in office less than a year. Who really expects him to create so many turn of the century jobs in such a short time? Without proper funding, market interests, and corporate backing, there's not much he can do, which is kind of a good thing.



I expect him to be advancing a retraining program and associated job bills as quickly as he is eliminating energy sector jobs which he began doing by executive order the first day in office.









You had 3 points,

_Hillary, Wall, Can't make jobs out of thin air_ then then proceeded to fill an entire page with "I think I remember jk jk"  get to the fucking point next time.  You set a record for saying the least with typing the most. Your not that funny, neither are most people laughing at their own comments.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 5, 2021)

@jimbo13 After four years in office, only about 49 miles of border wall was constructed where there hadn't already been a wall. The rest was maintenance and/or replacement of existing wall. And, regardless of how much was constructed, none of it was the kind of "concrete wall" the former president promised, and none of it was "paid for by Mexico."

As for the pipeline:

The Keystone Pipeline was have been an environmental disaster and should not have been built, regardless of how many jobs it would have created.
The vast majority of jobs that would have been created by the pipeline would have been temporary jobs. It would have only taken 50 jobs to maintain the pipeline after it was constructed.
Ignoring the cyber attack in May that resulted in some higher gas prices, the main cause of rising gas prices is the same thing that's causing rising prices across the board: inflation as a result of a sudden economic recovery. There is zero evidence that canceling the pipeline has done anything to gas prices, and experts on both sides of the political spectrum agree.
Investing in green energy would result in a lot more jobs than the pipeline would have ever created.


----------



## djpannda (Aug 5, 2021)

IM more outraged that. President *William McKinley betrayed America by riding in one of those new fangled      "Auto-mobiles" Rather then a Horse and Buggy. This a American Travesty, Whats going to happen to all those stables !!*


----------



## jimbo13 (Aug 5, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Investing in green energy would result in a lot more jobs than the pipeline would have ever created.


Any time now, If they have time for 1/6 hearings at least half these people "being super serial in their photo op" can be drafting the retraining legislation Biden promised.

And it is much more than one pipeline, Biden is aggressively eliminating drilling leases.   You can spew all the excuses you want for the skyrocketing gas prices.  Occam's razor points right at the person hostile to the sector that produces the predominate energy in use. Biden has done nothing to replace that energy he has stopped production of.


----------



## djpannda (Aug 5, 2021)

THINK OF the Children, Why are we Using Netflix when UHF is still a perfectly Good Source of Viewing Pleasure! This is all a COMMUNIST ploy to Destroy America!!  Think of all the PUBLIC Access TV Workers!! What are they going to do?


----------



## djpannda (Aug 5, 2021)

What me and @jimbo13 are trying to Convey is that its unAmerican to stop using Outdate/Obsolete Technologies  (Fossil Fuels/ Analog TV/ Horse and Buggy) and try to replaced it with better working/ Advance Technologies (renewable /Digital/ CARS). The Moment I stop using my Oil Lantern is the moment CCP WINS!


----------



## SyphenFreht (Aug 5, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> There's the wall, progress satisfactory, promise kept.



Ah you're completely right. And it's doing such a satisfactory job of keeping the illegal Mexicans out. In reference to the left spending money where it shouldn't be allocated, wouldn't it have made better sense to continuously fund properly trained border patrol with paid training and steady jobs alongside creating more opportunities to fix our already broken immigration system as opposed to wasting money and time on building a poorly maintained wall that erased jobs as soon as it was "finished"?




jimbo13 said:


> I expect him to be advancing a retraining program and associated job bills as quickly as he is eliminating energy sector jobs which he began doing by executive order the first day in office.


Well at that point, why bother having political systems in place to discourage and prevent dictatorship at all? You ever think that maybe it's the opposing party that holds up a lot of these proceedings? I mean, it took Trump four years to build a half finished wall and you praise him for keeping his word, but expect Biden to create enough new eco friendly jobs in an eight month period, despite confrontation from some of the industries this country was founded upon, such as coal, lumber, steel, and so on? I mean, I lean Democrat most of the time, but if Biden can barely make it up the stairs, I don't have much hope for him keeping up with your schedule.



jimbo13 said:


> You had 3 points,


...of which you responded to two.



jimbo13 said:


> _Hillary, Wall, Can't make jobs out of thin air_ then then proceeded to fill an entire page with "I think I remember jk jk"  get to the fucking point next time.


I mean, I'm pretty sure I got the point pretty quickly. That's why I quoted text rather than write a long winded block post. I'm really bothered you didn't pick up on that; you seem so smart.



jimbo13 said:


> You set a record for saying the least with typing the most. Your not that funny, neither are most people laughing at their own comments.


No, you definitely got me beat on that. I might not be that funny, but I also don't need picture memes to reinforce what humor I think I have. Nice try though.


----------



## Dakitten (Aug 5, 2021)

djpannda said:


> What me and @jimbo13 are trying to Convey is that its unAmerican to stop using Outdate/Obsolete Technologies  (Fossil Fuels/ Analog TV/ Horse and Buggy) and try to replaced it with better working/ Advance Technologies (renewable /Digital/ CARS). The Moment I stop using my Oil Lantern is the moment CCP WINS!



I'm afraid you lost long ago, comrade. The commies have been laughing at your outright stupidity for quite some time. Thanks for clarifying what the fluff your inane rant was about, though!



Foxi4 said:


> Sure, laws are often made in order to tackle a specific problem in a specific demographic. For instance, Biden's crime bill specifically targeted the crack cocaine epidemic and had provisions for harsher sentences for users of crack cocaine as opposed to powdered cocaine which was more of an upper class drug. This led to more arrests/longer jail time for black offenders since crack was more prevalent in "the hood". Do you know who requested that measure specifically? Black community leaders trying to tackle the crackhead epidemic in their neighbourhoods. Is that racist, or is that a measure against crack use? *Most* laws that concern violent crime and drugs "disproportionately" affect people of colour - is that racist, or do POC neighbourhoods have a crime problem? You can draw references from the 80's and 90's all you want - it's 2021. I'm not interested in law 40-30 years ago, I asked about here and now, and here and now you can't come up with one thing holding people back besides poor life choices.



Wow... poor life choices? Seriously? White male privilege showing much? Or perhaps you're colourblind behind all the pettifogging you're doing. I love how you on one hand rant about how you "Aren't interested in the law 40-30 years ago." yet you all too quickly bring up the black politicians of the day being slightly in favor of the crime bill, ignoring the fact that it passed with a huge consensus from the white male legislation and ignored the vast majority of particular requests being made. Much like Bernie Sanders' dismay over having to vote on it in order to pass any of the positive things on the agenda it could carry with it, people were desperate to see anything get done to help mitigate the problem ASAP.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/opinion/did-blacks-really-endorse-the-1994-crime-bill.html
https://www.axios.com/bernie-sanders-joe-biden-1994-crime-bill-cnn-cc7320c5-719c-4756-b243-48152ebf3e64.html

That being said, history leads to the present, and the HUGE wealth inequality in the USA makes for a much better marker for how well one can manage to maintain or improve their lifestyle. The class in which you were born is likely the class you will die in, regardless of talent or hard work, and since wealth is a huge factor that pools more and more every year at the top, the middle and lower class gets less and less to work with every year. This doesn't even factor in the difficulties minorities have to deal with from the wealthy, since for some reason, folks who enjoy the status quo don't seem to be able to empathize with those that don't look like them.

https://www.vox.com/2015/7/24/9027195/haskins-sawhill-norms-marriage
https://www.commondreams.org/views/...erty-and-racism-are-killing-americas-children


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 5, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Wow... poor life choices? Seriously? White male privilege showing much?


Smoking crack is, objectively, a poor life choice.


> Or perhaps you're colourblind behind all the pettifogging you're doing.


Crack will wreck you regardless of whether you're white, black, brown or magenta.


> I love how you on one hand rant about how you "Aren't interested in the law 40-30 years ago." yet you all too quickly bring up the black politicians of the day being slightly in favor of the crime bill, ignoring the fact that it passed with a huge consensus from the white male legislation and ignored the vast majority of particular requests being made.


What you meant to say was overwhelming support of black politicians 25 years ago. 25 years ago half of our user base wasn't even a twinkle in their papa's eye, but let's pretend that's modern. The sentencing disparity you saw in the 90's was overwhelmingly caused by the 1994 crime bill which, in turn, was constructed in association with black mayors all across the country.


> Much like Bernie Sanders' dismay over having to vote on it in order to pass any of the positive things on the agenda it could carry with it, people were desperate to see anything get done to help mitigate the problem ASAP.
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/opinion/did-blacks-really-endorse-the-1994-crime-bill.html
> https://www.axios.com/bernie-sanders-joe-biden-1994-crime-bill-cnn-cc7320c5-719c-4756-b243-48152ebf3e64.html


Those are some very nice opinions. The facts, on the other hand, show overwhelming support for the bill - it passed through the Senate with *one* Nay.


> That being said, history leads to the present, and the HUGE wealth inequality in the USA makes for a much better marker for how well one can manage to maintain or improve their lifestyle. The class in which you were born is likely the class you will die in, regardless of talent or hard work, and since wealth is a huge factor that pools more and more every year at the top, the middle and lower class gets less and less to work with every year. This doesn't even factor in the difficulties minorities have to deal with from the wealthy, since for some reason, folks who enjoy the status quo don't seem to be able to empathize with those that don't look like them.
> 
> https://www.vox.com/2015/7/24/9027195/haskins-sawhill-norms-marriage
> https://www.commondreams.org/views/...erty-and-racism-are-killing-americas-children


And that has to do with discrimination based on race in the law how? The law is equally binding for the wealthy and the poor. I fully understand that you'd prefer to apply law differently depending on the pyramid of victimhood, along the lines of "intersectional" policies, and pretend that this "equitable" approach is fair, but it's not - it de facto creates people who are equal and people who are equal-er in the eyes of the justice system.

I said it once, I will say it again. Name one provision in common law that applies differently to people based on their skin tone, and *explicitly so*, so that this argument doesn't take forever. It should be a simple task. You made a bold claim, now provide a citation.


----------



## jimbo13 (Aug 6, 2021)

SyphenFreht said:


> Ah you're completely right. And it's doing such a satisfactory job of keeping the illegal Mexicans out. In reference to the left spending money where it shouldn't be allocated, wouldn't it have made better sense to continuously fund properly trained border patrol with paid training and steady jobs alongside creating more opportunities to fix our already broken immigration system as opposed to wasting money and time on building a poorly maintained wall that erased jobs as soon as it was "finished"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



TLTR.    You sat two records today, typing the most without saying anything and a speed record for my ignore.   That normally takes a few weeks of insults.


----------



## Dakitten (Aug 6, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> TLTR.    You sat two records today, typing the most without saying anything and a speed record for my ignore.   That normally takes a few weeks of insults.



Welcome to the cool kids club, Syphen!



Foxi4 said:


> Smoking crack is, objectively, a poor life choice.
> Crack will wreck you regardless of whether you're white, black, brown or magenta.
> What you meant to say was overwhelming support of black politicians 25 years ago. 25 years ago half of our user base wasn't even a twinkle in their papa's eye, but let's pretend that's modern. The sentencing disparity you saw in the 90's was overwhelmingly caused by the 1994 crime bill which, in turn, was constructed in association with black mayors all across the country.
> Those are some very nice opinions. The facts, on the other hand, show overwhelming support for the bill - it passed through the Senate with *one* Nay.
> ...



History is not in a vacuum removed from the present, dear sir. Also, crack doesn't make up for all the injustices of the present day. I'm glad you've apparently never experienced a hard time, but I promise there isn't enough powder on the planet to justify the amount of bias in the law and in the mobility of class based on purely hard work and talent. Honestly, the way you cling to one angle on this and try to act colourblind kinda makes you seem like less of a human being and more of a manipulative monster. You seem to want to ignore a whole field of data to uphold your belief, so I'm pretty sure nothing I say or cite is going to move you from your gnarled post, and I doubt you checked the last few links I offered, so... someone else can play the good enough game for you. Have some ACLU and enjoy your bubble.

https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet


----------



## chrisrlink (Aug 6, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Smoking crack is, objectively, a poor life choice.
> Crack will wreck you regardless of whether you're white, black, brown or magenta.
> What you meant to say was overwhelming support of black politicians 25 years ago. 25 years ago half of our user base wasn't even a twinkle in their papa's eye, but let's pretend that's modern. The sentencing disparity you saw in the 90's was overwhelmingly caused by the 1994 crime bill which, in turn, was constructed in association with black mayors all across the country.
> Those are some very nice opinions. The facts, on the other hand, show overwhelming support for the bill - it passed through the Senate with *one* Nay.
> ...


you know what? why the hell are you even a global mod if your talking like this? I stayed quiet LONG ENOUGH about your behavior sorry but I'm going to talk to @Costello about this it worries me


----------



## jimbo13 (Aug 6, 2021)

chrisrlink said:


> you know what? why the hell are you even a global mod if your talking like this? I stayed quiet LONG ENOUGH about your behavior sorry but I'm going to talk to @Costello about this it worries me



Someone having a panic attack and triggered because someone asked a basic question of fact. I bet they use the word "problematic" at least 4 times a day.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 6, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> History is not in a vacuum removed from the present, dear sir. Also, crack doesn't make up for all the injustices of the present day. I'm glad you've apparently never experienced a hard time, but I promise there isn't enough powder on the planet to justify the amount of bias in the law and in the mobility of class based on purely hard work and talent. Honestly, the way you cling to one angle on this and try to act colourblind kinda makes you seem like less of a human being and more of a manipulative monster. You seem to want to ignore a whole field of data to uphold your belief, so I'm pretty sure nothing I say or cite is going to move you from your gnarled post, and I doubt you checked the last few links I offered, so... someone else can play the good enough game for you. Have some ACLU and enjoy your bubble.
> 
> https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet


Ah yes, the ACLU - a private entity that has strayed so far off the beaten path that it no longer represents its original goals. Not according to me, mind - according to former associates. The same ACLU that used to defend the right to free speech for Nazis and the KKK is now more interested in branding people than it is about defending rights - they've lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned. I did not deny past injustices at any point in this exchanged - I've asked you, thrice now, if you can point out a law that explicitly discriminates against minorities because they're minorities. You cannot, because no such law exists since Jim Crow. As such, I consider the exchange over and done with.

I would also appreciate it if you stopped calling me "comrade". We're not "comrades", "comrades" and my people have a history, and it's not fondly remembered.


chrisrlink said:


> you know what? why the hell are you even a global mod if your talking like this? I stayed quiet LONG ENOUGH about your behavior sorry but I'm going to talk to @Costello about this it worries me


Oh no, please don't tell on me! What if my... publicly posted... opinion... is visible to... the public? Alright.


----------



## Costello (Aug 6, 2021)

chrisrlink said:


> you know what? why the hell are you even a global mod if your talking like this? I stayed quiet LONG ENOUGH about your behavior sorry but I'm going to talk to @Costello about this it worries me


sorry that you are taking the piss my friend but I'm not sure what is wrong with Foxi's post?
I mean you may find his opinion outrageous but if you look closely he didn't insult you, he doesn't violate any rules. As crazy as his opinions may sound to you, to me, and to a lot of people here, his messages are within the boundaries of the forum rules and general decency.

also please note I do not share Foxi's opinions in any way and we have had in fact many fights over this. But I (almost  )  fully respect his right to have a different opinion than mine.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 6, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I did not deny past injustices at any point in this exchanged - I've asked you, thrice now, if you can point out a law that explicitly discriminates against minorities because they're minorities. You cannot, because no such law exists since Jim Crow.


The new method of discrimination targets people based on location, and because previous housing discrimination accomplished its goal throughout the decades, it's still very easy to pinpoint minority neighborhoods.  Neither the Southern Strategy nor Jim Crow laws ever really went away, they just changed form slightly.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 6, 2021)

Xzi said:


> The new method of discrimination targets people based on location, and because previous housing discrimination accomplished its goal throughout the decades, it's still very easy to pinpoint minority neighborhoods.  Neither the Southern Strategy nor Jim Crow laws ever really went away, they just changed form slightly.


People of colour in America are constantly bombarded with messaging that the consequences of their actions are not their own - somebody else is always at fault. Somebody else made them flunk school, somebody else made them break the law, somebody else, on purpose, made the bus late and they missed an interview, somebody else made them leave a pregnant significant other, or peddled them drugs. There's a boogieboo in the air that inhibits them, it's not them that need to self-improve and stick to the straight and narrow - it's the road that needs to be torn up. Absolutely not - we are all equal, regardless of skin colour. People of colour are on every level of government and public life - they're lawyers, they're police officers, they're doctors, they're mayors, they're in Congress - a PoC woman can be Vice President, a black man can be President, the most powerful man in the world. If you want to correct the sins of the forefathers, do it from within by being a paragon of society, not by blaming the specter of invisible racism that you cannot quantify. The former is a path to success, the latter a path of self-doubt, lack of accountability and defeat. You are robbing people of agency by removing personal responsibility from the equation. You are telling them, repeatedly, that no matter how hard they try, they will never perform as well as their white peers because they're brown. That's patently false.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 6, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> People of colour in America are constantly bombarded with messaging that the consequences of their actions are not their own - somebody else is always at fault.


Uhh...no.  Acknowledging that past discrimination was real, codified into law, and that the consequences of it still linger today is not the same thing as passing the buck where personal responsibility is concerned.  If you really want people to "just get over it," then some form of restitution is required for the affected families and individuals.  Jim Crow and housing discrimination are not ancient history, most of those affected by these things are still alive today.



Foxi4 said:


> You are robbing people of agency by removing personal responsibility from the equation.


People who choose to play the victim do so of their own accord, but this is an entirely separate issue.  Obviously you don't have to be black or a minority for that, as modern conservative media is filled with lists of all the ways that straight white Christians are supposedly being oppressed and persecuted.


----------



## jimbo13 (Aug 6, 2021)

It's not discrimination to move when you don't like a cultural influx, not everyone has a multiculturalism fetish.

I've got an Indian reservation to my right, and a Hutterite colony to the left.  They don't mingle with anyone and it's no problem. If someone wants to separate from you or your culture they aren't wrong by default.  Maybe your the problem.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 6, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> It's not discrimination to move when you don't like a cultural influx, not everyone has a multiculturalism fetish.


That's the opposite of how housing discrimination worked: black people simply weren't permitted to apply for mortgages in certain neighborhoods, and the deeds to a number of houses stated definitively that they were not to be occupied by non-whites.  Do some more research on redlining and the GI bill.



jimbo13 said:


> I've got an Indian reservation to my right, and a Hutterite colony to the left. They don't mingle with anyone and it's no problem.


Ah yes, "separate but equal."  That's never been known to cause any problems whatsoever.  /s


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 6, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Uhh...no.  Acknowledging that past discrimination was real, codified into law, and that the consequences of it still linger today is not the same thing as passing the buck where personal responsibility is concerned.  If you really want people to "just get over it," then some form of restitution is required for the affected families and individuals.  Jim Crow and housing discrimination are not ancient history, most of those affected by these things are still alive today.
> 
> 
> People who choose to play the victim do so of their own accord, but this is an entirely separate issue.  Obviously you don't have to be black or a minority for that, as modern conservative media is filled with lists of all the ways that straight white Christians are supposedly being oppressed and persecuted.


This has nothing to do with the initial argument.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 6, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> This has nothing to do with the initial argument.


I wasn't part of the initial argument.  I only interjected to point out that systemic discrimination is still alive and well, even if the methodology and/or language surrounding it has changed to better exploit modern legal loopholes.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 6, 2021)

Xzi said:


> I wasn't part of the initial argument.  I only interjected to point out that systemic discrimination is *still alive and well*, even if the methodology and/or language surrounding it has changed to better exploit modern legal loopholes.


It's one or the other - either it exists in the present and you can point out precise laws that discriminate based on race *or* it has existed in the past and the consequences are felt today, causing some to be in the position of playing catch-up. Decide which point you're arguing, because so far your response is a strawman. Nobody has ever said that no discrimination against black people has taken place over the centuries - the whole conversation is about common law at present. You pointing out past injustices is not a "W", it's changing the subject.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 6, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Nobody has ever said that no discrimination against black people has taken place over the centuries - the whole conversation is about common law at present. You pointing out past injustices is not a "W", it's changing the subject.


As I already said, discrimination based on where you live is the new discrimination based on race.  The most obvious examples of this are gentrification and Republican-drafted election laws that specifically target urban and inner-city areas.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 6, 2021)

Xzi said:


> As I already said, discrimination based on where you live is the new discrimination based on race.  The most obvious examples of this are gentrification and Republican-drafted election laws that specifically target urban and inner-city areas.


Ah, I see. So still no, then. I'll take that and agree to disagree, considering this has gone long enough and has nothing to do with the thread. Diversions are nice every now and then, but this one is getting circular.


----------



## Dakitten (Aug 6, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> People of colour in America are constantly bombarded with messaging that the consequences of their actions are not their own - somebody else is always at fault. Somebody else made them flunk school, somebody else made them break the law, somebody else, in purpose, made the bus late and they missed an interview, somebody else made them leave a pregnant significant other, or peddled them drugs. There's a boogieboo in the air that inhibits them, it's not them that need to self-improve and stick to the straight and narrow - it's the road that needs to be torn up. Absolutely not - we are all equal, regardless of skin colour. People of colour are on every level of government and public life - they're lawyers, they're police officers, they're doctors, they're mayors, they're in Congress - a PoC woman can be Vice President, a black man can be President, the most powerful man in the world. If you want to correct the sins of the forefathers, do it from within by being a paragon of society, not by blaming the specter of invisible racism that you cannot quantify. The former is a path to success, the latter a path of self-doubt, lack of accountability and defeat. You are robbing people of agency by removing personal responsibility from the equation. You are telling them, repeatedly, that no matter how hard they try, they will never perform as well as their white peers because they're brown. That's patently false.



Ah, how comforting and convenient. Poor minorities just need to take credit for their history of being enslaved, robbed, murdered, and learn to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, just like the... not people in power. I'm sorry, but you're living in an absolute fantasy if you believe in half of what you say here, considering how many lazy wealth inheritors exist today, and how many folk work multiple jobs only to remain in poverty and debt 'til their dying breath. The math isn't as simple as "Oh, stop buying crack and it'll all be swell!" considering murders and maiming by law enforcement can happen even to the innocent and hard working. The law might not outright call out racist names and call for the burning of crosses in yards, things evolve and change over time, but considering that the majority of the people can routinely vote for a president and still lose, there are rules in place that disadvantage them. 

Considering that you can have someone do great in school, never choose violence or drugs, stay on the straight and narrow, but because they were born poor they have to work and forgo college, they may likely never make their way out of lower class. Completing high school does not guarantee success and a path to a better tomorrow. Excelling in college does not guarantee success. Having the ability to eat three meals a day and have a roof over your head is not a guarantee for those who want to try for more. Having the resources to get to school every day is not a guarantee. Having a family is not a guarantee of support if they're still dealing with the repercussions of intense persecution in their time, and until you've lived a day in the shoes of the desperate, you're hardly in a position to judge. You can prop up Obama and Kamila and say "See? Racism over!" But they're hardly examples of rising from the ashes.

I take back my earlier judgment. You actually are a monster, comrade, your playing a game or not doesn't even matter at this point.



Foxi4 said:


> It's one or the other - either it exists in the present and you can point out precise laws that discriminate based on race *or* it has existed in the past and the consequences are felt today, causing some to be in the position of playing catch-up. Decide which point you're arguing, because so far your response is a strawman. Nobody has ever said that no discrimination against black people has taken place over the centuries - the whole conversation is about common law at present. You pointing out past injustices is not a "W", it's changing the subject.



And the goalpost shifts. Disgusting.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 6, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> You actually are a monster.


Thank you, this means a lot to me.


> comrade...


I asked you nicely not to call me that. Where I come from this could potentially be construed as an insult, for reasons that should be abundantly obvious, but ones that I am happy to explain, should the need arise. It doesn't really bring up any feelings of hurt - I'm above such trifles. It's simply mildly irritating, and you do it specifically to irritate - you're not that subtle, it's very obvious. Of course you are free to call me however you like, just be aware that I know what you're doing and you'll need a bigger boat.


> And the goalpost shifts. Disgusting.


The goal post hasn't shifted once this entire time - it's you guys who are refusing to answer the question.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 6, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Ah, I see. So still no, then. I'll take that and agree to disagree, considering this has gone long enough and has nothing to do with the thread. Diversions are nice every now and then, but this one is getting circular.


Well I guess providing no reasoning whatsoever is at least better than using the disingenuous argument that "only 92% of people in neighborhood X are minorities, so that can't possibly be discriminatory."

With all the data gathering that goes on today, you know as well as I that it's possible to micro-target even down to the individual level.  Obviously this same technology can be used for malicious and/or discriminatory purposes.  It's easy enough to follow the letter of the law while still violating the spirit and intention said law was written with.


----------



## Dakitten (Aug 6, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Thank you, this means a lot to me.
> The goal post hasn't shifted once this entire time - it's you guys who are refusing to answer the question.



Your question is garbage because you can't accept the very reality the world operates in. Your myopic world view is already focused only on what you want to see, and your trolling persona keeps you from having to owe up to any of your points of view that might possibly fall out of favor. Still, like I've said elsewhere, I'll be content just thrashing your nonsense and pointing out your abhorrent rhetoric for anyone else who happens to browse this place. I don't believe anyone is beyond help, but you're well beyond reasoning with here.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 6, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Your question is garbage because you can't accept the very reality the world operates in. Your myopic world view is already focused only on what you want to see, and your trolling persona keeps you from having to owe up to any of your points of view that might possibly fall out of favor. Still, like I've said elsewhere, I'll be content just thrashing your nonsense and pointing out your abhorrent rhetoric for anyone else who happens to browse this place. I don't believe anyone is beyond help, but you're well beyond reasoning with here.


I don't know how to respond to that. You're welcome to post whatever you please, everybody is welcome in the open marketplace of ideas, even "comrades".


----------



## jimbo13 (Aug 6, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Ah, how comforting and convenient. Poor minorities just need to take credit for their history of being enslaved, robbed, murdered, and learn to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, just like the... not people in power.



Every group, race, ethnicity, religion & sect in the history of humanity has been slaves and enslaved.  No one's innocent, get the fuck over it.



> I'm sorry, but you're living in an absolute fantasy if you believe in half of what you say here, considering how many lazy wealth inheritors exist today, and how many folk work multiple jobs only to remain in poverty and debt 'til their dying breath. The math isn't as simple as "Oh, stop buying crack and it'll all be swell!".



Yeah it is, number one way people end up/get out of poverty is a marriage and not getting divorced or separated. That is a statistical fact. It's a two income society, your not competing on one income with single parent homes, stop being dead beats.

You want to have kids out of wedlock and promote single parent homes, enjoy being broke.



> Considering that you can have someone do great in school, never choose violence or drugs, stay on the straight and narrow, but because they were born poor they have to work and forgo college, they may likely never make their way out of lower class.



Bullshit, they give out student loans like food stamps which you also get while your milking loans, I lived off them for a decade comfortably while I got my degree.  It was four grand or so every month and a half back in the 00's.  It's simple, they pay people to fill the forms out for you.  No high school diploma? No problem there going to give you loans while you get your GED.




> Completing high school does not guarantee success and a path to a better tomorrow. Excelling in college does not guarantee success. .



Yeah, and a big cause of that is the Liberalism plague in public education, most people get a garbage "______ studies" degree 60K in debt and not a trade in the world that gives a damn that a glorified welfare recipient "teacher" milked them because their degree was as useless as the shit they taught.

It's called STEM, no one gives a damn about your ethnic history major with a minor in feminist angst dance.

I realize your not smart enough to understand this but if I am not mistaken Fox is of polish descent, calling an European who probably dealt with or had family that dealt with the soviet atrocities is on par with calling a black person the N word, stop it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 6, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> I realize your not smart enough to understand this but if I am not mistaken Fox is of polish descent, calling an European who probably dealt with or had family that dealt with the soviet atrocities is on par with calling a black person the N word, stop it.


So many stories left untold, you would not believe. It's not a big deal though - I've indicated my dislike of the term, what my interlocutors choose to do about it is up to them. It doesn't hurt me, it merely makes me think less of them, which is fine.


----------



## jimbo13 (Aug 6, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> So many stories left untold, you would not believe. It's not a big deal though - I've indicated my dislike of the term, what my interlocutors choose to do about it is up to them. It doesn't hurt me, it merely makes me think less of them, which is fine.



I'd believe it, I know a lot of people from old bloc countries either directly or their parents.  In-laws and grew up next door to refugee community from back in the 80s.  I've told Reul more than once I wish he should go try out his dogma around Cubans or any of the people I know that lived under his nonsense. The only reason he walk away is they assume he had mental issues.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Aug 6, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> I realize your not smart enough to understand this but if I am not mistaken Fox is of polish descent, calling an European who probably dealt with or had family that dealt with the soviet atrocities is on par with calling a black person the N word, stop it.



Weren't you just in the transgender post going on about how people shouldn't be forced to refer to others by their preferred pronoun, but now you're here telling people to stop calling each other comrade? You'd be more fun to interact with if you didn't constantly back pedal and wrap your arguments in hypocrisy and inconsistencies.


----------



## Dakitten (Aug 6, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> Every group, race, ethnicity, religion & sect in the history of humanity has been slaves and enslaved.  No one's innocent, get the fuck over it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wee, assumptions galore! This is why you are legend, Jimbo.

1) In the modern age, not everyone has been a slave. If you want to get into antiquity, that might be something, but then most of the governments that utilized it crumbled into dust (wiggle room for what I'm sure are a handful of exceptions that also have something to answer for). The United States only has one claim to fame on that topic, and it is still a quite recent and fresh wound that the still existing government has to come to terms with.

2) Ooh, something we sadly agree on. The quickest way out of poverty is sadly marriage, but not likely in the way you presume. That sort of marriage creates an absolutely terrible imbalance of power, and surprise surprise, a white supremacist man is trying to espouse a dynamic that thinks nothing of the women who're still dealing with a financially uneven playing field. Nobody even was making a case of kids out of wedlock or what-have-you, but thanks for presuming some madness. Even without kids, many couples remain well below the poverty line. Guess freedom only matters if you have the money to afford it, and you only start with money if you're lucky enough to be born into wealth.

3) Four grand, coupled with the cost of rent and humble living expenses, would require an income of well over 40/hr to overcome. Presuming you went into computers and got a good google job right out of the gate, and you commute from somewhere that doesn't cost near said loan payment, you'd still be drowning right from minute one. This doesn't even get into repayment rates between races, how poor people don't qualify for many of these loans based purely on their economic starting point, and how not everyone can live with their parents while attending school... and this doesn't even get into what schools you even can get into and how expensive it might be to travel to one!

4) I realize you don't value anything that doesn't have immediate gratification for you, but you're talking about taking away choice from those who aren't born into wealth, which actually is already a problem. This perpetuates the idea of tiered living, and that sort of thing never bodes well for a society...

5) I don't honestly recall Fox requesting to not be called comrade in the past, but I don't actually have an objection to not calling him comrade. I know I've explained my reasoning to someone, Bit perhaps, but I won't apologize for my stance on how society should progress.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 6, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> I don't honestly recall Fox requesting to not be called comrade in the past, but I don't actually have an objection to not calling him comrade. I know I've explained my reasoning to someone, Bit perhaps, but I won't apologize for my stance on how society should progress.


If you haven't noticed then that's fine. I'd appreciate it if you didn't call me that - we're not "comrades" in any sense of the word. As I said earlier, I'm not offended. You two don't need to fight over my feelings either - you're making me feel like a damsel in distress over here and you haven't even brought wine yet.


----------



## Dakitten (Aug 6, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> If you haven't noticed then that's fine. I'd appreciate it if you didn't call me that - we're not "comrades" in any sense of the word. As I said earlier, I'm not offended. You two don't need to fight over my feelings either - you're making me feel like a damsel in distress over here and you haven't even brought wine yet.



As I've stated in the past, I call folks comrade in the hopes that everyone will eventually decide to become a comrade. Comradre is a beautiful thing, but I also respect simple requests of preference. And don't you worry, I wouldn't dream of stepping in the way of your union, I just always tear up at gallantry~


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 6, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> As I've stated in the past, I call folks comrade in the hopes that everyone will eventually decide to become a comrade. Comradre is a beautiful thing, but I also respect simple requests of preference. And don't you worry, I wouldn't dream of stepping in the way of your union, I just always tear up at gallantry~


It's not a "preference", it wasn't a very beautiful thing from my perspective, and with some luck my people will never have to deal with "comrades" ever again. If you're interested in my reasoning as to why I oppose the term, you'll have to reach out privately - it goes beyond the scope of the thread.

As a side note, I thought comrades don't believe in private ownership? Sharing is caring, I have lots of love to give, as long as the missus doesn't object to a smooch between friends.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Aug 6, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Wee, assumptions galore! This is why you are legend, Jimbo.
> 
> 1) In the modern age, not everyone has been a slave. If you want to get into antiquity, that might be something, but then most of the governments that utilized it crumbled into dust (wiggle room for what I'm sure are a handful of exceptions that also have something to answer for). The United States only has one claim to fame on that topic, and it is still a quite recent and fresh wound that the still existing government has to come to terms with.



To add to that, while many other countries also participated in slavery for many, many years, the U.S. is notable for utilizing slavery during its infancy, on which it almost solely relied upon to become the world's superpower it is today. For any U.S. historians out there, you should vaguely remember how during its infant years America became a strong contender with its export of various resources, like tobacco, cotton,  sugar, lumber, and so on. With very little money being used for import, many of America's founders grew rich from exploiting slave labor and exporting the natural resources to other countries, mainly Britain and the surrounding European countries. From there industry grew, America remained isolationist for almost 200 years (Pearl Harbor resulted from U.S. politics regarding international trade), and the founding fathers (and now their generational brethren) got to reap what were almost 100% profits from slave trade and the labor produced from it. 

Why is it still a big deal? Because all those racist ideals trickled down to modern day life, where people look down on minorities because grandpa's grandpa said so and it's always been like that for these families. Yes, many different cultures and races have been enslaved or took part in slaving. America is one of the few countries that probably wouldn't have existed, at least in it's current state, if it wasn't built by slaves, and I'm sure it's awful being someone who comes to the realization that the same country that was built on the backs of your ancestors, thinks less of you.


----------



## seany1990 (Aug 6, 2021)

Benghazi: 4 American deaths
Number of hearings republicans supported for Benghazi:  5
Capital Insurrection: 6 American deaths
Number of hearings republicans supported for the Insurrection: 0


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 6, 2021)

seany1990 said:


> Benghazi: 4 American deaths
> Number of hearings republicans supported for Benghazi:  5
> Capital Insurrection: 6 American deaths
> Number of hearings republicans supported for the Insurrection: 0


The Capitol riot did not lead to 6 deaths. It led to 1 death, from all available evidence. Benghazi was also a matter of an embassy being attacked by a known terrorist group - the Capitol was vandalised by angry citizens.


----------



## Dakitten (Aug 6, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The Capitol riot did not lead to 6 deaths. It led to 1 death, from all available evidence. Benghazi was also a matter of an embassy being attacked by a known terrorist group - the Capitol was vandalised by angry citizens.



And this is why I called you a monster. I know you don't like to think that the suicides should count, but PTSD is real and it isn't really a secret what spurred them on. These would have been just "angry citizens", except their target was extremely political. They were violent terrorists, and they are responsible for deaths and trauma.


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 6, 2021)

Just want to point out, private and personal ownership isn't the same thing.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 6, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> And this is why I called you a monster. I know you don't like to think that the suicides should count, but PTSD is real and it isn't really a secret what spurred them on. These would have been just "angry citizens", except their target was extremely political. They were violent terrorists, and they are responsible for deaths and trauma.


What suicides? The ones that took place months later? Sorry, but five people have died during or immediately after the riot - three of natural causes, one of drug overdose and one who was shot by the security detail. Four additional officers have committed suicide *several* months later. As such, based on all available evidence, the riot directly led to one death - that of Ashli Babbit.


----------



## Dakitten (Aug 6, 2021)

We've talked this point before, dear. Even if the attack didn't directly cause the fatality, it still ended in his death. And I'm sorry you can't relate to trauma, particularly when folks on the right harass these officers relentlessly for some reason, but those suicides are related. In a sense, it is almost like folk like you and Jimbo might have been involved in said deaths... ¬.¬


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 6, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Just want to point out, private and personal ownership isn't the same thing.


Marxists always need a a crutch to work themselves out of their own logical inconsistency.


> Private property is *a social relationship between the owner and persons deprived*, i.e. not a relationship between person and thing. ... In Marxist theory, the term private property typically refers to capital or the means of production, while personal property refers to consumer and non-capital goods and services.


I officially proclaim all my private belongings to be personal. I've licked all of my doorknobs - by law of transitive property my house is now my toothbrush.


Dakitten said:


> We've talked this point before, dear. Even if the attack didn't directly cause the fatality, it still ended in his death. And I'm sorry you can't relate to trauma, particularly when folks on the right harass these officers relentlessly for some reason, but those suicides are related. In a sense, it is almost like folk like you and Jimbo might have been involved in said deaths... ¬.¬


I'm not responsible for what individuals choose to do with their lives and not liable for any decisions they might make that end in their untimely demise.


----------



## Dakitten (Aug 6, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm not responsible for what individuals choose to do with their lives and not liable for any decisions they might make that end in their untimely demise.



Of course not, that'd be inconvenient. 

As I've said before, people don't exist in a vacuum. Everything effects everything else, no matter how much you wish you were an autonomous trollbot harmlessly dishing out teh lulz.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 6, 2021)

Aside from the hypocrisy of the "thin blue line" crowd who beat officers mercilessly, and all the unnecessary deaths that resulted from the riot, the most egregious part of the whole thing was the goal of installing Trump as dictator.  The rapid transition from democracy to autocracy would've caused untold death, suffering, and chaos nationwide.  These fucking terrorists knew that and they still wanted it to happen anyway.  The modern Republican party is a lost cause.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 6, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Of course not, that'd be inconvenient.
> 
> As I've said before, people don't exist in a vacuum. Everything effects everything else, no matter how much you wish you were an autonomous trollbot harmlessly dishing out teh lulz.


If you choose to put a noose on your own neck and kick the stool out from under you, you're the sole party responsible for your own death. Don't go out of your way to find scapegoats to excuse your own moment of weakness. I'm more than happy to help anyone who happens to suffer from suicidal thoughts and have done so, on this very forum. With that being said, the decision to terminate your own existence is your own to make, nobody else makes it for you. Moreover, you don't actually know why the officers killed themselves, you've provided an evidence-free statement. Have they left notes that say as much? Even if they have, it was still their decision - they chose death over seeking help and wise council, but at least you would have something to support your theory, as opposed to just imagination.


Xzi said:


> Aside from the hypocrisy of the "thin blue line" crowd who beat officers mercilessly, and all the unnecessary deaths that resulted from the riot, the most egregious part of the whole thing was the goal of installing Trump as dictator.  The rapid transition from democracy to autocracy would've caused untold death, suffering, and chaos nationwide.  These fucking terrorists knew that and they still wanted it to happen anyway.  The modern Republican party is a lost cause.


Is the feigned outrage of the formerly A.C.A.B. crowd also hypocritical, or just politically expedient? I don't remember any tears shed over officers who were harmed during the Summer of Love - is it specific officers that we care about? Do they wear a patch, so that I know when to be upset and when it was the "bad apples"?


----------



## Dakitten (Aug 6, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> If you choose to put a noose on your own neck and kick the stool out from under you, you're the sole party responsible for your own death. Don't go out of your way to find scapegoats to excuse your own moment of weakness. I'm more than happy to help anyone who happens to suffer from suicidal thoughts and have done so, on this very forum. With that being said, the decision to terminate your own existence is your own to make, nobody else makes it for you. Moreover, you don't actually know why the officers killed themselves, you've provided an evidence-free statement. Have they left notes that say as much? Even if they have, it was still their decision - they chose death over seeking help and wise council, but at least you would have something to support your theory, as opposed to just imagination.
> Is the feigned outrage of the formerly A.C.A.B. crowd also hypocritical, or just politically expedient? I don't remember any tears shed over officers who were harmed during the Summer of Love - is it specific officers that we care about? Do they wear a patch, so that I know when to be upset and when it was the "bad apples".



I'm so certain you have. You deserve a medal. Good boy, living your good life. You're a good person. Never look outside your bubble and keep your certainty that you know whats best and that you can't possibly do something bad. After all, you've done good things, maybe even helped a black! FFS, you actually want to argue that the suicides are unrelated to the trauma of the event and then confess you didn't even check? Good faith argument, there!

Also, ACAB is the idea that the police as a national entity has gone bad, and requires reform. It doesn't mean individuals or even the organization's intention is bad, just that it has failed to uphold the will of the majority and the support of those it was built to serve. Thanks for playing, now please take your evil elsewhere.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 6, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Is the feigned outrage of the formerly A.C.A.B. crowd also hypocritical, or just politically expedient?  I don't remember any tears shed over officers who were harmed during the Summer of Love - is it specific officers that we care about? Do they wear a patch, so that I know when to be upset and when it was the "bad apples"?


Who said I was outraged?  I was only pointing out the hypocrisy of it.  There were plenty of "bad apples" that day who let rioters through and caused harm to their fellow officers as well.  But yes, context is still important: my respect for people defending democracy against political terrorists is always going to be much greater than my respect for cops defending their "right" to murder without consequence.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 6, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> I'm so certain you have. You deserve a medal. Good boy, living your good life. You're a good person. Never look outside your bubble and keep your certainty that you know whats best and that you can't possibly do something bad. After all, you've done good things, maybe even helped a black! FFS, you actually want to argue that the suicides are unrelated to the trauma of the event and then confess you didn't even check? Good faith argument, there!
> 
> Also, ACAB is the idea that the police as a national entity has gone bad, and requires reform. It doesn't mean individuals or even the organization's intention is bad, just that it has failed to uphold the will of the majority and the support of those it was built to serve. Thanks for playing, now please take your evil elsewhere.


"All cops are bastards" is pretty self-explanatory, it doesn't require any additional explanation, particularly one that you'd get an Olympic medal in mental gymnastics for. I don't need to check anything since suicides are just that - suicides, not homicides. I feel for the families who suffered through a suicide of a close relative, but I'm not going to apply collective responsibility, which is inherently unfair. They were officers, trauma is an expected work risk one accepts when taking up the badge.


Xzi said:


> Who said I was outraged?  I was only pointing out the hypocrisy of it.  There were plenty of "bad apples" that day who let rioters through and caused harm to their fellow officers as well.  But yes, context is still important: my respect for people defending democracy against political terrorists is always going to be much greater than my respect for cops defending their "right" to murder without consequence.


Maybe we should change the acronym. "Some cops are bastards", how does that sound? It might actually be a sentiment that gains traction and popular approval - some definitely are. Not catchy though, we'll have to take it back to the drawing board for a rewrite.


----------



## Dakitten (Aug 6, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> "All cops are bastards" is pretty self-explanatory, it doesn't require any additional explanation, particularly one that you'd get an Olympic medal in mental gymnastics for. I don't need to check anything since suicide are just that - suicides, not homicides.
> Maybe we should change the acronym. Some cops are bastards. That might actually be a sentiment that gains traction and popular approval - some definitely are. Not catchy though, we'll have to take it back to the drawing board for a rewrite.



Mental gymnastics like, say, disassociating a traumatic event from a string of suicides? Very nice... And you really seem to have a hard time understanding this, so allow me to try making it simpler.

All Cops Are Bad. All people who become cops join a bad institution. This does not make them bad people, just involved in a bad organization. As an organization, it does bad things. Not all things it does are bad. Not everything about its intended function is bad. When people doing a good thing are brutalized and die as part of a bad organization performing a good action, it is still tragic.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 6, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Mental gymnastics like, say, disassociating a traumatic event from a string of suicides? Very nice... And you really seem to have a hard time understanding this, so allow me to try making it simpler.
> 
> All Cops Are Bad. All people who become cops join a bad institution. This does not make them bad people, just involved in a bad organization. As an organization, it does bad things. Not all things it does are bad. Not everything about its intended function is bad. When people doing a good thing are brutalized and die as part of a bad organization performing a good action, it is still tragic.


Individuals are responsible for their own decisions, including those resulting from a traumatic experience. Here's a little thought experiment - let's say that an officer was on duty during the riot, ends up traumatised and proceeds to beat his wife relentlessly every single day because it's the only thing that lets the steam out. Who beat his wife? Who's going to prison for a domestic? Those nasty rioters, they've gone and done beat up the man's wife, with his own fists! They, literally, forced his hand! Shocking.

The B in the acronym does not stand for "bad". It stands for "bastard". It's a moral judgement of each and every individual officer - they are "bastards", _noun, derogatory, an unpleasant or despicable person_. Thank you for your explanation, but it's inconsistent with the slogan, or the general sentiment of that crowd.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 6, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Maybe we should change the acronym. "Some cops are bastards", how does that sound? It might actually be a sentiment that gains traction and popular approval - some definitely are. Not catchy though, we'll have to take it back to the drawing board for a rewrite.


Nah until police unions get their shit together or are dismantled entirely, I'll stick with ACAB.  As long as they're operating as normal, good cops get fired for reporting bad cops, and bad cops get transferred to another department or get a paid vacation whenever they kill someone over a misdemeanor.


----------



## Dakitten (Aug 6, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Individuals are responsible for their own decisions, including those resulting from a traumatic experience. Here's a little thought experiment - let's say that an officer was on duty during the riot, ends up traumatised and proceeds to beat his wife relentlessly every single day because it's the only thing that lets the steam out. Who beat his wife? Who's going to prison for a domestic? Those nasty rioters, they've gone and done beat up the man's wife, with his own fists! They, literally, forced his hand! Shocking.
> 
> The B in the acronym does not stand for "bad". It stands for "bastard". It's a moral judgement of each and every individual officer - they are "bastards", _noun, derogatory, an unpleasant or despicable person_. Thank you for your explanation, but it's inconsistent with the slogan, or the general sentiment of that crowd.



Did you really quote the fluffing dictionary for your technicality? Congratulations on presuming a movement's interpretation for them based on as literal a description as you can fit via Merriam's. Ooh, can I play? The first definition listed means somebody born of unwed parents! Surely, the movement is against the parents of officers not being married! 

Oh, there is another meaning, too! Maybe that one is more fitting?

2 *: *something that is spurious (see spurious sense 3a), irregular, inferior, or of questionable origin

Doesn't really matter, though. My above statement is in regards to what the movement's actual stance is. Thanks for pettifogging again.

As for your thought experiment, I'd want the officer to get treatment, prisons to focus on rehabilitation rather than punitive action, and would still want the individuals who traumatized the officer to go for said rehabilitation in prison too. Things make sense pretty easily when you develop empathy.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 6, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Did you really quote the fluffing dictionary for your technicality? Congratulations on presuming a movement's interpretation for them based on as literal a description as you can fit via Merriam's. Ooh, can I play? The first definition listed means somebody born of unwed parents! Surely, the movement is against the parents of officers not being married!
> 
> Oh, there is another meaning, too! Maybe that one is more fitting?
> 
> ...


I didn't name "the movement", don't take it up with me. If I went to a store called "Candy", I'd expect to find candy on the shelves. If I instead found lawnmowers, I'd be mildly amused, if disappointed.


> As for your thought experiment, I'd want the officer to get treatment, prisons to focus on rehabilitation rather than punitive action, and would still *want the individuals who traumatized the officer to go for said rehabilitation in prison too*. Things make sense pretty easily when you develop empathy.


Just the thought of it is terrifying to me, and the sheer injustice of basing the penal code on feelings in order to penalise people for words cannot be overstated. I hope it never comes to pass. We've already seen how this kind of "rehabilitation" works out on a massive scale - it wasn't as nice as you'd imagine.


----------



## seany1990 (Aug 6, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> and the sheer injustice of basing the penal code on feelings in order to penalise people for words cannot be overstated



What's the point in making disingenuous arguments? This isn't a conservative echo chamber were you can high five each other. You will be called out on it


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 6, 2021)

seany1990 said:


> and the sheer injustice of basing the penal code on feelings in order to penalise people for words.
> 
> What's the point in making disingenuous arguments? This isn't a conservative echo chamber were you can high five each other. You will be called out on it


You should know how that looks like yourself, given the recently passed egregious speech laws in Scotland. God forbid something you say offends someone on Twitter - there's a fine for that now, and possible jail time.


----------



## Dakitten (Aug 6, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I didn't name "the movement", don't take it up with me. If I went to a store called "Candy", I'd expect to find candy on the shelves. If I instead found lawnmowers, I'd be mildly amused, if disappointed.
> Just the thought of it is terrifying to me, and the sheer injustice of basing the penal code on feelings in order to penalise people for words cannot be overstated. I hope it never comes to pass. We've already seen how this kind of "rehabilitation" works out on a massive scale - it wasn't as nice as you'd imagine.



You live in a dark place. Rehabilitation in this case refers to therapy, career positioning and training, and periodical checkups to make sure people who hurt people don't feel so downtrodden and disenfranchised that they resort to violence against others, but go ahead and compare anything progressive to old governments that don't apply to any present intentions. Your contribution of bad faith arguments to discourse is absolutely productive!


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 6, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> You live in a dark place. Rehabilitation in this case refers to therapy, career positioning and training, and periodical checkups to make sure people who hurt people don't feel so downtrodden and disenfranchised that they resort to violence against others, but go ahead and compare anything progressive to *old governments that don't apply to any present intentions*. Your contribution of bad faith arguments to discourse is absolutely productive!


"This time it will be different".


----------



## Dakitten (Aug 6, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> "This time it will be different".


Yes, because it is always different, especially when the people look to the past, learn from it, and distance themselves from the barbarism of dictators who co-opted concepts for their own purposes.I promise you, Stalin isn't on these boards and he isn't running the left.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 6, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Yes, because it is always different, especially when the people look to the past, learn from it, and distance themselves from the barbarism of dictators who co-opted concepts for their own purposes.I promise you, Stalin isn't on these boards and he isn't running the left.


I didn't mention Stalin. I admire your idealism, it's very pure. You sound like a well-meaning person, so good on you for promoting what you think is right. Me, I'd rather not give the government a mandate to send me to institutions aimed at correcting my wrongthink. I know how that looks like in practice.


----------



## Dakitten (Aug 6, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I didn't mention Stalin. I admire your idealism, it's very pure. You sound like a well-meaning person, so good on you for promoting what you think is right. Me, I'd rather not give the government a mandate to send me to institutions aimed at correcting my wrongthink. I know how that looks like in practice.



Considering Jimbo's rant earlier and the flag by your name coupled with your insinuation, I inferred.

That being said, I wasn't really making any sort of revolutionary claim about how your scenario should transpire. Random folk shouldn't have to endure jail at all, but people inflicting violence should. Y'know... pretty similar to now, with the present government, and most any government ever. For those who do end up needing jail time for the safety of the public, it should just be focused more on rehabilitation than punitive measures, since it doesn't do much to fix the issues and creates a carousel of suffering in its present state.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 7, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Considering Jimbo's rant earlier and the flag by your name coupled with your insinuation, I inferred.


The Polish People's Republic was a Marxist/Leninist satellite state of the Soviet Union - it was a separate entity controlled by a puppet government installed by the Kremlin. It was never a Stalinist country - in fact, it was pretty dang close to what "modern communists" advocate for. I will happily discuss this with you privately if you'd like - I've indicated as much earlier.


> That being said, I wasn't really making any sort of revolutionary claim about how your scenario should transpire. Random folk shouldn't have to endure jail at all, but people inflicting violence should. Y'know... pretty similar to now, with the present government, and most any government ever. For those who do end up needing jail time for the safety of the public, it should just be focused more on rehabilitation than punitive measures, since it doesn't do much to fix the issues and creates a carousel of suffering in its present state.


I'm not opposed to the concept of councilling in prison considering that statistically it works if we look at prisons in nordic countries. I do however make provisions for what I call especially heinous crimes, or especially heinous criminals - contrary to what you might think, I don't believe everybodybody can be rehabilitated and reintroduced to society. Some monsters are real - sad, but true. We can research what makes them tick via psychological evaluation, but we can't fix them.


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 7, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Marxists always need a a crutch to work themselves out of their own logical inconsistency.
> 
> I officially proclaim all my private belongings to be personal. I've licked all of my doorknobs - by law of transitive property my house is now my toothbrush.


I'm for social democracy, but it seems like you still don't understand the difference between private and personal here. 

You aren't either making capital or producing products from licked things (how unsanitary), you would have turn everything you personally own into a toothbrush for no reason.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 7, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> I'm for social democracy, but it seems like you still don't understand the difference between private and personal here.
> 
> You aren't either making capital or producing products from licked things (how unsanitary), you would have turn everything you personally own into a toothbrush for no reason.


The terms are directly lifted from Marxist theory, so I'm using the Marxist definition. Real estate is absolutely a capital good - it can be rented. In general, capital goods include buildings, machinery and equipment. I understand the difference perfectly, I'm merely making fun of the ridiculous concept.


----------

