RPGnet's decay (TBP madness)

[Pat]

To be blunt, the 2nd Amendment was written so that citizens would be fully armed and capable of killing police, militia, and professional troops of the government, and reserving a distinct capacity of the citizenry to forcibly exterminate a corrupt and evil government, so as to replace it with a more suitable and righteous government that respects and honours the people of the nation.

Furthermore, while the specifics of defending yourself, your home, and local community in those long ago days featured outlaws, brigands, rebels of various flavours, as well as bands of savage Indians, and may at first glance seem alien and way different from us currently--the basic principle is for the average man, the American citizen, remain fully armed and equipped to protect himself, his home, and his local community, from whatever dangers or threats that may come his way.

The ideology then--reflected through the spirit of the US Constitution--is that every man not only has a God-given right to be armed and to protect himself--but a primary duty and responsibility to do so. It is all part of cultivating the spirit and society of a strong, and fiercely independent culture. It is not a man's constant obligation to meekly wait like a subdued sheep for "The Authorities" to arrive and take care of the problem. In many cases, as noted--the 'Authorities" themselves may be the problem that needs to be eliminated. In other instances and circumstances, it is the citizen that is considered to be fully ready and able to take care of business.

It's always funny when you post America rah-rah-rah, and use British spellings.

This is the kind of thing they should be teaching in schools. And not just theory, but practical lessons -- i.e. shooting lessons. Teaching kids the care and use of firearms is the kind of thing that states could implement on their own. Having a generation of kids familiar with firearms could change the dynamic, because a lot of the fear of guns is based on ignorance.

[jeff37923]

To be blunt, the 2nd Amendment was written so that citizens would be fully armed and capable of killing police, militia, and professional troops of the government, and reserving a distinct capacity of the citizenry to forcibly exterminate a corrupt and evil government, so as to replace it with a more suitable and righteous government that respects and honours the people of the nation.

Furthermore, while the specifics of defending yourself, your home, and local community in those long ago days featured outlaws, brigands, rebels of various flavours, as well as bands of savage Indians, and may at first glance seem alien and way different from us currently--the basic principle is for the average man, the American citizen, remain fully armed and equipped to protect himself, his home, and his local community, from whatever dangers or threats that may come his way.

The ideology then--reflected through the spirit of the US Constitution--is that every man not only has a God-given right to be armed and to protect himself--but a primary duty and responsibility to do so. It is all part of cultivating the spirit and society of a strong, and fiercely independent culture. It is not a man's constant obligation to meekly wait like a subdued sheep for "The Authorities" to arrive and take care of the problem. In many cases, as noted--the 'Authorities" themselves may be the problem that needs to be eliminated. In other instances and circumstances, it is the citizen that is considered to be fully ready and able to take care of business.

It's always funny when you post America rah-rah-rah, and use British spellings.

This is the kind of thing they should be teaching in schools. And not just theory, but practical lessons -- i.e. shooting lessons. Teaching kids the care and use of firearms is the kind of thing that states could implement on their own. Having a generation of kids familiar with firearms could change the dynamic, because a lot of the fear of guns is based on ignorance.

There would very likely be more incidents similar to the Battle of Athens in 1946.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

[oggsmash]

  I guess with the monkey pox and SCOTUS, Moloch is having a bad month, or is it Baphomet and Moloch? 

[Mistwell]

*I* want to bring in Antifa? Oh Pat, you've gotten lost mate. Follow the conversation. Where is it you think we started my man?

The point all along has been about comparing Antifa violence to Jan 6 violence and people claiming Jan 6 was non-violent, with me saying no they were in fact violent.  Sicknick was just one in many many points I made to demonstrate they were also violent on Jan 6. I've proven it was violent and rather than talk to that point you want to focus on trying to play gotcha without ever speaking to the issue we're talking about. You got so far from the point that you now think I am the one bringing Antifa to the conversation. Fuck dude, there is a forest around you. Stop beating your head on that tree. Not me who brought Antifa to this conversation I am just responding to what others said. Or did you just forget what the heck we've been talking about?

Tell me Pat, do you agree with what was said, that on Jan 6 everyone in the capital was just "invited" in there by police, they were simply trespassing and wandering the halls, and that they were non-violent? Do you or do you not agree with that statement. Don't be a fucking politician about it, don't ask me to define what "is" is, just answer the simple question as to whether you think that is an accurate assessment of what happened or not.

Because if you don't agree with that statement, I want you to hold the people accountable for saying that at least as much as you have a bug up your ass about Sicknick which was never my point to begin with but that statement WAS the point those guys were making.

Okay, you fucking liar. Where did anyone say this was nonviolent?

Oh wait, that was me! Except there was context, which you can't strip out without being a complete fucking liar. I pointed out that one side of the building was completely nonviolent. They were invited in. They were respectful. And it's absolutely appalling those people are being treated as terrorists. It's a complete travesty, and it's a sign of the sickness of our federal institutions and how far they've drifted from their often but falsely claimed role as public servants.

And on the other side of the the building, I said it got violent. But not a single protestor was carrying a gun. The FBI admitted there was no organized plan to do anything. It therefore wasn't an insurrection. That's another lie, and it's equally appalling. Because we've just gone through dozens of worse riots, some in the summer of 2020 in response to a completely fictitious narrative, some at supreme court confirmation hearings, some at presidential inaugurations, some at the homes of supreme court justices, and one that even attacked the White House. These were all far worse, because they directly threatened legislators, justices, and chief executives, committed arson, and killed people. Yet the people involved mostly got a slap on the hand.

Which in general, I wouldn't have much of a problem with. I think it's a sign of a functioning democracy that protests are largely tolerated, even when they get violent. Yes, people get arrested. But the charges should usually be minor, and the sentences typically probation. Even property damage or inter-personal violence shouldn't be treated that severely, because this idea that all protests are going to be peaceful is nonsense. Reserve the serious charges for things like bombings, killings, or arson.

But what we're seeing here is the weaponization of Congress, the FBI, and the Department of Justice against the opposition political party. I despise that political party almost as much as I despise you, but hey if I stay silent then next they'll come for X, then Y, and eventually me.

Liar.

Liar.

You miserable piece of shit liar.

And if you ask me one more of your little staged lying questions and demand an answer, I'm going totally scorched earth on your miserable piece of shit ass.

Ok Pat, thank you for conclusively proving you did not, in fact, follow the conversation. No wonder you thought I had brought Antifa to the conversation when I had not. You apparently jumped into the middle of it and didn't even realize what people had said or why they had said it.

Which, for the record, is no big deal. Happens to us all. But, maybe don't go off the rails in anger at someone when they've just mentioned it seemed like you didn't read the beginning and go check next time before replying?

No buddy, my comment was not directed to you. No, I did not take your comments out of context. Yes, someone did in fact say they were non-violent on Jan 6 and no, that person was not you. In fact you didn't even comment on the topic until well after this was said:

" with protestors who were let into a public building, wandered about, and harmed no one.  "

For more context, he was making a comparison to Antifa violence when he said that. Which is why I was confused earlier when you thought I had brought Antifa to the conversation.

That's the comment which started this. It was from 3cat, not you. That's the topic we've been debating ever since. One other person (also not you) seemed to agree with 3cats take on that. This was quite a while ago. Many pages ago now, and we've been debating that issue a while, sprinkled with some other RPGnet stuff in between responses. But yeah, someone here absolutely was describing the Jan 6 rioters (again not to be confused with protestors) as "harming no one" and just wandering about the capital building after being "let in". It's why I eventually posted that video of police getting their asses kicked and retreating and calling for help as rioters broke through their barriers and attacked.

[I]

I'm still wondering what happened to that asshole Tanka.  Anybody know?  I have some theories, but none are confirmed:

1.  Choked to death on a cock
2.  Died of ruptured colon; lubricated own dice tower and then sat on it
3.  TDS-induced stroke
4.  Not dead, but fired from RPG.net for sexual harassment of women (typical behavior for male feminists)

[Pat]

*I* want to bring in Antifa? Oh Pat, you've gotten lost mate. Follow the conversation. Where is it you think we started my man?

The point all along has been about comparing Antifa violence to Jan 6 violence and people claiming Jan 6 was non-violent, with me saying no they were in fact violent.  Sicknick was just one in many many points I made to demonstrate they were also violent on Jan 6. I've proven it was violent and rather than talk to that point you want to focus on trying to play gotcha without ever speaking to the issue we're talking about. You got so far from the point that you now think I am the one bringing Antifa to the conversation. Fuck dude, there is a forest around you. Stop beating your head on that tree. Not me who brought Antifa to this conversation I am just responding to what others said. Or did you just forget what the heck we've been talking about?

Tell me Pat, do you agree with what was said, that on Jan 6 everyone in the capital was just "invited" in there by police, they were simply trespassing and wandering the halls, and that they were non-violent? Do you or do you not agree with that statement. Don't be a fucking politician about it, don't ask me to define what "is" is, just answer the simple question as to whether you think that is an accurate assessment of what happened or not.

Because if you don't agree with that statement, I want you to hold the people accountable for saying that at least as much as you have a bug up your ass about Sicknick which was never my point to begin with but that statement WAS the point those guys were making.

Okay, you fucking liar. Where did anyone say this was nonviolent?

Oh wait, that was me! Except there was context, which you can't strip out without being a complete fucking liar. I pointed out that one side of the building was completely nonviolent. They were invited in. They were respectful. And it's absolutely appalling those people are being treated as terrorists. It's a complete travesty, and it's a sign of the sickness of our federal institutions and how far they've drifted from their often but falsely claimed role as public servants.

And on the other side of the the building, I said it got violent. But not a single protestor was carrying a gun. The FBI admitted there was no organized plan to do anything. It therefore wasn't an insurrection. That's another lie, and it's equally appalling. Because we've just gone through dozens of worse riots, some in the summer of 2020 in response to a completely fictitious narrative, some at supreme court confirmation hearings, some at presidential inaugurations, some at the homes of supreme court justices, and one that even attacked the White House. These were all far worse, because they directly threatened legislators, justices, and chief executives, committed arson, and killed people. Yet the people involved mostly got a slap on the hand.

Which in general, I wouldn't have much of a problem with. I think it's a sign of a functioning democracy that protests are largely tolerated, even when they get violent. Yes, people get arrested. But the charges should usually be minor, and the sentences typically probation. Even property damage or inter-personal violence shouldn't be treated that severely, because this idea that all protests are going to be peaceful is nonsense. Reserve the serious charges for things like bombings, killings, or arson.

But what we're seeing here is the weaponization of Congress, the FBI, and the Department of Justice against the opposition political party. I despise that political party almost as much as I despise you, but hey if I stay silent then next they'll come for X, then Y, and eventually me.

Liar.

Liar.

You miserable piece of shit liar.

And if you ask me one more of your little staged lying questions and demand an answer, I'm going totally scorched earth on your miserable piece of shit ass.

Ok Pat, thank you for conclusively proving you did not, in fact, follow the conversation. No wonder you thought I had brought Antifa to the conversation when I had not. You apparently jumped into the middle of it and didn't even realize what people had said or why they had said it.

Which, for the record, is no big deal. Happens to us all. But, maybe don't go off the rails in anger at someone when they've just mentioned it seemed like you didn't read the beginning and go check next time before replying?

No buddy, my comment was not directed to you. No, I did not take your comments out of context. Yes, someone did in fact say they were non-violent on Jan 6 and no, that person was not you. In fact you didn't even comment on the topic until well after this was said:

" with protestors who were let into a public building, wandered about, and harmed no one.  "

For more context, he was making a comparison to Antifa violence when he said that. Which is why I was confused earlier when you thought I had brought Antifa to the conversation.

That's the comment which started this. It was from 3cat, not you. That's the topic we've been debating ever since. One other person (also not you) seemed to agree with 3cats take on that. This was quite a while ago. Many pages ago now, and we've been debating that issue a while, sprinkled with some other RPGnet stuff in between responses. But yeah, someone here absolutely was describing the Jan 6 rioters (again not to be confused with protestors) as "harming no one" and just wandering about the capital building after being "let in". It's why I eventually posted that video of police getting their asses kicked and retreating and calling for help as rioters broke through their barriers and attacked.

Don't project your own failure to follow the conversation onto others, you smarmy piece of shit. You replied to my posts, and made a statement that applied to a previous post of mine. I responded to that, rather than bringing anyone else into the vile pile of sewage and lies you were spewing. That in no way suggests that I was unfamiliar with other posts, and the only way you can draw that conclusion is just to make shit up. Which you do, because you're disingenuously attempting to avoid addressing the topic.

Speaking of you lying, you did bring up Antifa. You raised it in reply to one my posts. And then you lied about bringing it up, and now you're lying about it again.

[Mistwell]

*I* want to bring in Antifa? Oh Pat, you've gotten lost mate. Follow the conversation. Where is it you think we started my man?

The point all along has been about comparing Antifa violence to Jan 6 violence and people claiming Jan 6 was non-violent, with me saying no they were in fact violent.  Sicknick was just one in many many points I made to demonstrate they were also violent on Jan 6. I've proven it was violent and rather than talk to that point you want to focus on trying to play gotcha without ever speaking to the issue we're talking about. You got so far from the point that you now think I am the one bringing Antifa to the conversation. Fuck dude, there is a forest around you. Stop beating your head on that tree. Not me who brought Antifa to this conversation I am just responding to what others said. Or did you just forget what the heck we've been talking about?

Tell me Pat, do you agree with what was said, that on Jan 6 everyone in the capital was just "invited" in there by police, they were simply trespassing and wandering the halls, and that they were non-violent? Do you or do you not agree with that statement. Don't be a fucking politician about it, don't ask me to define what "is" is, just answer the simple question as to whether you think that is an accurate assessment of what happened or not.

Because if you don't agree with that statement, I want you to hold the people accountable for saying that at least as much as you have a bug up your ass about Sicknick which was never my point to begin with but that statement WAS the point those guys were making.

Okay, you fucking liar. Where did anyone say this was nonviolent?

Oh wait, that was me! Except there was context, which you can't strip out without being a complete fucking liar. I pointed out that one side of the building was completely nonviolent. They were invited in. They were respectful. And it's absolutely appalling those people are being treated as terrorists. It's a complete travesty, and it's a sign of the sickness of our federal institutions and how far they've drifted from their often but falsely claimed role as public servants.

And on the other side of the the building, I said it got violent. But not a single protestor was carrying a gun. The FBI admitted there was no organized plan to do anything. It therefore wasn't an insurrection. That's another lie, and it's equally appalling. Because we've just gone through dozens of worse riots, some in the summer of 2020 in response to a completely fictitious narrative, some at supreme court confirmation hearings, some at presidential inaugurations, some at the homes of supreme court justices, and one that even attacked the White House. These were all far worse, because they directly threatened legislators, justices, and chief executives, committed arson, and killed people. Yet the people involved mostly got a slap on the hand.

Which in general, I wouldn't have much of a problem with. I think it's a sign of a functioning democracy that protests are largely tolerated, even when they get violent. Yes, people get arrested. But the charges should usually be minor, and the sentences typically probation. Even property damage or inter-personal violence shouldn't be treated that severely, because this idea that all protests are going to be peaceful is nonsense. Reserve the serious charges for things like bombings, killings, or arson.

But what we're seeing here is the weaponization of Congress, the FBI, and the Department of Justice against the opposition political party. I despise that political party almost as much as I despise you, but hey if I stay silent then next they'll come for X, then Y, and eventually me.

Liar.

Liar.

You miserable piece of shit liar.

And if you ask me one more of your little staged lying questions and demand an answer, I'm going totally scorched earth on your miserable piece of shit ass.

Ok Pat, thank you for conclusively proving you did not, in fact, follow the conversation. No wonder you thought I had brought Antifa to the conversation when I had not. You apparently jumped into the middle of it and didn't even realize what people had said or why they had said it.

Which, for the record, is no big deal. Happens to us all. But, maybe don't go off the rails in anger at someone when they've just mentioned it seemed like you didn't read the beginning and go check next time before replying?

No buddy, my comment was not directed to you. No, I did not take your comments out of context. Yes, someone did in fact say they were non-violent on Jan 6 and no, that person was not you. In fact you didn't even comment on the topic until well after this was said:

" with protestors who were let into a public building, wandered about, and harmed no one.  "

For more context, he was making a comparison to Antifa violence when he said that. Which is why I was confused earlier when you thought I had brought Antifa to the conversation.

That's the comment which started this. It was from 3cat, not you. That's the topic we've been debating ever since. One other person (also not you) seemed to agree with 3cats take on that. This was quite a while ago. Many pages ago now, and we've been debating that issue a while, sprinkled with some other RPGnet stuff in between responses. But yeah, someone here absolutely was describing the Jan 6 rioters (again not to be confused with protestors) as "harming no one" and just wandering about the capital building after being "let in". It's why I eventually posted that video of police getting their asses kicked and retreating and calling for help as rioters broke through their barriers and attacked.

Don't project your own failure to follow the conversation onto others, you smarmy piece of shit. You replied to my posts, and made a statement that applied to a previous post of mine. I responded to that, rather than bringing anyone else into the vile pile of sewage and lies you were spewing. That in no way suggests that I was unfamiliar with other posts, and the only way you can draw that conclusion is just to make shit up. Which you do, because you're disingenuously attempting to avoid addressing the topic.

Speaking of you lying, you did bring up Antifa. You raised it in reply to one my posts. And then you lied about bringing it up, and now you're lying about it again.

When you told me that I was bringing Antifa into the conversation and I explained no I had not someone else had (which they had), that was me telling you that you seemed confused about the responses. And you're doubling down, even though you just fucking said that nobody had claimed the rioters were non-violent when you've just seen conclusive proof you were wrong on that.

Pat, it's OK that you jumped in the middle of a conversation. It's also normal for me to assume you've read what's come before and understood what you were commenting on. But once you see for sure that you were wrong and someone had in fact described them as non-violent, it falls on you to figure that shit out and apologize for the mistake. Not double down and get defensive and act like I was lying when you now realize you really were wrong in saying that.

Be an adult. Just say whoops you messed up and move on. Don't be that guy who can't admit he messed up.

[Shasarak]

Hey,  calm down they were all Trumpists that died so now they can all start to vote for Biden.

[Ghostmaker]

I'm still wondering what happened to that asshole Tanka.  Anybody know?  I have some theories, but none are confirmed:

1.  Choked to death on a cock
2.  Died of ruptured colon; lubricated own dice tower and then sat on it
3.  TDS-induced stroke
4.  Not dead, but fired from RPG.net for sexual harassment of women (typical behavior for male feminists)

Heh. Could be any of the above. Or he could've just gotten pissy about being told no and quit.

His last post was 2/21/22, his last login 4/21/22. There's no way to tell when his mod status was removed. His signature still has 'RPGnet Moderator' in it.

One of life's great mysteries, I suppose.

[Pat]

*I* want to bring in Antifa? Oh Pat, you've gotten lost mate. Follow the conversation. Where is it you think we started my man?

The point all along has been about comparing Antifa violence to Jan 6 violence and people claiming Jan 6 was non-violent, with me saying no they were in fact violent.  Sicknick was just one in many many points I made to demonstrate they were also violent on Jan 6. I've proven it was violent and rather than talk to that point you want to focus on trying to play gotcha without ever speaking to the issue we're talking about. You got so far from the point that you now think I am the one bringing Antifa to the conversation. Fuck dude, there is a forest around you. Stop beating your head on that tree. Not me who brought Antifa to this conversation I am just responding to what others said. Or did you just forget what the heck we've been talking about?

Tell me Pat, do you agree with what was said, that on Jan 6 everyone in the capital was just "invited" in there by police, they were simply trespassing and wandering the halls, and that they were non-violent? Do you or do you not agree with that statement. Don't be a fucking politician about it, don't ask me to define what "is" is, just answer the simple question as to whether you think that is an accurate assessment of what happened or not.

Because if you don't agree with that statement, I want you to hold the people accountable for saying that at least as much as you have a bug up your ass about Sicknick which was never my point to begin with but that statement WAS the point those guys were making.

Okay, you fucking liar. Where did anyone say this was nonviolent?

Oh wait, that was me! Except there was context, which you can't strip out without being a complete fucking liar. I pointed out that one side of the building was completely nonviolent. They were invited in. They were respectful. And it's absolutely appalling those people are being treated as terrorists. It's a complete travesty, and it's a sign of the sickness of our federal institutions and how far they've drifted from their often but falsely claimed role as public servants.

And on the other side of the the building, I said it got violent. But not a single protestor was carrying a gun. The FBI admitted there was no organized plan to do anything. It therefore wasn't an insurrection. That's another lie, and it's equally appalling. Because we've just gone through dozens of worse riots, some in the summer of 2020 in response to a completely fictitious narrative, some at supreme court confirmation hearings, some at presidential inaugurations, some at the homes of supreme court justices, and one that even attacked the White House. These were all far worse, because they directly threatened legislators, justices, and chief executives, committed arson, and killed people. Yet the people involved mostly got a slap on the hand.

Which in general, I wouldn't have much of a problem with. I think it's a sign of a functioning democracy that protests are largely tolerated, even when they get violent. Yes, people get arrested. But the charges should usually be minor, and the sentences typically probation. Even property damage or inter-personal violence shouldn't be treated that severely, because this idea that all protests are going to be peaceful is nonsense. Reserve the serious charges for things like bombings, killings, or arson.

But what we're seeing here is the weaponization of Congress, the FBI, and the Department of Justice against the opposition political party. I despise that political party almost as much as I despise you, but hey if I stay silent then next they'll come for X, then Y, and eventually me.

Liar.

Liar.

You miserable piece of shit liar.

And if you ask me one more of your little staged lying questions and demand an answer, I'm going totally scorched earth on your miserable piece of shit ass.

Ok Pat, thank you for conclusively proving you did not, in fact, follow the conversation. No wonder you thought I had brought Antifa to the conversation when I had not. You apparently jumped into the middle of it and didn't even realize what people had said or why they had said it.

Which, for the record, is no big deal. Happens to us all. But, maybe don't go off the rails in anger at someone when they've just mentioned it seemed like you didn't read the beginning and go check next time before replying?

No buddy, my comment was not directed to you. No, I did not take your comments out of context. Yes, someone did in fact say they were non-violent on Jan 6 and no, that person was not you. In fact you didn't even comment on the topic until well after this was said:

" with protestors who were let into a public building, wandered about, and harmed no one.  "

For more context, he was making a comparison to Antifa violence when he said that. Which is why I was confused earlier when you thought I had brought Antifa to the conversation.

That's the comment which started this. It was from 3cat, not you. That's the topic we've been debating ever since. One other person (also not you) seemed to agree with 3cats take on that. This was quite a while ago. Many pages ago now, and we've been debating that issue a while, sprinkled with some other RPGnet stuff in between responses. But yeah, someone here absolutely was describing the Jan 6 rioters (again not to be confused with protestors) as "harming no one" and just wandering about the capital building after being "let in". It's why I eventually posted that video of police getting their asses kicked and retreating and calling for help as rioters broke through their barriers and attacked.

Don't project your own failure to follow the conversation onto others, you smarmy piece of shit. You replied to my posts, and made a statement that applied to a previous post of mine. I responded to that, rather than bringing anyone else into the vile pile of sewage and lies you were spewing. That in no way suggests that I was unfamiliar with other posts, and the only way you can draw that conclusion is just to make shit up. Which you do, because you're disingenuously attempting to avoid addressing the topic.

Speaking of you lying, you did bring up Antifa. You raised it in reply to one my posts. And then you lied about bringing it up, and now you're lying about it again.

When you told me that I was bringing Antifa into the conversation and I explained no I had not someone else had (which they had), that was me telling you that you seemed confused about the responses. And you're doubling down, even though you just fucking said that nobody had claimed the rioters were non-violent when you've just seen conclusive proof you were wrong on that.

Pat, it's OK that you jumped in the middle of a conversation. It's also normal for me to assume you've read what's come before and understood what you were commenting on. But once you see for sure that you were wrong and someone had in fact described them as non-violent, it falls on you to figure that shit out and apologize for the mistake. Not double down and get defensive and act like I was lying when you now realize you really were wrong in saying that.

Be an adult. Just say whoops you messed up and move on. Don't be that guy who can't admit he messed up.

And you continue to lie.

You brought up Antifa, in a post where you quoted 3 nested replies. Not a single one mentioned Antifa. You brought it up on your own. I questioned whether you wanted to go there, because it was a terrible analogy which would thoroughly undermine your argument, but like the dishonest scumbag you are, you neither addressed the argument nor my criticism. Instead, you fabricated this entire web of suppositions, and dishonestly claimed I believe and said all kinds of things I never did.

Be an adult. Admit you're completely fucking wrong and a terrible human being for trying to project your own faults onto others.

[Mistwell]

*I* want to bring in Antifa? Oh Pat, you've gotten lost mate. Follow the conversation. Where is it you think we started my man?

The point all along has been about comparing Antifa violence to Jan 6 violence and people claiming Jan 6 was non-violent, with me saying no they were in fact violent.  Sicknick was just one in many many points I made to demonstrate they were also violent on Jan 6. I've proven it was violent and rather than talk to that point you want to focus on trying to play gotcha without ever speaking to the issue we're talking about. You got so far from the point that you now think I am the one bringing Antifa to the conversation. Fuck dude, there is a forest around you. Stop beating your head on that tree. Not me who brought Antifa to this conversation I am just responding to what others said. Or did you just forget what the heck we've been talking about?

Tell me Pat, do you agree with what was said, that on Jan 6 everyone in the capital was just "invited" in there by police, they were simply trespassing and wandering the halls, and that they were non-violent? Do you or do you not agree with that statement. Don't be a fucking politician about it, don't ask me to define what "is" is, just answer the simple question as to whether you think that is an accurate assessment of what happened or not.

Because if you don't agree with that statement, I want you to hold the people accountable for saying that at least as much as you have a bug up your ass about Sicknick which was never my point to begin with but that statement WAS the point those guys were making.

Okay, you fucking liar. Where did anyone say this was nonviolent?

Oh wait, that was me! Except there was context, which you can't strip out without being a complete fucking liar. I pointed out that one side of the building was completely nonviolent. They were invited in. They were respectful. And it's absolutely appalling those people are being treated as terrorists. It's a complete travesty, and it's a sign of the sickness of our federal institutions and how far they've drifted from their often but falsely claimed role as public servants.

And on the other side of the the building, I said it got violent. But not a single protestor was carrying a gun. The FBI admitted there was no organized plan to do anything. It therefore wasn't an insurrection. That's another lie, and it's equally appalling. Because we've just gone through dozens of worse riots, some in the summer of 2020 in response to a completely fictitious narrative, some at supreme court confirmation hearings, some at presidential inaugurations, some at the homes of supreme court justices, and one that even attacked the White House. These were all far worse, because they directly threatened legislators, justices, and chief executives, committed arson, and killed people. Yet the people involved mostly got a slap on the hand.

Which in general, I wouldn't have much of a problem with. I think it's a sign of a functioning democracy that protests are largely tolerated, even when they get violent. Yes, people get arrested. But the charges should usually be minor, and the sentences typically probation. Even property damage or inter-personal violence shouldn't be treated that severely, because this idea that all protests are going to be peaceful is nonsense. Reserve the serious charges for things like bombings, killings, or arson.

But what we're seeing here is the weaponization of Congress, the FBI, and the Department of Justice against the opposition political party. I despise that political party almost as much as I despise you, but hey if I stay silent then next they'll come for X, then Y, and eventually me.

Liar.

Liar.

You miserable piece of shit liar.

And if you ask me one more of your little staged lying questions and demand an answer, I'm going totally scorched earth on your miserable piece of shit ass.

Ok Pat, thank you for conclusively proving you did not, in fact, follow the conversation. No wonder you thought I had brought Antifa to the conversation when I had not. You apparently jumped into the middle of it and didn't even realize what people had said or why they had said it.

Which, for the record, is no big deal. Happens to us all. But, maybe don't go off the rails in anger at someone when they've just mentioned it seemed like you didn't read the beginning and go check next time before replying?

No buddy, my comment was not directed to you. No, I did not take your comments out of context. Yes, someone did in fact say they were non-violent on Jan 6 and no, that person was not you. In fact you didn't even comment on the topic until well after this was said:

" with protestors who were let into a public building, wandered about, and harmed no one.  "

For more context, he was making a comparison to Antifa violence when he said that. Which is why I was confused earlier when you thought I had brought Antifa to the conversation.

That's the comment which started this. It was from 3cat, not you. That's the topic we've been debating ever since. One other person (also not you) seemed to agree with 3cats take on that. This was quite a while ago. Many pages ago now, and we've been debating that issue a while, sprinkled with some other RPGnet stuff in between responses. But yeah, someone here absolutely was describing the Jan 6 rioters (again not to be confused with protestors) as "harming no one" and just wandering about the capital building after being "let in". It's why I eventually posted that video of police getting their asses kicked and retreating and calling for help as rioters broke through their barriers and attacked.

Don't project your own failure to follow the conversation onto others, you smarmy piece of shit. You replied to my posts, and made a statement that applied to a previous post of mine. I responded to that, rather than bringing anyone else into the vile pile of sewage and lies you were spewing. That in no way suggests that I was unfamiliar with other posts, and the only way you can draw that conclusion is just to make shit up. Which you do, because you're disingenuously attempting to avoid addressing the topic.

Speaking of you lying, you did bring up Antifa. You raised it in reply to one my posts. And then you lied about bringing it up, and now you're lying about it again.

When you told me that I was bringing Antifa into the conversation and I explained no I had not someone else had (which they had), that was me telling you that you seemed confused about the responses. And you're doubling down, even though you just fucking said that nobody had claimed the rioters were non-violent when you've just seen conclusive proof you were wrong on that.

Pat, it's OK that you jumped in the middle of a conversation. It's also normal for me to assume you've read what's come before and understood what you were commenting on. But once you see for sure that you were wrong and someone had in fact described them as non-violent, it falls on you to figure that shit out and apologize for the mistake. Not double down and get defensive and act like I was lying when you now realize you really were wrong in saying that.

Be an adult. Just say whoops you messed up and move on. Don't be that guy who can't admit he messed up.

And you continue to lie.

You brought up Antifa, in a post where you quoted 3 nested replies. Not a single one mentioned Antifa. You brought it up on your own. I questioned whether you wanted to go there, because it was a terrible analogy which would thoroughly undermine your argument, but like the dishonest scumbag you are, you neither addressed the argument nor my criticism. Instead, you fabricated this entire web of suppositions, and dishonestly claimed I believe and said all kinds of things I never did.

Be an adult. Admit you're completely fucking wrong and a terrible human being for trying to project your own faults onto others.

Pat, probably a dozen of us at that point had brought up Antifa. IT WAS THE TOPIC YOU WERE IN THE MIDST OF. You still apparently won't go back and look at that, even though it's all right there for you to see. I assumed you knew what conversation you were in. It's fair for me to assume you know what conversation you jumped into. If you don't, inform yourself. It's not on me to inform you that you might have missed something (though I did try to do that).

[HappyDaze]

I'm still wondering what happened to that asshole Tanka.  Anybody know?  I have some theories, but none are confirmed:

1.  Choked to death on a cock
2.  Died of ruptured colon; lubricated own dice tower and then sat on it
3.  TDS-induced stroke
4.  Not dead, but fired from RPG.net for sexual harassment of women (typical behavior for male feminists)

Dude, quit stalking your ex.

[Ratman_tf]

It's about to get worse now that Roe has been overturned.  Get ready for riots all weekend long.

I should have bought a shotgun while I had coronabux.

[Chris24601]

Also, I am like, 99.9% sure that if anybody tried to bring up CAF on police reform on RPG.net, they would immediately be at best chided for steering the conversation away from their subject of worship, minority victimization. Or heck, how a more widespread use the 2nd amendment can help take the burden off police, which I think is part of what SHARK just posted. Most direct crimes that fail, and many never attempted, are stopped with a gun, either its use or just its presence.

Just find a case where CAF was used by the police against a minority and talk about that minorities right to due process were violated by the police who used the ill-gotten gains to fund something extremely anti-woke.

Sometimes the best use for trolls is to convince them your enemy is their enemy.

[KindaMeh]

Also, I am like, 99.9% sure that if anybody tried to bring up CAF on police reform on RPG.net, they would immediately be at best chided for steering the conversation away from their subject of worship, minority victimization. Or heck, how a more widespread use the 2nd amendment can help take the burden off police, which I think is part of what SHARK just posted. Most direct crimes that fail, and many never attempted, are stopped with a gun, either its use or just its presence.

Just find a case where CAF was used by the police against a minority and talk about that minorities right to due process were violated by the police who used the ill-gotten gains to fund something extremely anti-woke.

Sometimes the best use for trolls is to convince them your enemy is their enemy.

Fair point. Though I guess the second amendment might still be a hard sell. Opposition to it is almost also innate left wing doctrine these days. "But [insert recent mass shooting here]!" Nevermind that mass shootings constitute less than 1% of gun homicides and less of overall homicides. Or that rifles, never mind assault rifles, were used in only roughly a quarter.