1. So, indeed, you are purposefully trying to dishonestly limit the question to inside agitators? Why would you do that?
2. Nope. I saw it, and indeed, you probably saw it too. We both know that the leftards in the goverment normally would use that as an excuse to bring the hammer down, and instead they gave him a slap on the wrist.
3. You want me to do a background check on Epps? As though I would be able to penetrate a professionally done cover identity done with the coopertion of government agencies? I would be flattered by your high opinon of me, except that I know you are just... bullshitting.
4. Yes, you are you. And I can see how you join in the leftard troll games, quite often. LIke this thread, where you are here to riducle the increasingly likely possibility that thee 1/6 riot might have been a pre-planned fbi operation.
reply
share
Skavau (9490)
4 months ago
1. Because you're claiming there were obviously lots of inside agitators but have no evidence other than speculation.
2. Clips or fuck off.
3. So you have no evidence.
4. "Increasingly likely" purely in your own mind.
reply
share
Corbell (8547)
4 months ago
1. I did no such thing. And reserve teh right to cite other factors.
2. Nope. And nope.
3. Sure I do. THe slap on the wrist despite very damning video evidence.
4. If you really believed that, you would have challenged me to cite any other evidence. But you want to limit the discussion, as much as possible. Clearly the response of someone who knows their position is WEAK AS FUCK.
reply
share
Skavau (9490)
4 months ago
1. All you've got is you think he got a low-tier punishment, as did many others - and you've not investigated what they all did.
2. Clips or fuck off.
3. No, you don't. And that's not evidence. I can't comment on this video until you show it to me.
4. Cite "any other evidence" then. Which you have not.
I still maintain that you inadvertently portray the MAGA supporters at the Capitol that day as dumbasses easily manipulated. And I don't care that it offends you because I don't give a flying fuck about what you think.
reply
share
Corbell (8547)
4 months ago
1. i stand by my assumption. And reserve the right to cite other factors.
2. Nope and nope.
3. it is strong evidence.
4. The police attacking hte crowd BEFORE the violence started. The police allowing the rioters to enter. The government not releasing the video. All steps to take only if there were undercover agents in place and/or trying to create a FALSE AND MISLEADING image of the events.
5. You are projecting YOUR assumption on to me, and standing by it, even after I told you I do not share it. THat is you being a dishonest prick.
reply
share
Skavau (9490)
4 months ago
1. Do so then.
2. Clips or fuck off.
3. No, it's not. And I can't comment on this video until you show it to me.
4. Show me a video clip of the police firing on them before anyone did anything. There were also plenty of clips of police trying to stop them from storming the capitol, but they continued to do so.
5. You don't seem to think that the MAGA crowd there being (apparently) so easily manipulated makes them stupid, but I do.
reply
share
Corbell (8547)
4 months ago
1. see #4
2. nope adn nope.
3. Yes, it is. After teh way that the government has demonized these people, for them to give THIS guy, such a light setence, is very strong evidence that he is a government undercover agent.
4. Can't find it. Youtube search just not bringing it up. I will try more later.
5. You take an angry crowd of any group of people, seed it with professional agitators, attack it with rubber bullets and flash bangs, and you can get a violence response. I do not consider being riled up into violence in such a situation to be evidence of any special "stupidity
". So, you are welcome to insult them if you want, but don't pretend that I agree. That would be you being a troll boi.
reply
share
Skavau (9490)
4 months ago
1. Do so then.
2. Fuck off then.
3. No, it's not. WHat you insist without evidence I can dismiss without evidence. Plenty of people had 'lesser' sentences.
4. Not my problem. I can dismiss what you say.
5. And there's no evidence this happened, and you are apparently unable to provide anything.
And I didn't say you agreed.
reply
share
Corbell (8547)
4 months ago
2. no and no.
3. Sure it is. The guy, if he is to be believed, was a FIREBREATHING RADICAL. If anyone should have gotten a harsh sentence, it would have been this guy. Instead, the OPPOSITE.
4. i didn't say it was.
5. You pretend that by dismissing all evidence cited.
6. You have in the past.
reply
share
Skavau (9490)
4 months ago
2. Fuck off them.
3. No-one portrays him this way except the far-right election deniers.
4. So your claims are dismissed.
5. You haven't "cited" any evidence.
6. No, I didn't. Your shitty reading comprehension is not my problem.
reply
share
Corbell (8547)
4 months ago
2. NO.
3. Really? How strange.... how very strange....
4. As standard for a lefty. All evidence dismissed for "reasons", then they crow about lack of evidence. Meanwhile they call people wacist because of.... the most pathetic bullshit excuses ever and expect to be taken seriously.
5. Sure I did. If this was presented by a leftard prosecutor directed at an actual republcians, you would be howling for blood. But since it is going the other direction, you see nothing, you know nothing, those two dots? NOthing to do with each other. Do you think you are fooling ANYONE?
6. Sure you did. Standard lefty behavior. Especially the denying it now. LOL. Typical.
reply
share
Skavau (9490)
4 months ago
2. So why are you replying to me?
3. What? The "left" doesn't spend any time at all thinking about Ray Epps. It's the right-wing conspiracy class that try to portray him as some firebreathing posterboy for January the 6th, presumably in an attempt to elevate his relevance on that day so they can peddle this frivolous conspiracy garbage.
4. You haven't provided any evidence
4b. No, I wouldn't think that. You are not me and don't get to decide what I think, shitbrains.
6. No, I didn't. I never at any point alleged that you think this. Unlike you I am not such an arrogant manipulative prick that I decide to tell other people what they think.
reply
share
Corbell (8547)
4 months ago
2. You are a good representative of the left, an important part of the community. Unfortunately.
3. So the cancel mob types, can see a video of a man screaming to invade the capitoll, and they somehow know to NOT talk about what a bad man he is....?
You know, the way that leftards just know the Party Line and mindless conform to it, is fucking inhuman. What happened to you people? Were your brains replaced with lemming brains?
4. Sure I have. You just dismissed it. I could hand you a bloody knife and you would ask for a lab report on the "red stuff". There can be no "proof" when there is no good faith.
6. Ok. Sure fine. let's move on to the next point of that tactic.
Justify your... premise that possibly being entrapped or led into violence is a sign of stupidity.
reply
share
Skavau (9490)
4 months ago
2. You don't know anything about my wider political values. You've made repeated false assumptions about what I think.
3. Because he wasn't any person of note at all on that day. And you still haven't provided this video of his being truly awful, and until you do, you can shove your textual narrative of it up your ass.
3a. What "party line" are you even on about?
4. You've never got any close to providing evidence for any of your claims relating to this.
6. It's self-explanatory. If you genuinely think that storming the Capitol, smashing through police walls and vandalising equipment inside, and forcing congress to flee is a good idea because some guy shouts at you to do it, you genuinely need your head checked. You talk about the left being lemmings or conforming to the "party line" but then make excuses for, in your mind, thousands of people being manipulated into commiting obvious, serious crimes.
reply
share
tvfan (8510)
4 months ago
"because some guy shouts at you to do it"
They were incited, goaded, and provoked by 220+ federal assets and the capitol police using gas grenades and rubber ammunition against the protestors.
reply
share
robocat893 (13580)
4 months ago
You really are stupid. I guess you saw something different than millions of Americans who watched on live TV exactly what happened on Jan 6. As usual you make outrages claims yet you never back them up.
reply
share
Skavau (9490)
4 months ago
>They were incited, goaded, and provoked by 220 federal assets and the capitol police
Provide evidence that there were "220 federal assets" please.
reply
share
Corbell (8547)
4 months ago
2. My conclusion about you is based on many long discussions we have had. If you don't like it, perhaps you should consider what your behavior is telling people about yourself.
3. "Wasn't a person of note"? He is on tape telling peopel to be more aggressive in the riot. That is at least incitement if not LEADING.
3a. It is a historical reference to the way that you lefties used to toe the party line to new directives from Moscow, like the good little totalitarian serfs that you were/are. You today continue the same behavior, but the control mechanism is.... hidden.
4. Sure I have. You just dismissed it. I could hand you a bloody knife and you would ask for a lab report on the "red stuff". There can be no "proof" when there is no good faith. You are a troll boi.
5. But such riots and "mostly peacefful protests" had been and STILL are normalized in our society. THere have been plenty of instances of lefty "protestors" doing similar actions with little if any reprecussions.
You are just rationalizating your hate of people you hate, after the fact.
reply
share
Skavau (9490)
4 months ago
2. You claimed that I was pro-hamas at one point, completely and utterly speculating with zero evidence. You've completely misunderstood all of my positions on all topics I've ever taken, but that is expected because you are genuinely a moron.
3. Show me this tape you keep screaming about. And one person, one singular person was apparently enough according to you to make thousands of people who are apparently complete lemmings storm the capitol building.
3a. How am I totalitarian? Do you even know what "totalitarian" means?
4. No, you haven't. You've made logic jumps. At no point was anything equivalent to a "bloody knife" provided.
5. So are you now implying because you think riots are normalised (a highly debateable, unevidenced claim in itself) and that people get away with them with no reprecussions (also utterly unevidenced) that justifies the morons at the Capitol on that day being trivially manipulated into disrupting congress in a vain effort to stop the election certification?
Who do I hate? When I have I said I hate anyone?
reply
share
Corbell (8547)
4 months ago
2. I'm sure you gave me good reason to reach that conclusion.
3. You have repeated ridiculed my position by characterizing single points as though I was arguing that this facet ALONE was what caused the riot. I have pointed out each time that I did was NOT claiming that, yet you keep doing that. STOP BEING AN ASSHOLE.
3A. The way you lie to conform to the party line. That is totalitarian beahavior.
4. The slap on the wrist sentence for eppss, is pretty close. And you dismissed it.
5. Stop restating my statements. EVERY TIME YOU DO THAT, you do it wrong.
My point stands. "Mostly peaceful proteests" has been, and still are, normalized. It would not be unreasonable to assume that an angry "protest" could occupy a government building and there to be no serious repreccussions.
reply
share
Skavau (9490)
4 months ago
2. Based on what? You have no fucking idea, you're literally just going "he is left-wing therefore he must support Hamas". It's rooted in your bigotry.
3. So what else caused those people to storm the capitol building?
3a. That's not the definition of totalitarian. And you forget, as usual, that I'm not American and have no binding obligation to the Republicans or the Democrats.
4. There were plenty of "slap on the wrist" sentences.
5. What was wrong here exactly?
5b. This wasn't a "peaceful protest". And if it wasn't "unreasonable", are you saying that they stormed the building with intent expecting it to be acceptable?
reply
share
Corbell (8547)
4 months ago
2. Based on both of ours past behavior.
3. a. violence from the police. b. other agitators. c. possible infiltation of the leading organizations. d. the cops letting the people in.
3a. It might not be the "definition", but it is an important part of what makes totalitarian government possible.
4. Bullshit.
5. Dude. Just stop it. Respond to my points or don't, but stop the restating. you SUCK at it. You are either just an idiot, or using it as a form of lying. Eithe way, fucking stop it.
5. My god, seriously. Stop being a fucking asshole. Of course the riot was not a "mostly peaceful protest". That was my fucking point, you asshole.
"Mostly peaceful protests" ie RIOTS, had/have become normalized, and such behavior was and still is often done without serious concequences.
reply
share
Skavau (9490)
4 months ago
2. Not detailed. Answer me. What have I said that makes you assume I must support Hamas?
3. Provide evidence for the claims that police incited them. Provide evidence of infiltration of the "leading organisation". How does some isolated examples of the cops letting them (which have been misrepresented by the right) justify the many other videos of them forcing their way in?
3a. And the USA does not have a totalitarian government. The point is that you're attributing a tendency towards me that is not what "totalitarian" means.
4. I literally provided a source:
https://time.com/6133336/jan-6-capitol-riot-arrests-sentences/
Plenty of lesser sentences.
5. Right, but you're coming up with post-hoc justifications for why it was not peaceful in this instance.
reply
share
Corbell (8547)
4 months ago
2. I don't remember.
3. Found one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc0mH6BoH-w
You want evidence of possible infiltration? Do you not understand the definition of the word possibe?
3a. Your behavior is the type of behahvior that totalitarians want from their serfs. You are giving it to them.
4. With no evidence of similiar incitement by the others, so, your source is not actually a source that supports your claim.
5. We were discussing YOUR point that these people were stupid. KEEP ON POINT. if it had been normalized then expecting to be able to do it, without facing severe penalties, would undermine your point.
reply
share
Skavau (9490)
4 months ago
2. Your typical cop-out. Here's the real answer. You assumed because I am left-wing. That was literally it. No other evaluation was required from you.
3. Need more an overview as to what is going on specifically here.
What's your thought on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iludfj6Pe7w&t=30s
3a. By not agreeing with you on everything, I assume?
4. You literally told me you never read any of the minor charges. And Ray Epps again, is a symbol in your own head, he was anonymous until after the riots when conservative pundits began trawling footage to find him. Suddenly he was some ringleader.
5. They were stupid. Real dumdum fuckheads simpletons who thought raiding the US government to try and overturn an election was clever and would result in little consequences. They are simple minds.
reply
share
Corbell (8547)
4 months ago
2. Or, it was a while ago, and I don't remember.
3. You can see cops throwing flashbangs into the crowd before violence starts.
Your clip? Irrelevant.
3a Dude. I explained the behavior I was discussing, before. YOu are doing circles to... be a fag.
4. My point stands. Epps got a slap on the wrist for some of the most extreme behavior.
5. I like that you just dropped out of the discussion and simply reasserted your initial claim. That was an admission that you already lost the debate. Thanks.
reply
share
Skavau (9490)
4 months ago
2. Literally all of your accusations against me on everything are rooted purely on because I'm left-wing. Nothing more. As well as your accusations about me "hating" anyone, or your accusing me of wanting to persecute people based on zero evidence but your own prejudice.
3. You don't know what else is going on, whether or not they've rejected any orders from the police.
How is my clip irrelevant?
3a. Yes, your point here is that I don't think that January the 6th is a setup. Therefore according to you I am nothing more than a puppet. Anyone who disagrees with you on this is a puppet.
4. You literally told me you never read any of the minor charges. And Ray Epps again, is a symbol in your own head, he was anonymous until after the riots when conservative pundits began trawling footage to find him. Suddenly he was some ringleader.
5. "Oh we can raid the capitol and nothing will happen to us because there were riots going on elsewhere in the USA at different points". Genuinely braindead logic, if that was their logic (which you seem to be alleging it was).
reply
share
Corbell (8547)
4 months ago
2. False.
3. I see one slap on the wrist for a serious crime. Y ou assume others. I do not.
It does not address...anything. irrelevant.
3a That was not my point re : your behavior. Your stonewalling is noted.
4. Your stonewalling is noted.
5. "Mostly peaceful protests" were normalized. Stop playing dumb and address this, or just fuck off. We are runnign out of space.
reply
share
Skavau (9490)
4 months ago
2. Not remotely.
3. No-one thinks he did anything "serious" other than the reactionary brigade online. Again:
You literally told me you never read any of the minor charges. And Ray Epps again, is a symbol in your own head, he was anonymous until after the riots when conservative pundits began trawling footage to find him. Suddenly he was some ringleader.
3a. And what was your point?
4. You literally told me you never read any of the minor charges. And Ray Epps again, is a symbol in your own head, he was anonymous until after the riots when conservative pundits began trawling footage to find him. Suddenly he was some ringleader.
5. They also weren't directed at the Capitol building and didn't cause members of congress to flee for their lives. They also weren't about an attempt to stop election certification. You have to be genuinely braindead to think that wouldn't be as a collective action, taken very seriously.
reply
share
Corbell (8547)
4 months ago
2. False.
3. Your blather is noted. THe slap on the wrist is still srong evidence of him being an undercover agent.
3a Your stonewalling is noted.
4. Your stonewalling is noted.
5. You are just lying now.
reply
share
Skavau (9490)
4 months ago
2. So why do you make up shit about me then?
3. You literally told me you never read any of the minor charges. And Ray Epps again, is a symbol in your own head, he was anonymous until after the riots when conservative pundits began trawling footage to find him. Suddenly he was some ringleader.
4. You literally told me you never read any of the minor charges. And Ray Epps again, is a symbol in your own head, he was anonymous until after the riots when conservative pundits began trawling footage to find him. Suddenly he was some ringleader.
5. Lying about what?
reply
share
Corbell (8547)
4 months ago
out of time, you lose. you had your chance and you decided to shit talk.
reply
share
Skavau (9490)
4 months ago
2. So why do you make up shit about me then?
3. You literally told me you never read any of the minor charges. And Ray Epps again, is a symbol in your own head, he was anonymous until after the riots when conservative pundits began trawling footage to find him. Suddenly he was some ringleader.
4. You literally told me you never read any of the minor charges. And Ray Epps again, is a symbol in your own head, he was anonymous until after the riots when conservative pundits began trawling footage to find him. Suddenly he was some ringleader.
5. Lying about what?
reply
share