Do you know your A..B..C..s ?

[Into the Night]

You are now consistently violating Into the Night's mantras by once again declaring yourself the victor.
According to Into the Night that means you have lost.

Word stuffing.

Pointing to your specific posts where you contradict yourself is hardly chanting.

He isn't contradicting himself. YOU are.

1. You said no video could be shown of anyone committing violence that has been arrested and arraigned.

No such video yet.

2. You were shown a video of someone committing violence and you argued that a window is furniture

Breaking a window isn't necessarily violence.

3. You claimed that the law must be read as is and not interpreted.

Word stuffing. He made no such claim.

4. You admitted that a window is property.

So?

5. The law clearly states that physical acts that destroy property are considered violence.

No such law.

6. The only conclusion is that you have been shown a video that shows violence and the person perpetrating that violence was arrested and arraigned.

No such video.

7. You try to pretend you weren't shown evidence by moving the goal posts.

Fallacy fallacy. No goal posts were moved (except by you, as semantics fallacies).

8. You declare yourself the victor while not making any valid argument that property destruction is not violence.

He is the victor. He already made a valid argument. Property destruction is not necessarily violence.

I will be happy to link to your specific posts if you deny that they exist. Unlike you and Into the Night, I support my claims

Blatant lie.

and don't just post RQAA when there is no evidence of the question ever being answered.

Redefinition fallacy. Random phrase. No apparent coherency.

 

[IBDaMann]

OK... So the meaning of the second amendment then means people can keep their arms and it has nothing to do with guns.

Nope. English speakers are humans who understand context and who understand the 2nd Amendment upon reading it.

I'll tell you what, let me ask a few English-speaking teenagers if they simply and immediately understand the 2nd Amendment, and I'll get back to you with my results.

As promised, I am getting back to you with my results. Six English-speaking teenagers (younger than sixteen) were quizzed on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, and were barred from using the internet or any other reference. I'm happy to announce that every single one nailed the exact meaning on the first reading, without needing to read the 2nd Amendment a second time. None were even confused by the clause "shall not be infringed." The results were rather conclusive.

 

[IBDaMann]

Tell us the person that was given a 3 year prison sentence for entering the building.

That was very slippery of you, Agent Starling. People who peacefully entered a public building, because they were allowed entry by the police who opened the doors for them, were nonetheless tried on absurd, trumped-up charges of "violently rioting," convicted, and handed multi-year sentences.

The most notable was Jacob Chansley. He too was welcomed into the Capitol by the Capitol police. For that, he was handed a 41-month sentence for his violent rioting, despite the prosecution acknowledging that he wasn't ever actually violent in any way ... but that he was a conservative DARING to protest a stolen election, who ignored repeated orders to leave the building, so the multi-year prison sentence of violently rioting was more or less a minimum requirement.

Chansley is lucky, I suppose; he could have received the death penalty, as Ashli Babbitt did for jumping vertically. Our tyrannical multi-tiered justice system authorized extra-judicial executions for expediency.

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to support your nonsense claim but at least I asked.

I support every single argument I make. You haven't supported any argument you have made. You have only quibbled over the semantics about which you constantly pivot.

Hint - you will not be able to find a single person sentenced to 3 years or more for just entering the building.

Hint - this topic will not go well for you, just as the previous one did not and as the one before that did not.

If you want to up your game, I recommend honesty.

 

[Into the Night]

As promised, I am getting back to you with my results. Six English-speaking teenagers (younger than sixteen) were quizzed on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, and were barred from using the internet or any other reference. I'm happy to announce that every single one nailed the exact meaning on the first reading, without needing to read the 2nd Amendment a second time. None were even confused by the clause "shall not be infringed." The results were rather conclusive.

Did you note the panic on their faces when they were told they can't use the internet?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

As promised, I am getting back to you with my results. Six English-speaking teenagers (younger than sixteen) were quizzed on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, and were barred from using the internet or any other reference. I'm happy to announce that every single one nailed the exact meaning on the first reading, without needing to read the 2nd Amendment a second time. None were even confused by the clause "shall not be infringed." The results were rather conclusive.

ROFLMAO.
Thanks for the "holy link."

Did any of them raise their arms when they had a question?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

That was very slippery of you, Agent Starling. People who peacefully entered a public building, because they were allowed entry by the police who opened the doors for them, were nonetheless tried on absurd, trumped-up charges of "violently rioting," convicted, and handed multi-year sentences.

The most notable was Jacob Chansley. He too was welcomed into the Capitol by the Capitol police. For that, he was handed a 41-month sentence for his violent rioting, despite the prosecution acknowledging that he wasn't ever actually violent in any way ... but that he was a conservative DARING to protest a stolen election, who ignored repeated orders to leave the building, so the multi-year prison sentence of violently rioting was more or less a minimum requirement.

Chansley is lucky, I suppose; he could have received the death penalty, as Ashli Babbitt did for jumping vertically. Our tyrannical multi-tiered justice system authorized extra-judicial executions for expediency.


I support every single argument I make. You haven't supported any argument you have made. You have only quibbled over the semantics about which you constantly pivot.


Hint - this topic will not go well for you, just as the previous one did not and as the one before that did not.

If you want to up your game, I recommend honesty.

Let's go to the video....
Rioters break the window, crawl through and then open the door with no police around. The judge ruled on this and called Chansley a liar for claiming the police opened the door and waved them in.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

That was very slippery of you, Agent Starling. People who peacefully entered a public building, because they were allowed entry by the police who opened the doors for them, were nonetheless tried on absurd, trumped-up charges of "violently rioting," convicted, and handed multi-year sentences.

The most notable was Jacob Chansley. He too was welcomed into the Capitol by the Capitol police. For that, he was handed a 41-month sentence for his violent rioting, despite the prosecution acknowledging that he wasn't ever actually violent in any way ... but that he was a conservative DARING to protest a stolen election, who ignored repeated orders to leave the building, so the multi-year prison sentence of violently rioting was more or less a minimum requirement.

Chansley is lucky, I suppose; he could have received the death penalty, as Ashli Babbitt did for jumping vertically. Our tyrannical multi-tiered justice system authorized extra-judicial executions for expediency.


I support every single argument I make. You haven't supported any argument you have made. You have only quibbled over the semantics about which you constantly pivot.


Hint - this topic will not go well for you, just as the previous one did not and as the one before that did not.

If you want to up your game, I recommend honesty.

Here is another video where we can see Chansley enter the door that rioters kicked open

 

[IBDaMann]

Let's go to the video....

This is nothing beyond CNN's dishonesty ... and now yours as well. I appreciate you illuminating the sham nature of the expedient verdicts that convicted conservative protesters on nothing more than a judge's baseless declaration of guilt, with no evidence of having committed a crime ... the mere accusation was sufficient to hand down a multi-year sentence for violence, even while acknowledging a lack of any violence.

 

[IBDaMann]

Here is another video where we can see Chansley enter the door that rioters kicked open

That was not one of the doors the police opened, or had opened yet. Yes, if those protesters had waited for the police to open that door as well, or had meandered over to one of the open doors, they would not have been guilty of damaging property. Nonetheless, the video clearly shows that Chansley was not one of those who damaged property, and was only guilty of entering a public building.

The video clearly shows that the police had already opened doors and were there to expect, and to control the entering public.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

That was not one of the doors the police opened, or had opened yet. Yes, if those protesters had waited for the police to open that door as well, or had meandered over to one of the open doors, they would not have been guilty of damaging property. Nonetheless, the video clearly shows that Chansley was not one of those who damaged property, and was only guilty of entering a public building.

The video clearly shows that the police had already opened doors and were there to expect, and to control the entering public.

The video shows the police opened that door?
The video clearly shows that the rioters, broke the window, climbed through the window and then kicked the door until it opened. The police did not open the door. Chansley did not see any police officers open a door. Chansley did not see any police officer wave people into the building.
Chansley was not waved into the US Capitol by any police officer. Your claim that he was is a lie.

Then you seem to have a problem with the way time works.
At 2:11 Dominic Pezolla breaks the window.
At 2:12 the first person climbs through the window.
At 2:13 Chansley enters the US Capitol.
This is the first time that anyone enters the Capitol.
At 2:15 another door is broken into using a hammer.
None of the other rioters or "tourists" has entered the Capitol prior to 2:15. The first entrance was through violent means of breaking a window and kicking a door open.

Please provide your time stamped video showing police officers waving people into the US Capitol on Jan 6 that is prior to 2:11pm.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

This is nothing beyond CNN's dishonesty ... and now yours as well. I appreciate you illuminating the sham nature of the expedient verdicts that convicted conservative protesters on nothing more than a judge's baseless declaration of guilt, with no evidence of having committed a crime ... the mere accusation was sufficient to hand down a multi-year sentence for violence, even while acknowledging a lack of any violence.

LOL. So we shouldn't believe our lying eyes.
You are too funny with your claims that the videos don't show violence when even your HS students that you supposedly polled would recognize that video as containing violent acts. I get the feeling you didn't actually look at the video that was released by the Jan 6th committee that shows the door being broken open.

The evidence was enough for a jury to convict Chansley. That evidence included multiple videos of him contributing to or benefiting from violence in the commission of his crimes.

 

[IBDaMann]

That was not one of the doors the police opened, or had opened yet.

The video shows the police opened that door?

Let me know when you learn how to read.

 

[IBDaMann]

LOL. So we shouldn't believe our lying eyes.

LOL. You should actually read my post.

 

[IBDaMann]

This is the first time that anyone enters the Capitol.

Nope. There were people already inside who obviously entered through different doors.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Nope. There were people already inside who obviously entered through different doors.

Care to tell us when those people entered? Care to tell us who they were? Please provide a time stamped video that shows any of the rioters entering prior to 2:11
Your claim is unsupported by any facts.
The timeline of the attack on the Capitol says the first breach was at 2:11 when Michael Sparks in the video enters through the window.
Other rioters and people that would be later arrested didn't enter until after that first breach.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Let me know when you learn how to read.

At this point your arguments are non existent but just trolling. I wonder which Mantras this post of yours violates.

 

[Hume]

At this point your arguments are non existent but just trolling. I wonder which Mantras this post of yours violates.

IBdaMoron

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

That was very slippery of you, Agent Starling. People who peacefully entered a public building, because they were allowed entry by the police who opened the doors for them, were nonetheless tried on absurd, trumped-up charges of "violently rioting," convicted, and handed multi-year sentences.

The most notable was Jacob Chansley. He too was welcomed into the Capitol by the Capitol police.


If you want to up your game, I recommend honesty.

I am still waiting for your evidence that shows a police officer opening the door for Chansley and waving him in as you claim.
At this point you seem to have abandoned your lie because you know it is a lie.
There is no evidence of Chansley entering through a door opened by the police.
There is no evidence of Chansley being welcomed into the Capitol by the police.
The police didn't arrest him while he was in the Capitol because they were badly outnumbered.

As someone we both know once said.
If you want to up your game, I recommend honesty.

But I am guessing you won't be honest and admit you lied about Chansley being welcomed by police.

 

[IBDaMann]

But I am guessing you won't be honest and admit you lied about Chansley being welcomed by police.

You still have to show that Chansley, who received a 41-month sentence for violently rioting, was guilty of something other than entering a public building.

Until you do, which you cannot, Chansley was just one of many citizens who were politically persecuted and imprisoned by a tyrannical government for DARING to protest the stolen election that we all observed.

Stay focused. I know I will.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You still have to show that Chansley, who received a 41-month sentence for violently rioting, was guilty of something other than entering a public building.

Until you do, which you cannot, Chansley was just one of many citizens who were politically persecuted and imprisoned by a tyrannical government for DARING to protest the stolen election that we all observed.

Stay focused. I know I will.

ROFLMAO.
I see you have decided to abandon your claim since you can't defend it. So much for your "focus."
Nice try but no dice on your attempt to move the goal posts.

This was YOUR claim that you can't defend.
People who peacefully entered a public building, because they were allowed entry by the police who opened the doors for them, were nonetheless tried on absurd, trumped-up charges of "violently rioting," convicted, and handed multi-year sentences.

The most notable was Jacob Chansley. He too was welcomed into the Capitol by the Capitol police.

When you can defend your claim then I will allow you to change the topic to what Chansley actually did. It seems you don't even know what he was convicted of since you keep demanding to be shown what he did other than just entering the building.
Hint - Chansley wasn't convicted for violence or for trespassing. He was convicted for actions that took place while he was in the US Capitol.