Open letter from a January 6 political prisoner to Americans

| October 1, 2021

Jonathan Mellis, one of the January 6 (J6) political prisoners, provides his account in a letter to the American people. The ones doing the detaining do not appear to be abiding by their own procedures. The letter also details how the animosity against those who support Trump drives their actions when dealing with these detainees. Other J6 political prisoners describe this jail as “DC Gitmo”.

Jonathan Mellis open Letter:

“My name in Jonathan Mellis. I am a January 6 Capitol detainee being held in the DC jail. In the last 7 months I have experienced and witnessed the most inhumane and hateful treatment of my 34 years of life.

The DOJ and the Biden Administration are doing everything in their power to break me.

I write this from solitary confinement on September 15 with no clear explanation as to why I’ve been isolated or how long I will be here. I have been locked in this small concrete cell for over a month at this point. They call solitary confinement “the hole”. This is totally appropriate because I feel like I have been dropped to the bottom of a deep and dark hole in the ground and forgotten. I am alone. My mind is all I have to keep me company. And that can become quite a scary thing after weeks all alone. What makes this much worse is that I’m not told exactly why I was put down here or when this lonely torture will end. Every deadline given by the policy book to the jail to explain to me why I am in solitary confinement has been totally ignored. If I were in trouble I would have been served a Disciplinary Report within 2 days. I was not. I should have been seen by the Housing Board within 7 days. I was not. I get no answers. All I get is lied to by Sergeants and Lieutenants.

This kind of isolation and disrespect is very harmful to one’s mind and body. At first being locked in a small moldy cell is horrible and sad. You miss human interaction and your mind is racing. After a while this turns into desperate loneliness and frustration. You get headaches for days at a time and try to sleep all day. It has become a real depression. You feel worthless and ignored. Then as your energy starts to come back from sleeping all the time, it brings with it a ball of rage in your gut. You feel injured, angry, and helpless. You know you are being mistreated and there is nothing you can do about it. Your head hurts and your back muscles are tense. All the normal things in your life that give you stress are amplified and you are now consumed by bad and negative emotions. They are really hurting you. There is the feeling that you just want to collapse emotionally and physically. You just want to give up. The 4 walls of this concrete box are closing in on you. Your skin is crawling and you feel claustrophobic. It’s a nightmare.

How long will they make me do this? I don’t know. But I already know from experience that all of us January 6 detainees were held on solitary confinement until July. So I know first hand how long these monsters are willing to do this to me. This is inhumane and people think its OK because I’m a Trump supporter. I love people and I try to live a virtuous life. But because I like Trump they don’t see me as human. They enjoy watching me suffer. It makes them smile. How sick is that? The pure hate within the Justice Department is obvious in their actions. They are a sadistic bunch. It’s actually quite scary. There were over 500 violent riots last year. All of them were Left wing. Nobody is searching for these people. As a matter of fact, anyone who was arrested has most likely had their charges dropped. They were even encouraged by the Democrat politicians. They were applauded as they burned buildings down, destroyed businesses, killed people, and looted cities. They attacked police officers and took over police precincts. But nobody is sitting in jail for it. Much less being subjected to the inhumane treatment we Trump supporters experience. We live in constant fear of being shackled and beaten by the correctional officers. This has already happened. Several of us have been beaten by the correctional officers. Yet nobody really cares because we are Trump supporters.

I am currently engaged in a deep spiritual battle. I will not let evil win. I am strong. But it is hard. They want to break me. I will not let them. My love for this country will never end. Please do not believe everything you read about me in the news. They are crucifying me before my trial. I was trying to help the people being crushed by police.

I also am pleading for any help you can afford (even it is just a few dollars) to help with my legal bills so I can get justice. There is no where else I can turn than to my fellow citizens. Please pray for me on the outside.

Strength and Honor,
Jonathan Mellis #376907.”

The Gateway Pundit has the article here.

Category: "The Floggings Will Continue Until Morale Improves"

Comments (241)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. C2Show says:

    Cause and effect isn’t it?

    He probably wish could go back in time…

    • USMC Steve says:

      Not sure how you arrive at that, since his treatment is entirely illegal and against his constitutional rights. Maybe that is what is throwing you.

      They have no evidence against him or any of them, or they would have been indicted and seen the inside of a courtroom by now. This is the sort of shit that makes people want to kill cops. Typical third world law “enforcement”.

      • 5JC says:

        He was trying to kill cops before he was locked up so his perception of being mistreated by Correction Officers (not police) is one in which may be colored by his personal view of his life events. Generally IME people who are locked up are the biggest victims of all, just ask them. Nothing is ever their fault, it’s the crooked ass system.

        He’s been indicted. Read all about it.

        https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1377796/download

        That video of him the police in the face with the big stick is pretty persuasive evidence.

        Since we only have one half of a story about the conditions and reasons of his incarceration I’m gonna reserve judgment and not send him any of my hard earned bread for legal fees for “Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding
        Certain Officers Using a Dangerous
        Weapon”. My hypocrisy only goes so far…

        • 5JC says:

          …video of him hitting police in the face…

        • thebesig says:

          5JC: He was trying to kill cops before he was locked up

          They show him with a stick (photo). What they don’t show are videos of him assaulting a police officer. We have descriptions of him “trying to hit an officer in the neck”. We need to see a video of him doing that. We’d get that from body camera footage.

          5JC: so his perception of being mistreated by Correction Officers (not police) is one in which may be colored by his personal view of his life events.

          This isn’t the only account of mistreatment, against the J6 political prisoners, that I’ve came across. Others have complained about being restrained, brought to a cell, and being assaulted by the corrections officers. This has caught the attention of some in Congress, who tried to pay the J6 prisoners a visit.

          5JC: Generally IME people who are locked up are the biggest victims of all, just ask them. Nothing is ever their fault, it’s the crooked ass system.

          Not enough information, in the links you or others provided, supports your insinuation that this guy is one of them. Additionally, when others in the system are lobbing the same or similar complaints, we can’t just dismiss this as someone blaming others but himself.

          When looking at the bigger picture… FBI quickness to bring these folk into justice, then hold them for a long time… But see a lack of willingness to act as quick and to hold as long those who protested and rioted for the other side of the argument… multiple accounts of this kind of treatment become legitimate.

          5JC: He’s been indicted. Read all about it.

          Yes, I’ve went through the indictment. As far as the “evidence” the document has, it’s a joke compared to the mountains of evidence that the Trump team had in their lawsuits against election fraud. We saw what happened with those lawsuits. When they refuse to release the video of the defendant doing what they’ve indicted him for, the indictment means nothing.

          The 6th Amendment to the Constitution allows a defendant to get witnesses in his favor. This applies to body camera video. His side has not been able to do that.

          5JC: That video of him the police in the face with the big stick is pretty persuasive evidence.

          Other than news segments showing him with a stick, we don’t see him hitting the officers. Still shots don’t cut it. The actual video showing him actually striking/hitting an officer has to be shown.

          5JC: Since we only have one half of a story about the conditions and reasons of his incarceration I’m gonna reserve judgment

          You’re willing to render judgement based on still shots, without getting rolling video of his actions, yet here you are saying that you’re going to withhold your judgement due to this being “half a story”.

          If you’re willing to hold judgment, then you would not be insinuating that he actually assaulted an officer without seeing video of the stick hitting the officer.

          5JC: and not send him any of my hard earned bread for legal fees for “Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers Using a Dangerous Weapon”.

          Although the guy is asking for money for his legal fees, I posted about his situation as it is not an isolated event. This is a common complaint among those being detained in that jail. Not to help him obtain money for his defense.

          Again, if you were willing to withhold judgment until you get the complete picture, you would not be accusing him of assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers with a dangerous weapon.

          • 5JC says:

            If your argument is that people who attacked the government, law enforcement officers and people in authority are having a tough time dealing with confinement… really… shocked I am…

            So far as the legal process goes “we need to see evidence stuff” is not how the system works. You actually don’t.

            If his letter was taking responsibility for what he did or some kind of proof of what he was alleging I’d be more inclined to be sympathetic. Without either it’s just a bunch of nonsense.

            • thebesig says:

              5JC: If your argument is that people who attacked the government, law enforcement officers and people in authority are having a tough time dealing with confinement… really… shocked I am…

              Wrong. Go back and read my post, thoroughly, this time without emotions raging through you. Nowhere, in my post, do I condone attacking officials. However, no matter what you think of the person, or their actions, there are laws on how they are supposed to be treated.

              If one guy is complaining, that’s one thing. If multiple people essentially complain about the same things, and the complaints centered on actions that go counter to how detainees/prisoners should be treated, this is not something that should be “dismissed”.

              5JC: So far as the legal process goes “we need to see evidence stuff” is not how the system works. You actually don’t.

              This is applicable in a third world country, or a country like China. Our Founding Fathers had a reason for requiring speedy trials, for presenting evidence to justify holding the accused, and for allowing the accused to bring forth witnesses.

              This isn’t just a concept that’s based on the US Constitution. This is also based on God’s Law. A thorough search for the truth has to be conducted before judgement is rendered on something.

              If this is not how our justice system works, then we are not that far off from being like China or like a third world country.

              5JC: If his letter was taking responsibility for what he did

              He did take responsibility for what he did. He stated such in his social media. However, the purpose of the letter is consistent with that by others who issued similar complaints.

              5JC: or some kind of proof of what he was alleging I’d be more inclined to be sympathetic.

              His complaint is over the fact that the prison folks are not even abiding by their own rules regarding the treatment of prisoners. One could look at his complaint, as well as that of others, and reasonably conclude that they are violating his constitutional rights. If his complaint was the only one of that nature, that would be one thing. But there are multiple complaints of this nature.

              This may be acceptable in China, or in a third world country. If we are to abide by the Constitution, this should not be acceptable. It definitely should not be acceptable if the corrections officers think that they’re Christians.

              When the prison staff refuse to even let congress-personel into the prison, what makes you think that they would turn over video or other evidence incriminating themselves?

              5JC: Without either it’s just a bunch of nonsense.

              Wrong. You’re advancing a strawman argument. One point, behind his writing his letter, and my posting it, is the fact that we have corrections officers acting like they are staff in a third world prison, and this is not an anomaly. There are others who issued similar complaints.

              Another point is that this treatment, based on multiple complaints, and on the actions taken by the prison when some people from Congress tried to check on the prisoners, is excessive given their alleged crimes.

              Labeling their actions as “an insurrection” should cause red flags to go up, treating them as if they tried to commit “insurrection” when they were protesting the disenfranchisement of their votes should result in red flags going up.

              • 5JC says:

                When you start prattling on about God’s law and making false accusations about me being emotional you really lose me.

                There is nothing in the Constituion about Congressmen visiting prisoners, prosecutors releasing evidence to the public (indeed this is the opposite of the way the constitution works)

                If you want to pretend dude wasn’t hitting the police in the face with a stick go ahead. Other people suffering from self delusions will likely agree.

                • thebesig says:

                  5JC: When you start prattling on about God’s law

                  If you read the Declaration of Independence, you see a phrase that makes our Constitution relevant… The part about our having natural rights and that governments are set up to ensure that we have these rights.

                  Our Founding Fathers understood the Bible more than most people today. The parts of that statement, regarding rights, is traceable to Genesis, one of the verses describes our mission (work as a service to humanity) and another (which fruits to consume) justifies the moral foundation that the Founding Fathers used to craft the Constitution.

                  It is designed to ensure God’s will… That we have maximum freedom to use our God given talents to be productive, to create abundance, and to engage in society via capitalism (trading goods and services).

                  Our Constitution created a governing system that was not a right side up pyramid with the federal government lording over us, but a governing system represented by an upside-down pyramid… The government at the bottom serving the states and the people… Hence the fact that the Constitution assigns the bulk of the power and sovereignty in the hands of the people and of the State.

                  Your argument, which I rebutted, justifies a government that lords over us, which is inconsistent with the Constitution and with the Founding Father’s intent.

                  5JC: and making false accusations about me being emotional you really lose me.

                  Your response consisted of rebuttals to arguments that I was not making. You can’t even infer that I was making those arguments. The fact that your response was so far off base indicates that you read my post with emotions raging through you, and you responded accordingly.

                  These are not false accusations, but an observation I’ve made of people who have responded to me in a similar way over the past 18 years of my debating online.

                  5JC: There is nothing in the Constituion about Congressmen visiting prisoners,

                  As representatives of the people, who make the laws at the federal level, they have every right to do spot checks on compliance with the law, or compliance with the Constitution. This is one of the reasons to why they have hearings in Congress on matters that impact the people. This is a reason to why they checked on a prison that is accused of violating people’s Constitutional rights.

                  5JC: prosecutors releasing evidence to the public (indeed this is the opposite of the way the constitution works)

                  This is an example of what I meant when I accurately called you out for reading my posts with emotions raging through you, followed by replying with emotions raging through you. Since you got emotional again, with my telling you to go back and read what you replied to, I’m going to spell it out to you.

                  First, what I said:

                  “This is applicable in a third world country, or a country like China. Our Founding Fathers had a reason for requiring speedy trials, for presenting evidence to justify holding the accused, and for allowing the accused to bring forth witnesses.

                  “This isn’t just a concept that’s based on the US Constitution. This is also based on God’s Law. A thorough search for the truth has to be conducted before judgement is rendered on something.” — Thebesig

                  If you read both statements with the intention of understanding what I said, you would’ve understood that I was talking about the subject detainee’s right to see all the evidence against him. I even talked about his right to obtain body cam footage of the incident related to him.

                  HINT 01: Read my posts without emotions raging through you. Step away from the computer screen if you have to and stay away for 15 to 30 minutes. Come back and read my statement again. If you feel emotions raging through you, repeat this step. This should lead you to the next hint.

                  HINT 02: Address what I actually said, and not what you think I said. Not reading my counter rebuttal to you without raging emotions flowing through you would help.

                  5JC: If you want to pretend dude wasn’t hitting the police in the face with a stick go ahead.

                  What I said:

                  “Other than news segments showing him with a stick, we don’t see him hitting the officers. Still shots don’t cut it. The actual video showing him actually striking/hitting an officer has to be shown.” — thebesig

                  This is me saying that I need to see the event that included him hitting the officer with the stick per the accusations being lobbed at him… He went on offense and attacked an officer “unprovoked” brutally hard (deadly weapon claim).

                  What has to be proven? That not only did he strike the officer, he did so with the intent to do serious bodily harm to include the possibility of killing the person he was attacking.

                  The video, showing everything in context, shows him joining forces with other posters in reaction to seeing police officers acting recklessly and dangerously. He, along with others, attempted to get the officers to stop acting recklessly, and to allow them to pull people to safety. He used the stick to push officers back, that part is visible. On the part where he is swinging, we don’t see him repeatedly striking an officer… I’ll need to see body camera footage showing that.

                  However, if you read the article that I linked to above, you’d learn that even the prosecutor did not challenge his statement that the officer was not injured.

                  I showed a video that is over 7 minutes below that suggests that he was acting as a reasonable person would. Towards the end of that video, you see a police officer doing what the protestors were trying to do… Restrain the other police officers.

                  If you understood what you were reading, something I know for a fact is generated so that a fifth grader would understand what is being said, you would understand that I was waiting for better information sources other than photo still shots to make a personal judgement of what happened.

                  Reading comprehension… It’s a drug.

                  5JC: Other people suffering from self delusions will likely agree.

                  Wrong. The only person, between the two of us, that is self-delusional is you. Your reading my posts with emotions raging through you, then responding with emotions raging through you, resulted in your self-inflicted self-delusion.

                  Understand that those who are foolish enough to argue with me expose their apparent psychological profiles to me. This has been the case over the 18 years I’ve debated with others online. You’ve reacted exactly the way I’ve seen others react when they got emotional.

                  You’ve provided hints, in this most recent reply, of the fact that you got emotional. Your responses on this thread, especially towards me, indicates a person with anger issues, control issues, and excessive ego issues.

          • rgr769 says:

            Any prosecutor worth his salt could get an indictment on a ham sandwich. I found I could always win in court when I had no opposition. Obtaining an indictment is akin to getting a default judgment in a civil lawsuit.

      • 5JC says:

        AH, and your knowledge of how the justice system works is a little off. Normally the offender isn’t around when an indictment is handed down by a Grand Jury or whoever the authority is.

        Secondly Mellis waived a pre-trial detention hearing. This was stupid but it was his choice. I imagine he has some buyers remorse about all that now. So now he gets locked up till his trial unless his lawyer can get another hearing and try to convince them otherwise.

        https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/crime/jonathan-mellis-jcc-capitol-riot-arrest-first-court-hearing/291-cf02228c-30a1-49f5-a055-d1726b9d9001

        I have noticed that most of the people who end up in jail tend to live in the moment and not really think about consequences to their actions.

    • Roh-Dog says:

      Jesus loves you.

    • SFC D says:

      You should probably go back in time and re-think your post. This treatment of a prisoner is illegal and wrong, no matter whose side you’re on.

      • C2Show says:

        Nah, I am good. Go back in time and say the same thing again. He did something he should not have done. He was arrested wrong, completely wrong?

        Pretty sure if anyone who was non-american, or person that isn’t your same skin color (also add in Trump follower)…oh boy you would have a field day on him.

        Mellis should have been at work or doing a job instead of fucking around in DC. End of story, now he has to suffer consequences.

        • SFC D says:

          Not a Trumpist, my skin color is irrelevant. The entire point of this thread was why is this man in solitary confinement when thousands of others involved in larger, much more destructive riots are walking around free, often repeating their destructive behavior. I’m neither accusing Mellis nor defending him. I’m not accusing or defending ANYONE involved in the January 6 bullshit. Punish the guilty, absolve the innocent, but do it fairly and appropriately under the law. I don’t think this is happening. This is vengeance, not justice.

          • rgr769 says:

            Progs always want vengeance against anyone who disagrees with their world view and goals to make us all submit to their socialist dystopian police state.
            Their desire for vengeance is how we got cancel culture.

          • LC says:

            I definitely agree, absent any compelling information showing it’s warranted, that locking someone up in solitary is pretty crazy. Like you said, punish the guilty fairly. Jail seems fair; solitary confinement seems excessive, unless evidence suggests its warranted.

            That said, I’m inclined to take issue with the other point. It’s interesting to me because I often hear my liberal friends complain about the light treatment that Jan 6th rioters are getting, and there are many stories to that affect that they consume, and here, the narrative is flipped, with people complaining about how BLM rioters aren’t being prosecuted. Ultimately, the data is pretty damn fuzzy, and I think one can find lenient -crazily so!- cases in both counts, but the AP did a little digging and has an article here about it:

            https://apnews.com/article/records-rebut-claims-jan-6-rioters-55adf4d46aff57b91af2fdd3345dace8

            Now, it’s not exactly apples-to-apples – we have significantly more information on who entered the Capitol via the massive amount of focused video footage and cell coverage. We don’t exactly have that same surveillance coverage on every city street where BLM riots happened. But, at the end of the day, one thing that jumps out to me is that ‘at least 10 [BLM rioters] have received prison terms of five years or more’, and for the Capitol rioters, so far, only three have faced any sentencing to jail, with the largest being 8 months.

            Incomplete data? Sure. But enough, I think, to call into question the narrative, with so many different variables, that the BLM rioters are handled so much more leniently. It only seems that way when the notable stories of ridiculous leniency are granted. And the conservatives hear those stories about the BLM rioters and think, understandably, “WTF?!”, and the liberals hear the ones about the Capitol rioters and think the same. Looking at the whole picture helps, I think.

            • SFC D says:

              Now compare the numbers of protesters in the BLM riots V. the January 6 dumbasses. I’d say there’s a huge difference between 3 from January 6 and 10 from BLM/ANTIFA. There’s the disparity.

              • LC says:

                What sort of rate do you expect? Per the article, over 70 people from the BLM riots have been sentenced to jail time, vs 3 for the Capitol riots. Is a ~23:1 ratio ‘good’?

                That’s out of at least 17K people arrested across 50 cities, per here:
                https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/investigations/george-floyd-protesters-arrests/

                So,.. less per city, clearly, but is that really a useful metric? The point isn’t that you’re going to find a perfectly fair comparison. I can’t, if cops get met for speeding, I can’t point at other people who were speeding as a way of getting out of it. I also can’t point at how other states maybe charge fewer people for speeding. If I did it, that’s sufficient. Same for this.

                I don’t think anyone is tracking exactly every case in both situations, and somehow coming up with circumstances that fairly compare individual sentences.. but if the notion is that people in the BLM protests got treated more leniently, you need to reconcile that 23:1 ratio and the 8 months vs 5-year sentences. Maybe that changes down the road, with more and more sentencing for the Jan 6th people. But right now, I think it’s clearly unproven that the Jan 6th rioters are being treated more unfairly, given those numbers. What makes you disagree?

                • SFC D says:

                  I’m talking about the number of “protesters”, JAN 6 compared to how many hundreds of thousands in the BLM/ANTIFA riots. The disproportionate numbers arrested and punished. Why so few (comparatively)on the BLM/ANTIFA side?

                  • LC says:

                    Sure, that number likely favors leniency on the side of the BLM rioters. But I’d wager it has a fair bit to do with the lack of evidence.

                    It’s a bit like how I’d expect that if you had thousands of thieves try to break into Fort Knox, they’d be arrested at a higher rate than that same thousand tasked with robbing some random home in a big city. In either case, people are going to get arrested, but let’s be honest about the difference in the level of surveillance and security measures in each location.

                    Riots across Minneapolis were some of the worst – they stretched across a large area, but the majority of the damage was in a 5 mile stretch, including a police building which was burned down. This happened at night, with police spread thin everywhere – they have ~800 officers in total.

                    The Capitol riots, on the other hand, happened during the day time (makes video/photos easier), have more cameras around, the grounds are roughly 0.15 miles in length at their largest point, and the police have over 1800 officers.

                    So, sure, if you think it’s outrageous that crimes that happened in a concentrated area, with more surveillance, more police, and in daylight lead to a higher incidence of arrests than night-time protests spread out across a greater area with a smaller police force and a distinct lack of clear video for facial recognition of most in attendance,… then by all means, be outraged.

                    To me, while I think the situation is fuzzy, and certainly wish more looters / arsonists were arrested during the BLM riots, I can understand why the numbers aren’t comparable. The situations are pretty different, even outside any politics.

                    • thebesig says:

                      Not lack of evidence, but subjectivity in applying the law. I read an article a few months ago about how rioters had charges dismissed against them, including those who were seen committing violent acts. This even occurred at the state level… Many New York rioters had charges dropped against them in a move that annoyed the business owners that had property destroyed.

                      It does not matter if riots were spread over larger areas in 2020, people were being videotaped. Not just by others, but also by the rioters. People were posting their antics on social media and getting identified that way. I saw a video of another riot where you could hear someone, speaking Chinese in the background. People were filming throughout all these riots. There was no shortage of videos.

                      Most of the ANTIFA/BLM rioters are Millennials and Generation Z. Both generations are “upvote addicted”. Many of these folks were out there, filming themselves and others, posting themselves in action on social media so that they could get upvotes. This is how many of them were identified and turned in. Many of the J6 folk were identified this way as well. The wide area that the 2020 protests took place in did not stop multiple recordings of these riots.

                      The cameras, in the Capitol, recorded people walking around inside the building. Many of the videos showing people trying to get in, or coming through broken windows, were taken by personal video recordings. The concentration of cameras at the Capitol, and the number of law enforcement, does not appear to have an impact on the availability of video recording or arrests. Many of the J6 rioters were arrested after the fact, after they had been identified on social media.

                      Using the weighted measures I utilized above, the problem is not the result of “lack of cameras in dark areas” versus “a crap ton of cameras in the Capitol”. It’s from decisions by people in the federal court system.

                • thebesig says:

                  The 23:1 ratio is not accurate given the fact that we’re comparing, according to your post, 50 cities to one city. Dividing 50 cities by 70, we get 0.714. Rounded up that is 1 person per city, for a ratio of 1:3 (2020:J6).

                  You accurately stated, based on your numbers, that we’re dealing with less per city. Yes, it is a more realistic metric than comparing them in totality to the J6 riots. This kind of metric comes closest to what is done in academic research that would be done to test the difference in treatment between the two groups.

                  Your statement that a perfectly fair comparison could not be found is a reason to why researchers would break this down by city… Divide the total 2020 arrests and convictions by city absent more detailed data, or do an actual breakdown by city and use statistical tools such as analysis of variance (ANOVA) to help test for a presence or lack of presence of a difference. Another option they would use is multiply the J6 arrests, and convictions, on a weighted basis… By city, by day.

                  Your “cops caught me speeding I can’t point to others” as an analogy does not fit what is going on between the 2020 rioters and J6 rioters. When talking about drivers, and traffic violations, as they currently occur across the US, we’re talking about state level convictions on nonpartisan issues.

                  Now, if conservatives are given summons, and liberals are given warnings, and this is a constant observable trend, then it would come closer to comparing to 2020 v J6.

                  Originally posted by LC:

                  but if the notion is that people in the BLM protests got treated more leniently, you need to reconcile that 23:1 ratio and the 8 months vs 5-year sentences.

                  See above. The way academic researchers would look at this, to see if they could statistically prove a difference, is to use weighted numbers. Either J6 would be multiplied by the number of cities that saw ANTIFA/BLM arrests, or a single city from the 2020 riots would be compared to J6. As you acknowledged above, the number for the 2020 riots would be smaller.

                  Additionally, both prior criminal records, and nature of plea deal, will influence the length of prison times people will place. Your 8 months number is based on a plea deal that someone made. Chances are that if the BLM side received a 5-year sentence from a plea deal, that was influenced by prior criminal record. It could also be the result of trial and conviction… Something we’re still waiting on for the J6 folks. Remember, “Shaman” is facing 4 to 20 years in prison.

                  Your statement, that it is “clearly unproven” that the J6 political prisoners are being treated more unfairly is a false statement… I detailed, from your own statements, how academic researchers would go about testing for that difference in treatment. What clearly is not proven is the false notion that the J6 folk “have it easier”.

              • LC says:

                And to be clear to your comparison – it was 10 who faced more than five years in prison. The highest so far for the DC dumbasses was 8 months, I think. So, that’s 10:0.

                In terms of jail sentences, it’s 70:3.

                • thebesig says:

                  Originally posted by LC:

                  And to be clear to your comparison — it was 10 who faced more than five years in prison. The highest so far for the DC dumbasses was 8 months, I think. So, that’s 10:0.

                  In terms of jail sentences, it’s 70:3.

                  Again, you’re not factoring in moderating variables such as past criminal history as well the nature of the plea bargains accepted. That’s going to influence the prison sentences handed down to people. One question, that an academic researcher would ask, is what the actual result would be for the 2020 rioters who did not have prior criminal records, who agreed to a plea deal that was accepted by a judge.

                  The latter is what I’m seeing for the J6 sentences. The comparison between the “10 who faced more than five years in prison” versus the guy with an 8-month sentence, is not an accurate comparison.

                  You should divide those 10 S* bags by the number of cities that these riots took place at… Or categorize them by their locality of conviction. Then, take the result and compare them to the J6 rioter you listed as having an 8-month sentence.

                  Keep in mind that many of the people that committed rioting activity among the 2020 rioters were thugs with criminal records. I mean, ignoring the fact that the person they’re protesting for tried to commit theft via counterfeit dollars, then who was not cooperative with law enforcement, who showed signs of being overdosed on drugs?

                  A reasonable person, a law-abiding person, would look at this same situation and would not protest this way, would not riot, or do any other harmful activity over this. However, someone with a criminal past, who normally would be hostile to the police, would ignore that and go out and riot.

            • thebesig says:

              The first part of your statement is a part of the point that I’m making. We hear about people being locked up for months for their participation in the riots. The links that you provided did not adequately address this part of the complaint. If this is not occurring among those who participated in the leftist riots, who commit similar infractions, then there is an imbalance between how the two sides are being treated.

              If this was a matter occurring on both sides, such as hearing numerous instances of people from the left also being held for a long time when it is not warranted, then this is still a problem, but not a partisan one. However, holding the J6 rioters for months, where others would have the opportunity to be out on bond pending their trial, is cause for concern.

              On the AP link regarding the number of people arrested for the 2020 riots, compared to the J6 riot. Comparing them in their totality, total from 2020 riots versus total from J6 riots, you’re making an apples to oranges comparison. You may think otherwise; however, from an academic/scientific standpoint, you have to compare this city by city.

              To simplify this, without pulling actual numbers, let’s say that 1000 people were arrested from 2020, 500 were charged, and 100 convicted to prison terms. For J6, let’s say that 100 people were arrested from January 6, 50 were charged, 10 were convicted to prison terms.

              From the surface, one could point to the disparity and say, “You see, the charges that the government was harder on the J6 rioters than the 2020 rioters is false, look at the numbers!”

              However, from an academic/scientific standpoint, you can’t compare them in totality, but weighed. By that, instead of comparing the entire population of rioters from 2020 to that of the J6, you take it city by city. The more valid action, more consistent to the scientific/academic, is comparing the J6 riots to each individual 2020 riot city.

              Since the J6 riots also took place in just one day, and cities saw multiple riots, you also have to factor in a “per day” comparison.

              All of a sudden, the total numbers that put the 2020 rioters above the J6 in terms of “harshness” fades. Another way to weigh this is by multiplying the numbers, for J6, by the numbers of cities that suffered riots in 2020 as well as “multiply by day”.

              Video Footage

              As for the footage. Yes, the Capitol has cameras all over the place. They also had people on the scene videotaping the events. People were videotaping the 2020 riots. Conservative social media was getting inundated with video footage from the riots from everywhere they were being reported. I’ve even seen podcasts where people did still shots, zoomed in, play by plays, etc., as if they were providing a briefing in a movie scene CIA/FBI tactical operations center.

              Many of the people that were arrested for their involvement with J6 were turned in by those that saw their photos on social media. This occurred against the Antifa/BLM riots where Q types did detailed analysis of faces in photos related to the riots, then finding their social media profiles based on those photos.

              Arrests

              One moderating variable, that is not exactly emphasized in your links, involves the individual cases. Even with the disparity, past record influenced the sentencing. In the J6, for example, one person was put on probation due to not having a criminal record in the past. Another person had a criminal record, so he/she did not get off easy.

              This was also occurring among the Antifa/BLM rioters. The larger sentences for the 2020 rioters, so far, were influenced by previous criminal activity. Among the J6, the convictions came because of plea deals. Folks who bring this to trials and convictions face larger sentences. For example, the “Shaman Man” faces 4 years in jail. The maximum he could face is 20 years in prison.

              You are correct that your link provided incomplete data. However, you are incorrect with the claim that this “calls the narrative” into question. It doesn’t. The AP link advances a strawman argument and leaves out key details so that the reader would conclude what they want the reader to conclude.

              Remember, most news organizations like AP are staffed with journalists that have higher percentages of Democrats in their population than what you’d find in the general population.

              The argument, based on what I stated, still stands. Remove the moderating variables such as a plea deal-based sentencing versus conviction-based sentencing, prior criminal history, how people were treated pretrial, indeed, the J6 rioters are getting harsher treatment than the 2020 rioters.

              Indeed, looking at the whole picture helps; however, this does not mean just looking at two sides of the argument. Looking at the whole picture requires digging deeper for the raw data than what is provided in news articles like what you have linked to.

  2. KoB says:

    FIRST (just kidding)!

    No matter individual opinions on the “riots” of 6 Jan, this individual (and others locked up) have a very valid point…especially in re the REAL riots of the summer of 2020. I spend a good portion of every day curry combing thru 6 maybe 9 news feeds, looking for FGS/DCN or articles of interest to submit to the Admins of this site. Every day I see dozens of stories of the criminal element that get away with genuine murder and mayhem…in many cases, premeditated murder and mayhem.

    The right to a speedy and fair trial is basic to our way of life AND the Law of the Land. Why hasn’t this happened in these cases? I personally think that we have an element in this Country that are taking lessons from what the nazis did in the 1930s, as evidenced in today’s Valor Friday Story. This has to change!

    • Roh-Dog says:

      I think the quicker we realize that we’re living in a post-Law society the easier it’ll be for patriots and freedom-loving people to build parallel systems.

      I mean, they’re calling us ‘american taliban’, so…

      • thebesig says:

        “…we realize that we’re living in a post-Law society…”

        The rightful authority of the Constitution, and rule of law over us, is a point that is being missed by those wanting to denigrate the person talked about in the above post… Rather than zero in on not abiding by the prison’s own rules, and the disregard for the Constitution.

        That’s the elephant in the room that many here want to miss. If anything, actions like this is what will contribute to the beginning of the balkanization of this country.

        Speaking of parallel systems, that’s one of the topics floating on GAB, a parallel Christian society that gradually turns away from the rest of America and more towards other Christians.

    • Mason says:

      What I want to know is why are all these people being held without bail for now going on seven months? Assaulting a police officer, even putting one in the hospital, across this country results in people being released from jail within days if not hours.

      • Roh-Dog says:

        Kinda like trying to block an exit of the Portland Federal Courthouse and set it on fire?
        The Marshals rolled up a dude and the press had a fucking field day over his ‘civul whyts’.

        He was back on the street in hours.

        Cause and effect, ladies and gents. If you realize you’re in an info war and the usual systems of government are broken, this all makes sense.
        They’re looking to provoke responses from ideological foes, IOT subsume more power.
        Sucks for them, the vast majority of Americans aren’t Tim McVeigh.

        • thebesig says:

          The double standard you mention is unfortunately being ignored by many wanting to zero in on the guy who wrote the open letter.

          This is similar to what happened in Venezuela, where thugs/criminals supported by the government were able to get away with committing crimes, but those who did not agree with the government had the law brought down hard on them. Election Fraud is not the only parallel we have to Venezuela.

    • 5JC says:

      KoB this is called false equivalency and is not how the justice system in the United States works (Thank God). Every case is judged on it’s own merits and the conditions of whatever offense was allegedly committed.

      Normally the first thing a criminal will do when caught is point the finger at everyone around them and bemoan the fact that all these other people in the world are doing bad things and yet the law has chosen unfairly to persecute them because of their skin color, gender, education, political beliefs, penis size, sexual appetites… just for starters.

      One of Hitler’s first acts in seizing power was to burn down the congress in a false flag attack. While I don’t think those that attacked the congress here were Nazi’s they did get the script flipped on them quick.

      • OmegaPaladin says:

        False equivalency? We have people who broke into capitol buildings and attacked federal buildings who either got off lightly or in some cases were not prosecuted. I’m not supporting rioters, but I demand one standard for punishing rioters. Selective prosecution / enforcement can be discriminatory as hell.

        What the hell is with your reference to the Reichstag fire? Are there rioters here charged with arson? Are you saying that the rioters were Antifa doing a false flag action?

        • 5JC says:

          We have a truth in labeling problem in the US.

          Antifa are a melting pot of left wing Socialists and communists with no race or national identity. Indeed they are anti-national identity. Some members are far right anarchists.

          Fascists are militarized moderate left Socialists with strong racial or national identity. These are rare birds, mostly black and white power movements.

          Most of the Jan 6 protestors/ rioters appear to have been moderate right populist or patriot movement types with a few far right anarchists. This is Trump’s base. At least one of the anarchists was also in Antifa, probably more than one.

          All of these groups would benefit from undermining the congress.

          • thebesig says:

            5JC: We have a truth in labeling problem in the US.

            Wrong, the problem isn’t with how those you are responding to are labeling things. The problem is with people with reading comprehension problems. You’re advancing strawman arguments against statements that those you responded to are not saying.

            5JC: Antifa are a melting pot of left wing Socialists and communists with no race or national identity. Indeed they are anti-national identity. Some members are far right anarchists.

            Not exactly. Both Antifa and BLM are Marxist organization consisting of people who embrace Marxist principles. That part you got right. What you didn’t get right is your claim that they were “far-right” anarchists. None of them are. Both Antifa and BLM want to replace the current system with another system that exerts control on the population. That goes against anarchism. They are “anti-national” with regards to identifying with what they perceive as America’s evils. However, they are in favor of another form of government/nationalism, that is consistent with their ideology.

            5JC: Fascists are militarized moderate left Socialists with strong racial or national identity. These are rare birds, mostly black and white power movements.

            They’re all “militarized” in some fashion. Antifa and BLM have a strong national identify, they identify with a Marxist nation they believe should exist in the US rather than the US that we currently exist in.

            5JC: Most of the Jan 6 protestors/ rioters appear to have been moderate right populist or patriot movement types with a few far right anarchists. This is Trump’s base. At least one of the anarchists was also in Antifa, probably more than one.

            The vast majority of the protests that were there on January 6 were peaceful protestors. The number of people that were out in the streets in Washington D.C. made the number of those who entered the Capitol small in comparison.

            5JC: All of these groups would benefit from undermining the congress.

            That’s not correct. The vast majority of the January 6 protests were protesting the fraudulent election and did not want the results of the fraud to be certified, with a fraud installed in the Executive Branch. They wanted election integrity, they did not want to undermine Congress.

      • thebesig says:

        5JC: KoB this is called false equivalency

        Wrong, this is not a “false equivalency”. As others pointed out, we have two main political viewpoints that were behind protests and riots. The leftists dominated the riots of 2020. A small fraction of a predominately peaceful protest in January 6 engaged in rioting, but not to the extent that was caused in other areas of the United States the previous year.

        KoB brought up a valid, and accurate, point regarding the double standard that is being engaged in. When people who committed more serious acts are being let off with either a slap on the wrist or charges dropped, and the opposing side of the argument is being held for a long period of time, that is a double standard that should not exist in our justice system.

        5JC: and is not how the justice system in the United States works

        False. Our justice system is not supposed to take two groups committing same or similar acts and treat them differently like what we’re seeing with two different protests/riots. A big picture concept that you’re missing is that those who commit crimes supporting a political agenda, an approved one, are getting away from being truly held accountable.

        This occurs in third world countries where the political leadership is abusing its power. By arguing that our justice system does not work the way KoB indicates it should work, you’re advocating that our justice system, in reality, is no different from that of Venezuela.

        Anybody that pays attention to current events, and ties things to history, would be alarmed at this double standard. As with the case of the Colectivos in Venezuela, Antifa and BLM could potentially by used as a civilian “military” that a more restrictive government could use to exert control on the people. Antifa/BLM already do this, by showing up to conservative rallies for the purposes of starting trouble.

        5JC: (Thank God).

        When your argument advocates a perceived concept, like what you argued above, that goes in contradiction to the Constitution’s intent, as well as in contradiction to God’s Law regarding judgments, you don’t have a leg to stand on when thanking God.

        Throughout the Old Testament, one prophet after another called out the leadership for applying double standards. These prophets were speaking on behalf of God.

        5JC: Every case is judged on it’s own merits and the conditions of whatever offense was allegedly committed. [STRAWMAN]

        This is a strawman argument, as KoB is not talking about treating every case under a general rule rather by their own merit. He is accurately pointing out a massive trend to let violent rioters, who did more serious damage, and posed a greater threat to property and personel, who even called for burning things down and who called for replacing world government with communism, of the hook easier than compared to those who were not as active or as violent.

        Each case is seen on its own merits, nobody is arguing against that. However, courts have, as a tool, the ability to look how similar situations were treated, balance that against a person’s own record, and come up with a judgment that maintains consistency or general consistency… Not the case we’re seeing here.

        5JC: Normally the first thing a criminal will do when caught is point the finger at everyone around them and bemoan the fact that all these other people in the world are doing bad things and yet the law has chosen unfairly to persecute them because of their skin color, gender, education, political beliefs, penis size, sexual appetites… just for starters. [STRAWMAN]

        This is a strawman argument. One main purpose to my posting the above post, as well as comments I’ve made and others, is to address the double standards being applied to these guys compared to those who engaged in actual insurrection activities. What is being “bemoaned” is the fact that violent Marxists are being better treated in the court system than those who attended a protest in response to seeing massive election fraud.

        5JC: One of Hitler’s first acts in seizing power was to burn down the congress in a false flag attack. While I don’t think those that attacked the congress here were Nazi’s they did get the script flipped on them quick.

        There are legitimate claims that the attacks in January 6 were also staged. I’ve seen pictures of people who were among the instigators, who were later identified as BLM, Antifa, and even law enforcement.

  3. Mason says:

    Not really sure this guy is the best one to be proclaiming himself a “political prisoner.”

    https://www.newsweek.com/virginia-man-capitol-riot-fbi-arrested-jonathan-gennaro-mellis-1570140

    • thebesig says:

      They’re requesting a body camera video of his “hitting an officer” with the stick. He’s accused of hitting a specific officer with a stick. Footage showing that has not been released.

      The link that you provided shows him holding a stick, but not attacking an officer with it. A video needs to be produced to support the allegation against him.

      He identifies himself as a January 6 Capitol detainee.

      • Thunderstixx says:

        Either way, that is no reason to stick him in solitary for seven months.
        That is beyond illegal and completely unconstitutional…
        Where are the lawyers when you need them.
        Oh….
        That’s right, they are all sucking dicks of liberal judges across the nation.

        • Mason says:

          I agree, except we’re only hearing one half of the story. Pretty common for these guys to claim “they never told me why” when they were told repeatedly why.

      • 5JC says:

        The video was provided at his PC hearing. Surprisingly there is no law in the US that prosecutors have to release evidence used in a trial to the general public prior to the trial. Something about constitutional rights of a fair trial and an unbiased jury or other craziness. It’s very technical.

        • USMC Steve says:

          Really? And you know all of this how? Were you at the grand jury they held on this guy?

          • Mason says:

            Looking through the complaint, they wouldn’t even need to play the video to get a grand jury to indict on this one. This is a really easy case from a prosecutorial standpoint.

        • thebesig says:

          5JC: The video was provided at his PC hearing.

          I’m not going to go by a claim made by the media, or by the prosecution. The video screen captures that they show in the documents linked here looked like they were publicly available videos.

          5JC: Surprisingly there is no law in the US that prosecutors have to release evidence used in a trial to the general public prior to the trial. Something about constitutional rights of a fair trial and an unbiased jury or other craziness. It’s very technical.

          Nope, not technical. Prosecutors may not release material, but people have obtained similar material before a trial. I saw the entire George Floyd body camera video before the police officers related to the case went on trial. That video was available for that trail.

          Video could be obtained through Freedom of Information Request, I’m following a YouTube channel that had obtained such videos in advance of the trial of the person that is the subject of those videos.

          If you read the linked article, people and organizations are trying to obtain the body camera video of the officers that show him assaulting an officer with a stick. Again, still shots don’t cut it.

          • MarineDad61 says:

            thebesig,
            Trouble is, publicly available photos AND VIDEO
            are out there on most of these knuckleheads.

            In THIS local case,
            even with VIDEO of Samuel Lazar macing D.C. police, and then video of Sammy ADMITTING it afterwards (shown below)….
            “We maced ’em right the fuck back.”

            His brother, sisters, mother, teenage girlfriend,
            and a few others in their circle
            STILL DENY IT ALL, and proclaim his INNOCENCE.

            Worse, his mother is fundraising on a “Christian” crowdfunding site, while peddling her family’s lies to bring her “good son” home,
            while deep denial squelching the truth and the reality.

            Worse, brother Adorian Lazar (like you)
            calls his brother Sammy a “political prisoner”.

            Which of course is total bullshit.
            Because the publicly available evidence,
            which apparently took the FBI 6 months to eventually piece together on Sam, is all out there.
            https://twitter.com/ColumboCaptain/status/1366505052379168769

            • thebesig says:

              The video is out there, but apparently not on the guy mentioned in the post above. I did not post about Samuel Lazar. I posted about someone else. All we have, so far, are still shots of him swinging a stick.

              If people are going to claim that he used a deadly weapon, then I’m going to need to see the video of him in action with his stick. I want to see what happened in the background that would lead to his having a stick in his hand.

              He argued that he acted in defense of someone that was knocked to the ground, then kicked aside as if a “piece of trash” was kicked to the side.

              Until I see the video of the incident, before, during, and after, I’m not going to transfer Samuel’s case to the above person’s case.

              • MarineDad61 says:

                thebesig,
                Ok.
                But in reality, the lawyers and the judge are the ones who need to see it (all).

                Along with the obvious questions a few photos don’t answer..
                When did he get the stick?
                Found it on the ground in DC,
                or brought it along from home?
                That’s the Lazar family phony claim,
                that Sam picked up someone else’s dropped mace,
                didn’t know how to handle it, and it misfired.
                Reality — That very SAME orange mace is sold at the SAME Friday flea market (Green Dragon) where the Lazar brothers also often set up Friday shop to flip their stuff.
                And, it didn’t misfire twice,
                when Sam turned around and fired a 2nd salvo, a direct hit (on 2).

                I suspect this knucklehead you chose to call a “political prisoner”
                has a similar set of intent, actions,
                and then denials and defenders.
                If he goes to prison, or gets released on time served for a guilty plea, I don’t care either way,
                but he is not getting off
                as some wronged innocent “peaceful protester”.

                • thebesig says:

                  Again, you’re trying to take the Lazar situation and make it the exact situation as the guy I posted about above. The questions that should be answered is what happened before those still shots, during, and after? What were the sequence of events that occurred that would lead to the guy above having a stick in his hands?

                  After I responded with the last series of posts, I followed one of the links in the linked to article and found a video showing the above person’s actions. As the article states, he acted in self defense of someone who was on the ground, was being assaulted, looked unconscious, etc. The police had sprayed them, making the steps slippery, then they pushed a woman down before pushing other protesters down on her.

                  The woman was being crushed, others saw that and attempted to come to her assistance. The police were beating those on the ground. The folks saw that they were using excessive and unjustifiable force. They clearly saw the danger that the trampled on people faced.

                  The guy above, with a stick, looked like he tried to gently push the police back to get them away from those that were in physical danger. The woman that they were trying to save eventually died of her injuries, though she was reported as having died through drug overdose… The video shows how she died.

                  Click on this link and watch the imbedded video showing the events along with a play by play of what was happening.

                  https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/08/police-killed-three-eye-witnesses-speak-police-killing-jan-6-protester-rosanne-boyland-stories/

                  My calling him a J6 Political prisoner is justified, given how these group of people are being treated compared to how last year’s rioters were treated.

      • Mason says:

        I took a look through the screen caps in his indictment. Looks to me like he’s swinging and/or lunging at the cops.

        According to the indictment, they’re from video evidence. If that’s the case, it will be presented at trial and must be given to the defense during discovery (it probably already has). We have no right to see it, but Mellis does. Personally, I’m with you and would like to see it, but that’s not how things work until there’s a disposition on his case.

        His statements on his own Facebook page don’t help his case any. He was arguing against the position that there were BLM/Antifa in the crowd agitating things. He went so far as to proclaim how proud he was. “We proudly take responsibility for storming the Castle,” he wrote.

        • thebesig says:

          I also looked at the screen caps in his indictment. They don’t convince me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was “repeatedly hitting a police officer” with violent force (deadly weapon statement).

          I need to see a video of him doing that, to include reaction to being brutally assaulted, before I agree that he was using a stick as a deadly weapon.

          Yes, Mellis has a right to see it, and according to the article, he has not seen that video footage.

          As for your statement about it not being available. I saw the full body cam video of the George Floyd incident before the police officers in question went on trial. I saw Jeremy Dewitte’s videos, released via FOI request after he was talked about here, and prior to his trial. No disposition needed, and these are not the only instances where video relevant to a case became available before a case.

          It does not matter what he said on his Facebook prior to this. There’s no justification to treating any detainee/prisoner the way they’re treating him and others.

        • thebesig says:

          Here’s a video of the above guy in action, a play by play showing an attempt to prevent the police from injuring/killing someone, further down in the article:

          https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/08/police-killed-three-eye-witnesses-speak-police-killing-jan-6-protester-rosanne-boyland-stories/

  4. Forest Bondurant says:

    According to this DOJ website, the last entry regarding his case was made on 6 August.

    Thought folks here might find it interesting:
    https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases?combine=Mellis

    • thebesig says:

      Pictures showing the Capitol police letting these folks in, and watching as they walk down a designated path inside the Capitol, counters the document’s claim that entry was secured and nobody was allowed in.

      One account I’ve read stated that the police fired something into the crowd, which made them react the way they did.

      However, in this one person’s case, they have not produced hard evidence, beyond making assumptions based on what the guy said on his Facebook. His side is demanding to see the videos showing him physically doing what he is accused of doing.

      He can’t claim that BLM and Antifa had nothing to do with it given that photos and videos have been showed pointing to BLM and Antifa agitators, as well as “glowies”, instigating aggressive activities.

      One main reason for making a big deal out of this is the fact that the actual insurrectionists were not treated this way as a group.

      • Roh-Dog says:

        Yeah but, they took the bait in the 1st degree. Anyone provably guilty of coordinating, or acting in an unprovoked violent manner, or unjustified offensive hostilities should be looking at time.

        The crush of people got too many people between a rock and a hard place but they bought the ticket and need to ride the ride.

        The part that kills me is this is almost 9 months in and the ‘news’ hasn’t covered this for shit, and we’ve yet to see evidence submitted in trial.

        I guess the Feds are running the clock with all the low hanging fruit first to keep up the narrative. Why wouldn’t they have a concurrent ‘heavy hitter’ trial to frame the necessity for these draconian pre-trail actions?

        None of this passes the ‘sniff test’, imho. But I’m holding out hope for justice.

        • Fyrfighter says:

          Exactly. If there’s evidence, charge them, try them, and if found guilty, hammer them. But to hold them without charges in such conditions is totally contrary to the rule of law.

        • thebesig says:

          There’s no “yeah but” about this. The “reasonable person” standard has to apply. When the Capitol Police opens the doors, and, with smiles, allow people in, what would a “reasonable person” conclude about this?

          They are not privy to what goes on at the leadership levels in the Capitol, to include the Capitol police. If they are invited to do something they are normally allowed to do, it’s neither a trap nor bait.

          Now, if they act like one of the protestors, and they talk someone else to do a criminal act acting as being with the listener, that’s bait. When the person, thinking he or she is dealing with a like minded person, agrees with the act and shows signs of carrying it out, then you could use the “Bait in the 1st degree” argument.

          An example of this is a “customer” wanting to buy drugs. When the person selling drugs meets up with this person, then they have fallen for a trap.

          There’s more to the firing into the crowd bit that I didn’t mention above. This wasn’t a simple case where those who saw that happen clearly saw that they were being dispersed. There was a deviation from how this would normally be done.

        • Mason says:

          The news doesn’t care. These people are evil Trump supporting insurrectionists. To the left and the media, they were guilty the moment they showed up on 6 Jan. They could bury them under the prison and the left and media would think that was too light on them.

    • Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

      That is indeed another great example of redundant laws wasting taxpayer time…trespassing, disorderly conduct, assault covers the large pile of nonsense passing as charging documents…

      Too many laws with too much redundancy in this country.

      It sadly proves the statement true that we were freer in 1775 under the King than we are today under our own government for fuck’s sake.

  5. Ex-PH2 says:

    Gee, he’s a prisoner in isolation in a dank, skimpy cell?

    I wonder how that might compare with the American prisoners held and tortured by the North Vietnamese government, way back in them there Olden Times. Or how about our guys who made the forced Death March on Bataan?

    This Mellis guy is a self-serving slug, a king mixer and a troublemaker. I’d guess he’s been put in a cell because he did some really stoopid things and doesn’t like being made to wait.

    I do not feel one bit sorry for him. He’s a jerk.

    • thebesig says:

      The bigger picture here is no matter what kind of activities he engaged in, what he described above should not be happening. His account is not the only account where detainees are held for a long time without seeing hard evidence tying them to the crime they are alleged to have committed.

      This is the kind of BS that they’ve done in many of the third world countries that I’ve been to, not something that should be done in the US. Other than entering the Capitol the way he did, he does not appear to be a danger to society. If he can’t get a court date sooner, he should not be sitting in confinement.

      Their case is very weak, and could fall apart in a full blown trial assuming he is not subject to a formality of a hearing with a decision already being made in his case.

      I’m interested in seeing the videos from the body cameras to see what actually happened when it comes to the specific people like the above.

      If they don’t have strong evidence, if actual videos would clear them of the charges against them, then the psychological abuse they’re being subjected to is partly designed to get a plea bargain from them, or agree to certain charges.

      Whether one looks at this from a God’s law perspective, or constitutional, the accused has a right to see the evidence against them, and to have a reasonably scheduled court appearance.

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        Not arguing with you about what nefarious plots may be underway, thebesig, but this individual’s jail circumstances do not bear even a vague resemblance to the horrors that American POWs were subjected to by the North Vienamese at what was politely called the Hanoi Hilton.

        I may not have like John McCain very much, but I know what he and the others suffered through. I also know what the Japanese did to Americans on the Bataan death march. My parish priest, when I was a little girl, was a POW in that episode of Life in Hell.

        This dork’s got nothing on him or the other American POWs, period. He comes off as whiny and self-involved.

    • 5JC says:

      Amen, Ex-PH2.

      I am willing to bet big that that there is a lot more to the story than just the one side we see today. The reason I say that is because there always is.

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        I agree with both your view and thebesig’s, too. 5JC. And while I agree that the rules are being broken by someone in charge (or not), I feel less sympathy for him that I would for Mary Tudor, whose bloodbath in killing Protestants got her head on the chopping block under her half-sister Elizabeth’s throne.

        My objection to this jerk’s self-involved whining is that he may be alone in a cell (oh, God to have the peace and quiet of a single-person cell all to one’s self) but he got himself into that pickle. He did not have to go to WDC and make a destructive nuisance of himself.

        He is far less impressive than Guy Fawkes, who buried barrels of gunpowder under the floor of Parliament with the intention of blowing it up, got caught, and was sent to the Tower of London, which you can read about here:
        https://www.hrp.org.uk/tower-of-london/history-and-stories/guy-fawkes-and-the-gunpowder-plot/#gs.cqxy05

        Those guys were REAL rabble rousers. This guy’s a whiny little kid by comparison. Yes, he should have legal representation supplied to him; I agree with that completely. But why isn’t he demanding it????

      • thebesig says:

        Originally posted by 5JC:

        Amen, Ex-PH2.

        I am willing to bet big that that there is a lot more to the story than just the one side we see today. The reason I say that is because there always is.

        Go back and read the original post, my responses to you and to others, as well as posts made by others. The double standard between how these folks are being treated compared to how the violent rioters from last year were treated is what is being alluded to. Nobody is arguing that if a valid crime was committed that day, that the person should “get away with it”. This boils down to equal treatment under the law. This is an example of the kind of abuse that our forefathers complained about.

  6. David says:

    Not a lot of sympathy for him (choices have consequences) BUT everyone should be equal before the law and treated equally.

    • thebesig says:

      “…BUT everyone should be equal before the law and treated equally.”

      Hence, one of the main reasons to why I posted the above. Allowing the real insurrectionists, the people who did the bigger damage, off with either dropped charges or with light wrist smacks, but holding people for a long time for something similar but without cars and buildings burning or blocks being taken over, makes us more like China or Venezuela and less like what our Founding Fathers envisioned.

      • MarineDad61 says:

        thebesig,
        For someone who doesn’t want to compare Mellis to cop macer Lazar, you sure seem willing (and quick) to compare Mellis to 2020 looters and arsonists.
        Choose your whataboutisms more wisely.

        • thebesig says:

          MarineDad61, go back and read the post that you just responded to. Take your time and read without emotion raging through you.

          First, I accurately pointed out that the person you’re talking about can’t be erroneously assumed to have the same situation and circumstances as the guy I spoke about.

          Second, my comparing the guy I talked about to last year’s rioters was to show the difference in how people are being treated. Riot for leftist causes, topple statues, set buildings on fire, etc. and be leftists? Slap on wrist… Charges dropped. Be at a Trump supporting rally, and not go as far as burning cars, buildings, etc.? Hold them for a long time.

          THAT is one of the main things that you should be getting from my posts.

          I’m not using “whataboutisms”, I’m describing what has happened based on the facts.

          Reading comprehension… It’s a drug.

  7. Sapper3307 says:

    Find the FBI agents?

  8. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    One thing government doesn’t like is being frightened by the people it governs…that’s the real lesson here.

    For my money the government needs to be frightened far more regularly than it has been in the last 70 years.

    This fellow was part of a movement that scared the shit out of government to its very core…that’s why he is getting the treatment he’s getting.

    One thing about America’s government, it doesn’t like its institutions doubted publicly and made to look foolish on a grand scale.

    This was a largely peaceful invasion of the Capitol and it showed just how incapable government is of protecting itself from a mass of people.

    By peaceful I mean largely unarmed, as sticks are hardly weapons used by invaders who intend real harm.

    As Gandhi famously pointed out, there is no way for a few thousand to rule millions if the millions simply stop cooperating…our government learned that on January 6th to a small degree.

    It may well be time for them to learn it on a very large degree.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      Thank you, VOV! These “rabble rousers” are amateurs when compared to the real rebellious people from the past, as I posted above about Guy Fawkes and his gunpowder plot.

      I am just not impressed by adults who acted like a bunch of raggedy-assed troublemakers on the streets of Chicago’s South Side. And when those bozos broke out the windows on the Capitol Building and managed to get inside, what exactly did they accomplish? NOTHING, other than getting their pictures in the news rags and losing a few members to Capitol police who were a bit trigger happy. That part – shooting people – was neither appropriate nor necessary.

  9. 26Limabeans says:

    I don’t want to say he is a political prisoner because we don’t have
    political prisoners in America….

  10. nobunny says:

    If he hit a police officer, he’s a real POS. However… we have judicial rules that should be followed.

    Maybe he’s a political prisoner… or maybe he’s in an overwhelmed system.

    Take home for me: now is not a good time to get sick/hospitalized/go to ER or get arrested.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      Well, he could declare himself a political prisoner, but he’s no Benedict Arnold, who defected to the British Army in 1780. Nor is he anything even close to Napoleon Bonaparte or Guy Fawkes, who tried to blow up the Houses of Parliament.

      He could use his time productively, but instead, he’s just whining and whimpering because he’s stuck in a boring graybar hotel room. Oh, pity-pooooo.

  11. 5JC says:

    I just think it is funny and ironic how much like Liberal Larry he looks.

    • MarineDad61 says:

      5JC,
      2 of the local knuckleheads
      (1 at home, 1 in jail)
      dressed up in military gear,
      the green, the camo, the pockets, the pouches,
      and 1 #FacePaintBlowhard painted his face green and black.

      Neither of them served in the military.
      Not 1 day.

  12. OmegaPaladin says:

    The prison should follow its policy. It applies to everyone. If the dude is in solitary, they should follow the policy for placing dudes in solitary.

    The Capitol Police, unlike pretty much every police agency including DCPD, are not releasing body cam footage or the specific footage of the rioters engaging in criminal conduct.

  13. MarineDad61 says:

    Political prisoner?
    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
    Correct headline should be…
    “Open letter from a January 6 knucklehead dumbass to Americans”

  14. gitarcarver says:

    This post from Legal Insurrection has an interesting take on how one case could bring a whole lot of cases down:

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/09/the-governments-case-against-many-jan-6-defendants-is-in-legal-jeopardy/

    • MarineDad61 says:

      gitarcarver
      1512 c2 applies to many breachers inside the Capitol,
      when their motions and activity
      led to evacuations of elected officials,
      and the postponement of a Congressional function.

      Leo Brent Bozell IV (son of Brent Bozell (III),
      not only smashed a glass door,
      and then climbed through a window
      (neither of these are obstruction),
      he then occupied the Senate gallery balcony,
      and also wandered around the Senate floor,
      while the rummaging and photo ops sitting in the seats went on.

      He was part of the early window smashing breachers,
      that Officer Goldman led away from others,
      and towards a near empty Senate.

      Some of those charged won’t pass the sniff test for felony obstruction,
      but most those in the Senate
      OR banging on the doors and walls to Congress….
      do.

      Leo has the ($$$) benefit of family money, and sits at home,
      going to HersheyPark and the beach this summer.

      However, due to 1512 C2,
      his family can’t plea bargain Felony Obstruction away,
      and he is eventually headed to prison,
      likely for at least 1 year.
      https://www.fox43.com/article/news/local/lebanon-county/leo-brent-bozell-iv-additional-charges-us-capitol-riot/521-a982b4a4-a1aa-4fb5-84ca-033790de109f

      • gitarcarver says:

        MarineDad61,

        I am not excusing the actions of the mob.

        The point being that if Congress had adjourned before the group came in the building, 1512c2 cannot apply as one cannot obstruct that which is not happening.

        PS – remember the protesters during the Kavanaugh hearings? They actually disrupted those hearings and had to be escorted out.

        How many of them were charged with 1512c2?

        (And that is not an excuse or the childish reasoning of “they did it too!!”

        It is more a generalized question as to whether the charges are based upon actions or politics.

    • MarineDad61 says:

      Notice on other local knucklehead charged,
      and currently sitting in jail,
      NO 1512 C2.

      #FacePaintBlowhard Samuel Lazar (who maced D.C. Police)
      has a different Felony charge,
      along with others.

      18 U.S.C. § 111(a) and (b) (Felony) – Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers,

      18 U.S.C. § 231(a)(3) – Obstruction of Law Enforcement During Civil Disorder,

      18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1) and (4) – Knowingly Entering or Remaining in any Restricted Building or
      Grounds Without Lawful Authority and Engaging in Physical Violence in a Restricted Building
      or Grounds.

      These are the charges for those who fought police OUTSIDE.
      “or Grounds” is the catch all, and is dismissed in almost all pleadings,
      in exchange for guilty on the more serious charge(s).

      Guilty pleas are flowing for these guys now,
      and most are pleading guilty to 1 charge,
      with some getting prison.

      https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1415916/download

      • MarineDad61 says:

        The hypocrisy of the Lazar types (including his entire family)
        is that they are all “flag wavers”,
        as well as sporting clothing and patches for “Back the Blue.”

        To these phony Back the Blue types,
        Police Lives Mattered in summer 2020,
        but NOT on January 6, 2021.

        When their criminal pasts are revealed on the internet
        after they become national news for their arrests and charges for January 6,
        the extent of their phony flag waving and phony blue regalia
        makes them look more like that Elko, NV bunch of POW*MIA vests.

  15. SGT Ted says:

    I am retired MP. I was stationed at Abu Ghraib, Iraq 2003-2004.

    It doesn’t fucking matter what he did. His treatment is anti-American and illegal. Putting people in solitary pre-trial for months is abusive. They treat actual murderers better than that.

    Beating prisoners is what Nazis and Communists do. If you think thats ok, well fuck you.

    Fuck.

    You.

    You’re a shitbag. Just like the wanna-be Gestapo that are beating citizens in custody.

    Fuck them too.

  16. MarineDad61 says:

    Ok, everyone (especially thebesig), HERE is the video.
    Look for the white cowboy hat on the upper left, AND the stick.

    Not only did he do it… He STARTED it.
    When he lost his hat, he took a few more swings and pokes.

    thebesig, you said photos don’t cut it. Ok. Here’s the video.
    There is NO justifying what Mellis did… and NO minimizing it.

    Conclusion — NOT a “political prisoner.”
    Jonathan Mellis can sit in JAIL,
    until his plead deal and sentencing.

    Link below from ProPublica / Parler videos page,
    timestamp 4:26 p.m. • Near Capitol
    https://d2hxwnssq7ss7g.cloudfront.net/v7NTo8ADJ2au_cvt.mp4

    • thebesig says:

      I saw the same video, and I did not get the same conclusion that you got. The video that you showed is less than two minutes, and deliberately leaves out details, and the questions I mentioned elsewhere on this thread… What happened before… What happened during… What happened after…

      The video that you linked to omits details and leaving the rest that would lead people to conclude what the commission wants them to conclude. Conclusions like yours is the objective of just showing that short video… And they’re wrong, just as you are wrong.

      I have a counter video to your video that includes more details, and a breakdown, of what happened. What happened, before he got involved, was that the Capitol Police sprayed substances into the crowd, enough to make the stairs slippery. They pushed people, including a woman who ended up dying. They pushed people on top of this woman.

      They did not stop there. The police were acting outside of what people are used to seeing with police behavior… To the point that the actions of the police officers themselves showed that even they knew that what some of them were doing wasn’t right.

      The guy that I talked about above intervened for fear of the woman’s life, as well as the well being of the people that were threatened with being crushed. There is an account that one of the police officers repeatedly beat the woman, who was already down, while the police officer behind him had his arm wrapped around HIS neck… Apparently trying to pull him off.

      You see the guy, in the white cowboy hat, trying to push back the officers to try to save the woman that was being crushed. He was not using deadly force, and he was not acting just for the hell of it. He was trying to help the other protesters rescue the people that were down and who faced injury.

      You could see one of the protestors in the video attempting CPR on the woman that was crushed. Unfortunately, she passed away.

      Based on this more detailed video, your conclusions are wrong.

      On your conclusion that “there is no justifying what Mellis did, you’re WRONG. There IS justification for what he did based on eyewitness accounts and on the video that I post here. And No, there is no need to “minimize” the event.

      On your assumption that the video you brought up “supports” your point… It didn’t. It is incomplete and insufficient, by itself, to address the questions I have that the still photos did not have. Basically put, your short video does not cut it. In order to “cut it”, it has to meet my standards for what I look for when digging information.

      Again, what happened before, during, and after? What is on the video cameras of each of the officers involved showing their actions before, during, and after? This is just scratching the surface; however, this is my mode of operation when gathering information. Not just because I was an Operations Specialist when I was in the Navy, nor because I’m a doctoral student that has to apply a more stringent standard of fact finding than the average person does.

      Meaning, if you stop just when you find something you think supports your argument but not mine, chances are excellent that you’re going to be wrong. That is the case here.

      On your conclusion that he “started it”, you are wrong. He did not start it, but sprung to action when he saw someone in danger of serious injury. See the video that I linked to. Again, see my “reasonable person standard” argument above.

      On your conclusion that he is not a political prisoner… WRONG! His treatment is consistent with that experienced by political prisoners overseas in that he and others are being treated in a way that the opposition is not being treated for doing the same… In 2020’s case more serious… thing.

      On your conclusion that he could sit in Jail until his “plead” deal and sentencing, while ignoring the fact that the opposition committed worse (2020 riots) and are not suffering the same fate, tells me that you don’t give a f* that we’re more like Communist China than we are what the Founding Father’s envisioned.

      Understand that there is something much bigger going on, what I’ve pointed out on this thread and on others. Double standards being applied to this scale, against our side of the argument, coupled with massive censoring and account cancelling, is not the direction that we want to go as a country. History tells us where that would lead us.

      If you’re wondering why the Germans reached the point that they reached with the NAZIs in power, look no further than the argument that you’re advancing on this thread.

      I stand by this argument, as well as by my other arguments that I’ve made on this thread, and I have every intention of arguing this point with you until I’m an old white haired man on his deathbed.

      Now watch a more detailed video here:

      https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/08/police-killed-three-eye-witnesses-speak-police-killing-jan-6-protester-rosanne-boyland-stories/

      • MarineDad61 says:

        thebesig.
        I watched the whole 7:36.
        Twice.
        Now here is what is missing from your July StopHate video
        (and especially your followup
        August Gateway Pundit blame link).

        April (long before July and August)-
        She died of a DRUG OVERDOSE. (link at bottom)

        Squeezed, sure.
        Hit, likely.
        Knocked down, yes.
        Stepped on by others, yes.
        Asphyxiated by police, no.
        Asphyxiated by other rioters, possible.

        Most likely, STRESS plus DRUGS.

        She was NOT killed by police.

        Your Gateway Pundit (once again) pushes a bullshit conspiracy theory,
        with an outrageous accusation,
        which of course will NOT result in unicorn justice.

        More…
        2 minutes I shared doesn’t tell the whole story, of course.

        The whole story of 1 HOUR AND 45 MINUTES
        of waves of protesters trying to battle their way into the Capitol,
        at this tunnel and doorway,
        and being pushed back multiple times.
        Mace, sticks, fists, and flying objects over & over & over again.

        Also, very few at the front of the crowd knew about woman down.
        Riots are chaos,
        but it would be on Police, NOT rioters,
        to whisk her away for medical attention,
        once anyone sees someone unconscious.
        Everyone there rioting should have RETREATED.

        What in the hell would make someone join the 7th wave,
        90 minutes into a battle over a well guarded tunnel and entry?
        Answer – Nutjobs.

        She died.
        It’s tragic.
        But for you, or any other rightwingnut conspiracy theorists
        to suggest it’s the fault of the DC or Capitol Police…
        That’s YOUR problem

        Do less drugs.
        Know when to back away and retreat.
        Obviously, dozens didn’t get it.
        And 1 fat female hopped up on her favorite pills died.
        Her death is her own fault.

        [Capitol Rioter Rosanne Boyland
        Died From Drug Overdose, Not Trampling: M.E.]
        https://www.thedailybeast.com/capitol-rioter-rosanne-boyland-died-from-acute-amphetamine-intoxication

        • MarineDad61 says:

          thebesig,
          You really need to consider….
          that the others surrounding this tragic death,
          mostly those charged with violence (felonies),
          will (now) do anything they can
          to minimize their own blame,
          including trying to pin anything they can
          on D.C. and Capitol Police, right or wrong.

          Were some police behaving badly? Sure.
          Some got aggressive.
          Some got politically passive, too,
          and didn’t do their job(s).
          That’s where all the excuses of
          “they let them in” come from.

          Also consider,
          these knuckleheads who THOUGHT they were being patriotic, good Trump supporters, defenders of the Constitution, or whatever you want to call it, well….

          They not only failed to accomplish their mission of the day, but it BACKFIRED so badly, on themselves, as well as on Republicans as a whole, and the legacy of Trump,
          that Democrats can now hang this over the heads of many elected GOP officials (and hopeful candidates) for years to come.

          “End justifies the means” does not give armchair “patriots” the justification to now try to blame anyone else but themselves, the breachers, the violent, and the voices from bullhorns, megaphones, and microphones, that motivated the gullible to embarrass themselves, their party, their President, and their nation.

          And THAT is the legacy of the 900 knuckleheads.

          • C2Show says:

            He does not want to see that. One weakness besig likes to show is his desire to be right no matter what the cause.

            Historically on this site, dude never apologizes, never admits fault or wrong. Pretty much will fight you to the death to get his point across.
            Even repeat same logic over and over again. That doesnt work, starts ad hominem logic. Especially if he doesnt respect your words.

            Good luck, he ran off quite a few good people with his interesting tactics during debate.

            • MarineDad61 says:

              C2Show,
              That’s what I’m worried about, for this website.

              The topic of STOLEN VALOR should be unifying.

              Filling in the void with partisan politics…
              is obviously divisive.

              If this site loses readership, commentary from active fans, and/or bread and butter (Stolen Valor) credibility,
              currently it falls on the heads of the far right article writers,
              and the staff that (scratching my head) enable it.

              Looking forward to the next wave of phonies to appear.

              Let’s hope the families and friends of future newly outed phonies don’t dredge up partisan political articles (like this one)
              to attack the credibility of VG.

              I’m the last one
              who wants to throw “I told you so”
              at anyone, but I sense it coming.

              All because some asshole with fake war stories and Purple Hearts has deniers and defenders who don’t want to see their fave phony reduced to the dustbin of internet infamy,
              and they pull past VG articles they don’t like out of their asses.

              I’d rather see a unified front here,
              and most of the filler articles accomplish the unity, but not articles like this.

              But picking out leashes by length
              is not my responsibility here.

              Thanks.

              • thebesig says:

                MarineDad61: That’s what I’m worried about, for this website.

                Your actions don’t show you as being worried about this website.

                MarineDad61: The topic of STOLEN VALOR should be unifying.

                Then why are you advancing strawman arguments, contributing to the kind of argument that you and I are having?

                MarineDad61: Filling in the void with partisan politics… is obviously divisive.

                Advancing strawman arguments, like what you have been doing here, contributes to divisiveness and encourages debate. When your actions dredge up another person that I’ve argued against, who takes swipes at me based on his animosity, you’re contributing to that divisiveness.

                MarineDad61: If this site loses readership, commentary from active fans, and/or bread and butter (Stolen Valor) credibility, currently it falls on the heads of the far right article writers, and the staff that (scratching my head) enable it.

                Have you not paid attention to what is going on? This goes beyond the famine of stolen valor posts. Folks have left, but are still reading this site. However, a bigger problem faces us, and that is demographic.

                The younger generations do not prefer topics like this on the platform that we’re on. Most the people that post here are Generation X or Baby Boomers, and even older Millennials.

                The generations that we need to attract to hedge against readership loss are more interested in other platforms. I’ve interacted with service members on these other platforms… Their mindset and desires are different.

                If you read one of the other tabs on this site, you’d find out why we have political posts on this site. I quoted that on one of my previous responses to you.

                MarineDad62: Let’s hope the families and friends of future newly outed phonies don’t dredge up partisan political articles (like this one) to attack the credibility of VG.

                Apparently, you have not gotten into the minds of phonies like I have. They find ways to try to attack our credibility, attacking our political leaning is not one of them, and we’ve had political posts on this site in the past. Their angle of approach focuses more on our character, and the validity of the stolen valor posts, than on the political posts. It’s more about them than it is about the other topics.

                MarineDad62: I’m the last one who wants to throw “I told you so” at anyone, but I sense it coming.

                No, this is just your ego speaking. You don’t want political posts on here as it disturbs you, just as it disturbs other leftists. This specific line of reasoning is consistent with how leftists try to get people to do things. Hopefully, it’s starting to dawn on you why I doubt that you’re a Republican.

                MarineDad62: All because some asshole with fake war stories and Purple Hearts has deniers and defenders who don’t want to see their fave phony reduced to the dustbin of internet infamy, and they pull past VG articles they don’t like out of their asses.

                The tactic that they’ve used in the past was zero in on the stolen valor articles about them, and then make claims about other activities that we’re alleged to be engaged in. They also focus on character assassination against the site owners. This is based on attempts I’ve seen phonies make to attack this site and the owners.

                MarineDad62: I’d rather see a unified front here,

                As long as you engage in debate, you’re not going to contribute to the unity that you’d “rather see.”

                MarineDad62: and most of the filler articles accomplish the unity, but not articles like this.

                Most of the filler articles, including articles like this and other political articles, contributes to the unity. You’re not really speaking for the unity of the site, but for something that wish were the case. You’re rolling out a personal preference and explaining it as “something good for the site”.

              • C2Show says:

                MarineDad61,

                I been on here longer than him I am sure of…

                It is not unified, there has been a problem for awhile. Some people have ignored it for quite sometime brother.

                Surprised to see besig even get a lead role around here. I mean once Jonn passed and he got a shot on here…multiple dispute with him from old posters.

                Quite a few who had heated discussions with him years ago. It has not been unified. Sure I throw shade and a barb at home here and there. But it’s his method that’s bothering many. Its hypocritical and bias behavior.

                There is no unified front. You are with him or against him. Minute someone counter his post or corrected him…god damn it’s the end of the world.

                Readership / Viewership has gone south for awhile now. Some of the articles are questionable by standard. But what can you do at this point?

                • thebesig says:

                  Response to C2Show, October 3, 2021, Part 1A

                  C2Show: I been on here longer than him I am sure of…

                  The first post I saw from you was as “TheC2Show” on a post made on January 21, 2014. The first post I made was on May 13, 2012. You may have posted under another name back in the late 2000s or early teens, but what I could search of you shows that you’ve been here since 2014.

                  C2Show: It is not unified, there has been a problem for awhile. Some people have ignored it for quite sometime brother.

                  Unified in the sense that MarineDad61 used, yes, it has been unified. Not unified in the sense that you argue here? There never was. There have been arguments and conflict independent of your claims of that of MarineDad61. Using your standards of “unified”, we could argue that there is not such thing as unity, whether that is in every family or in every organization as well as in every website like this.

                  The problems you claim exist are perceived. You complained about some posts that I’ve made, then resorted to making passive aggressive statements towards posts that you did not like. You speak for yourself in this regard.

                  C2Show: Surprised to see besig even get a lead role around here. I mean once Jonn passed and he got a shot on here…multiple dispute with him from old posters.

                  Your “surprise” only existed after you and I got into heated exchanges. However, John is the one that gave me my permissions. They were looking for volunteers to contribute articles. I volunteered in January/February 2017. Jonn gave me my current permissions around that time frame. My first blog post was on February 2017. I posted about liberal zombies weeks before Jonn passed away.

                  I’ve had arguments with multiple of the old and new posters in the past, even before I gained editor permissions. These “disputes” were predominantly from a debate standpoint.

                  C2Show: Quite a few who had heated discussions with him years ago.

                  When there is disagreement, it is debate, not discussion. What you left out is how they initiated those debates. People have been disagreeing with each other on the site even before I started posting here. They been disagreeing with each other since then. These have not been the totality of the exchanges here, but they have existed.

                  Yes these exchanges did get heated; however, what you leave conveniently leave out is the fact that the nature of the disagreeing with me… E.g…. The tone and attitude he took with me influenced whether the debates would be heated or near heated. You ignore that factor.

                  The fact that you would just zero in on the fact that people got into arguments with me speaks volumes about you. You and I had been involved with multiple heated arguments. You had also whined about the nature of some of the blog article posts that I posted. Your account is one-sided.

                  C2Show: It has not been unified.

                  Wrong. You are defining whether we are unified or not by the amount of arguments that I’ve been involved with here. You ignore the fact that I’m not the only one that engages an argument. I’ve lost count of how many times arguments ensued without my participation, even without my being present on the site.

                  However, your zeroing on me, rather than on others, and identifying my arguing with people as “us not be unified” erroneously assumes that I’m the one that is causing disunity.

                  Again, by your definition of “disunity”, the site would actually never have been in any other state other than that of a state of disunity.

                  C2Show: Sure I throw shade and a barb at home here and there.

                  No, you engage in debate like the rest of us do. I have our arguments saved on Microsoft word. I could also do a search on this site, from our end, to see which arguments you were involved with. This isn’t just about you “throwing a shade and a barb at home here and there” either. You’ve been talked to about your “non unifying” statements on this site.

                  Understand that what you are saying about me, was said about all of us by one of the phony “vet” that was busted here. Your complaint about my debate methods, was lobbed at all of us collectively by this one individual and by others.

                  You are demonstrating the same apparent psychological profile that these individuals displayed when they lobbed the criticisms at our debate method.

                  C2Show: But it’s his method that’s bothering many.

                  My methodology involves not getting into a debate unless two criteria are met:

                  1 I have extensive knowledge on the topic gained from first-hand experience and/or from extensive study/research.

                  2. It is greatly obvious that the person that I am arguing against clearly does not have a command of the topic.

                  And, once the argument gets in the way a third requirement is implemented:

                  3. I provide a counter rebuttal to the opposition for as long as the opposition provides a rebuttal.

                  This is a methodology that you and others have problems with, which bothers you and the others. Every single person that argued with me shares a similar apparent psychological profile. They demonstrated anger issues, control issues, and excessive ego issues. It is individuals with the combination of these three that would have problems with my methodology.

                  In every single instance, they showed that they were not used to getting the kind of pushback that I was giving them. Instead, they were used to plowing over their opposition.

                  C2Show: Its hypocritical and bias behavior.

                  Standing up for my argument is not hypocritical or biased. In fact, given the hostile nature that others had when initially disagreeing with me, it should not come as a surprise that I would come down hard in response.

                  You are suggesting a contradiction of my actions with the use of “hypocritical” and “bias”. Speaking of the later, you have issues of some of the posts that I posted… Showing individuals, from a specific group, doing things they are not supposed to be doing.

                  Again, I have our arguments either on Microsoft word, or accessible via a search on this website. What I find as hypocritical is your ignoring other people doing what I have done, and ignoring the conflicts that occurred without my involvement.

                • thebesig says:

                  Response to C2Show, October 3, 2021, Part 2A

                  C2Show: There is no unified front.

                  Then what do you call it when we had arguments take place here without my involvement? Again, I’ve seen conflict take place here for as long as I posted here. In fact, I remember seeing where some of the older members of the forum argued against someone else that still currently posts here, but I’m pretty sure you would not criticize as them as being “hypocritical” or “biased”, as you were not the subject of their hammering.

                  Your definition of a “unified front” is based on your ego and not based on what would be considered a unified front but the larger community here. Your definition of a “unified front” involves no posts that you disapprove of, and involves people like me being doormats and not holding your feet to the fire when you choose to argue.

                  C2Show: You are with him or against him.

                  Isn’t that the case with anybody else that you would meet? Go right ahead, if you have social media, go through and read posts and responsiveness posts. I guarantee you that you’re going to find “a lack of unity” in the form of an argument.

                  Go right ahead and post the statement on your own social media that other people disagree with. There is an excellent chance that someone’s going to disagree with you, and do so in a way that would make you argue back.

                  Out of all the arguments that took place on this website, you have issues with the ones that I have been involved with. It was all fun and great when all this was being applied against Phonies… You are among those who were raving me for the way I handled many of these phonies.

                  I was no different than that I was when I was arguing against you and against others. What is different is the perception… My tactics no longer were “awesome” when applied against you.

                  C2Show: Minute someone counter his post or corrected him…god damn it’s the end of the world.

                  Then how do you explain the fact that over the past few months, even over the past couple years, Commissar, LC, and others posted disagreement with my initial post but did not face a counter rebuttal for me?

                  They showed tact in their disagreement, maybe?

                  I could go back over the Microsoft Word documents that I have, were I saved the arguments I’ve had, and see examples of people being assholes towards me, and then seeing my response being an asshole to them in response.

                  C2Show: Readership / Viewership has gone south for awhile now.

                  But not for the reason that you are implying here. What brought the majority of us here originally was the stolen valor posts. It was not uncommon for these posts to get into the thousands as far as replies were concerned.

                  I used the same debate tactics against these phonies that I used against you and against others that argued with me. The only time that you, and others, had problems with my debate tactics was when you guys argued with me and then I argued back.

                  Both demographics, and social media, are evolving. The younger demographics that we would want to come over here to post, to read, to replace the older folks that have stepped away and focused on their families, are not generally interested in things the same way we are.

                  They prefer posting on Reddit, Discord, and then other similar sites. Even if I were to “disappear” from participating here, the hemorrhage and readership will continue to decline given the age demographics of the site and the interests of the younger generations.

                  Even, hypothetically, If I were to stop showing up here… What do you think the readership and viewership of this site will be in 2031? Something else is going on with the reduction of engagement with this site.

                  C2Show: Some of the articles are questionable by standard.

                  Based on your past complaints, against my articles, your definition of “questionable by standard” means a politically incorrect article that point something out that the mainstream media would much rather bury.

                  Those articles, that you complain about, follow a specific trend. It got to the point to where you started making statements that caught the attention of the others.

                  C2Show: But what can you do at this point?

                  Not making a mountain out of an anthill would be a great place to start.

            • thebesig says:

              C2Show: He does not want to see that.

              What I don’t want to see is a strawman argument. The main point, that both you and MarineDad61 fail to see, is the double standards being applied to two different groups with different political beliefs. MarineDad61’s strawmen arguments are irrelevant and are designed to keep him in a fight he should back out from.

              C2Show: One weakness besig likes to show is his desire to be right no matter what the cause.

              Again, I don’t debate a topic unless two conditions are met:

              1. I have extensive knowledge of the topic being debated gained through first hand experience and/or extensive study/research…

              2. The people that I argue with clearly do not know what they are talking about.

              That conditions was met in our debate, it was met on this thread, and it was met elsewhere. Only arguing a topic that you’ve done extensive study/research in, or have first hand experience in, is not a “weakness”.

              Once those two conditions are underway, a third requirement kicks in:

              3. The opposition’s response is matched by my counter response ad infinitum.

              C2Show: Historically on this site, dude never apologizes, never admits fault or wrong. [SELF PROJECTION]

              Historically, on this site, I’ve argued against people, like you and others, who refused to admit that they were wrong (see criteria above), who never apologizes, who don’t admit fault.

              You recently found that out. I know that you had been talked to, offline, about your attitude on the other threads. Where’s the apology? There is none, because you’re the very thing that you accuse me of being.

              C2Show: Pretty much will fight you to the death to get his point across.

              Correction, I will keep dismantling the opposition for as long as they keep arguing with me. As I mentioned before, I take sadistic pleasure in consistently taking people’s arguments apart. Take the above requirement that the opposition be clearly wrong in the face of a topic I have a command in.

              How the opposition reacts, in this situation, exposes their apparent psychological profile.

              In the 18 years I’ve been debating with people online, every person that complained about my refusal to back down was the type of person that refused to back down. They kept replying when they could easily have backed out of the argument (see two requirements above).

              You and others have seen me debate long enough to know that a rebuttal to me gets a counter rebuttal from me for as long as the other side decides to continue to argue with me.

              C2Show: Even repeat same logic over and over again. [SELF PROJECTION]

              You fail to mention the fact that I take the opposition apart point by point, then counter them point by point. By logical extension, if I’m “repeating the same logic over and over again”, it’s because the people that I’m arguing against repeat the same point over and over again no mater how many times I debunk that point over and over again.

              C2Show: That doesnt work, starts ad hominem logic. [SELF PROJECTION]

              What you fail to mention is that if someone resorts to ad hominem against me, I will fire back at them with ad hominem attacks. See above explanation about my taking the opposition apart point by point.

              C2Show: Especially if he doesnt respect your words.

              Don’t mistake my disagreeing with the opposition as “not respecting their words”.

              C2Show: Good luck, he ran off quite a few good people with his interesting tactics during debate.

              Your explanation is one sided, and you fail to tell him that you and I have been in numerous exchanges like this… So, driven by ego, you’re motivated to denigrate my actions on here and to give a completely false narrative.

              I don’t control whether someone stays here or goes elsewhere. What you described of me on your post is exactly what I’ve seen with you and with these others that were “ran off”.

              • C2Show says:

                Nah, never dropped any ad hominem against you. You get defensive too quick when someone does not agree with you.

                It’s a weakness and a problem you created.

                You forcefully want us to agree with you and your way is the only way.

                • thebesig says:

                  C2Show: Nah, never dropped any ad hominem against you.

                  Again, I saved our arguments on Microsoft word. All I had to do was to use the search function on the folder I have these arguments saved in. From an argument that we had last summer:

                  C2Show: How’s that asperger treating you buddy?

                  Tell that one brain celled activity of yours to quit trying to take you over and to start doing its job so that you’d quit posting as if a retarded ghost possesses you.

                  I recommend that you speak like you possess an education before you accuse me, or anybody else, of having Asperger.

                  Do you remember this? You accuse me of throwing ad homonyms at you. You conveniently forget the fact that you threw ad homonyms at me first. If you want to, I could find that post of yours and link to it.

                  C2Show: You get defensive too quick when someone does not agree with you.

                  False.

                  First, it’s not called “being defensive” when you throw at homonyms in my direction and I respond by throwing it homonyms back at you.

                  Second, nope, is not being defensive when someone responds to me and I provide a rebuttal to that response. I see a lot of people, both on this website and on social media, respond to being disagreed with.

                  It’s called a debate.

                  What did you think you, or others, could do? Respond to me showing me that you guys don’t know what you’re talking about, and I do nothing in response? Not happening. The opportunity to prove you wrong, and to prove the others wrong, is irresistible.

                  Again, I take sadistic pleasure in doing this. Otherwise, I would not have been debating with people, online, for 18 years.

                  C2Show: It’s a weakness and a problem you created.

                  Wrong. My quickly defending my argument by countering a rebuttal with one of my own counter rebuttals is not a weakness and it is not a problem. I enjoy doing this. I take every opportunity counter rebuttal to me with a counter rebuttal, and to turn the resulting debate into a a full-blown, protracted, debate.

                  I enjoy doing this, and I enjoy showing the opposition how wrong they are… Then reading their reactions.

                  C2Show: You forcefully want us to agree with you and your way is the only way.

                  False. I’ve repeatedly stated, both on this website and elsewhere, then I am not here to change people’s minds. When I get into an argument with somebody, I do so with a full understanding that nothing I say or do will convince them to change their position, to change their mind, or to adapt a different viewpoint.

                  On the other side of the coin, I come out of these debates with the same argument I had going into these debates.

                  If anybody wants to forcefully get someone to agree with them, it is you and others that I have argued against:

                  From an argument we had in January of this year:

                  C2Show: Clearly hasn’t changed Besig mind.

                  Bullshit, like what you spew, doesn’t get me to change my position on anything. Given that I don’t argue an issue unless the facts are clearly on my side… Against the opposition not having a command on the debate topic… It’s going to be a given that I’m going to come out of the arguments that I get into with the same argument I had before getting into that argument.

            • MarineDad61 says:

              C2Show,
              It took 2 hours, but (t)he(besig) proved you correct.
              Just as you described, too.
              He must have missed your comment here,
              until too late, after already busy replying to mine.

              He’s trying to convince himself that:
              (1) I am not a Republican, and
              (2) I don’t know what I’m talking about.

              Good luck with that, thebesig.

              It’s your headline, your copy, and your comments.
              Your far far far rightwing views.
              Your conspiracy theories.
              Your horseblinders.
              Wear them with your rightwingnut pride.
              Again, good luck with that.

              • C2Show says:

                Sorry brother,

                Well hopefully you dont fade away from here.

                Take it in stride, he seems to thin keither with em or against em.

                • thebesig says:

                  C2Show: Sorry brother,

                  You do not need to apologize to him for his exercising poor judgment.

                  C2Show: Well hopefully you dont fade away from here.

                  If someone were to leave this website because I destroyed them in debate, it would be a strong indication of their having anger, control, and excessive ego tendencies.

                  C2Show: Take it in stride,

                  Not only should he take it in stride, but he should conduct an after-action review of his disastrous performance here with the view that he would commit to knowing the topic he is trying to argue.

                  C2Show: he seems to thin keither with em or against em.

                  False. As I mentioned on this thread, on other threads, and on other websites, I don’t argue with people to change their minds. On the other side of the equation, I come out of these debates with the same argument I had going into the debate.

                  I know for fact before I rebut somebody, or before somebody responds to me, that there is nothing that I can say or do to get them to change their positions. This has been the case for 18 years. Changing their minds is not the reason to why I argue against them.

                  One of the reasons to why I argue against them is that I take sadistic pleasure in destroying their arguments, seeing their reactions, and seeing them expose more of their apparent psychological profile. I end up leveraging the later to say the right words, sentences, paragraphs, combinations, etc., to get them to react a certain way. It worked like a charm with you, it worked like a charm with MarineDad61, and it worked like a charm with the others that I have used this tactic on.

                  • C2show says:

                    It is over buddy, you didnt win us over.

                    You should apologize to marinedad61. You seem to have awkward behavior with people online.

                    Guess we all need our space where we feel big and bad.

                    Need more assurances?

                    • MarineDad61 says:

                      C2show,
                      thebesig claims he destroyed me?

                      Interesting, since I spent today enjoying a lunch date at Red Lobster, followed by a scenic 320 mile US highways and mountains drive between Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginny, and back to PA.
                      Picked up a carton of Camels and a half tank of premium at Virginia prices, too.

                      Meanwhile, thebesig feels the need to spend his Sunday parsing comments with some seriously misguided commentary.

                      Besides the insults that border on the inapproprate to absurd, (t)he(besig) further cements himself here as a narcissistic conspiracy theorist,
                      refusing to acknowledge that his (likely long time) sources, such as The Gateway Pundit, are about reputable as Joy Reid, Morning Joe, and Occupy Democrats…
                      on their best good hair days.

                      Frankly, I don’t believe thebesig has the ability (nor the willingness) to apologize to me, simply due to the sheer bulk of false statements, false accusations, and insults here….. as well as the basement bedroom blind ego behind not only his false claims of fact and credibility,
                      but his phony claims of victory.

                      This article, headline, copy, source, our comments, and the parse fest by thebesig that followed…. stand as a judgement, not of you nor me, but of thebesig.

                      Unless… thebesig (or the webmaster(s)) see the dysfunction(al), and make the wise choice, for website integrity, and delete this article
                      (and all the inane parsing).

                      C2Show, we can easily pick out the worst of the lefty libs out there, but alt-right and righwingnuts are almost as bad, with total horseblinders to their own kind, as well as themselves and reality,
                      as if their pot stash is kept behind the foggy bathroom mirrors.

                      Let’s watch if (t)he(besig) (ever) tries to post an article and claim truth and accuracy about any of his rightwingnut and/or conspiracy theory idols, likely to include the misguided likes of My Pillow guy Mike Lindell, or (new article out today right here) Lin Wood.

                      I’ll accept the apology,
                      when I see it.
                      Not holding my breath.

                      [Lin Wood Claims No Planes Hit Twin Towers and Pentagon on 9/11:
                      ‘We Got Played’]
                      https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/lin-wood-claims-no-planes-hit-twin-towers-and-pentagon-on-9-11-we-got-played/ar-AAP4rFY

                    • LC says:

                      @ MarineDad:

                      There are (at least) three unwritten rules about this website that I’ve discovered over time:

                      1) Commissar will make any thread have 3x the number of comments

                      2) AW1Ed will secretly flag you for an IRS review, digital rectal exam from your doctor, and have a scary gypsy woman curse you if you talk about your love of “Top Gun”. Nobody knows how he does this, but he does.

                      3) thebesig will, when you disagree with him on even the slightest thing, invariably claim he ‘destroyed’ your argument, and that you must suffer from some anger issues, all while explaining he’s doing a doctorate and is thus the purest essence of facts and logic on the planet.

                      The third is the only relevant one here, but it does seem nigh-inescapable. My point is simple : don’t let it get to you. I agree this site is far better off having other conservatives on here calling out the crazy bullshit, rather than quietly letting it fester.

                      You and I probably differ a fair bit in our politics, but I enjoy seeing your posts.

                    • C2Show says:

                      Lol I know MD61…
                      He likes to make long draw messages to make himself feel assured he told us off.

                      His confidence is unique to say the least.

                      Lars had plenty ty of history but before lars was around this besig fellas doing same routine to phonies and clowns for years. Strange he treats phonies and degenerates the same as he treats vets on here who he does not agree with…

                    • MarineDad61 says:

                      LC,
                      LOL.
                      Thanks.

                      As for #2),
                      I believe I’m good with AW1Ed.
                      Email tips, you know.
                      And the fake medals burning.

                      BONUS – AW1Ed has no idea that not only do I loathe Tom Cruise,
                      and dismiss Top Gun
                      (while now forced to watch other aviator parents gush about TG II on the Book of the Fake)….

                      I also mock Kelly McG,
                      who years ago moved her “family” to my hometown county (near the Witness movie filming locations), and after causing a few domestic incident police calls, and (town gossip = backfire) her children being eaten alive at my alma mater high school….
                      KMcG packed her bag(uette)s,
                      sold for a loss,
                      and moved 600 miles south to western North Caroliney.

                      BTW, Amish Mafia is fake.
                      LOL

                    • thebesig says:

                      C2show: It is over buddy,

                      Who said that it was over? I don’t consider a debate over until the opposition abandons the argument.

                      C2show: you didnt win us over.

                      Again, I don’t argue to change people’s minds. I argue for the sake of destroying people’s arguments. I also stated on this site, and elsewhere, that I know, before I enter a debate with someone, that there’s nothing that I could say, or do, to change people’s minds.

                      Meaning, I’m not here to try to win the opposition over. I’m here to perpetually destroy their arguments.

                      C2show: You should apologize to marinedad61.

                      WRONG! MarineDad61 got what he deserved on this thread. Next time, he should have a clue about what he’s talking about, argue against the point being made, and avoid advancing strawman arguments.

                      C2show: You seem to have awkward behavior with people online.

                      The only people complaining about my behavior towards other people online are the people that I’m destroying in debate.

                      This is the exact way I behaved against phonies, using the same tactics then that I’m using now. You and the others who have problems with the way I treat you guys here had no problems with me demonstrating the same actions against a common opposition.

                      What you’re really complaining about is my refusal to back down from an argument. You guys are simply not used to the push back that I’m giving you guys here.

                      C2show: Guess we all need our space where we feel big and bad. [SELF PROJECTION]

                      As I told someone else here, this is what is happening on this thread:

                      Let “X” be the oppositions rebuttal to me.

                      Let “Y” be my counter rebuttal to the opposition.

                      Thus, what has been happening on this thread, and what has happened on the other threads that I argued against others on, is represented by this model:

                      If “X”, then “Y”, ad infinitum.

                      This has nothing to do with “feeling big and bad” and everything to do with refusing to back down. The fact that you continue to respond, knowing full well that you are going to get a counter response, shows that the need for feeling “big” and “bad” is coming from you, and from those that I’m arguing against.

                      C2show: Need more assurances?

                      This question is irrelevant, as your assumptions about my intent, and about me, are spectacularly incorrect.

                    • thebesig says:

                      Response to MarineDad61, October 4, 2021, Part 1A

                      MarineDad61: C2show, thebesig claims he destroyed me?

                      Not claiming, but making a statement of fact. I destroyed you in the argument that we had on this thread.

                      Originally posted by MarineDad61: Interesting, since I spent today enjoying a lunch date at Red Lobster, followed by a scenic 320 mile US highways and mountains drive between Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginny, and back to PA. Picked up a carton of Camels and a half tank of premium at Virginia prices, too.

                      Meanwhile, thebesig feels the need to spend his Sunday parsing comments with some seriously misguided commentary.

                      The assumption that you’re making is that while you’re doing other things, I’m “spending all day” on this site. Just as you’re terrible when it comes to getting the facts straight about what you’re arguing about, you’re a lot more of a failure when it comes to assumptions that you make about me.

                      First, I don’t spend all day on this site. Like you, I engage in other activities outside of this board. The fact that I use dictation software (speech to text) allows me to use less time than normal to generate these posts.

                      Second, you’re incorrect with regards to “misguided commentary”. You chose to keep pushing strawmen arguments while refusing to deal with the original intent of the original post… As explained by my follow-on posts.

                      Simply put, let “A” be the theme of the original post and my argument.

                      Let “B” be the argument that you’re advancing, which is not relevant to the main argument that I’m advancing on this thread.

                      You’re busy concluding that “B” is wrong, by extension, you erroneously assume that my argument “A” is wrong without your doing anything to argue against it.

                      The fact that you’d claim that I’m making “misguided commentary” when your commentary misses the mark speaks volumes of the fact that the misguidedness is on your end. Not on my end.

                      MarineDad61: Besides the insults that border on the inapproprate to absurd, [SELF PROJECTION]

                      Show me where I insulted you, and I’ll show you where you insulted me. You have no problems insulting me on this thread, but when I throw insults right back at you I’m all of a sudden bordering on being inappropriate to absurd?

                      MarineDad61: (t)he(besig) further cements himself here as a narcissistic conspiracy theorist, [SELF PROJECTION]

                      Wrong on two counts.

                      First, by ignoring the fact that you insulted me first, and by complaining about the fact that I insulted you, you’re demonstrating narcissistic tendency. Again, your apparent psychological profile shows you as someone with anger issues, control issues, and narcissism issues.

                      Second, neither the original post, nor my arguments in the comments under the post, constitute a conspiracy theory. You can’t dismiss my argument as a “conspiracy theory” or me as a “conspiracy theorist” when the facts back my position, and when you have to advance strawmen arguments to dodge my initial argument.

                      Perhaps I will screen capture this comment and show the conspiracy theorists that I argue with on another site that others see me as a “conspiracy theorist”.

                      MarineDad61: refusing to acknowledge that his (likely long time) sources, such as The Gateway Pundit, are about reputable as Joy Reid, Morning Joe, and Occupy Democrats…
                      on their best good hair days.

                      First, the Gateway Pundit is neither a long-time source nor something that I read on a regular basis. My news source involves reading first-tiered information sources related to current events, such as the audit reports from the recent Arizona audit, actual studies, etc.

                      I use regular articles as a springboard to go straight to the raw information, first-tiered information, that the news reports on. Unlike you, I don’t rely on the articles themselves. I do further research. This is a part of the reason to why I have a better vantage point in these debates than you do.

                      Second, your argument on this thread is largely irrelevant, and the argument that you tried to advance was not the case… The fact that you abandoned your initial argument speaks volumes to the fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

                      Third, expecting me to acknowledge something you think is the reality is like expecting me to acknowledge that there is a herd of unicorns grazing in the nearby park.

                      MarineDad61: Frankly, I don’t believe thebesig has the ability (nor the willingness) to apologize to me,

                      Correction… There is no legitimate reason for me to apologize to you. Simple observation of what both of us are doing would show that I responded to your insulting me by insulting you right back.

                      Don’t tell me, that as long as you’ve been posting on these forums, that you’re not aware of the fact that flaming someone on the internet is an excellent way to get flamed back. That’s exactly what you did here. You flamed me, and I responded by flaming you back.

                      This proves that you’re not willing to take what you dish out to others. This is a sign of someone who is a narcissist, who has control issues, who has anger issues, etc.

                      I don’t need to apologize to you for holding you accountable for your action. Here’s a novel idea… If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Meaning, if you can’t handle my giving you a taste of your medicine, don’t dish out what you can’t take.

                      MarineDad61: simply due to the sheer bulk of false statements, false accusations, and insults here….. as well as the basement bedroom blind ego behind not only his false claims of fact and credibility, but his phony claims of victory. [SELF PROJECTION]

                      Read your statement carefully and understand that what you think is your bitching, whining, moaning, and groaning about me is your subconscious turning me into a “mirror” to describe who you really are.

                      You insist that I’ve “made false statements”, yet you have failed to prove me wrong, even on your own strawman argument. You claimed that I made “false accusations”, but failed to prove such. You, on the other hand, have made false accusations against my intent. You claim that my factual statements of providing facts and my having credibility in this fight are “false” were not backed by your own fact based, reasoned, logical argument.

                      You advanced no such argument. All you’ve done was the equivalent to saying “Meow” but claiming that you actually roared like a lion.

                      My statement of the fact that I won against you is, well, a fact. You can’t claim that you won this exchange when your argument has gradually shifted away from what you initially argued and more towards attack me and making false claims about me.

                      Those are not the actions of someone who won an argument… Those are the actions of someone trying to regain control in an argument that they have lost in. This is a combination of anger, control, and narcissism on your part.

                    • thebesig says:

                      Response to MarineDad61, October 4, 2021, Part 2A

                      MarineDad61: This article, headline, copy, source, our comments, and the parse fest by thebesig that followed…. stand as a judgement, not of you nor me, but of thebesig.

                      Wrong. They stand in judgment of you. Your actions on this thread clearly show that you have anger issues, control issues, and narcissism issues. They show that you have piss poor judgement, that you execute such without thinking, and that there is a strong likelihood that you executive piss poor judgment in real life, outside the internet.

                      What you, and others, should see from my actions is that I’m more than willing to stand up and argue my point, then defend my position against those who would disagree with my position.

                      MarineDad61: Unless… thebesig (or the webmaster(s)) see the dysfunction(al), and make the wise choice, for website integrity, and delete this article (and all the inane parsing).

                      The webmaster is not only opposed to deleting articles like this, he’s also opposed to deleting regular comments. In fact, there was one time I edited a post that someone made that caused C2Show to complain. The webmaster contacted me about that fact and informed me that he did not want things deleted.

                      I’m in agreement with not deleting things. I will not delete this thread. If you want this thread to “go away”, then you and your side of the argument need to abandon this thread. I mean, how could I drum up a counter rebuttal if there is no rebuttal to dismantle?

                      THAT would be the wise choice, for you to ignore me and to abandon this thread. This isn’t rocket science. The decision to argue with me is always a foolish decision.

                      MarineDad61: C2Show, we can easily pick out the worst of the lefty libs out there, but alt-right and righwingnuts are almost as bad, with total horseblinders to their own kind, as well as themselves and reality, as if their pot stash is kept behind the foggy bathroom mirrors. [SELF PROJECTION]

                      Your ass must be jealous of the massive volumes of shit that you’re spewing out of your mouth. Before I go on, if you want to get butthurt over this statement, I direct your attention to the bolded words in your statement. How could you not see that I’m providing you with counter insults because you initiated the insults?

                      The fact that you would complain about my lobbing insults at you without realizing your role in causing that to happen indicates that if you were to lose a couple more IQ points, you’d be photosynthesizing.

                      Again, my argument is not a conspiracy theory given the facts that support my statements. You failed to prove me wrong, and you abandoned your initial strawman argument.

                      Hint: I’ve made a lot of conspiracy theorists on Gab act towards me exactly as you’re acting towards me here. I’ve found that you share a very similar apparent psychological profile to these conspiracy theorists. By conspiracy theorists, I’m talking about the folks that I argued against who believe that the world is flat.

                      For the graphics and evidence that I presented for proving that the world is spherical rather than flat, that it goes around the sun, etc., the flat earth conspiracy theorists labeled me like how you’re labeling me here. You guys are like peas in a pod.

                      Understand that in the 18 years of debating the left online, a very similar pattern to the debate occurred. It went from the original debate to an all out flame war. I destroyed them in the flame war just as I did in the initial debate.

                      If you, or they, had won, or had a valid point, none of you guys would have drifted from your original argument to attacking me.

                      MarineDad61: Let’s watch if (t)he(besig) (ever) tries to post an article and claim truth and accuracy about any of his rightwingnut and/or conspiracy theory idols, likely to include the misguided likes of My Pillow guy Mike Lindell, or (new article out today right here) Lin Wood.

                      This is more proof that you’re driven by anger issues, control issues, and narcissism. You make assumptions about what I would do without taking the time to look at the total trend of the posts that I’ve posted here. A look at what I’ve posted as blog articles, since 2017, does not support your assumptions.

                      You’re simply building another strawman argument.

                      b>MarineDad61: I’ll accept the apology, when I see it. Not holding my breath.

                      Nope, no apology warranted. You deserved everything that I said to you in my previous posts. Instead of complaining about what I’ve done to you, read your statements that I’m replying to. Your narcissism is acting like horse blinders blocking you from seeing your own contribution to what happened to you in our exchange.

                      You’re just like a leftist… Blaming someone else, or something else, instead of blaming himself. Insulting me, then having me insult you back, then having you complain about the insults, is like going to a farmer’s market, picking up a tomato, squeezing it too hard, then complaining that they were selling tomatoes that were “too soft” to be sold.

                      How about you man up, put your man britches on, and accept the fact that if you’re going to insult me, that you’re going to need to take what’s coming back. That’s life, certainly your old man told you that numerous times.

                    • thebesig says:

                      LC: 3) thebesig will, when you disagree with him on even the slightest thing,

                      Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle, meet pot. If you disagree with me, I am going to do what most everybody else on this website, and on other websites, will do, provide a counter rebuttal.

                      LC: invariably claim he ‘destroyed’ your argument,

                      Correction, I will verifiably, accurately, state that I destroyed the opposition’s argument. This is fact. It speaks volumes when the opposition would switch from their original argument to strawmen arguments, then to attacking my debate style and attacking me. That’s not something that someone would do if they were winning the debate.

                      I provide a fact based, reasoned, logical argument. This is based not only on what other conservatives have said in other parts of the internet, but also on what people that I’ve argued against before have said when we ended up being on the same side of the argument.

                      LC: and that you must suffer from some anger issues,

                      I say this based on how they conduct themselves in the debate, what they say in the debate, etc. When I could say things that could get them to react a certain way, based on my suspicions that they have anger issues, indeed they have anger issues.

                      Let’s take MarineDad61’s demand that this thread get “deleted”. He has the option of abandoning this thread and of not reading anything in it. That would be the wise thing to do. The fact that he would complain about my insulting him while he ignores the fact that I’m returning the favor on the account that he insulted me, indicates narcissism and anger issues. These are indicators that he has control issues. This is just a scratch on the surface of how I’m seeing the anger issues that MarineDad61 and others demonstrate.

                      Angry people will call for a thread to be deleted, complain about the way I engage in debate, but will not simply walk away. I could give other examples, but people give tall tale signs that they are angry, have control issues, have narcissism issues, etc.

                      LC: all while explaining he’s doing a doctorate

                      I will mention that fact where it is relevant… Such as in arguments where the scientific method plays a role in the outcome. Also, my stating that I needed to see what happened before, during, and after the scene of the video that MarineDad61 is a doctoral mindset. I also stated that I wanted to see the video footage from the police officer’s body cameras. I would want to see before, during, and after scenes from their angle to verify statements made against them. This is an example of how doctoral research goes.

                      I’m clearly communicating the fact that I’m going to do a thorough search of the facts before I buy someone’s claim for or against an event going on.

                      LC: and is thus the purest essence of facts and logic on the planet.

                      I never claimed that. However, I stated that I will not engage in a debate on a topic unless I have extensive knowledge of the topic gained through first hand experience or study and that those that I argue with clearly do not have a grasp of what they are trying to argue.

                      LC: The third is the only relevant one here, but it does seem nigh-inescapable.

                      WRONG! Your third point is irrelevant, as it is inaccurate and stated way out of context. Your third point missed the mark so far that if I had fell off a boat in the middle of the lake and had a similar chances of hitting that water as your third point has of being accurate, I’d completely miss the water.

                      LC: My point is simple : don’t let it get to you.

                      This statement proved your own statement, attempting to minimize my identifying someone as having anger issues, invalid.

                      People with anger issues, control issues, and narcissism issues let things like what happen on this thread get to them.

                      LC: I agree this site is far better off having other conservatives on here calling out the crazy bullshit, rather than quietly letting it fester.

                      This is applicable when it is warranted. It’s not warranted on this thread. The “crazy bullshit” would not happen if people were man enough to simply walk away from an argument rather than continue to engage in an argument that consistently does not go their way.

                    • thebesig says:

                      C2Show: Lol I know MD61…

                      I laugh at his posts too, just as I laugh at yours. Again, I take sadistic pleasure with engaging in arguments like this. I would not have been doing this for 18 years if I did not take pleasure in doing this. There is a purpose behind every word, sentence, paragraph, etc., that I use in response. It worked like a charm against both MarineDad61, against you, and against the others that I’ve debated against.

                      C2Show: He likes to make long draw messages to make himself feel assured he told us off.

                      False. The length of my message hinges on the length of the rebuttal that I’m providing a counter rebuttal against. The longer the opposition’s post, the longer my counter rebuttal. The shorter the opposition’s post, the shorter my rebuttal.

                      The fact that you don’t say anything about the length of the opposition’s post speaks volumes about your real intent behind your statements.

                      C2Show: His confidence is unique to say the least.

                      Given that I don’t debate with someone unless I know more about a topic than the opposition, there is no “uniqueness” about that confidence. It would be like your having confidence talking about how traffic was when you drove the last time.

                      C2Show: Lars had plenty ty of history but before lars was around this besig fellas doing same routine to phonies and clowns for years. Strange he treats phonies and degenerates the same as he treats vets on here who he does not agree with…

                      I disagreed with those phonies and clowns. When you guys disagreed with me, obviously I’m going to disagree with your position. You accurately pointed out how I would respond to a post that I disagree with.

                      It does not matter if it is a phony, clown, someone on this website, or one of my friends or family members on Facebook.

                      This consistency is justified. My disagreement with you and the others hinges on your disagreement with me, or saying something that I would disagree with. I’m not the only one here who posted a disagreement to something someone said. I’ve seen you guy’s do it.

                      You’re trying to make this look like I’m treating you guys the same as I do phonies while taking away the factor involving the common denominator in the form of a post in response to me that I disagree with, or a post that I see that I disagree with.

                    • thebesig says:

                      C2Show: By the way besig… If this is you: https://www.reddit.com/user/thebesig/

                      Yes. I also post as “thebesig” on Gab and on patriots.win.

                      https://gab.com/thebesig

                      C2Show: Shit, you been doing same routine against phonies for years and treat everyone same way?

                      First, what part of, “I’ve been debating people online for 18 years”, did you not understand? You should have, the first time I provided the length of time I’ve been doing this, concluded that what I did here, I did elsewhere on the internet.

                      Second, if someone rebuts me, I’m going to provide a counter rebuttal to them. So yes, I will treat them the same way if they do the same thing. It’s like the “red” stove burner burning everybody’s hand that touches it.

                      Third, you’re making this sound like I’m just going out of my way to give people a hard time. That’s not the case. If someone gets into a debate with me, I’m going to debate them. Regardless of who they are and of what website we are on.

                      C2Show: Get a new routine or at least show respect yo others, brother. That definitely looks like your trademark antics.

                      As long as there are people who are going to debate me, that’s not going to happen. If I post something, no matter where I post it, and someone rebuts my post, I’m going to provide them with a counter rebuttal.

                      Don’t mistake my providing a counter rebuttal to others as my disrespecting them. That’s akin to saying that I disrespect others for refusing to be their doormat.

                      I have every intention of providing counter rebuttals when someone rebuts me. That you can’t control. However, you need to focus on what you can control and not make demands on what I could do.

                      C2Show: I gotta know which person on here let you become a content generator.

                      Jonn. Go back and read the response that I gave you last night.

                    • thebesig says:

                      MarineDad61: C2Show, It’s him. Self identified as a PSYOP (37F).

                      Infantry and PSYOP in the Army, not just self-identified by also in my record. I am in the Retired Reserve (Army).

                    • thebesig says:

                      C2Show: Never actually bothered to look up his antics until now. Until I noticed his pattern always same for last 8 years or so. Oh fuck me…the signature antics are all there.

                      Again, what part of, “I’ve been debating online for 18 years” did you not understand? What you, or anybody else, should have gotten from that is that the tactics you see me doing here are tactics that I’ve used over those past 18 years. This should not come as a surprise to you. I would link to my Protest Warrior username (2004-2006), this is not the first forum I debated on, but I could have linked to mega posts I made using the same tactics I’ve used here… With more of a flaming nature to it.

                      C2Show: Like others, I just gave him a pass because…well he is a veteran. Shame he belittles others and shows little respect.

                      False. Don’t mistake my responding to the opposition as “belittling” others and as “showing little respect”. If someone rebuts me, I’m going to provide a counter rebuttal. If someone flames me, I’m going to flame them back.

                      That’s how things work. If you don’t want me to flame you, don’t flame me. If you don’t want me taking you apart, don’t argue with me. It’s that simple, this is not rocket science.

                      C2Show: Strange enough he never evolved.

                      I’m sorry, but my dismantling opposition posts the way I’m doing here, being similar to how I’ve done things over the past 18 years, falls more under “cause and effect” than it does under “changing one’s personality”.

                      I mean, I’ve been doing distance runs since then, does that mean that since I’m still doing distance runs, I “never evolved”?

                      C2Show: Overly defensive and goes on the offensive minute someone counters.

                      What you’re actually complaining about is the fact that I will stand my ground and refuse to back down. THAT is what you and the others here have problems with.

                      Overly defensive? [Buzzer noise] WRONG! Let’s see, the minute someone counters I go on the offensive… Meaning, someone disagrees with me, I disagree with them in a counter post…

                      Well holy crap, what an outrageous concept! One person disagrees with the other, the other person disagrees back and we have a debate… Something that occurs across the internet yet somehow you act like this is only happening in my case.

                      Open your eyes and look around. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve seen people respond to others, here, when they faced disagreement.

                    • thebesig says:

                      Originally posted by Animal:

                      I’ve said commissar’s abuse is part of the reason fundraising has become more challenging. The obvious covid slowing down FOIA requests is also part. Besig is another part. Some just aren’t paying for him to have his personal platform.

                      Bring back 2/17.

                      What this tells me is that people are willing to overlook stolen valor and zero in on a couple of posters who don’t back down as a factor on whether to donate or not.

                      People have the option to ignore certain commenters and read other posts without replying to the posts they don’t care to see. But, herein lies the big problem that represents the elephant in the room that nobody is looking at.

                      By complaining about those who do not back down, you’re essentially stating that you want posters who are willing to be walked over, who would back down in the face of being bullied, etc.

                      By extension, what I’m seeing from your post is that more people would donate if they could just push people around without experiencing push back.

                      I could jump down Commissar’s parade every time I see his posts, and treat him like I’ve treated the opposition here, but I don’t. If you take the Commissar posts that I’ve read but not have responded to, and compared them to the Commissar posts I have responded to, those that I have not responded to outnumber those that I have responded to.

                      Yes, I could read his posts, disagree with him, but scroll on without arguing against him. Result? I don’t have a string of back and forth posts with him on the threads where I just scroll past his comment.

                      For those that do not like the methods that either Commissar or I use, the option is there to ignore us. Had the opposition here ignored me, and not even take swipes at me indirectly here, this thread would not have blown up like it did.

                      I was like this when 2/17 was here, just as I have been like this for 18 years, bringing him back won’t change that. Not even members of my family could stop me from doing this same thing on Facebook. I’m one stubborn MF when it comes to things like this.

                    • thebesig says:

                      MarineDad61: Animal, Excellent points.

                      Your side of the argument did not bring up excellent points on this thread.

                      MarineDad61: Ironic, that thebesig actually tries to suggest that this article and comment threads have a MarineDad61 problem.

                      Wrong. I’m not suggesting that this thread has a MarineDad61 problem. However, you contributed to the length of this thread, you contributed to this thread blowing up.

                      You had the option, a wise one, to drop your argument and to ignore me. How many posts would not have been made had you exercised that common sense option? You’re quick to blame me, see below, but you ignore your part in this.

                      MarineDad61: Based on recent comments from several others over the last 27 hours (October 3 & October 4)… it is fairly apparent that this article and comments (and this website) have a thebesig problem.

                      I’m sorry, but what is said by those on the same side of the argument, by the opposition, is biased and suspect when pinning blame to me.

                      No, this is not a “thebesig” problem with either this site or this thread. Every single problem that bitched, whined, moaned and groaned about me on this thread had been someone that received my counter rebuttals in the past. This includes Animal, someone I got into a heated argument with a few summers ago.

                      Again, if you guys exercised the common sense option of ignoring me, and of ignoring Commissar, these threads would not blow up like what they have been doing.

                      It takes two sides of the argument, either side not backing down, to cause threads to become like this. I have every intention of continuing the arguments that I’m in. Commissar, it appears, has every intention of keeping the fight up on the threads he argues on.

                      That is our option. The only recourse the opposite side of the argument should take, if they want either of us to stop arguing, is to ignore us.

                      However, by ignoring this fact, the fact that you guys refuse to ignore us, then chose to complain about our refusal to back down, shows that this is as much as your problem, as well as that of those that I’ve argued against on this thread.

                      MarineDad61: I’d certainly like to see some (more) admin and webmaster input and opinion on this.

                      Actually, based on the email exchanges that we’ve had in the background, you wouldn’t. I promise you that they don’t see things the way you guys do.

                      Yes, I may be hammering the f* out of you guys over here. However, the admins would tell you that I’m more likely to advocate on the behalf of all the commenters on this site… Including being the most lenient when it comes to handling an errant poster (give them more chances, etc.)

                      I’m even pushing for giving you guys the ability to post guest posts.

                      Give up on the idea of threads getting deleted, as the Webmaster is opposed to deleting these threads, and against deleting individual comments, simply because some commenters have issues with it.

                    • thebesig says:

                      C2Show: Well said…

                      Your side of the argument did not bring anything up that was “well said.” Given that he is complaining right along side MarineDad61 and you, I could see why you’d think that.

                      C2Show: Use to be a time when there were 100 comments per article.

                      You’re erroneously assuming that the drop in comment engagement per post “could be traced” to me. That’s a categorically false statement.

                      The drop in comment engagement is largely due to the drop in stolen valor posts. That is what drove people to this community. Comments per stolen valor articles reached into the thousands. Not just hundreds.

                      The drop in stolen valor posts were matched by drops in poster engagement. We went from posts in the thousands to posts in the hundreds. As more posters switched to lurker mode, or go elsewhere, that dropped even further, down to where we are at now.

                      This was a challenge that we foresaw not long after Jonn’s passing. Long before you guys argued with me and got the predictable results.

                      C2Show: Articles were not some pissant tinfoil hat nut making bias opinions. [SELF PROJECTION]

                      You’re so full of shit with that statement… Here… Take this toilet paper and wipe your mouth with it.

                      You bitch, whine, moan and groan about how I treat others, and tell me that “that is not how I should treat others”, then you do exactly what you tell me not to do with others. Look up the word “hypocrite” to get a description of one of your traits.

                      Again, it’s not “tinfoil hat” making biased opinions when the statement is based on facts.

                      C2Show: They were bipartisan views where people posted their opinions in comments.

                      Actually, the political posts were heavily conservative in the comments section. It was Jonn that initially put up the “this site leans conservative” comment in one of the “read this first” comments.

                      C2Show: Hard to do that these days, 2/17 is missed.

                      I was like this when 2/17 was here, what makes you think I would be different with his posting here again?

                      C2Show: Hell Balm and the boys are doing good ,just get rid of the bad apple.

                      I don’t see you attacking “Balm and the boys” the way you’ve attacked me. In fact, a search of your comments, in the search box, shows you showing hostility only to me, and only on my posts.

                      I know that you are well aware of this fact.

                      The “bad apple” on the other hand, happens to be someone that pushes back against you. Go right ahead and treat “Balm and the boys” the way you treat me and well see if you continue to see them as “doing good”.

                      You need to be honest with what you’re saying here. I fight back and refuse to be a doormat. THAT’s the problem that you’re having with me.

                      I have a better idea… Ignore me and don’t respond to me directly or indirectly. THAT is what you have control over… What you can do. Not on what others can do.\

                      C2Show: Like MD61 says though, nobody ever tell this guy or puts him in his place about his antics.

                      The administrators are well aware of what I’m doing. This happened before. However, seeing things from both sides of the argument, they saw the one blatantly obvious solution that your side was not taking… The fact that since you guys did not control my actions, and thus can’t force me to quit responding to you, you guys have the action to take action where you guys do have control… Ignore me.

                      That’s it. Ignore me and don’t do what you have been doing. You stated that “as soon as someone disagrees I argue back”.

                      You’re expecting me to do something I have no intention of doing, continue to argue with you guys. Yet, you refuse to do something you’re fully capable of doing, something that would help end this argument… Ignore me… Don’t respond to me directly or indirectly or by addressing someone when you’re really taking swipes at me.

                      Why should the Admins “put me in my place” when you guys could do the adult thing and walk away from this thread, from this conflict, rather than contribute to it before complaining about it?

                      Grow up and quick running from the playground to get the schoolteachers involved.

                      C2Show: There were warning signs about him years ago.

                      Common sense should have told you that I will argue with people who argue with me. That is the trend that even you acknowledged. The fact that I’m doing the same thing to you guys now that I did to phonies in the past has everything to do with being involved in a debate that started the way debates normally started.

                      This is not my “going rogue” as you’re implying.

                    • thebesig says:

                      LC: On the note of articles not being tinfoil idiocy,

                      Wrong. The article that I posted above, and my argument, are not “tinfoil idiocy”. I’ve seen your posts above and I will debunk them later, don’t have time tonight, but I will get back to them to balance them with my counter rebuttals. The links that you provided run a strawman argument.

                      LC: I’d note that the admins have offered others the chance to write. I’d recommend either of you, C2Show or MarineDad61, consider looking into it, pending admin approval.

                      Actually, I’m pushing for adding a feature to this site that would allow you guys, everyone of you, to post guest articles. The Webmaster/site owner is currently working on making it a reality.

                      The way it would work is that you guys would have a comment box that is like what we have on the dashboard. You guys would be able to add images. Once you guys submit the guest post, an Admin reviews it and, if it is accepted, would be posted.

                      In one of the last correspondences where I pushed this, I suggested the possibilities that would result if either you or Commissar provided a guest post.

                      LC: To me, it’s pretty shocking that we don’t get articles on things like Mike Flynn’s latest idiocy, or this nonsense where Lin Wood, one of the chief people behind the ‘stolen election’ nonsense,

                      First, the stolen election, no quotations as it did happen, is not nonsense. I will get to your comments on the Weekend Open Thread on that matter later this week in order to balance those statements with my counter rebuttals. I will go by affidavits and other analysis than by what the propagandist media says.

                      Second, despite my disagreement with your opinions, as soon as the guest post feature goes online, go ahead and submit your articles related to Mike Flynn or Lin Wood.

                      LC: is now pushing that no planes were used in 9/11, it’s just what ‘they’ want you to think. Suggesting that the War on Terror that has been fought for twenty years was based on some conspiracy theory seems relevant to the site, in my opinion.

                      First, just because he argues this does not dismiss the fact that election fraud occurred and that the election was stolen. I don’t care if either one of the two you mentioned were found dancing naked on the bar table one weekend, that’s not going to change the facts that they did present in the past.

                      Second, I’ve debated, numerous times, on Gab against people who insist that 9/11 was an insider job. I hammered the 9/11 Conspiracy theorists there the way I’m hammering you guys on this thread.

                      LC: The admins have offered me a chance to write in the past, but as I’m not a veteran, I’ve declined. I do find myself often in want of more real discussion, and a little less crazy. I doubt I’m alone in that.

                      Hence one of the reasons to why I advocated the guest post feature that every one of you would be able to utilize to directly submit posts.

                      LC: The admins tend to be incredibly reasonable sorts, so if it’s of interest to you, I’d suggest raising the idea.

                      I have raised that idea, numerous times, and I kept pushing for the idea until the Admins starting designing it.

                    • MarineDad61 says:

                      C2Show, LC, and Animal,

                      Did thebesig really type all that last night??

                      It’s now beyond self defense and counter attack on several commenters here (mostly me (of course)).

                      It’s now delusional.

                      Perhaps thebesig should summon his memory of Jonn Lilyea,
                      and Lilyea’s hope, purpose, and vision for this website.

                      More on Mason’s (more) recent RedState Donahue Kabul article.
                      https://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=118160

                      RIP JL.

                    • thebesig says:

                      MarineDad61: Did thebesig really type all that last night??

                      Yes, I generated that batch of posts on the evening of October 4, 2021.

                      MarineDad61: It’s now beyond self defense and counter attack on several commenters here (mostly me (of course)).

                      Wrong. My rebuttals to you have been consistent throughout our entire argument. I’ve addressed you guys “point by point”. My responses are relevant to your replies. I have been consistent. Our debate could be described this way:

                      Let “X” be your taking swipes at me.

                      Let “Y” be my counter responses to your posts related to me.

                      This model nicely represents what occurred between the two of us, as well as between me and the others:

                      If “X”, then “Y”, ad infinitum.

                      You are advancing “X”, while complaining about “Y”. It is obvious, by your responses, that you want me to stop. However, you are going about it the incorrect way. As long as you advance “X”, you’re going to get a counter rebuttal “Y”.

                      Now, if you study, and analyze, that model, you would realize that in order to “make this stop”, you should follow this model:

                      If not “X”, then not “Y”.

                      Now, take your time and review that “if then” statement.

                      Key in both “if then” statements, is the fact that you have control of one of those variables. Not the other. You have control of “X”; however, you do not have control of “Y”.

                      What you have been doing, in the past several exchanges between us, is demanding that something, that is not under your control, to occur. I have control of “Y”, and I have every intention of providing it.

                      This leaves you with part of that “if then” statement that you have control of: “X”.

                      All you have to do, to make this stop, is to quit supplying “X”, to make this “if then” statement a reality: if not “X”, then not “Y”.

                      The fact that you insist on demanding an action, that you have no control over, to occur, speaks volumes of fact that indeed you have control issues, anger issues, and excessive pride issues.

                      This is not “beyond self-defense and counter-attack”, this continues to be “self-defense and counterattack.” this is how debates run. I gave you guys a taste of your medicine. I could see, from your response, that you don’t like the way you treat others when it’s applied to you.

                      As for who most my rebuttals are for, notice how I have two responses to you labeled as “Part 1” and “Part 2”. Both of those posts are a response to one of your posts.

                      MarineDad61: It’s now delusional. [SELF PROJECTION

                      Actually, thinking that you could attack me, rebut me, then complaining about the fact that this argument continues, and then expecting that this would cause the thread debate to come to a conclusion instead of continuing with my counter rebuttals, is the grand delusion.

                      What is delusional is your continuing to do the same thing but expecting a different result. Then, when you get the same result as before, you complain about the fact that I keep responding.

                      Here’s a novel idea for you, stop replying to me. Also, stop attacking me. both of these are “X” in the above “if then” statement: If not “X”, then not “Y”.

                      MarineDad61: Perhaps thebesig should summon his memory of Jonn Lilyea, and Lilyea’s hope, purpose, and vision for this website.

                      First, go to the “TAH FNG-Read before you post” tab. Once there, read “General Info for New TAH Readers”, points 1, 2, and 3. After reading those points, proceed to “Frequently Asked Questions”, Questions 17 and 19.

                      These are consistent with what Jonn Lilyea had on this tab when he was still with us.

                      Second, before you tell me to summon that memory, you need to actually care about such memory. The fact that you are doing something that you should know would result in my continuing this thread with my rebuttal shows that you don’t really care about the memory of Jonn Lilyea.

                      If you did, you would have disengaged from this argument a few days ago. Did I not tell you, in my last batch of rebuttals, that if you wanted this thread to “go away”, then you and your side of the argument need to abandon this thread?

                      Your actions tell me that you want this argument to continue. See above “If X then Y” if-then statement explanation.

                      That, MarineDad61, is an example of wisdom. If you truly cared about Jonn Lilyea’s memory, YOU would have taken that advice and abandoned this thread… You would not have added your response attacking me yet again. You would have abandoned this thread when it was clear that I was going to keep hammering you point by point.

                      I gave hints, early in this thread, that I intended to keep hammering the opposition. You should have projected your actions and realized that your efforts, your intent, etc., were futile. But, you kept plowing on driven by control, anger, and pride issues.

                      I see through your statement above, and see it for what it is… An attempt to advance “X” without receiving “Y”. Again, if not “X”, then not “Y”. Study both “if then” statements, then focus on the part of those statements that you have control over to cause this argument to end, and for this thread to continue on towards the “dead discussions” category.

                      As for your link to Mason’s thread, I will visit that in the future… After you and others wisely abandon this thread for good.

                      Hint: Let go of the things that you can’t control.

                    • thebesig says:

                      To help you understand the “cause and effect” that our argument is taking, I’ve created a meme to help explain what I’m talking about.

                      Again, MarineDad61, your response gets my counter response. A review of our argument on this thread shows that. I want to continue this argument; you want me to “stop”. Unfortunately for you, you do not have control over what I do. However, you have control over your own actions.

                      Meaning, you have control over whether you respond or not. You do not have control over whether I continue arguing or not. I declared my intention to continue arguing… This leaves you with what you can control… Whether you respond or not.

                      Since you want this to end, then you must control what you have control over and do not respond to my posts. By taking away your response, you take away the chance that I would provide a counter response to you. By taking away your attacks, you take away that chance that I would counter-attack.

                      I’ve provided a graphic to help you understand what I’m talking about:

                • thebesig says:

                  C2Show: Lol I know MD61…

                  I laugh at his posts too, just as I laugh at yours. Again, I take sadistic pleasure with engaging in arguments like this. I would not have been doing this for 18 years if I did not take pleasure in doing this. There is a purpose behind every word, sentence, paragraph, etc., that I use in response. It worked like a charm against both MarineDad61, against you, and against the others that I’ve debated against.

                  C2Show: He likes to make long draw messages to make himself feel assured he told us off.

                  False. The length of my message hinges on the length of the rebuttal that I’m providing a counter rebuttal against. The longer the opposition’s post, the longer my counter rebuttal. The shorter the opposition’s post, the shorter my rebuttal.

                  The fact that you don’t say anything about the length of the opposition’s post speaks volumes about your real intent behind your statements.

                  C2Show: His confidence is unique to say the least.

                  Given that I don’t debate with someone unless I know more about a topic than the opposition, there is no “uniqueness” about that confidence. It would be like your having confidence talking about how traffic was when you drove the last time.

                  C2Show: Lars had plenty ty of history but before lars was around this besig fellas doing same routine to phonies and clowns for years. Strange he treats phonies and degenerates the same as he treats vets on here who he does not agree with…

                  I disagreed with those phonies and clowns. When you guys disagreed with me, obviously I’m going to disagree with your position. You accurately pointed out how I would respond to a post that I disagree with.

                  It does not matter if it is a phony, clown, someone on this website, or one of my friends or family members on Facebook.

                  This consistency is justified. My disagreement with you and the others hinges on your disagreement with me, or saying something that I would disagree with. I’m not the only one here who posted a disagreement to something someone said. I’ve seen you guy’s do it.

                  You’re trying to make this look like I’m treating you guys the same as I do phonies while taking away the factor involving the common denominator in the form of a post in response to me that I disagree with, or a post that I see that I disagree with.

                • thebesig says:

                  Originally posted by Animal:

                  I’ve said commissar’s abuse is part of the reason fundraising has become more challenging. The obvious covid slowing down FOIA requests is also part. Besig is another part. Some just aren’t paying for him to have his personal platform.

                  Bring back 2/17.

                  What this tells me is that people are willing to overlook stolen valor and zero in on a couple of posters who don’t back down as a factor on whether to donate or not.

                  People have the option to ignore certain commenters and read other posts without replying to the posts they don’t care to see. But, herein lies the big problem that represents the elephant in the room that nobody is looking at.

                  By complaining about those who do not back down, you’re essentially stating that you want posters who are willing to be walked over, who would back down in the face of being bullied, etc.

                  By extension, what I’m seeing from your post is that more people would donate if they could just push people around without experiencing push back.

                  I could jump down Commissar’s parade every time I see his posts, and treat him like I’ve treated the opposition here, but I don’t. If you take the Commissar posts that I’ve read but not have responded to, and compared them to the Commissar posts I have responded to, those that I have not responded to outnumber those that I have responded to.

                  Yes, I could read his posts, disagree with him, but scroll on without arguing against him. Result? I don’t have a string of back and forth posts with him on the threads where I just scroll past his comment.

                  For those that do not like the methods that either Commissar or I use, the option is there to ignore us. Had the opposition here ignored me, and not even take swipes at me indirectly here, this thread would not have blown up like it did.

                  I was like this when 2/17 was here, just as I have been like this for 18 years, bringing him back won’t change that. Not even members of my family could stop from doing this same thing on Facebook. I’m one stubborn MF when it comes to things like this.

              • thebesig says:

                MarineDad62: C2Show, It took 2 hours, but (t)he(besig) proved you correct. Just as you described, too.

                His telling you what I have done in the past, and applying that to what I would do with you, is not him “figuring me out” and then making calls. It is a simple exercise of seeing what I have done in the past, seeing what you are doing now which is similar to what others have done the past, and projecting that I will argue with you.

                It would be no different if he were to tell you that I would be eating breakfast, lunch, and dinner, tomorrow given the fact that I had eaten breakfast, lunch, and dinner, in the past.

                Telling you that I’m going to argue with you is no different from thinking that winter is not that far away when you see the colors of the leaves change.

                MarineDad62: He must have missed your comment here, until too late, after already busy replying to mine.

                False I read his comments, including the one telling you what you were up to in a debate with me, based on what happened in the past. I also read your comments, before I generated my replies to either one of you.

                Looking beyond his taking swipes at me while he was doing it, I subsequently drove the issue home through specific wordings. Your reaction to that would assist me with seeing more of your apparent psychological profile.

                Understand that I see right through other people’s attempts to use “reverse psychology” to get me to do something they would much rather have me do vice what I intend to do. It fails every… Single… Time.

                A rebuttal to me would get a counter rebuttal from me regardless of attempts to get me to do otherwise.

                MarineDad62: He’s trying to convince himself that:

                Wrong, there is no “trying to convince myself” about this. I’ve argued against the left for 18 years. The people that I’ve argued against, regardless of which part of the political spectrum they fall on, slot themselves into specific apparent psychological profiles.

                Your argument on this thread is consistent with the actions I’ve seen before by others. Your reasoning, your argument, your conduct, etc., places you in the profile I described you as.

                No, not trying to convince myself of anything, but simply telling it like it is. Assuming that I’m trying to convince myself that you’re not a Republican and that you do not know what you are talking about sounds as idiotic as the statement that “I’m trying to convince myself that the sun will rise tomorrow and that I will go to bed tomorrow night.”

                MarineDad62: (1) I am not a Republican, and

                Your argument, your line of reasoning, your statements, etc., do not point you out as a Republican, or as a conservative. If you want to see what a Republican/conservative argument is, read my responses to you. Read the arguments on this thread that agree with me. We are a part of the conservative base. We are advancing a conservative argument.

                You, on the other hand, have behaved, and argued, exactly as people have behaved and have argued in the past… These same people identify themselves, proudly, as liberals/Democrats.

                If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck…

                MarineDad62: (2) I don’t know what I’m talking about.

                You don’t know what you’re talking about. The post that I made above, and my responses below that post, argue from the standpoint of one group being treated differently from another group, with variances too wide to explain away with the “each case is reviewed on its own merit”.

                I advanced a conservative/Republican concern. The fact you are dismissive of that indicates that you are not a conservative/Republican… Unless you’re willing to receive the label of “Republican in Name Only”. Your conduct in this thread, and your excessive use of inductive fallacies like the strawman argument, indicate that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

                MarineDad62: Good luck with that, thebesig.

                No “good luck” needed. I successfully accomplish the above. I’m not the only one that is doubting your claims of being a Republican. I’m not the only one that is pointed out the fallacy of your argument. Go ahead, nobody is looking, others have responded to you in this agreement with your assumptions. Read their responses.

                MarineDad62: It’s your headline, your copy, and your comments.

                Meaning, when I explained to you the intent of my making that post, and as detailed in my following comments, you should have dropped your strawman arguments. You would’ve understood why I did not want to talk about certain individuals. You would have understood why I was making comparisons to last year’s rioters. You would have understood that the argument you are making was against an argument I was not making. You are making colossally erroneous assumptions about my intent, about my argument, etc.

                MarineDad62: Your far far far rightwing views.

                Wrong. My views are based on my knowledge of American History, the writing of the Founding Fathers, my being a history buff for over four decades, my being a current events buff for almost four decades, as well as on my reading the entire Bible… Old and New Testaments more than once.

                I am not on the far right. However, the fact that you would dismiss my arguments as “far far far right-wing” is a powerful indicator that you are on the left side of the political spectrum. Your apparent psychological profile indicates such. Your argument on this thread indicates such.

                This is not a situation to where “you are in the middle” and I am attacking you from the “far right”. This is a situation to where you are on the left side of the political spectrum, and I’m hammering you from the right.

                In face-to-face political discussions, people on both sides of the political aisle, the center-left and center-right, agree with me.

                I have also lost count of how frequently I have entered debates, on Gab, against the very people you accuse me of being.

                MarineDad62: Your conspiracy theories.

                It’s not a conspiracy theory when it is backed by fact. In fact, answer this question:

                As groups, are the J6 protesters getting treated the same, including court decisions, as the groups that rioted in 2020? YES [ ] NO [ ]

                Copy and paste this question, and the yes no options, to your reply. Place an “X” in the box that represents your response.

                MarineDad62: Your horseblinders. Wear them with your rightwingnut pride.

                What you mistake as my “horse blinders”, quotation marks used strongly, are pieces of your stray turds blocking your view given the fact that you have your head shoved so far up your ass that you need a glass belly button to see.

                Perhaps if you told that one brain celled operation of yours to quit trying to take you over and to start doing its job, you would actually pull your head out of your ass and know what you’re talking about.

                MarineDad62: Again, good luck with that.

                This is narcissism speaking, as even you had to read posts by others on this thread questioning your claims of being a “Republican”. They too have effectively debunked your arguments here. Not exactly a case to where you could claim that you “know what you are talking about.”

          • thebesig says:

            MarineDad61: thebesig, You really need to consider….

            I’m not going to “consider” whatever it is you want me to consider. You need to stick with the theme that I started with the above post and continued in the thread… The double standard that is going on.

            MarineDad61: that the others surrounding this tragic death, mostly those charged with violence (felonies), will (now) do anything they can to minimize their own blame, including trying to pin anything they can on D.C. and Capitol Police, right or wrong. [STRAWMAN]

            The theme that I’m arguing, from the above post through my responses on this thread, focuses on double standards. It’s not an argument on whether crimes were committed or not, but on how one side is treated compared to the other side.

            That is the only factor that I should consider. What people do after the fact, to include what you’re describing these folks would do, is irrelevant when people who committed more violent riots, to include burning businesses, vehicles, and other property, to toppling statues, and causing other disruptions, are generally not being treated as harshly. Many of them had charges dropped against them, that’s after the government had to be prodded to act.

            Anything beyond that is a strawman argument and will not be considered.

            MarineDad61: Were some police behaving badly? Sure. Some got aggressive. Some got politically passive, too, and didn’t do their job(s). That’s where all the excuses of “they let them in” come from.

            First, I saw videos of police officers letting people in. They would not be doing that unless they were cleared to do that. They would have been briefed by their chain of command. They would have communicated with each other that they had people going into the Capitol. This was not the result of people “being passive”.

            Second, our argument takes on an additional angel… Whether the guy above started things or was he reacting to things. You claimed that he started things, the video that I showed you proved that was not the case.

            MarineDad61: Also consider, these knuckleheads who THOUGHT they were being patriotic, good Trump supporters, defenders of the Constitution, or whatever you want to call it, well….

            Again, the only thing that I should be considering is my intent for the above post, and my intent with my responses… The fact that there is a double standard being applied. Again, I’m not defending legitimate crimes that were committed. That’s not the point. The point is that there is a double standard being applied against those who are charged during conservative protests and those that are charged during leftist protests.

            THAT’s the only consideration that should be done and THAT’s the only thing you should be focusing on. Not the BS strawman arguments that you’re advancing here.

            MarineDad61: They not only failed to accomplish their mission of the day, but it BACKFIRED so badly, on themselves, as well as on Republicans as a whole, and the legacy of Trump, that Democrats can now hang this over the heads of many elected GOP officials (and hopeful candidates) for years to come.

            First, do continue to make statements, like this, that makes me doubt that you are a Republican.

            The mission for that day was to do a peaceful demonstration. That’s what Trump wanted, I’ve heard his speech to that effect, and I’ve read the transcript to that effect. The plan was not to force Congress to change their minds, but to show a presence. Trump did not pin his plans on the protestors, but on people within Congress.

            Second, people with critical thinking abilities, who are not drinking the propagandist media Koolaid, know for a fact that this is not what the media and Democrats say it is. I’ve seen to many videos related to that day that destroys the government narrative over what happened.

            Third, what is going to be hung over elected Republican head is if they turned against Trump. Understand that the Republican base is with Trump. A candidate running for office who is not endorsed by Trump will have a poor chance of winning either the primary or the general election.

            MarineDad61: “End justifies the means” does not give armchair “patriots” the justification to now try to blame anyone else but themselves, the breachers, the violent, and the voices from bullhorns, megaphones, and microphones, that motivated the gullible to embarrass themselves, their party, their President, and their nation. [STRAWMAN]

            First, your assumption that Trump supporters support the legitimate protester initiated assaults and crime is false. Nobody is making excuses for what people did that day. That is not the point of the above post, that is not the point of my argument. The argument, in this regard, involves the double standard, something that you have yet to acknowledge with as much energy as you are using advancing a leftist argument. This leads me to my next point.

            Second, you came on here and pushed the same BS propaganda that the leftists have pushed, which causes me to doubt your claims of being a Republican/Conservative. You’re arguing like the leftists that I’ve argued over the past 18 years.

            MarineDad61: And THAT is the legacy of the 900 knuckleheads. [STRAWMAN]

            Again, this is about the double standard that is being applied to different political groups. On one hand, you have leftist groups committing more serious crimes than what the J6 rioters are being charged with, yet it’s the J6 people being held for a long time, for months, before getting a judgment on them. Quit advancing strawmen arguments.

        • thebesig says:

          Response to MarineDad61 October 2, 2021, Part 1A

          MarineDad61: I watched the whole 7:36. Twice.

          If you watched it twice, you would have seen a contradiction to the argument that you made. You would not be on here foolishly arguing an invalid argument.

          MarineDad61: Now here is what is missing from your July StopHate video (and especially your followup August Gateway Pundit blame link).

          Wrong. You claimed that he started the attack against the cop. However, when watching the video, you could clearly see that he did not start things, but was reacting to the sequence of events that occurred, including the need to spare people from danger as we see here.

          Your argument against him is proven wrong in that video. I showed what I needed to show to prove you wrong.

          MarineDad61: April (long before July and August)-She died of a DRUG OVERDOSE. (link at bottom)

          Stated in the video. I’m going by what I saw in the video, to include what appeared to be one of the police officers hitting her with his baton.

          As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, we were told, in the military, that hitting someone on the head with a baton could kill them… And that we were not to apply it to someone’s head in the vast majority of instances. The police officers had to know that, witnesses have stated that the police officer hit the woman on the head.

          I will not accept the official account on how she died until I read the text of the result of the autopsy report commissioned by her family.

          MarineDad61: Squeezed, sure.

          Evident by both the video and testimony by those at the scene.

          MarineDad61: Hit, likely.

          Evident by both the video and testimony by those at the scene. If you saw it, “twice” as you claimed, you’d see one officer striking down with a baton in the same area they pulled the woman from. Witnesses say that he was hitting her with a baton, to include a strike to the head.

          MarineDad61: Knocked down, yes.

          Evident by both the video and testimony by those at the scene.

          MarineDad61: Stepped on by others, yes.

          Evident by both the video and testimony by those at the scene. She was under where the police were, the crowd was trying to pull her away. Something you’d notice if you watched the video like you claimed.

          MarineDad61: Asphyxiated by police, no.

          If you watched the video, like you claimed you did, you’d notice that they finally pull her away from where the police were at. You could also see someone attempting to apply CPR to her. She was pulled, unresponsive, from where the officers were at. Then the video, which you claimed you watch, shows them lifting her up to get her further out of the area.

          MarineDad61: Asphyxiated by other rioters, possible.

          It looks like you need to watch the video a third time. She was pulled from where the police were. She initially had other protestors land on her after the police shoved them back.

          Again, witnesses reported the police striking her, and someone trying to block those blows. Either they deliberately hit an unconscious woman, or she was active. We don’t see that, so you can’t conclude that she was asphyxiated by the other rioters without also accepting the eyewitness statements that the cops pushed protestors down slippery steps in a reckless manner.

          The reality is that we do not see at what point she looses consciousness, so either asphyxiated by other rioters, or by police is possible.

          MarineDad61: Most likely, STRESS plus DRUGS.

          Until I read the results of an autopsy report commissioned by the family, the actual report and not what any of your BS links say, I’m not going to accept that claim.

          MarineDad61: She was NOT killed by police.

          You have not provided enough information, valid information to substantiate that statement.

          Again, until I see an autopsy report, one commissioned from her family, I’m going to go by what witnesses at the location say.

          MarineDad61: Your Gateway Pundit (once again) pushes a bullshit conspiracy theory, with an outrageous accusation,

          The only person that’s pushing bullshit conspiracy theories is you. You failed in this post, just as you failed in your other responses, to prove that the Gateway Pundit pushed a conspiracy theory above. You spectacularly failed to prove the above linked article “wrong”. You colossally failed to prove me “wrong”.

          The only thing you’re doing is yapping your mouth and spewing hot air. No substance. Your BS narrative about Mellis starting all of this got destroyed in the video that I posted. Result? You’re pushing more strawmen arguments.

          MarineDad61: which of course will NOT result in unicorn justice. [STRAWMAN]

          The argument on this thread is not to demand “unicorn justice”, but to point out the double standards being applied to two different groups of protests.

          MarineDad61: More… 2 minutes I shared doesn’t tell the whole story, of course.

          It left out information and presented a false narrative that countered what those, who were actually there, have described. The video I showed in response detailed a different narrative from the one you’d get watching the less than two minutes video that you shared.

          MarineDad61: The whole story of 1 HOUR AND 45 MINUTES of waves of protesters trying to battle their way into the Capitol, at this tunnel and doorway, and being pushed back multiple times. [STRAWMAN]

          You’re pulling the “Sam Lazar” argument again. One main point that I’m getting across with the above post, and my responses on this thread, is the double standard being applied to two different groups.

          Notice that I’m not excusing valid crimes that were committed by some of the protestors. That’s not the point of this thread. I’ve even pointed out the need to see what is on each of the body camera videos of each of the officers involved to get a better picture from the officer’s standpoint, as well as augment the video that I posted.

          This is not something that you’re willing to do. You have a different agenda for this thread, and its not one that I would expect from someone insinuating that he is a Republican.

        • thebesig says:

          Response to MarineDad61 October 2, 2021, Part 2A

          MarineDad61: Mace, sticks, fists, and flying objects over & over & over again.

          As with this situation with the guy with the white cowboy hat, I would need to see the footage that provides more detail beyond the one that the propagandist media wants the viewer to see. However, the purpose of this thread is not to litigate every single instance of the riots on January 6.

          The argument I’ve advanced on the first post, and on my responses on this thread, focuses on the double standard being applied to leftists and conservatives. When those on the right are held for a long time for charges that are not as serious as those on the left, and those on the left are not treated as harshly, then yes, we could call these folks political prisoners… As this is precisely what happens overseas.

          MarineDad61: Also, very few at the front of the crowd knew about woman down.

          Not exactly. The people in the front, seeing her and those with her, see her being down. They are passing information back and forth to each other. You could see their actions trying to pull people to safety from every level.

          MarineDad61: Riots are chaos,

          That does not explain away the fact that the protestors were communicating with each other regarding the people that were in danger of suffering additional physical harm.

          MarineDad61: but it would be on Police, NOT rioters, to whisk her away for medical attention, once anyone sees someone unconscious. Everyone there rioting should have RETREATED.

          WRONG! Again, one of my MOSs in the Army is Psychological Operations Specialist, or PSYOP. PSYOP are among those who are utilized to do crowd control, to include diffusing volatile situations like this.

          In a similar situation overseas, where I was with MP and we were dealing with that same situation?

          It was obvious, in the video, that the protestors were trying to help those who were down. I would have advised MP to pull back and let the rioters pull the fellow protestors to safety.

          That’s if it had gotten to this situation, as other methods would have been used to attempt to prevent this from getting to this point.

          Notice how the protestors calmed down right after they pulled their buddies to safety. The police officers, and the way they handled that, was a contributing variable.

          MarineDad61: What in the hell would make someone join the 7th wave, 90 minutes into a battle over a well guarded tunnel and entry?

          The same people did not stay in the same areas for 90 minutes. People were already entering the Capitol, the first group of people invited in by the police. The crowd was already moving, so different people were going to go by those entry points. The folks that jumped in to try to get into the entrances more than likely did not see the first attempts to get in.

          MarineDad61: Answer — Nutjobs.

          Wrong. You don’t have enough, detailed, information on each of those attempts, just as you did not have enough information on the above guy’s attempt, to conclude that they’re “all Nutjobs.”

          MarineDad61: She died. It’s tragic.

          The least you could do is acknowledge that you were wrong that the cowboy hat guy “started things” as if he was on the offence for no apparent reason.

          MarineDad61: But for you, or any other rightwingnut conspiracy theorists to suggest it’s the fault of the DC or Capitol Police…

          It’s not a conspiracy theory, Stupid, if it’s right there on video. If you watched the video a couple of times, like you claimed you did, you’d notice a cop hitting the same general area the woman and another protester were at, he keeps swinging until the baton flies out of his hands. Someone is behind him in what appears to be an attempt to restrain him.

          Again, eyewitness accounts state that the police pushed people down slippery steps. This woman and others had others fall on top of them. They attempted to help these people and to spare them from further injury.

          MarineDad61: That’s YOUR problem [SELF PROJECTION]

          The problem is not on my end but on your end. I’m going by what I see, and by what others who were there see.

          MarineDad61: Do less drugs. [STRAWMAN]

          Whether someone does drugs or not is irrelevant when the police create a dangerous situation by spraying people with something that makes the steps slippery, followed by them pushing people down these steps.

          MarineDad61: Know when to back away and retreat.

          First, until you learn to back away and retreat from an argument you’re getting destroyed in, like the one that we’re engaged in, you have no leg to stand on arguing that others should know when to back away and retreat.

          Second, your statement is irrelevant when my argument, on this thread, centers on the fact that there is double standard going on.

          Third, go watch the video again. It was the cops that had to retreat to bring a volatile situation down. The protestors declared their intent and complaint. They made it clear to the cops why they were charging in. All the cops had to do was to let the protestors pull their comrades away from where the police were at.

          I’m saying this from a professional standpoint as I was in one of the MOSs that would be involved with diffusing situations like this.

          MarineDad61: Obviously, dozens didn’t get it.

          Your response indicates that you did not see this video twice, like you claimed you did. You’re responding like someone who either did not see this video, or who saw this video but was too busy being pissed at the fact that his narrative against the guy with the white cowboy hat was being destroyed.

          Your anger, at being proven wrong, is causing you to shift further away from getting the complete set of facts surrounding this specific incident.

          Oh, yeah, you don’t get that you have no argument, so don’t tell me that “dozens didn’t get it.”

          MarineDad61: And 1 fat female hopped up on her favorite pills died. Her death is her own fault.

          Yup, you’re pissed at the fact that you saw a video that destroyed your claims that the guy with the white cow boy hat “started things”, when it was clear that he was reacting to a situation where he saw a need to come to the aid of others.

          Again, until I see the full text of an autopsy report commissioned by her family, I’m not going to go by what the DC Medical Examiner’s Office says. A full report, done by an organization that the family commissions, would provide detailed information including moderating variables that would contribute to her death if she were overdosed on drugs. Until then, the strongest evidence points to the violence at the Capitol.

      • 5JC says:

        Thebigsig/ Lars Devotee –

        LOL. Really? FFS dude he was hitting the police in the face with a stick. You wanted a video of that, you got it. You want to be part of the legal defense team go up up there and join them or send them money.

        • thebesig says:

          5JC: Thebigsig/ Lars Devotee —

          I’ve hammered Commissar just as I have hammered you and others on this thread… To include consistently rebutting him. If you didn’t let your emotions get the best of you when you read my replies, you would have realized that.

          Commissar has nothing on me when it comes to doing things this way.

          5JC: LOL. Really?

          Yes, f*n really, I’m dead serious about what I state.

          5JC: FFS dude he was hitting the police in the face with a stick. You wanted a video of that, you got it.

          And the post that you responded to showed a counter video that did a better job at meeting what I was looking for.

          Go back and read what you are replying to, as well as the post where I stated that I needed to see a video, and reread my statement… This time without emotions raging through you.

          What I stated:

          “The questions that should be answered is what happened before those still shots, during, and after? What were the sequence of events that occurred that would lead to the guy above having a stick in his hands?” – thebesig

          What I stated in response to his video:

          “On your assumption that the video you brought up ‘supports’ your point… It didn’t. It is incomplete and insufficient, by itself, to address the questions I have that the still photos did not have. Basically put, your short video does not cut it. In order to ‘cut it’, it has to meet my standards for what I look for when digging information.

          “Again, what happened before, during, and after? What is on the video cameras of each of the officers involved showing their actions before, during, and after? This is just scratching the surface; however, this is my mode of operation when gathering information. Not just because I was an Operations Specialist when I was in the Navy, nor because I’m a doctoral student that has to apply a more stringent standard of fact finding than the average person does.” — thebesig

          Context… It’s everything. Do I need to explain intent to you, as it applies to what I was looking for?

          The argument was that he initiated an assault, with a deadly weapon, not provoked… As if he and others decided to rush with violent force into the capitol. People are accusing him of using a deadly weapon. For that to be the case, he had to have swung the stick hard enough to cause serious bodily injury…

          The video that you talked about, that was shown to me in response for such a video, did not cut it. I found a video that was far more detailed than the one that was shown to me, and it changed the narrative from what was being argued by the opposition here.

          The facts? The officers acted irresponsibility and aggressively, resulting in people getting needlessly endangered. Their recklessness was such that the protestors were trying to help those that were on the steps. As soon as the people were rescued from the steps, and the police officers withdrew, the crowd calmed down but did not force their way in.

          The video shows him using the stick to attempt to push the officers away. He was acting in defense of people that appeared to be injured and in need of help. To add damage to injury, one of the police officers stopped the other officers and stood where the protestors were doing what some of them were doing. The reactions on the police officers indicated that things were not right on their end.

          5JC: You want to be part of the legal defense team go up up there and join them or send them money.

          And you insinuated in the other post on this thread that I was making “false” statements of you being emotional? If you’ve read my posts without anger and rage flowing through your veins, you’d understand the crux of the argument being advanced by the first post, my responses, as well as that of others.

          The point is about the double standards being applied to people from two different protests/demonstrations. One counter argument was that he rushed the Capitol steps for the purpose of forcing his way into the Capitol, using deadly brutal force with a stick. To prove the later point wrong, all I had to do was produce a video showing that not to be the case, that something else occurred that spurred him to pick up a stick, and others to act the way they did.

          Again, reading comprehension, it’s a drug.

          • C2Show says:

            By the way besig…

            If this is you:

            https://www.reddit.com/user/thebesig/

            Shit, you been doing same routine against phonies for years and treat everyone same way?

            Get a new routine or at least show respect yo others, brother. That definitely looks like your trademark antics. I gotta know which person on here let you become a content generator.

            • MarineDad61 says:

              C2Show,
              It’s him.
              Self identified as a PSYOP (37F).

              As I tell my friends o’ friends
              on the Book of the Fake,
              dating back to the 2012 election…
              which really picked up during the 2016 election
              (and hasn’t let up since)…

              (Humorous variations of this,
              with farm fresh photos to match.)

              “Verify BEFORE sharing.
              Don’t be a manure spreader.”

              • C2Show says:

                Thanks MD,

                Never actually bothered to look up his antics until now. Until I noticed his pattern always same for last 8 years or so. Oh fuck me…the signature antics are all there.

                Like others, I just gave him a pass because…well he is a veteran. Shame he belittles others and shows little respect.

                Strange enough he never evolved. Overly defensive and goes on the offensive minute someone counters.

              • Animal says:

                I’ve said commissar’s abuse is part of the reason fundraising has become more challenging. The obvious covid slowing down FOIA requests is also part. Besig is another part. Some just aren’t paying for him to have his personal platform.

                Bring back 2/17.

                • MarineDad61 says:

                  Animal,
                  Excellent points.

                  Ironic, that thebesig actually tries to suggest that this article and comment threads have a MarineDad61 problem.

                  Based on recent comments from several others over the last 27 hours
                  (October 3 & October 4)…
                  it is fairly apparent
                  that this article and comments
                  (and this website)
                  have a thebesig problem.

                  I’d certainly like to see some (more)
                  admin and webmaster input and opinion on this.

                  Thanks.

                • C2Show says:

                  Well said…

                  Use to be a time when there were 100 comments per article. Articles were not some pissant tinfoil hat nut making bias opinions. They were bipartisan views where people posted their opinions in comments.

                  Hard to do that these days, 2/17 is missed. Hell Balm and the boys are doing good ,just get rid of the bad apple.

                  Like MD61 says though, nobody ever tell this guy or puts him in his place about his antics. There were warning signs about him years ago.

                  • LC says:

                    On the note of articles not being tinfoil idiocy, I’d note that the admins have offered others the chance to write. I’d recommend either of you, C2Show or MarineDad61, consider looking into it, pending admin approval.

                    To me, it’s pretty shocking that we don’t get articles on things like Mike Flynn’s latest idiocy, or this nonsense where Lin Wood, one of the chief people behind the ‘stolen election’ nonsense, is now pushing that no planes were used in 9/11, it’s just what ‘they’ want you to think. Suggesting that the War on Terror that has been fought for twenty years was based on some conspiracy theory seems relevant to the site, in my opinion.

                    The admins have offered me a chance to write in the past, but as I’m not a veteran, I’ve declined. I do find myself often in want of more real discussion, and a little less crazy. I doubt I’m alone in that.

                    The admins tend to be incredibly reasonable sorts, so if it’s of interest to you, I’d suggest raising the idea.

  17. Poetrooper says:

    If there is one thing this discussion illustrates, it is the reality that conservatives tend to police their own ranks. It has been my long observation that those on the right are far less likely to endorse lawlessness by those on our side. If one of our politicos gets caught in something illegal, he/she usually resigns because of the demand to do so from his/her own side.

    With liberals it tends to be just the opposite, with them circling the wagons and almost fanatically defending and justifying all sorts of despicable and unlawful behaviors by their own, just as they have done with all the Antifa and BLM riots.

    This is a factor in their being able to outflank and outmaneuver us in the media and the public eye, but it is also a demonstration of our broader-based and deeper moral integrity and their wide lack of same.

    Ol’ Poe has long preferred to side with those who believing in decisively cleaning their own house when required.

    • Poetrooper says:

      …those who believe in…

      Sheez, couldn’t possibly have been the wine…

      [Edited for PII – Mason]

    • MarineDad61 says:

      Poetrooper,
      I’ve been trying to tell denying and blind Democrats this since 1992.
      You know, Bill Clinton and the affairs, and worse
      (rape, then Monica, then lying to America about pussy, then impeachment).

      We see how that turned out.
      Worse, how many were willing to vote for
      victim blamer / shamer / destroyer Hillary Clinton in 2016?

  18. MarineDad61 says:

    I am now arranging with a late night FakeBook friend of a friend…
    to get a Jonathan Mellis VIDEO on YouTube and/or Twitter.
    With the name Jonathan Mellis on it.

    In a few days, it will come up on the Fu of Google.
    Or so I’m told.

    So folks like thebesig can no longer complain. And then minimize.

    • MarineDad61 says:

      Poetrooper,
      Don’t let the Gateway Pundit get the better of you.
      As it does with thebesig.

      • Poetrooper says:

        So tell me, is the report inaccurate? And if you believe so, based then upon what?

        Your opinion or a factual refutation?

        I’m not married to Gateway Pundit or any other website so if you have contradictory information, I’m all ears.

        • MarineDad61 says:

          Poetrooper,
          Did you look at the 1st 30 seconds of the VIDEO
          I located last evening?

          Video that shows the “political prisoner” Jonathan Mellis in action?

          It’s just above this, a short scroll.

          The Gateway Pundit has a long history
          of spitting out
          (later proved false) happy trash for the rightwingnuts.
          A LONG history.
          I was dealing with their crap 5 years ago,
          during the 2016 election.
          Posting my happy trash from TGP,
          and then getting skewered by Dems over the next 2 days.

          So, NO.
          I am not putting time into digging up this latest (unrelated) conspiracy theory crap.

          If you believe TGP at face value on anything,
          that’s a fool’s game.

          • thebesig says:

            MarineDad61: Poetrooper, Did you look at the 1st 30 seconds of the VIDEO I located last evening?

            I saw it, and it is incomplete. The better question is did you see the 7:36 minute video that I posted to counter your short video? This video is more relevant to this thread than your deceptive video (deception through omission).

            MarineDad61: Video that shows the “political prisoner” Jonathan Mellis in action?

            The counter video shows soon to be political prisoner Jonathan Mellis acting, along others, to save others from injury from the cops. If you see the police in action toward the end of the video, you’d notice them acting to where even they know that something was wrong on their end. When they stopped, the crowed calmed down.

            MarineDad61: It’s just above this, a short scroll.

            My counter video below the short post that you posted.

            MarineDad61: The Gateway Pundit has a long history of spitting out (later proved false) happy trash for the rightwingnuts. A LONG history.

            Wrong. Form what I’ve seen with the Gateway Pundit, the vast majority of the articles continued to be relevant. For someone that wants to denigrate the Gateway Pundit, you are sure as hell silent about our mainstream media going full propaganda mode.

            MarineDad61: I was dealing with their crap 5 years ago, during the 2016 election. Posting my happy trash from TGP, and then getting skewered by Dems over the next 2 days.

            Based on how you behaved on this thread, I could see why. When it comes to researching relevant information, you’re spectacularly terrible. I carpet bombed the Democrats that tried to do the same to me on my Facebook and on other social media. Like you, they’re terrible when it comes to research, and when it comes to formulating an argument based on fact, reason, and logic.

            Consequently, I could post my conservative arguments on Facebook with impunity… Despite the fact that the vast majority of my family on both sides, as well as the vast majority of friends, are Democrat.

            MarineDad61: So, NO. I am not putting time into digging up this latest (unrelated) conspiracy theory crap.

            Actually, what you’re saying “no” to is doing relevant research. What you’re saying “no” to is doing enough research to formulate a fact based, reasoned, logical argument. What you’re saying “no” to is information sources that harm your argument.

            MarineDad61: If you believe TGP at face value on anything, that’s a fool’s game.

            Correction, if anybody believes you at face value, they’re engaging in foolishness. You’ve done nothing to prove the above Gateway Pundit article “wrong”. You’ve done nothing to prove me “wrong”.

            You made assumptions based on photo still shots. When I showed you that I did not trust those alone, you found a video that matched your opinion. You could have done an easier search and followed the link that I provided that lead to a more detailed account of the vent that your “1 minute and a half” propaganda segment showed.

            I’ve been debating against the left for 18 years; you’re debating and acting just like these other leftists that I’ve argued against.

        • MarineDad61 says:

          Just ask thebesig.
          He doesn’t want to hear about (or compare)
          January 6 cop macer Samuel Lazar, either.

          • thebesig says:

            MarineDad61: Just ask thebesig.

            Yes, just ask me, I’ll provide a fact based, reasoned, logical answer. This is not what you’re doing.

            MarineDad61: He doesn’t want to hear about (or compare) January 6 cop macer Samuel Lazar, either.

            What part of this statement did you not understand?

            “First, I accurately pointed out that the person you’re talking about can’t be erroneously assumed to have the same situation and circumstances as the guy I spoke about.” — thebesig

            Look at the video that I posted, not your deception by omission video, and compare what Mellis did to the accounts of Lazar. Two different situations regarding actions.

            I qualified that with the follow on statement explaining the purpose of this thread… You should have concluded that you strayed from the topic advancing strawman arguments:

            “Second, my comparing the guy I talked about to last year’s rioters was to show the difference in how people are being treated. Riot for leftist causes, topple statues, set buildings on fire, etc. and be leftists? Slap on wrist… Charges dropped. Be at a Trump supporting rally, and not go as far as burning cars, buildings, etc.? Hold them for a long time.

            “THAT is one of the main things that you should be getting from my posts.” -thebesig

            Reread those two points 10 times, read them out loud 10 times and, if you don’t get it by the 10 the time of reading it out loud, write them out 10 times, or until you get it.

        • MarineDad61 says:

          Poetrooper,
          For you.
          The do it yourself Googly Fu search.
          Let me know what actual reputable source YOU find.
          https://www.google.com/search?q=Jeremy+Brown+Capitol+informant

      • thebesig says:

        MarineDad61: Poetrooper, Don’t let the Gateway Pundit get the better of you. As it does with thebesig.

        You’ve done nothing to prove either the Gateway Pundit or me “wrong”. What is happening here is that you’re letting your anger issues, control issues, and massive ego issues get the better of you.

        The more you argue with me and with others here, the more of your apparent psychological profile you show. Something that I tend to leverage. :mrgreen:

        • 5JC says:

          After writing several thousand nonsense words, making ridiculous unproven claims, attempting to invent constitutional rights that don’t exist and ignoring the facts (like that dude waived his bond hearing), the only thing that you have proven is that you are deeply, deeply emotionally invested in this issue. Ego? if there were better example of unrestrained hubris around I can only think of one guy…

          • thebesig says:

            5JC: After writing several thousand nonsense words,

            Don’t dismiss a fact based, reasoned, logical argument as “several thousand nonsense words”. If you were not intoxicated with emotion when seeing posts that destroy your arguments, you’d realize that I’m advancing a fact based, reasoned, logical argument against an opposition that has spectacularly failed to do the same.

            5JC: making ridiculous unproven claims,

            Wrong. My statements are based on fact. I would not be engaging in debate with people unless two things are met:

            1. I have extensive knowledge on the topic gained through first hand experience and extensive/exhaustive study…

            2. The people that I’m arguing against have little to no command of the topic that they’re trying to argue.

            Both have been met on this thread with everyone that I’m arguing against.

            5JC: attempting to invent constitutional rights that don’t exist

            You do realize that I checked the text of the US Constitution, and its amendments, before commenting here about the Constitution? I didn’t just go by memory, I went back to the text to verify what I was about to say before I said it.

            Understand that in addition to being a history buff, I’ve read many of the writings of the Founding Fathers.

            It’s not “inventing” when I’m telling it like it is.

            5JC: and ignoring the facts

            Wrong. The original post above, and my follow on responses, zero in on the double standard that is being applied to two different groups of people. Anything else that you’d want to bring is not relevant.

            5JC: (like that dude waived his bond hearing), [STRAWMAN]

            Because the argument is not on whether this man’s actions are illegal or not, but on whether two groups are being treated differently or not. It’s blatantly obvious that the rioters of 2020 are getting treated better, by the justice system, than the J6 rioters. THAT is the CRUX of what this thread is about. Not on the technicalities involving the above individual, or any individual for that matter.

            5JC: the only thing that you have proven

            Wrong, I’ve proven my argument on this thread, multiple times over. You, and others on your side of the argument, have spectacularly failed to prove me “wrong”. You have colossally failed to prove that this massive difference in treatment, between two groups, “did not happen”.

            5JC: is that you are deeply, deeply emotionally invested in this issue. Ego? [SELF PROJECTION]

            First, are you that intoxicated on anger and rage, when reading my posts, that you’re not seeing the simple logic of what is happening in front of you?

            Let “X” be the opposition’s response to me…

            Let “Y” be my counter response to the opposition…

            What has been happening on this thread can be explained by this model:

            If “X”, then “Y” and over and over again…

            What I’m doing is not emotional, but logical. As long as the opposition advances “X”, I will counter with “Y”.

            Second, the fact that you’re wrapped around the axel over my responses, but not over yours, speaks volumes over the fact that you’re the one that’s emotionally invested in this issue.

            You, having failed to prove your argument with relative facts, see crux of this thread explanation above, persistently push a strawman argument, consistently dodge the actual argument, then complain about my actions on this thread.

            5JC: if there were better example of unrestrained hubris around I can only think of one guy…? [SELF PROJECTION]

            Beyond copycatting some of my responses, and spewing strawman arguments, all you’ve done was engage in unrestrained hubris.

            Reading my posts, without anger and rage flowing through you would help you understand what you are reading, and help you direct the direction of your argument away from the strawman you keep advancing. From there, you’d find out that indeed, reading comprehension is a drug.

            • 5JC says:

              I think your post proves my point beyond much doubt.

              Get a life.

              • thebesig says:

                Originally posted by 5JC:

                I think your post proves my point beyond much doubt.

                Get a life.

                [Buzzer sound] WRONG! My post does not prove your point “beyond much doubt”. It took your post apart point by point, then counter you point by point. A reading of that post clearly shows that I prove you wrong, thoroughly and decisively.

                If anything, that post of yours proves beyond much doubt that you have problems with reading comprehension.

                You should have figured out, by now, that your rebuttals get a counter rebuttal from me. Demanding that I “get a life” is your having anger, control, and ego issues. You can’t control what I do, but you can control what you do.

                You control whether you respond to me or not. I control whether I provide a counter rebuttal or not. I have every intention of providing you with a counter rebuttal. This leaves you with the only thing that you have control over… Whether you respond or not.

                If you want this to end, do something on your end to reduce the chances that I would provide a counter rebuttal.

              • thebesig says:

                This graphic should help you understand this simple concept:

  19. MarineDad61 says:

    It’s up on YouTube.
    Not only Jonathan Mellis starting it all in the opening 20 seconds,
    but then the hockey stick, police shield, and fists that followed.

    Again, he started it.
    Political prisoner, my ass.

    • MarineDad61 says:

      So you all know…
      “Hockey Stick guy” Michael Foy
      was arrested and charged in January,
      held without bond (for 5 months),
      and then released on home confinement in July.
      https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/oakland-county/2021/07/02/wixom-man-accused-wielding-hockey-stick-u-s-capitol-riot-freed-judge/7847545002/

    • Mason says:

      Stabbing at two cops’ heads with a big stick isn’t anything to be concerned about.

      • MarineDad61 says:

        Mason,
        Starting a melee with hockey sticks, other long sticks, flag poles, mace, and fists is plenty to be concerned about.

        • thebesig says:

          MarineDad61: Mason, Starting a melee with hockey sticks, other long sticks, flag poles, mace, and fists is plenty to be concerned about.

          And, if you dug deeper to find the video that I posted on this thread, you’d notice that this was not something started by Mellis. He and others were acting in response to the police acting violently against those that had fallen.

          They were attempting to pull people to safety, from being crushed, and in the woman’s case, also from being assaulted. Once they pulled people out, the “melee” ended and people calmed down.

          You could see the reactions of the cops towards the end, their actions showed that things were not right on their end. When they moved to police themselves, the protestors continued to calm down and returned to normal.

      • thebesig says:

        Mason: Stabbing at two cops’ heads with a big stick isn’t anything to be concerned about.

        On top of that, it was not unprovoked. In the more detailed video that I show, it’s clear that Mellis was acting on behalf of people who were in physical danger.

        The video that I posted also shows that a cop is beating down where a woman was, witnesses stating that the cop hit her on the head with the baton once or twice. There were times, in the Navy, when we had to stand watch with night sticks.

        We were instructed to never strike someone on the head with the night stick, as it could kill someone. Those cops had to have also known that.

        • rgr769 says:

          So far as I am aware, every LEO is trained to never strike a person’s head with a nightstick. But then the Capitol Police are allowed to do whatever they wish cuz they are never held accountable for their misconduct. Leave your service weapon in the shitter, no propblem. Shoot dead an unarmed woman in her car when she wasn’t a threat, no problem. (By the way, no one remembers or says her name, even though Black) Shoot dead an unarmed woman in the neck while she climbs through a window where she was surrounded by other cops, no problem. Cause a crowd trampling death, no problem.

    • thebesig says:

      MarineDad61: It’s up on YouTube.

      An incomplete video is going to be an incomplete video, regardless of whether you linked to it or if its on YouTube or elsewhere.

      MarineDad61: Not only Jonathan Mellis starting it all in the opening 20 seconds,
      but then the hockey stick, police shield, and fists that followed.

      Watch the full video that I posted in response to your other thread. He didn’t start it, he was one of those that reacted. If you watched the detailed (unlike your video which is short and not detailed), the “mob” calms down after those in danger are pulled out.

      MarineDad61: Again, he started it.

      Again, he didn’t start it. Watch the full video, which provides a completely different, and better, narrative than the one that you’re arguing.

      MarineDad61: Political prisoner,

      Political prisoner IS appropriate for this situation.

      MarineDad61: my ass.

      You “know” what you’re talking about, my ass.

      Again:

      https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/08/police-killed-three-eye-witnesses-speak-police-killing-jan-6-protester-rosanne-boyland-stories/

  20. Poetrooper says:

    Here’s a federal judge who, like many of us here at TAH, questions the vastly different manner in which the Jan. 6th protestors and the BLM/Antifa rioters have been treated by the same federal prosecutors:

    https://www.bizpacreview.com/2021/10/02/judge-asks-prosecutors-why-jan-6-protesters-are-being-treated-worse-than-blm-rioters-1143057/

    I think this is more of an issue here than whether or not Mellis is a deserving dirtbag…

    • thebesig says:

      This! ➡ “I think this is more of an issue here than whether or not Mellis is a deserving dirtbag…” -Poetrooper

      Exactly! :mrgreen:

      This is a theme that runs from the first post above, through my responses as well as that of others. The double standard that is being applied to those involved with progressive protests and conservative protests is something that should be the focus.

    • 5JC says:

      Once again for those who used the 3M earplugs.

      HE WAIVED HIS ROGHTS TO A PRETRIAL CONFINEMENT HEARING.

      Stupid? yes. Illegal? Not so much.

      • thebesig says:

        Originally posted by 5JC:

        INDUCTIVE FALLACY: STRAWMAN

        Once again for those who used the 3M earplugs.

        HE WAIVED HIS ROGHTS TO A PRETRIAL CONFINEMENT HEARING.

        Stupid? yes. Illegal? Not so much.

        INDUCTIVE FALLACY: STRAWMAN

        Once again, for those who used both earplugs and sound muffling earmuffs that failed their mission:

        “The double standard you mention is unfortunately being ignored by many wanting to zero in on the guy who wrote the open letter.” — thebesig, October 1, 2021.

        Poetrooper and the others get it. You don’t, as you’re busy advancing a strawman argument.

        • 5JC says:

          You have no idea what a straw man actually is.

          You keep saying his pretrial confinement is “illegal”. The direct refutation to that is that it isn’t. He was given a chance for bail and turned it down.

          • thebesig says:

            Originally posted by 5JC:

            You have no idea what a straw man actually is.

            You keep saying his pretrial confinement is “illegal”. The direct refutation to that is that it isn’t. He was given a chance for bail and turned it down.

            Correction, you have no idea of what a strawman is. My argument, in the above post and in the follow on comments, is that there is a difference between how the J6 rioters are being treated and how the 2020 rioters are being treated by the federal court system and, by extension, society. THAT is what I keep arguing. That is my main point, my main thrust, on this thread.

            You’re making this about specific people, which is a strawman.

            The direct refutation, to the argument that I keep making on this thread, the main argument, would be that the J6 rioters are being treated more lenient thon the 2020 rioters.

            Here, let me break this down.

            “A” is the argument that there is a difference in treatment between the J6 rioters and the 2020 rioters.

            “B” is a distorted version of A.

            The strawman argument:

            I advance “A”

            You advance “B”

            You argue against “B”

            You claim that “B” is erroneous, by extension, “A” is erroneous.

            THAT is what you’re doing. You’re advancing “B”, and NOT addressing “A”, my main argument.

            Reading comprehension, it’s a drug.

          • MarineDad61 says:

            5JC,
            thebesig has been typing again today,
            including at me,
            even though I have not engaged with him here in days,
            largely to try to poorly defend his faulty article, lousy headline,
            and unreliable source.

            ———-
            So for everyone….

            This is the HEADLINE for this article’s source,
            The Gateway Pundit..

            [Heartbreaking Letter from Jan. 6 Prisoner in Solitary Confinement!
            DC Gitmo Violates International Codes on Torture

            By Cara Castronuova
            Published September 23, 2021 at 6:10pm ]

            Worse….
            Look up the article author (Cara).
            You’ll find that she was an ORGANIZER
            of the recent fizzled “J6” protest in DC,
            in support of those charged and jailed.

            Worser, here is her Twitter tweet
            the day AFTER The Gateway Pundit published her article.
            [Cara Castronuova
            @CaraCastronuova
            EXCLUSIVE Letter from Political Prisoner in Solitary Confinement! Read my article in Gateway Pundit! DC GITMO abusing Jan6th detainees!
            Donate 2 Jon’s legal fund & RETWEET-if we get him a good attorney the fake Jan. 6th narrative will b turned upside down!]

            Note – She said “fake Jan. 6th narrative”.

            In reality, Cara is an athlete, a personaltiy,
            and is now using her minimal fame
            to push her extreme far rightwingnut agenda,
            trying to raise cash for Mellis.

            And thebesig fell for it. And her. Both.
            https://twitter.com/CaraCastronuova/status/1441448082726703105

            • C2Show says:

              He spends alot of time typing out stuff not a single person would read. Crazy is he completely missed point every time he opens up.

              He seems to not understand JL vision of this site. Sure as hell isnt his constant tinfoil post. Back in early days maybe one to two of those.

              He dismiss animals post went into his typical defense mechanism.

              My guess is he will post later more defensive things with a few projection comments.

              Sad, seen his post and few others garner 10 to 15 comments…weak shit. Sometimes I think he knows place is better without him.

              • thebesig says:

                C2Show: He spends alot of time typing out stuff

                I use speech to text software (Dragon) to generate these replies. I am unable to keyboard my responses beyond approximately 15 minutes without feeling pain and discomfort. I “voice” my responses to Microsoft Word, and then copy and paste it to the comments section.

                C2Show: not a single person would read.

                You assume that nobody’s reading my posts, but they are reading yours. I’ve lost count of how many times someone in the opposition tried to remind me that “nobody was reading the thread”. If that was the case, why did they, and why are you, consistory posting on this thread indirectly taking swipes at me? Like MarineDad61, you are demonstrating control issues, anger issues, and excessive ego issues.

                C2Show: Crazy is he completely missed point every time he opens up.

                Wrong. Every time I rebut you guys, I am dead center mass. I hit the target every time. Unfortunately, the same thing cannot be said about those that I am arguing against. Everybody on your side of the argument, including you, advance a strawman argument and dodge the actual argument on this thread.

                C2Show: He seems to not understand JL vision of this site.

                Based on your commentary on this thread, as well as that of the others, you are not serious about Jonn Lilyea’s vision for the site. If you are trying to make this like you want it that way, but I “don’t”, you most certainly would not take any course of action that would result in my providing counter rebuttals.

                The fact that you would facilitate my actions, through your response, indicates that you do not understand, or care, about Jonn Lilyea’s vision for the site. You only care about things going the way you expect.

                C2Show: Sure as hell isnt his constant tinfoil post. Back in early days maybe one to two of those.

                It is not a “tinfoil post” when it is backed by fact. By your definition, every peer-reviewed, academic, journal article that I have gone through is nothing but a “tinfoil post”.

                Hint: you are simply disagreeing with a comment d qualify to determine something to be a “tinfoil post”.

                C2Show: He dismiss animals post went into his typical defense mechanism.

                Wrong. I rebutted Animal’s post point by point, directly addressing This post at multiple levels. Telling Animal that people have the option to ignore either Commissar or me is not “typical defense mechanism”. It is called “telling it like it is”.

                Again, every person that I argued against here has exposed their apparent psychological profile to me. I see right through their explanations, including yours.

                The cold hard reality is that I am getting the oppositions argument dead center mass. You, on the other hand, consistently miss your target.

                C2Show: My guess is he will post later more defensive things with a few projection comments.

                First, it should not be a guess but a projection. I balance rebuttals to me with counter rebuttals to the opposition. So, if you see a thread with rebuttals (either direct or indirect) to me, then you could project that I will come back and provide counter rebuttals.

                Second, my counter rebuttal posts are not “defensive things”. They are counter rebuttals destroying the argument that the opposition made. You erroneously assume that I am on the “defensive”. I’m not. I have been on the offensive throughout this thread, just as I had been on the offensive on other threads that I’ve debated on.

                It is you, and the others that I am arguing against here, who are on the defensive. You guys have retreated from your original argument, from your follow on strawman arguments, to lobbying ad homonyms at me directly, to lobbying ad homonyms at me indirectly.

                Those are not the actions of people who are “on the offensive”. Those are “shoot and retreat” tactics that the losing side utilizes.

                C2Show: Sad, seen his post and few others garner 10 to 15 comments…

                First, I have access to where I can see multiple posts on the site in a row. I can quickly see the commentary count that each posts get. I’m not the only contributor was posts just gather 10 to 15 comments. The other contributors have also clocked in that amount in the past.

                Second, thanks to the opposition on this thread, this post is going to garner over 200 comments. I knew, as I posted the original article, that this was going to happen. I deliberately left out a lot of explanations, while still providing enough information to support the argument I’ve made throughout this thread, knowing full well that people were going to come to an erroneous conclusion.

                Having a good idea of the apparent psychological profiles of the people who argue against me, I knew precisely how I was going to get them to keep arguing against me. There is a purpose behind every word, sentence, paragraph, etc., that I post.

                Those words worked like a charm with you, MarineDad61, and with 5JC. I’m using, what I understand of your apparent psychological profiles, to manipulate you guys into a course of action (urge to keep arguing and to take swipes me). It is like I am controlling puppets via strings.

                And thanks to you guy’s tendency with control issues, anger issues, and excessive ego issues, my actions worked brilliantly. You guys reacted exactly as I expected you guys to react, and now you could try to reconcile a post that gets over 200 comments.

                C2Show: weak shit. [SELF PROJECTION]

                If my posts were “weak shit”, you would not have even mentioned them. You would not even participated in them. The only thing that I see, that is weak, is your argument and conduct. Like yesterday’s coffee, your argument is a bit weak in the bean.

                C2Show: Sometimes I think he knows place is better without him.

                [buzzer noise] WRONG!

                That is not what I think at all. You’re just making yet another one of your assumptions. Even, hypothetically, if I were to “step away” for a long time, you would have more commissar commentary to contend with.

                I don’t see this place is being “better without me”.

                Like I told MarineDad61, don’t sweat what you can’t control.

            • thebesig says:

              Response to MarineDad61, October 6, 2021, Part 1A

              MarineDad61 trying to stop me from hammering him:

              “Perhaps thebesig should summon his memory of Jonn Lilyea, and Lilyea’s hope, purpose, and vision for this website.” — MarineDad61, October 5, 2021

              MarineDad61 5JC, thebesig has been typing again today,

              Unfortunately, I cannot keyboard for more than 15 minutes, give or take, without my fingers being in “pain fire”. I use speech to text software (Dragon) to generate my posts. I generated these posts during the evening.

              MarineDad61 including at me, even though I have not engaged with him here in days,

              Wrong. Talking about me indirectly still counts as you engaging an argument against me.

              In psychological operations, your post addressing C2Show, LC, and Animal was your using them as the “apparent audience”. Meaning, they were truly not your intended audience. I was.

              You’re trying to have it both ways. You’re trying to take swipes at me, without suffering the consequences of your decisions. This shows that you are a shady, deceptive, individual. Something that people with anger, control, and ego issues demonstrate.

              MarineDad61 largely to try to poorly defend

              Wrong. Not only did I strongly defend the above blog article, I did so by doing both, destroying your argument and destroying your credibility. You failed to address the point behind my posting that article, as well as the point behind my commentary in the comments section.

              We are dealing with the disparity between how one group of people are treated compared to help other groups of people are treated. Not once did you address that main point. Instead, you utilized strawman arguments. Then, you got frustrated when I did not buy into your arguments.

              MarineDad61 his faulty article, lousy headline, and unreliable source.

              Correction, your response to the article was faulty, lousy, and unreliable. The article was not “faulty”, the headline is not “lousy”, and the source is not “unreliable”. The only thing you accomplished was demonstrate how much anger issues, control issues, and narcissism issues you have.

              MarineDad61 So for everyone….

              So much for this when you tried to get me to stop hammering you:

              “Perhaps thebesig should summon his memory of Jonn Lilyea, and Lilyea’s hope, purpose, and vision for this website.” — MarineDad61, October 5, 2021.

              Originally posted by MarineDad61:

              This is the HEADLINE for this article’s source,
              The Gateway Pundit..

              [Heartbreaking Letter from Jan. 6 Prisoner in Solitary Confinement!
              DC Gitmo Violates International Codes on Torture

              By Cara Castronuova
              Published September 23, 2021 at 6:10pm ]

              This is a fact that people could obtain by clicking on the link that I provided above.

              MarineDad61: Worse….

              What is “worse” is the inconsistency between what you are calling for on this thread, and what you are doing. Read your quote above.

              MarineDad61: Look up the article author (Cara). You’ll find that she was an ORGANIZER of the recent fizzled “J6” protest in DC, in support of those charged and jailed.

              First, you are attacking the source of the article above. You’re doing this on a backdrop of advancing strawman arguments as well as your advancing other inductive fallacies on this thread.

              Second, as an organizer, it would be natural for her to continue getting the message across after the protests. ANTIFA does this, BLM does this, it would be reasonable for conservatives to do this.

              MarineDad61: Worser, here is her Twitter tweet the day AFTER The Gateway Pundit published her article.

              You do realize that people who write articles, or publish books, will follow-up and do a “plug” for their work, do you? I’ve done that for articles I published elsewhere. That is one of the ways you get your published work out two additional audiences. Authors/writers take every opportunity to showcase their work that they want people to read.

              This is very similar to the concept of someone showing up as a guest on Fox News, and having the host talk about them being “the author of” the book they published.

              Originally posted by MarineDad61:

              [Cara Castronuova
              @CaraCastronuova
              EXCLUSIVE Letter from Political Prisoner in Solitary Confinement! Read my article in Gateway Pundit! DC GITMO abusing Jan6th detainees!
              Donate 2 Jon’s legal fund & RETWEET-if we get him a good attorney the fake Jan. 6th narrative will b turned upside down!]

              This is a legitimate action. What I bolded, in this quote, have not only been complained about by this individual, but was the complaint of numerous individuals who were being held in DC for January 6. They must rely on public defenders, one of whom was accused of forcing people to read leftist literature. This public defender earned a reputation of “indoctrinating” her clients.

            • thebesig says:

              Response to MarineDad61, October 6, 2021, Part 2A

              MarineDad61: Note — She said “fake Jan. 6th narrative”.

              Yes, the fake January 6 narrative is the claim that it was an “insurrection”. People who protested the election fraud, to include having their boats disenfranchised, are not insurrectionist’s. What you showed in your chosen video, and what I showed in mine, as well as video feeds showing from that day, did not show an insurrection in progress.

              Even you, a veteran, should not buy into the nonsense that what happened at the Capitol on January 6 was an “insurrection”. It wasn’t.

              MarineDad61: In reality, Cara is an athlete, a personaltiy,

              Again, you are attacking the background of somebody in an argument that you have spectacularly failed to prove wrong. You dodged the main argument I was advancing. Instead of coming to terms to the fact that you are advancing strawman arguments, you choose to attack the messenger, in this case Cara, instead of having the integrity to either deal with the main argument of this thread or bow out gracefully.

              MarineDad61: and is now using her minimal fame

              How much, or little, fame she has is irrelevant to the argument being made. Again, you’re attacking someone’s personality, or character, simply because you disagree with the argument that they are making.

              Hence, one of the reasons I’ve accurately identified you as someone with anger issues, control issues, and narcissism issues.

              MarineDad61: to push her extreme far rightwingnut agenda,

              Read this statement carefully, as many times as possible, until you understand why I doubt your claims of being a “Republican”. The arguments advanced in the link that I provided, and in the links that you provided, are not “far rightwing” agenda.

              They’re mainstream conservative/Republican issues. What happened at the Capitol on January 6 was not an insurrection. The vast majority of the people that showed up there were protesting election fraud, wanted their votes to count and not be canceled out by fraud, who wanted a government staffed by people who won without election fraud, etc.

              These are conservative issues. If you, as a “Republican” dismiss these as “rightwing” or “far right” conspiracies, then you are neither conservative nor Republican, but leftwing.

              MarineDad61: trying to raise cash for Mellis.

              Regardless of what you think of the political prisoners, they have a right to have a decent attorney. Trying to raise cash for one of the defendants, or a combination of defendants, is not unique to Mellis. I’ve lost count of how many accounts I’ve read of leftist groups and individuals raising cash for leftist defendants.

              You, as an American, as a veteran, should be supportive of those initiatives regardless of your faulty opinions on them.

              MarineDad61: And thebesig fell for it.

              Wrong. How you describe this topic is not an accurate representation of either the blog article above, the argument presented, or my arguments in the comments section. I’m not going to advance an argument unless two things are met:

              1. I have extensive knowledge on the topic gained from personal experience or extensive reading/study/research…

              2. Those that I argue against do not have a command of the argument.

              Both conditions have been met here. What I have argued above is reality and is a concern. I’m not the only one that advanced this argument on this thread. Not only am I looking at this having been a news junkie for over almost 4 decades, from having been a history buff for over four decades, but also from the perspective of someone who researches information rather than rely on news articles.

              You don’t “fall for” a valid observation. However, the argument that you are advancing is what we, in the psychological operations role, call an “impact indicator”. It measures how well you got suckered by propaganda. The measurement is in the argument that you advance, an argument that is not advanced by Republican. The argument you are advancing is government propaganda that you fell for hook, line, and sinker.

              I would expect a leftist, who argues and thinks from an emotional perspective, to fall for such narrative that way. I would not expect a conservative/Republican to fall for such narrative. Hence, one of the reasons to why doubt your claims of being a Republican.

              MarineDad61: And her.

              Prior to your mentioning her, and linking to her tweet, the only thing I knew about her was a name at the bottom of the article that I linked to. Beyond seeing her name, I did not know who she was.

              You assume that I think like you do. People who are driven by emotion would “fall for opinion leaders”. I am driven by fact, reason, and logic. I do research, and big deep through information well beyond the original news article that I look at.

              I base my own arguments on first tiered information sources, the raw data, scientific studies, etc. not on opinion leaders.

          • MarineDad61 says:

            5JC,
            Here’s a strawman example…
            Getting a boner over Cara Castronuova,
            and then carrying her water for her.

            Linky to the Fu of Google of Cara C. images/photos.
            lololol
            https://www.google.com/search?q=Cara+Castronuova&client=firefox-b-1-d&sxsrf=AOaemvKNQ3oKJj9ssfOByD-cMmYHcRkV3w:1633493609141&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwihycLy9bTzAhULMVkFHZDFBO0Q_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1470&bih=899&dpr=1

            • MarineDad61 says:

              The more I look, the worse it gets on this Cara.

              On a video radio interview,
              Cara C. actually said this…
              “Federal PSYOPS involved in this”
              And more…

              So there it is.
              PSYOPS conspiracy theory.
              The REAL reason thebesig posted this article in the 1st place.

              https://twitter.com/caracastronuova/status/1410011484781002752

              • MarineDad61 says:

                AW1Ed,
                Are you getting all this?
                Thanks.

                • C2Show says:

                  Projection!

                  Projection!

                  And

                  Projections!

                  • MarineDad61 says:

                    C2Show,
                    Really.
                    And, we are supposed to help thebesig help Cara C. help Jonathan Mellis
                    drag donations out of the pockets of the readers of a Stolen Valor website?

                    With false claims and words like “political prisoner”, “illegal”, and “torture”?

                    I call Bullshit.

                    And thebesig is caught.

                    Everyone here “with a few dollars”
                    could do (much) more with that money
                    by donating to MP/VG/TAH.

                    [Link to
                    Donate to
                    Military Phony]
                    https://www.paypal.com/donate/?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=X4WXUENEHRS3G

                    • thebesig says:

                      MarineDad61’s BS virtue signaling comment made yesterday:

                      “Perhaps thebesig should summon his memory of Jonn Lilyea, and Lilyea’s hope, purpose, and vision for this website.” – MarineDad61, October 5, 2021

                      MarineDad61: C2Show, Really.

                      Your side of the argument, including you, are engaging in projection. Not me.

                      MarineDad61: And, we are supposed to help thebesig help Cara C. help Jonathan Mellis
                      drag donations out of the pockets of the readers of a Stolen Valor website? [BOLD FACED LIE]

                      Yes, I’m calling you a liar.

                      Where, in the above post, or in any of my comments, did I specifically call for you guys, using my words, to donate to Jonathan Mellis’s case? Where?

                      Your statement is jam packed with blatant lies. Anybody, capable of reading a post generated so that a 5th Grader could understand what is being said, would understand that the purpose of the above post is to illustrate the difference between how one group of people are being treated compared to another group of people due to their association with a specific ideology.

                      Again, other than seeing her name at the end of the article, I didn’t know who she was professionally or generally. Mentioning someone wanting to raise funds, in the linked article, is no different from others who have called for raising funds for their own legal defense. Leftist groups did this on behalf of the 2020 rioters.

                      Nowhere, in any of my statements, did I call for you guys to donate to his cause. That was not the purpose of my posting the original post.

                      MarineDad61: With false claims and words like “political prisoner”, “illegal”, and “torture”?

                      If you were knowledgeable on history and current events related information, you’d understand why political prisoner is being used. When people, who participated in leftist riots, are not being treated as stringently as those who participated in the J6 riots, we clearly have an injustice based on ideology rather than one based on the circumstances.

                      If there is an inconsistency between detention center regulations and how the detainees are being treated, if there is an inconsistency between what a Constitutional Amendment says should be done, and what is actually happening, then yes, “illegal” would be appropriate.

                      When people are restrained, then led to a cell or to another area, and are assaulted, that’s a form of torture. When they are deliberately deprived of sleep, that’s another form of torture. The above guy’s case is not unique, there have been other complaints, by others that were held, of being subjected to treatment that detainees and prisoners are not supposed to be subjected to.

                      Real Republicans are using terms like “political prisoner”, “illegal”, and “torture” to describe the treatment that the J6 people received.

                      MarineDad61: I call Bullshit. [SELF PROJECTION]

                      Again, you did not answer my question… Does your ass get jealous of all the crap that your mouth spews?

                      You advanced a strawman argument, made boldfaced lies, then called bullshit on an argument I wasn’t making, and on an intent that I was not carrying out.

                      MarineDad61: And thebesig is caught.

                      This post of yours was nothing but a big fat conspiracy theory based on lies and on strawman arguments. The only one, between the two of us, who has been caught, is you… You falsely cared about Jonn Lilyea’s vision for this site. You’ve also been caught lying about me, and you have been caught advancing strawmen arguments.

                  • thebesig says:

                    Originally posted by C2Show:

                    Projection!

                    Projection!

                    And

                    Projections!

                    This is exactly what you’re doing. you’re not alone. Those who are arguing on your side of the argument are also projecting their traits onto me.

                    • C2Show says:

                      Just spitting your tired rhetoric, buddy.

                      Projections seems to be a tactic you used for years on people. Almost as a defense mechanism when you have nothing else to say.

                      Projection! Come on, man. Its obvious and it is weak.

                      The good ole projecting traits on to me line. Using this for years so people you seem to hate. Or you attempted to run off. During debates when things got too heated.

                      You are better than this…

                    • thebesig says:

                      C2Show: Just spitting your tired rhetoric, buddy.

                      Nope, it’s not “tired rhetoric” but my telling it like it is, like describing a tall tree as being tall.

                      C2Show: Projections seems to be a tactic you used for years on people. [SELF PROJECTION]

                      Wrong! Again, those who are foolish enough to argue with me reveal more and more of their apparent psychological profile. One of the things that they do, in response, is accuse me of being the very thing I see in them.

                      C2Show: Almost as a defense mechanism

                      Telling people that they are the very thing that they erroneously accuse me of being is not a “defense mechanism.” It’s telling it like it is. This is a part of the reason to why I’ve identified you guys as having ego issues.

                      C2Show: when you have nothing else to say.

                      False on the “have nothing to say” comment. I always have something to say. Go back and look at how I’ve responded to you guys. I take you guys apart point by point, then counter you point by point. I always have plenty to say.

                      I don’t run out of argument, I have an abundance of that as well. You guys, on the other hand, have ran out of argument, have abandoned your original arguments, and have reduced to attacking my debate method and making assumptions about me.

                      C2Show: Projection! Come on, man.

                      Yes, because that’s exactly what you and the others are doing, projecting your traits onto me. You are intoxicated by ego to the point that you don’t see yourself of being the very things you claim of me.

                      C2Show: Its obvious

                      No, what you assume is “obvious” is not obvious, but a filtered version of reality that your ego is allowing you to see. If you ditched the ego issues, ditched the control issues, and ditched the anger issues, you’d realize that.

                      Excessive ego is acting like excessive alcohol. Where being drunk would blind a man from seeing the stupidity of his drunken acts, you ego blinds you to the fact that you are the very thing that you accuse me of being.

                      C2Show: and it is weak.

                      No, it’s not. Every time you project your traits onto me, I’m going to call you out for it. You, and the others that I argue against, are guilty of being the living example of the saying, “The pot calling the kettle black.”

                      C2Show: The good ole projecting traits on to me line. Using this for years

                      Because that’s exactly what the opposition has done for years, accusing me of being the very thing they are. Given that they’ve erroneously accused me of being who they are for years, it’s going to be obvious that I’ve been in position, for years, to call people out for projecting their own traits onto me or onto others.

                      C2Show: so people you seem to hate. [SELF-PROJECTION]

                      You can’t tell the difference between “hate” and “disagreement”. My disagreement with people, then continuing to rebut them every time they respond to me, is not hate. It’s simply my disagreeing with the opposition.

                      If you’re talking about the insults I’ve lobbed, again, look at what I’ve responded to. I love treating people the way they treat me. If they insult me, I’m insulting them back. That’s not hate. That’s giving people a taste of their own medicine. That’s taking sadistic pleasure in seeing how they disapprove of how they treat others.

                      C2Show: Or you attempted to run off.

                      Running people off the board is not my intention. Providing them with a point-by-point rebuttal, every time they argue with me, is my objective.

                      Those who leave the board because of my hammering them did so because they decided to. They could have decided to remain on the board and keep posting after being hammered, like many posters do here, like many posters do on the other websites where I’ve hammered them.

                      C2Show: During debates when things got too heated.

                      Because when things get too heated, the people that I’m arguing with start to shift to flaming mode. One of the things they do is accuse me of being the very thing they actually are. I call them out for it.

                      C2Show: You are better than this…

                      Tell that to yourself.

                      It should be blatantly obvious to anybody seeing this thread, or on any other thread that I’ve debated on, that the nature of the opposition’s rebuttal is going to influence the nature of my counter rebuttal.

                      You, and the others, see what I say, but don’t see what you guys have said that warranted what I said in my response. For example, you wanted me to apologize to someone for insulting him, yet you did not see where he insulted me first and I retaliated in kind. You saw the retaliation, but you ignored the initial insult.

                      This is an indication that the person that is doing the hating is you. Not me. Starting to see what I mean by projection?

                • thebesig says:

                  MarineDad61 said this yesterday, suggesting that everybody “let this thread move on” in this botched virtue signaling attempt:

                  “Perhaps thebesig should summon his memory of Jonn Lilyea, and Lilyea’s hope, purpose, and vision for this website.” — MarineDad61, October 5, 2021

                  MarineDad61: AW1Ed, Are you getting all this? Thanks.

                  AW1Ed and the other contributors, including those that post the Stolen Valor posts, are aware of posts like this, as this is not the first rodeo.

                  The first time something like this happened, I explained to the administrators that the opposition was attempting to get them to muzzle me… When they could instead take the adult course of action that involves ignoring me and gracefully bowing out of that thread.

                  In that other thread, and in this one, I declared my intention. As long as you guys are going to take swipes at me, directly or indirectly, I’m going to hammer you guys. I will keep doing so until your side of the argument stops replying.

                  Don’t run to the administrators to get your way as a substitute for being an adult and bowing out of this thread. I’d expect kids on a playground running to a teacher to try to render judgment against other kids on the playground. I don’t expect adults, veterans, to pull the same stunt.

                  Have the integrity to gracefully bow out of this thread if you are serious about Jonn’s intent for this site, and if you are serious about “ending” this exchange.

              • thebesig says:

                MarineDad61’s phony virtue signaling comment:

                “Perhaps thebesig should summon his memory of Jonn Lilyea, and Lilyea’s hope, purpose, and vision for this website.” — MarineDad61, October 5, 2021

                Originally posted by MarineDad61:

                The more I look, the worse it gets on this Cara.

                On a video radio interview,
                Cara C. actually said this…
                “Federal PSYOPS involved in this”
                And more…

                So there it is.
                PSYOPS conspiracy theory.
                The REAL reason thebesig posted this article in the 1st place.

                https://twitter.com/caracastronuova/status/1410011484781002752

                First, it’s PSYOP, not PSYOPS.

                Second, the REAL reason I posted the above article is to illustrate the difference between how two different groups of rioters are being treated by both the justice system and by the media.

                Third, it’s not a “PSYOPS” conspiracy when I look at, over the past few years, the misinformation, as well as contradiction between reality and misinformation, and see textbook propaganda being perpetrated. You are repeating that propaganda.

                When the government describes the J6 riots as “an insurrection”, you’re getting propaganda. You, a veteran, Marine I assume, should know what an insurrection is.

                Unlike you, I have a vantage point when determining when “PSYOP” is being perpetrated. Technically, it’s propaganda, as PSYOP uses a fact based, reasoned, logical argument as a basis for individual and overall information campaigns.

                Propaganda, on the other hand, distorts the facts, or provides outright falsehoods, to paint a false narrative. Describing the January 6 riots as an “insurrection” IS propaganda. Claiming that the planet is burning up and that people are the reason it is burning up IS propaganda. You are pushing propaganda.

            • thebesig says:

              MarineDad61 trying to BS his desired outcome into reality:

              “Perhaps thebesig should summon his memory of Jonn Lilyea, and Lilyea’s hope, purpose, and vision for this website.” — MarineDad61, October 5, 2021

              MarineDad61: 5JC, Here’s a strawman example…

              What do you mean “a” strawman example? The bulk of your arguments on this thread are strawman arguments. You persistently bring up topics unrelated to the main argument that I’m advancing, shifting from one strawman to another.

              MarineDad61: Getting a boner over Cara Castronuova,

              She’s not my type.

              MarineDad61: and then carrying her water for her.

              Again, other than seeing her name under the article, I didn’t know who she was or what her background was.

              Her article was but one article in a long series of articles that I’ve read detailing the inconsistencies between how the J6 political prisoners are being treated and how other groups are being treated.

  21. Poetrooper says:

    It is this old man’s observation through eighty years of living in, working in and serving this country that those I have primarily associated with, conservatives like me have an ingrained sense of and respect for fair play. Those many others in my life who chose the liberal path and liberal politics, not so much.

    For ol’ Poe, the glaring unfairness of these January 6th arrests and prosecutions is the primary issue here. I don’t give a rat’s ass is some of these folks behaved badly–good grief, look at the horrendous behavior of the BLM and Antifa protestors.

    Yet very few of them have been held legally responsible. It’s clearly a situation of biased prosecution by the feds and it is manifestly unfair.

    • rgr769 says:

      Buckle up, the manifest unfairness is only going to get worse under this AG and his minions. He is going to investigate parents objecting to CRT, pedo books for their grade schoolers, and mask mandates, as acts of domestic terrorism and “hate crimes.”

    • thebesig says:

      Originally posted by Poetrooper:

      It is this old man’s observation through eighty years of living in, working in and serving this country that those I have primarily associated with, conservatives like me have an ingrained sense of and respect for fair play. Those many others in my life who chose the liberal path and liberal politics, not so much.

      For ol’ Poe, the glaring unfairness of these January 6th arrests and prosecutions is the primary issue here. I don’t give a rat’s ass is some of these folks behaved badly–good grief, look at the horrendous behavior of the BLM and Antifa protestors.

      Yet very few of them have been held legally responsible. It’s clearly a situation of biased prosecution by the feds and it is manifestly unfair.

      This! ^^^

      What the opposition keeps missing is the bigger picture motivation behind why I posted the above. Conservatives, Republicans, are seeing what you pointed out. Those who have followed history and current events for a long time are seeing this and are alarmed.

      The folks on the left, including the one on this thread who thinks he’s a Republican, insist that our observation of these events are “conspiracy theories.”

      The double standards that we are seeing between two rioting groups is just a point on the slippery slide. There is someone that made the observation about the negative effects that having one law for one group and another for the other group has. Something about oppression.

      In Venezuela, they had their favored rioters, the Colectivos. They are the counterpart to ANTIFA/BLM in the US. They also toppled statues, attacked businesses and peaceful protesters, burned buildings, etc.

      After Venezuela disarmed most of its citizens and pushed for a policy that was unpopular with the people, many took to the streets to protest. In retaliation, the Venezuelan government indirectly deployed the Colectivos against the areas that the protesters came from. They brandished firearms (as criminals don’t listen to laws anyway) and they attacked businesses and other property.

      One of the things that the opposition is not seeing is the fact that if they could intimidate one side from doing what the other side can do, they would have elevated ANTIFA/BLM as a militant tool to force compliance with their Marxist objectives. I’ve seen and heard a video where Biden told someone that they would not be needed during election but after the election. Had the cheat failed, we would have seen news coverage of massive protests.

      Combine this with the fact that the voting software used in Dominion was based on a design intended to keep Chavez from being recalled. The Venezuelans have committed election fraud this way to the point that they managed to get enough people in office to provide proposals to changes in their constitution.

      Those who don’t see what we see are delusional about what is in store in our future. People don’t think that what happened in Venezuela could happen here in the United States. They’re fools. Venezuelans did not think that what happened in Cuba could happen in Venezuela. Now we have Cuban-Americans and Venezuelan-Americans trying to warn the United States that what the Democrats are pushing for is something they’ve seen in their home countries.

  22. MarineDad61 says:

    Now, 4½ days later,
    I look at the choice of article photo of Liberal Larry,
    and I laugh more today than I did on October 1.

    Why?
    I previously commented here about Samuel Lazar,
    but thebesig would have none of that,
    especially from the likes of an inferior page fan and commenter
    such as MarineDad61.

    Yet, here it is.
    The embodiment of… the opposite!

    ALL COPS ARE GOOD! EXCEPT THE CAPITOL POLICE ON JAN 6.

    Yep, flag waving, shirt wearing (phony) “Back the Blue” type
    Samuel Lazar was arrested and charged, for assaulting D.C. Police.
    Yep, he maced cops.
    Yep, he used his bullhorn to implore others to attack cops.
    Yep, his brother (of the strawman gun purchase conviction)
    uses the “political prisoner” line, too.
    Yep, Samuel Lazar sits in jail, but NOT in D.C.
    He remains in jail in Pennsylvania, until trial.

    Source – The Daily Caller
    (Conservative site (Founded by Tucker Carlson)
    (Check the site reliability and bias scores))
    — [Authorities Charge Trump Supporter,
    Who Wore ‘Back The Blue’ Shirt To Rally,
    For Assaulting Police Officers]
    https://dailycaller.com/2021/07/27/trump-supporter-back-the-blue-shirt-charged-jan-6/

    • thebesig says:

      MarineDad61’s false virtue signaling statement hoping that I would stop hammering him:

      “Perhaps thebesig should summon his memory of Jonn Lilyea, and Lilyea’s hope, purpose, and vision for this website.” — MarineDad61, October 5, 2021

      Originally posted by MarineDad61:

      [STRAWMAN]

      Now, 4½ days later,
      I look at the choice of article photo of Liberal Larry,
      and I laugh more today than I did on October 1.

      Why?
      I previously commented here about Samuel Lazar,
      but thebesig would have none of that,
      especially from the likes of an inferior page fan and commenter
      such as MarineDad61.

      Yet, here it is.
      The embodiment of… the opposite!

      [STRAWMAN]

      I called the Samuel Lazar argument a strawman, as the purpose of the blog article above, as explained by my comments in the comments section, deals with the different treatment of two different protests representing two different ideologies.

      The intent, for anybody with reading comprehension abilities, is to describe the bigger picture. Not to describe a single person’s case, other than to showcase his observation of what happened while being held.

      Your attempts to bring Samuel Lazar, or others, in zeroes in on an argument that was not made in the original post… On whether they are guilty of their charges or not. That is not anywhere near one of the themes of the above posts, or of my responses.

      THAT’s why I would have none of your strawman argument.

      MarineDad61: ALL COPS ARE GOOD! EXCEPT THE CAPITOL POLICE ON JAN 6. [STRAWMAN]

      If you paid attention to the arguments that I made on this thread, and elsewhere, you would not have come away thinking that our side believes that all cops are good but not the Capitol Police.

      Instead, you would have come away with the fact that we look at each individual case to determine if the cop was right, or if the cop stepped outside of what he or she was required to do.

      MarineDad61: Yep, flag waving, shirt wearing (phony) “Back the Blue” type
      Samuel Lazar was arrested and charged, for assaulting D.C. Police.

      This is a strawman and is irrelevant to the argument that I made on this entire thread. This is not about individuals and whether they are innocent or guilty. This is about the bigger picture involving the different treatment that two groups of people are receiving based mainly on ideology.

      MarineDad61: Yep, he maced cops. [STRAWMAN]

      Not relevant. The above post is not arguing the “innocence” or “guilt” of all of the rioters who have been charged. It’s arguing the different treatment that different groups are receiving in the hands of the judicial system, the media, etc.

      MarineDad61: Yep, he used his bullhorn to implore others to attack cops. [STRAWMAN]

      Not relevant. The above post is not arguing the “innocence” or “guilt” of all of the rioters who have been charged. It’s arguing the different treatment that different groups are receiving in the hands of the judicial system, the media, etc.

      MarineDad61: Yep, his brother (of the strawman gun purchase conviction) [STRAWMAN]

      Not relevant. The above post is not arguing the “innocence” or “guilt” of all of the rioters who have been charged. It’s arguing the different treatment that different groups are receiving in the hands of the judicial system, the media, etc.

      MarineDad61: uses the “political prisoner” line, too. [STRAWMAN]

      Not relevant. The above post is not arguing the “innocence” or “guilt” of all of the rioters who have been charged. It’s arguing the different treatment that different groups are receiving in the hands of the judicial system, the media, etc.

      MarineDad61: Yep, Samuel Lazar sits in jail, but NOT in D.C. He remains in jail in Pennsylvania, until trial. [STRAWMAN]

      Not relevant. The above post is not arguing the “innocence” or “guilt” of all of the rioters who have been charged. It’s arguing the different treatment that different groups are receiving in the hands of the judicial system, the media, etc.

      MarineDad61:

      Originally posted by MarineDad61:

      [STRAWMAN]
      Source — The Daily Caller
      (Conservative site (Founded by Tucker Carlson)
      (Check the site reliability and bias scores))
      — [Authorities Charge Trump Supporter,
      Who Wore ‘Back The Blue’ Shirt To Rally,
      For Assaulting Police Officers]
      https://dailycaller.com/2021/07/27/trump-supporter-back-the-blue-shirt-charged-jan-6/

      [STRAWMAN]

      First, your link, and argument, are strawmen given that you’re not addressing the argument that I’ve been making throughout this thread.

      Second, I’ve been a news junkie for almost 4 decades. I could tell, from your arguments, that you are not much of a current events person, nor do you seem like someone who follows history related topics.

      My following current events, and history, for as long as I have are two of the main drivers behind why I made the arguments that I’ve made on this thread, and elsewhere.

      Most conservatives follow both topics, which is another reason to why I’m doubting your claims of being a Republican. You argue just like someone on the left. I know this as I’ve argued against those on the left for 18 years. You argued exactly like those, who identified as communist, socialist, and liberal, in the past have argued.

      Third, my current events information gathering has shifted from just watching the news or reading news articles and shifted to researching beyond the news article. I see news articles, like what you linked to, as LEADS that springboard my own search deeper into the story.

      The purpose is to drill down to first tiered information sources like the full body camera video footage of the George Floyd arrest. I saw the one in 2020, and the one that occurred the year before. If a news story talks about a bill in Congress? I don’t just go by the news story; I go straight to the bill and go through it myself. There are more examples that I could give, but you should get the picture…

      Herein lies the difference between our stances based on information sources alone. I don’t trust most media sources, even those that you identify as conservative. They are nothing like what they used to be when I started following the news. I saw better journalism in the National Enquirer back in the 1980s than what I have seen reading reputable news organization articles today for crying out loud.

    • thebesig says:

      Originally posted by MarineDad61:

      Perhaps thebesig should summon his memory of Jonn Lilyea,
      and Lilyea’s hope, purpose, and vision for this website.

      More on Mason’s (more) recent RedState Donahue Kabul article.
      https://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=118160

      RIP JL.

      You proved me correct about the fact that you did not really mean this. If this was about Jonn Lilyea’s hope, purpose, and vision for this website, you would not have continued arguing on this thread, you most certainly would not have hijacked Mason’s thread with commentary related to this thread, and you would have walked the walk and not added responses.

      As I mentioned before, the more you reply to me, the more of your psychological profile you expose to me. Again, you have anger issues, control issues, and narcissism issues.

      All the attempts you’ve made to get me to stop hammering you were not about “cooperation”, not about my “doing the right thing”, nor was it about keeping this site on Jonn Lilyea’s path for his sake.

      You did not care about any of Jonn Lilyea’s intent.

      Rather, you only cared about what you wanted. It was about your securing an outcome on this thread that massaged your ego. I would not be surprised that you have a track record of being banned from other sites, or of having threads locked on you without your getting your outcome due to your insisting that things go your way when it was not warranted.

      Three pieces of advice were given to you on this thread, two from your allies, and one from me:

      1. Take it in stride… (From C2Show)

      2. My point is simple: don’t let it get to you. (From LC).

      3. Let go of the things that you can’t control. (From thebesig)

      There are many other advice that was given to you, all of them address the apparent psychological profile that you have demonstrated here. But the fact that people from two sides of an argument could collectively provide you with advice that fits your apparent psychological profile should be enough to wake you.

      I would not be surprised if most of your Exs, upon seeing my description of your apparent psychological profile, would substantiate what I said based on their firsthand experiences. This has already happened twice when I described the apparent psychological profile of a couple of phonies here.

      I would say that in an argument between you and your Exs, regarding your attitude, the chances are strong that they too made the same or similar observations of you that I have here.

      I suspect that they would claim that you tend to be verbally abusive if you don’t get your way, that you tend to engage in gaslighting, that you either have a checkerboard resume or a ho hum career tract, etc.

      I would not be surprised if you select jobs that involve you working by yourself, as I could see how your attitude would create a hostile working environment in a regular job setting. If this is the case, I would not be surprised if you felt that people had it in for you, both manager and coworkers… And that you’re too intoxicated with pride to see that these are “self-inflicted” and that those around you are negatively reacting to your attitude and actions towards them.

      You come across as the guy that would have a hard time seeking pay raises than the next person, that you have a harder time competing for promotion compared to the next guy, that you’re the person that people tend to throw under the bus (including your getting backstabbed), etc.

      You consistently engage in poor judgement calls on this thread. You more than likely do that in the real world. Not seeing much with what you’ve accomplished in life, attempting to baffle the audience with BS gives you a sense of importance that you don’t get outside of comment sections.

      Now with your getting destroyed here, even that sense of importance is taken away. This is something that does not sit will with you. You’re desperately fighting for relevance on this thread but getting frustrated over the fact that I prevent you from regaining that control.

      Knowing what I’m putting you through here and suspecting the combination of emotions raging through you while in this position, makes me laugh. This is one of the reasons to why I take sadistic pleasure in arguing with folks like you.

      I also suspect that you’re drunk posting, which increases the fun to be had when taking you apart knowing that your drunkenness amplifies the effects of having raging emotions flow through you while you read my responses. :mrgreen:

      • C2Show says:

        LOL never said take anything in stride.

        I will commend you for making a shorter comment than usual. Good job, buddy. Nice job trying to throw in some new material.

        • thebesig says:

          C2Show: LOL never said take anything in stride.

          Actually, you did. You told MarineDad61 that you hoped that he did not fade away. Then you told him to take it in stride.

          If you get it wrong about what you actually said, what makes you think that there is any validity with anything else that you said?

          https://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=118045#comment-3391873

          Were you wrong when you said that you did not say anything like “take it in stride? YES [ ] NO [ ]

          Copy and paste the question and the boxed options to your response. Put an “X” in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional response you’d want to give.

          C2Show: I will commend you for making a shorter comment than usual. Good job, buddy. Nice job trying to throw in some new material.

          You have seen me debate with enough people to know that the length of my rebuttals hinges on the length of the comment that I’m dismantling. The more a person says, the more I’m going to say. The less a person says, the less I’m going to say, with all other things being equal.

          Given that I’m going to take someone apart point by point and given that I remain on topic with the rebuttal, if I’m not providing new material, chances are the person that I’m rebutting is repeating himself and arguing the same thing or the same concept. This will influence the counter rebuttal.

          • C2Show says:

            Again, didnt say “take it in stride”, still trying to find where I said that…we can do this all day.

            Lets not waste time and lets not put words in peoples mouths, eh? I said either with him or against him. That would be you I am talking about.

            Only way you seem to enjoy things. You sure hate when someone has an opposite opinion of you, huh?

            Malfunction and start making awkward comments to users.

            That’s a bingo?

            • thebesig says:

              C2Show: Again, didnt say “take it in stride”, still trying to find where I said that…

              False, you said “Take it in stride”. I posted a photo of your post where you said that. I also provided a link that shows where you said that. Click on that post and you’ll see it.

              C2Show: we can do this all day.

              And I could do this for the next 25 to 35 years.

              C2Show: Lets not waste time and lets not put words in peoples mouths, eh?

              First, I don’t accommodate the demands of those foolish enough to argue against me.

              Second, I’m not putting words into your mouth, I’m telling it like it is. Go back to the post that you responded to, click on the link, and read the C2Show post that shows up.

              C2Show: I said either with him or against him.

              Read right before that. What you said in entirety:

              Take it in stride, he seems to thin keither with em or against em.” — C2Show

              You joined two sentences, communicating two different ideas, with a comma.

              C2Show: That would be you I am talking about.

              The first sentence, before the comma, is advice you gave MarineDad61. The second sentence, right after the comma, was you talking about me.

              Do keep tap dancing.

              C2Show: Only way you seem to enjoy things.

              Wrong. I enjoy destroying the opposition’s argument, then watching the opposition demonstrate anger, control, and narcissism issues to cover for the fact that they do not know what there are talking about. You guys reveal a lot about your apparent psychological makeup when you guys do things this way.

              C2Show: You sure hate when someone has an opposite opinion of you, huh?

              Wrong. One of the reasons to why I’ve been debating people like you online for 18 years is that I enjoy it. Again, I don’t engage in debate with someone unless two things are met:

              1. I have extensive knowledge, gained through firsthand or extensive study…

              2. Those that I argue against clearly do not have a command of the topic they are trying to argue.

              For me to have that debate, the person that point two applies to has to be someone I know for a fact will disagree with me. Reread that last part of that sentence.

              C2Show: Malfunction and start making awkward comments to users.

              Nope, no malfunction. I’ve been using the same standard operating procedure, in these debates, over the past 18 years. My comments are not awkward comments, but fact based, reasoned, logical arguments.

              C2Show: That’s a bingo?

              Not only did you miss the target that you were trying to shoot ahead of you, but the round that you fired shot the object directly behind you. That’s how far you missed. If you had the same luck falling outside the boat in the middle of the lake, you’d miss the water.

  23. T1B says:

    I mostly just lurk, but can someone please close this thread for comments? This has gone completely off the rails.

    • thebesig says:

      T1B: I mostly just lurk, but can someone please close this thread for comments? This has gone completely off the rails.

      I’m the thread starter. Comments on this thread will remain open for commenting.

      People are free to exercise the option of either not going to this thread and, if they do go to this thread, of not posting a response.

      As with the other threads that turned out like this one, people will lose interest in this thread and no longer post in it. No additional action is required beyond that.

  24. T1B says:

    thebesig: I’m the thread starter. Comments on this thread will remain open for commenting.

    Whatever.

    • LC says:

      As a mostly-lurker, what are some things that you think would improve the site? We all hear from the more vocal people, for better or worse, but rarely hear from the lurkers.

      • thebesig says:

        Originally posted by LC:

        As a mostly-lurker, what are some things that you think would improve the site? We all hear from the more vocal people, for better or worse, but rarely hear from the lurkers.

        I did a comments wide search for TIB in the comments section. I received 187 hits, mostly TIB posts, a few mentions of TIB, but the vast majority are TIB posts. Many of those who were formerly active on the comments section have gone lurker mode. They are no strangers and have left hints of their interest areas based on what they commented on.

        • LC says:

          Yet, it’s still good to engage with them as human beings and ask for their thoughts.

          • thebesig says:

            I wasn’t saying that you couldn’t, it’s nice that we have readers/commenters asking each other this question. We’ve discussed this via email, asking the same question. I believe I posted an open thread in the past asking for inputs on what readers want to see as articles.

            A way is already being worked on that would allow the commenters to submit guest posts. Once that’s up, with posts getting approved, and with them showing up in the feed as blog articles, we’d be able to see a track record of what interests readers have.

            I mentioned the part about TIB to show that this commenter has familiarity with this site, and familiarity with what posts show up, than someone who would just post occasionally.

            • C2Show says:

              Almost as if a computer with lack of emotion wrote these blurbs you push out.

              Its okay, buddy. People can have opinions and dislike yours. Also have the right to question you when you have ‘gone off the rails’ as T1B mentioned.

              Again, ran off posters with your insane post. Like Martinjmpr said, this was not the vision and you have done a commendable job running posters off TAH.

              Those days of the 200 post are only back because we pretty much enjoy responding to you in a mocking manner.

              One of your god awful post back there on pages drew a whopping 10 post. That usually could be a sign?

              • MarineDad61 says:

                C2Show,
                He “mentioned the part about TIB”
                (sic (T1B))
                to show that he is able and willing to
                stalk the comment history of others,
                for no other purpose than to invariably use this information against them.

                Yet, right here,
                he can’t seem to find his own past post/comment?

                Hey, I respect everyone on staff here at VG,
                with 1 notable exception….
                Dr. PSYclOPs, noted Doctor of Projection, Political Science & Conspiracy Theory, Prisons & Corrections,
                who is fond of serving up
                Double Whoppers with Cheese Food Product at
                Nothingburger King.

                Otherwise known here
                (hiding behind a handle)
                as thebesig.

                • C2Show says:

                  LOL MD61, I am sure nobody supports his phony psychology antics. Its the same gimmick/schtick he has had for nearly a decade.

                  Amazing to see he uses the same lines he used on phonies here. I was more shocked when he used his antics on GDContractor I believe it was and someone else who told him to correct his articles because they were misleading.

                  Not even shocked he went and tracked down a lurker. Dude posted 200 times in probably 3-4 years.

                  Something has gotta give here…

                  No more bias, bullshit threads. Report some real god damn news.

                  • MarineDad61 says:

                    C2Show,
                    Swing on over to Mason world,
                    and his new article.
                    (Yes, the VG/RedState headline
                    and story were FALSE.)

                    Notice, Mason isn’t treating anyone like shit over there,
                    and I treated Mason with respect,
                    then and now.

                    Unlike this cream chipped beef
                    (shingle full o’ shit) over here.

                    [More on the 82nd Airborne’s Taliban war trophy
                    Mason | October 7, 2021]
                    https://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=118224

                    • thebesig says:

                      MarineDad61: Notice, Mason isn’t treating anyone like shit over there, and I treated Mason with respect, then and now.

                      You respect people that do not call you out on your BS. If you follow the argument that you and I had, you’d notice that how I treated you depended on how you treated me. You warranted how I treated you.

                      Again, if the choice is to be respected by you, provided that I be your doormat, or you don’t respect me because I rub your face in your BS, then I’d chose not to get your respect… Respect from you is meaningless.

                      I will sleep great tonight, and enjoy life, no matter how much you refuse to respect me. That’s the price I’m willing to pay to keep hammering you on this thread.

                      If you don’t like the way I’m treating you here, that’s an indication that you don’t like the way you treat others.

                      MarineDad61: Unlike this cream chipped beef (shingle full o’ shit) over here.

                      Do me a favor, the next time you look into your mirror, say hi to the turd staring back at you, and wonder at awe at how that individual is consistently proving that people could live and do things without the use of a brain.

                      To top it off, your statements on this thread indicate that you’d be able to present a speech and fertilize a farm field at the same time if you were to go to a farm and make your speech.

                  • thebesig says:

                    C2Show: LOL MD61, I am sure nobody supports his phony psychology antics.

                    Wrong. It’s natural that those who fall for my tactics will not think that they fell for my canalizing their actions to doing what I wanted them to do.

                    It’s a simple matter of saying something, expecting a reaction, then getting the reaction… Predictable and like clockwork. It worked here, and it worked elsewhere. The fact that you don’t think that anybody supports my “phony” psychology “antics” speaks volumes to your excessive ego issues.

                    The fact MarineDad61 and you are still here speaks volumes to the fact that my tactics are working. The more you guys argue against me, directly or indirectly, the more of your apparent psychological profiles you guys expose… Something I keep leveraging.

                    C2Show: Its the same gimmick/schtick

                    Incorrect on “gimmick/schtick”. I’ve used the same SOP on these debates throughout the time I’ve done them, since when I started to do them through now. As I mentioned above, they worked like clockwork.

                    C2Show: he has had for nearly a decade.

                    I’ve been using these tactics for 18 years. I’ve been arguing with people online long before I made my first post here.

                    C2Show: Amazing to see he uses the same lines he used on phonies here.

                    Because when it comes to apparent psychological profiles, you guys (the opposition) are no different from the phonies that I’ve argued against. It’s like you guys are “brothers” with Chevy and the other phonies. Very similar apparent psychological profiles. Talking about me indirectly here, or on another thread, is exactly what Chevy did with his “Evidence” blog against us. You guys are so much like these phonies…

                    In fact, when GDContractor started to say the same things to me that Chevy said about all of us, I went back to Chevy’s blog and looked for those statements. Guess what else I found when I went there?

                    Chevy did his own apparent psychological description of all of us… He was near dead center mass with his description when it came to the people that I have argued against here.

                    The difference between the phonies, and those here who I have argued against, is that you guys served and did not embellish. However, that is where the difference ends.

                    As far as your apparent psychological profiles, you guys (my opposition) and the phonies that have been busted here are “peas in a pod”.

                    C2Show: I was more shocked when he used his antics on GDContractor I believe it was and someone else who told him to correct his articles because they were misleading.

                    Both failed to use tact when demanding that changes be made. If you want me to fix something, use tact. Tact is key.

                    C2Show: Not even shocked he went and tracked down a lurker. Dude posted 200 times in probably 3-4 years.

                    I saw the frequency of his posts. They were concentrated in the years before this year. There was a difference between what he portrayed himself to be, and what his posting record was. He’s no stranger.

                    C2Show: Something has gotta give here…

                    If something has to give, it’s your BS, as well as that of those on your side of the argument. How many times have I agreed to the demands of the people that argue with me? ZERO. When people that argue against me demand one thing, I usually do the opposite if there is a difference between what they’re demanding and what I intend to do.

                    C2Show: No more bias, bullshit threads.

                    Presenting information that is factual is not bullshit or bias, simply because you disagree with them.

                    C2Show: Report some real god damn news.

                    Your biased, factually challenged worldview is not a qualifier of what constitutes real news and what isn’t.

                • thebesig says:

                  MarineDad61’s BS virtue signaling comment:

                  “Perhaps thebesig should summon his memory of Jonn Lilyea, and Lilyea’s hope, purpose, and vision for this website.” — MarineDad61, October 5, 2021

                  MarineDad61: C2Show, He “mentioned the part about TIB” (sic (T1B))

                  BANG! Got one!

                  Remember when I said this on this thread? I said it twice, one of them is in blue text:

                  “Having a good idea of the apparent psychological profiles of the people who argue against me, I knew precisely how I was going to get them to keep arguing against me. There is a purpose behind every word, sentence, paragraph, etc., that I make.” — thebesig

                  I direct your attention to this statement:

                  There is a purpose behind every word, sentence, paragraph…

                  I will deliberately misspell a word, or use the wrong word that sounds the same, or utilize another spelling or grammatical error, to measure the desperation, anger, desire for control, that exists in the opposition.

                  Your desire to regain control, and to act out of anger, and your desperation to “score points” in this argument, drove you to jump on that.

                  One way that I measure the volume of the opposition’s desperation and desire for control is the number of days it takes for them to jump on a grammar/spelling error.

                  Notice how I use “T1B” when addressing T1B? But, you ignored that, typical of your attitude.

                  MarineDad61: to show that he is able and willing to stalk the comment history of others, for no other purpose than to invariably use this information against them.

                  First, someone made a statement that appeared to be inconsistent to his actual activity.

                  Second, based on that statement, someone else came in and asked him for his input.

                  Third, I checked to verify, then explained the first statement while addressing the second statement.

                  If posters take the correct course of action, like not exercising poor judgment like what you are doing here, they would not have to worry about my ability to do that.

                  I’ve been doing this for 18 years, you guys slotted yourselves into a common apparent psychological profile. People jump on threads, claiming or insinuating that they are something that they are not, just to have me discover a post history that provides a different narrative.

                  MarineDad61: Yet, right here, he can’t seem to find his own past post/comment?

                  I asked a legitimate question, the opposition has made false statements about what I said, and about what I meant. So, I challenge the opposition to find the exact quote that I made allegedly saying what they claimed I said.

                  Like clockwork, everybody on your side of the argument failed to do so, as you guys were spewing s* like you are doing on this thread.

                  MarineDad61: Hey, I respect everyone on staff here at VG, with 1 notable exception….
                  Dr. PSYclOPs, noted Doctor of Projection, Political Science & Conspiracy Theory, Prisons & Corrections, [SELF PROJECTION]

                  Correction, you have “respect” for people who are willing to put up with your BS, who would not push back against you. However, if somebody dares to push back against you, all of a sudden they possess all of the negative traits that you are assigning to me.

                  Guess what? I don’t care about getting your respect. I stand by my description of your apparent psychological profile, and the potential applications it had on your life outside of this website.

                  If I had a choice to be respected and walked over, or not being respected for pushing back, guess what? I will tell the other person to take the respect that they give out and shove it up their a*, as I intend to push back.

                  You have absolutely no clue about what you’re talking about, what you are arguing, other than advancing strawman arguments and ad homonyms. You dismiss a statement I made as “conspiracy theory”, when in fact the argument you are arguing against is based on fact, reason, and logic. Again, it is not a conspiracy theory if it is backed by fact.

                  MarineDad61: who is fond of serving up Double Whoppers with Cheese Food Product at Nothingburger King. [SELF-PROJECTION]

                  Bold words coming from someone who consistently defecates out of his mouth. Roll your eyes back and keep rolling them, perhaps you might see what your one brained celled activity is up to. You might also see its toy monkey roommate and actually have eyes on it as you yell for it to stop banging its cymbals.

                  Well, on the bright side, a toy monkey banging its cymbals makes up for the time when your one brain celled activity wonders out on its own and gets lost. 😀

                  MarineDad61: Otherwise known here (hiding behind a handle) as thebesig.

                  Yes, thebesig, the guy that refuses to accept MarineDad61’s strawman arguments and BS narratives. They guy gladly pushes back against MarineDad61’s tendency to pull tantrums when he doesn’t get his way.

              • thebesig says:

                Response to C2Show, October 7, 2021, Part 1A

                C2Show: Almost as if a computer with lack of emotion wrote these blurbs you push out.

                You’re not the first one that accused me of being computer software. That’s usually the reaction of someone getting frustrated over the fact that I keep hammering them.

                You’re getting somewhere with the “lack of emotion” spew, as I do these debates methodically, using a specific standard operating procedure; advancing a fact-based, reasoned, logical argument against the opposition’s argument every time they respond.

                The emotion comes in the form of enjoyment. It is one of the major reasons to why I have done this for 18 years, I enjoy it.

                C2Show: Its okay, buddy. People can have opinions and dislike yours.

                Where, in any of my posts, did I say that people cannot have their own opinion, where they cannot dislike mine? Where?

                Again, I enjoy engaging in debate. How can one have a debate if the opposition does not disagree?

                Do not mistake my disagreement with you guys, to include my point-by-point counter rebuttal, as my not wanting you guys to have an opinion that is different from mine.

                C2Show: Also have the right to question you when you have ‘gone off the rails’ as T1B mentioned.

                First, go back and read that statement. He asked for the thread to be locked because he felt that the thread went off the rails.

                Second, I have no problems being questioned if the questions and statements, related to me, if they are legitimate. However, one of you guys raised such a question, or statement, against me on this thread, or on any other threads.

                Third, if T1B were serious about the request he made, he would not have made a follow-on statement. Where was he, or anybody else, the call for any other thread be shut down when that thread shifted and went off the rails? This has to cover every single thread I’ve seen go off the rails, many of which did not come with these demands.

                C2Show: Again, ran off posters with your insane post. [REPEAT POINT]

                Running people off the board is not my intention. Providing them with a point-by-point rebuttal, every time they argue with me, is my objective.

                Those who leave the board because of my hammering them did so because they decided to. They could have decided to remain on the board and keep posting after being hammered, like many posters do here, like many posters do on the other websites where I’ve hammered them.

              • thebesig says:

                Response to C2Show, October 7, 2021, Part 1A

                C2Show: Like Martinjmpr said, this was not the vision

                First, Martinjmpr got it wrong. If you were to do this with every single post that deviated from the vision, he would have credibility with the statement. However, it does not seem to come up until I refuse to back down, like in these threads.

                Second, I read Jonn’s statements, at the time that John posted them, that indicated what his vision and intent was. He mainly wanted a place for veterans to come and make comments and interact with each other.

                It so happened that we had plenty of stolen valor posts to keep the readers busy. However, even as we were approaching the last months of Jonn being with us, the stolen valor articles were starting to dry up.

                This leads to my next point…

                Third, a lot has changed since Jonn was with us, and we are under a new leadership. One of the main things that has changed, since Jonn was with us, was that the stolen valor articles continued to decline.

                I looked over at military phonies, we’re looking at anywhere from two to three stolen valor articles a month. This was the main drive for this blog, stolen valor. However, we have a drastic change in number of those busted for stolen valor monthly.

                The current leadership, Dave, is the one who now sets the vision for the site. He has given AW1Ed a lot of flexibility to direct that vision and drive through our actions. And what have both decided?

                that given the continued decline of stolen valor related cases, that qualify for publishing on Military Phonies and here, have continued to decline, we must make a shift on what our emphasis is.

                Go ahead, send AW1Ed an email, and ask him about the discussion all of us had about expanding on the types of articles that we would post on this site.

                C2Show: and you have done a commendable job running posters off TAH. [REPEAT POINT]

                Running people off the board is not my intention. Providing them with a point-by-point rebuttal, every time they argue with me, is my objective.

                Those who leave the board because of my hammering them did so because they decided to. They could have decided to remain on the board and keep posting after being hammered, like many posters do here, like many posters do on the other websites where I’ve hammered them.

                C2Show: Those days of the 200 post are only back because we pretty much enjoy responding to you in a mocking manner.

                You’re full of it. No, neither you, nor those that are foolish enough to argue with me, are enjoying doing anything. Instead, you guys are driven by anger issues, control issues, and narcissism issues, to try to regain control in a situation that you guys have lost control in.

                Your side, getting destroyed in the argument, getting destroyed in the flame war, and failing to regain control, are not mocking me, but exercising control issues.

                C2Show: One of your god awful post back there on pages drew a whopping 10 post. . [REPEAT POINT]

                First, I have access to where I can see multiple posts on the site in a row. I can quickly see the commentary count that each posts get. I’m not the only contributor whose posts just gathered 10 to 15 comments. The other contributors have also clocked in that amount in the past. Even the older contributors.

                Second, thanks to the opposition on this thread, this post will continue to garner a post count beyond 200. Depending on the emotional state of the opposition, we’re looking at pushing this count to 300.

                I knew, as I posted the original article, that this was going to happen. I deliberately left out a lot of explanations, while still providing enough information to support the argument I’ve made throughout this thread, knowing full well that people were going to come to an erroneous conclusion.

                Having a good idea of the apparent psychological profiles of the people who argue against me, I knew precisely how I was going to get them to keep arguing against me. There is a purpose behind every word, sentence, paragraph, etc., that I make.

                Those words worked like a charm with you, MarineDad61, and with 5JC. I’m using, what I understand of your apparent psychological profiles, to manipulate you guys into a course of action (urge to keep arguing and to take swipes me). It is like I am controlling puppets via strings.

                And thanks to the opposition’s tendency with control issues, anger issues, and excessive ego issues, my actions worked brilliantly. You guys reacted exactly as I expected you guys to react, and now you could try to reconcile a post that got over 200 comments.

                C2Show: That usually could be a sign?

                No, not a sign. Not even remotely close. Again, I could look at these posts in the dashboard, they show statistics that you guys don’t see here. My posts are not the only ones they get the numbers that you are making fun of. Everybody else’s post is also getting those numbers.

                The other posts that reached 200 did so without you guys doing what you claimed you guys did on this thread… A laughable scenario as you guys followed a predictable pattern in reaction to words, sentences, and paragraphs that I worded specifically to get you guys to react the way you guys have reacted.

                There is absolutely no relation other than the one explained above for this thread. Remember, I’ve been doing this for 18 years. I take sadistic pleasure in destroying arguments, watching you guys react driven by anger, control, and narcissism.

                You guys are not the only ones that I was able to canalize into a specific course of action. I’ve done this before, with predictable results.

                • C2Show says:

                  You haven’t done much, just blowing hot air at us. Mr. Besig.

                  No need to get huffy with us, dear boy.

                  Your gimmick needs to be re-tweaked.

                  • MarineDad61 says:

                    C2Show,
                    I have a gut feeling,
                    a hunch,
                    that this will be his LAST partisan political article.

                    If my hunch is correct,
                    he did it to himself.
                    Self inflicted.

                    • C2Show says:

                      It should have stopped along time ago MD61. His pattern was rather unique.

                      Figured someone pull him aside and say: “Hey your article are a bit wacky.”

                      Drawing a fine line. The type of shit if someone actually went into an All Hands posted any of his TAH articles…they might get forced into hokey Extremism training.

                      But MD61, we will see if changes come.

                    • thebesig says:

                      Originally posted by C2Show:

                      It should have stopped along time ago MD61. His pattern was rather unique.

                      Figured someone pull him aside and say: “Hey your article are a bit wacky.”

                      Drawing a fine line. The type of shit if someone actually went into an All Hands posted any of his TAH articles…they might get forced into hokey Extremism training.

                      But MD61, we will see if changes come.

                      The commenters that had issues with my posts demonstrated those issues with an attitude problem, either slight attitude problem or a major one. Both MarineDad61 and you are an example of the later.

                      When someone approaches me with an attitude, usually driven by control and anger issues, I’m going to dismiss their complaints and double down on what they complained about.

                      Understand that we, the article contributors, have had exchanges about what kind of articles would be posted. AW1Ed is tracking what we are doing, sees our posts, and would say something to us if an article went out of line.

                      What you suggest, like, “pulling me aside and saying something about an article being wacky” moves in the right direction, but not quite. You touched up on something I’ve mentioned on this thread, and on someone else’s thread…

                      The fact that tact and respect plays the lion share of requests of that nature. You complain that I’m treating you guys no different from how I treat the phonies. Yet, your attitudes towards me, and towards my posts, are no different from the attitudes many here have made towards phonies on their social media sites.

                      Tact.

                      Not just any tact, but the kind of tact that if you were to tell me to go to hell, not only would you do it in a way that would have me looking forward to the trip, you’d do it in a way that I would lose sleep the night before due to excitement… In a way that would make Jesus proud and tell the angels, “You see, THAT’s an example of what I meant when I told my audience to pick up my cross and follow me…”

                      If its not that kind of tact, your demand would be dead in the water. You’d also reveal more of your apparent psychological profile, as it’s driven by one form of ego issue or another.

                      My posts causing people to go through extremism training? If only you were privy to what they were describing as “extremist”. Much of what we grew up with, what we were trained to be to be successful, is increasingly being labeled as “extremist”, “white”, “patriarchy”, etc.

                      However, MarineDad61’s approach on this thread will do nothing to get me to change what I have been doing. Instead, his confrontational attitude will just get me to fight back, double down on what I’ve been doing, and leverage his apparent psychological profile against him.

                      I also have fun doing this.

                    • thebesig says:

                      Originally posted by MarineDad61:

                      C2Show,
                      I have a gut feeling,
                      a hunch,
                      that this will be his LAST partisan political article.

                      If my hunch is correct,

                      Your hunch, your gut feeling, is broken. If your intent was to get me to stop posting a type of article that you erroneously label as “partisan political”, then you spectacularly failed. Everything that you’ve done fall under the example of “what not to do” when trying to get someone to do something different.

                      Influence and persuade, these fall under PSYOP. I know for a fact that if your method was what was used by PSYOP overseas, the battle space would have been more difficult for the US and its allies. You suck at it at a person to person level.

                      Again, I have every intention of posting things that you do not approve to be posted. I don’t work for you. I don’t answer to you. Given this information, it behooves you to learn how to be tactful.

                      Originally posted by MarineDad61:

                      he did it to himself.
                      Self inflicted.

                      Nope, I did not do anything to myself. Not even remotely close. Your attitude and actions did nothing to get me to change what I intend to do. Posts like what I did above will NOT be my last. Your conduct on this thread, towards me, only encourages me to do them more often, to do the very thing that you do not want me to do.

                      In C2Show’s response to you, he indicated that this was a pattern. Like you, C2Show did exactly what not to do when trying to get someone to do something different.

                      Confrontation, like what you have done here, does not work on me. The only thing that confronting me does is get counter confrontation from me. I don’t listen, or change, based on someone approaching me with a shitty attitude like what you and others have done on this thread. Again, that just makes me double down on doing what you demand that I do not do.

                      Hint: Use tact next time and leave your shitty attitude at the door. If your demands are ignored, and if your suggestions are not accepted, be adult enough to move on and to not act like a two-year-old pulling a terrible two tantrum while wearing an adult’s body.

                  • thebesig says:

                    Originally posted by C2Show:

                    You haven’t done much, just blowing hot air at us. Mr. Besig.

                    No need to get huffy with us, dear boy.

                    Your gimmick needs to be re-tweaked.

                    Wrong. I did exactly what I said above. Nope, not blowing hot air, but providing a fact based, reasoned, logical argument against an opposition that kept retreating from one strawman to another, from one ad homonym to another, until they were left with lobbing insults as their sole argument.

                    You guys did exactly as I expected you guys would do, based on what I said in my posts. I’m having a blast while I’m doing this, especially since I know that I’m getting under your skins.

                    I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve had someone say something similar to you. We both know that your comment is pure rubbish, pure nonsense. Your post shows that I got you good, I got under your skin in a way that got you to do what you eventually did above… You’re too proud to admit that you did exactly what I expected you to do based on select words, sentences, paragraphs that I generated.

                    Again, your posts, as well as that of the others, made me laugh. It speaks volumes when I get up in the morning, think about what I said to one of you that previous evening, then break out laughing.

                    I know that if I end up laughing, hours after the fact, at something I said to you guys, the recipient will feel the opposite. You guys would follow that up by busting your veins engaging in angry posting.

                    I would not be surprised if MarineDad61, and you, were spun like tops when you guys were growing up.

    • thebesig says:

      Originally posted by T1B:

      thebesig: I’m the thread starter. Comments on this thread will remain open for commenting.

      Whatever.

      This follow on post null and voids your original request to have the comments section closed. Your response is included under the “off the rails” category.

    • MarineDad61 says:

      T1B,
      Consider yourself vindicated.
      Your question was fully justified.

      It’s been days since anyone came here to support or defend
      his article, comments, and/or poor behavior towards commenters.

      He destroys no one,
      but turns off many.

      • thebesig says:

        MarineDad61’s BS virtue signaling comment:

        “Perhaps thebesig should summon his memory of Jonn Lilyea, and Lilyea’s hope, purpose, and vision for this website.” – MarineDad61, October 5, 2021

        MarineDad61: T1B, Consider yourself vindicated.

        Wrong, he was not vindicated, nothing in your responses to me after he posted vindicated him, your comments did not accomplish what you hoped they would accomplish.

        Speaking of “vindicated”, you don’t have a leg to talk about vindication when you get butthurt over the fact that I keep vindicating myself with every counter rebuttal that I provide against you and against the opposition.

        MarineDad61: Your question was fully justified.

        Wrong. His question was invalid, your farts (responses) did not change that fact. If he felt that this thread ventured off, he would not have provided his follow-on response.

        MarineDad61: It’s been days since anyone came here to support or defend his article, comments, and/or poor behavior towards commenters.

        Because most comments, to a post article, take place the first day or two, sometimes on the third day. That would be the case on this thread; however, the opposition’s piss poor judgement calls guaranteed that this thread would keep running beyond those three days.

        Given that people normally don’t post on a thread after the second or third day, on the majority of these posts, the fact that they have not came here recently is not a reflection of the validity of my argument.

        I got into an argument against far more people on my other thread than the number I argued against here. Many of those posters are still posting in the comments section. This should speak volumes about the lack of validity of your argument on this thread.

        MarineDad61: He destroys no one,

        False. I’ve destroyed the opposition here and elsewhere. I’ve done so over the past 18 years. This is evident in the fact that you’ve shifted from your initial argument to attacking my debate method and me. That’s not the action of someone who prevailed. That’s the action of someone who got destroyed in debate.

        MarineDad61: but turns off many.

        If I turned off many, nobody would be on this thread taking swipes at me directly or indirectly.

  25. MarineDad61 says:

    If bird brain here is dumb enough to ever attempt
    posting another partisan political article about his own personal farrightwingnut narratives and conspiracy theory agenda…

    Expect me to show up,
    URL link THIS article to that next article,
    and drop some plops of his words here
    in comment replies there, as appropriate.

    He apparently believes he destroys me and others.
    He is sadly mistaken.

    He explicitly states that he expects me and others to ignore him,
    scroll on by,
    or just bug off and vanish.
    He is sadly mistaken.

    Frankly, he can post what all the other staff posts,
    whatever he wants,
    about anything else
    BUT his partisan politics,
    and I’m fine with that.

    If this site allows his continued “sadistic pleasure”,
    then I will call him out on it.
    All the evidence I need is right here,
    in this 1 long thread of his ugly ass comments.

    I care too much about the topic and cause of Stolen Valor…

    … to let 1 bird brain article writer flail in his attempts
    to insult me, discredit me, or otherwise bash me.

    I’d rather stick around for the Stolen Valor and other general interest articles by all the staff,
    and when he rears his ugly beak on me or others,
    out him for what he is.
    Cuckoo. Cuckoo.

    • thebesig says:

      Response to MarineDad61, October 8, 2021, Part 1A

      MarineDad61’s phony virtue signaling comment:

      “Perhaps thebesig should summon his memory of Jonn Lilyea, and Lilyea’s hope, purpose, and vision for this website.” — MarineDad61, October 5, 2021

      MarineDad61: If bird brain

      Bold words for a Shitbird. Lame comeback for someone with a single brain cell that keeps escaping your empty noggin for lack of utilization. A lot of people could learn from your one brain celled activity’s efforts to seek gainful improvement. You most certainly are not keeping it employed.

      MarineDad61: here is dumb enough

      The stupidity is not on my end but on yours; first with your decision to keep arguing, and second with the stupidity that you demonstrate in your posts. One pattern that I’ve found, among those that argue with me, is that the more likely someone is to argue against me, the more likely they are to be failures, near failures, or “ho hum” in real life. You’ve demonstrated such stupidity on this thread.

      This is an observation that I have made during arguments with those on Facebook.

      MarineDad61: to ever attempt posting another partisan political article about his own personal farrightwingnut narratives and conspiracy theory agenda…

      First, I am going to post what you assume to be “far right wing nut” posts no matter how much such posting gets your panties in a wad and you subsequently pull a spoiled brat hissy fit.

      Second, the fact that you’d dismiss the above post as such indicates that you’re not anywhere near to being a Republican, like you claim to be.

      Third, it’s not a conspiracy if it is supported by facts. You’ve colossally failed to argue against the main theme of the post above, choosing to advance strawman arguments that have nothing to do with the main theme.

      MarineDad61: Expect me to show up,

      And expect me to rub your face in your BS on that next thread, just like I’ve done here, and expect me to keep fighting you back, like I’m doing here.

      MarineDad61: URL link THIS article to that next article, and drop some plops of his words here in comment replies there, as appropriate.

      In other words, I should expect you to hijack an unrelated article with posts, relevant to my thread, because you’re unable to argue with me on the original thread. This is something I would expect an “Entitled Karen” to do.

      Understand that this does not bother me. I’ve read your thread hijacking posts on Mason’s thread… The fact that you would hijack somebody else’s thread, or another one, argue strongly against your insinuation that you want this forum to remain on Jonn Lilyea’s vision.

      Why have I not hammered you there? I see it as an impact indicator showing how much I’ve been able to hammer you to the core, to get you “straight in the jugular”, so much so that you have to run like a spoiled brat child to another thread to complain about what I’m doing on the thread I’m destroying you on.

      You did on that thread exactly what “Doc Chevy” did with his “Evidence” blog. Reading your posts about me on the other thread is just like reading his “Evidence” blog. Your mindset and mentality are very similar to that what I saw with “Doc Chevy”. Put your man britches on and grow up, act your age.

      MarineDad61: He apparently believes he destroys me and others. He is sadly mistaken.

      Nope, not mistaken. I know for a fact that I’ve destroyed the opposition here, destroyed you and the others, on this thread and on the other threads. This is not “belief” but hard knowledge. I’ve destroyed you guys on this thread.

      If that were not the case, you would not have ran to the other thread, like a belted spoiled brat child, to bitch, whine, moan, and groan about the original post here. The fact that you have zeroed in on attacking me, vice your initial strawman arguments and follow-on strawman arguments, indicate that indeed, I destroyed you and others on this thread.

      MarineDad61: He explicitly states that he expects me and others to ignore him, scroll on by, or just bug off and vanish.

      That would be the smart, wise, thing for the opposition to do.

      When you jump in and start giving your BS narrative about respecting Jonn’s memory, you’re demanding that I stop hammering you. Understand that I’ve been doing this for 18 years. Folks like you act based on the same script… It’s like you guys are passing a script around.

      When you tell me that Mason’s thread is “more current/newer”, you’re hinting that I should just drop my argument with you on the older thread and jump to the newer thread. The fact that you kept posting there when it was the same age as this thread spoke volumes about the lack of sincerity of your comment.

      You wanted me to stop replying to you, and to head to the other thread instead. You were mistaken, it didn’t work, as I saw your antics for what they were… An attempt to get me off your back.

      When someone jumps in and asks for the thread to be shut down, I will remind that person that others are free to ignore the thread, and if they jump onto the thread, to resist making a post.

      THAT is the real reason to why I mentioned such. You, and T1C, wanted an outcome that prevented me from providing a counter rebuttal to the opposition… Something I intend to do for as long as the opposition replies.

      MarineDad61: He is sadly mistaken.

      Nope, I’m not mistaken. Your explanation of this is mistaken. Again, there’s a purpose behind every word, sentence, paragraph, that I make, based on the apparent psychological profile of the people that I’m arguing against.

      I know for a fact that you guys don’t want to back down, so I throw things back the way I did, with you and T1C, knowing full well that will boil people’s bloods… Like it did with you.

      I’m using your anger, narcissism, and control issues to cause you guys to react in a way that makes me laugh.

      Understand that I enjoy doing this, I enjoy destroying your arguments, and laughter is a reaction to your responses. I even laugh at something I said in a post knowing full well that your blood would boil when you read it, then I laugh in anticipation of what you would say.

      I’m also using your anger issues, control issues, and narcissism issues to help build the post counter up. That tactic is also working like a charm.

      MarineDad61: Frankly, he can post what all the other staff posts, whatever he wants, about anything else BUT his partisan politics, and I’m fine with that.

      And the anger issues, control issues, and narcissism issues come to the front, become obvious, and are no longer subtle. People don’t need my debating or professional background to see that you have these issues.

      But, no, I don’t do what you want me to do. I do what I intend to do. Demands, like what you’re doing here, do not work with me. In fact, your approach only guarantees that I “fight back”. C2Show told you that this had been my pattern.

      Like the others that tried to get me to stop, you’ve failed to use tact. Instead, you leveraged anger issues, control issues, and narcissism issues to try to force me to do things your way. Those tactics don’t work.

      I label your statements on this thread, as well as the statements of others who have said the same thing to me on the other threads as “negative reinforcement”. Negative reinforcement, like what you are using here, doesn’t work with me. You’re just guaranteeing that I will fight back, not do what you demand, and you guarantee that I double down on going against what you and your side demands.

      I fight back against attitudes like yours, and I fight back against the demands from people like you. Fighting back against your kind of attitude is what I do.

    • thebesig says:

      Response to MarineDad61, October 8, 2021, Part 2A

      MarineDad61’s phony virtue signaling comment:

      “Perhaps thebesig should summon his memory of Jonn Lilyea, and Lilyea’s hope, purpose, and vision for this website.” — MarineDad61, October 5, 2021

      MarineDad61: If this site allows his continued “sadistic pleasure”,

      The fact that you’d misinterpret what I take sadistic pleasure in doing speaks volumes about the fact that you have anger raging trough your veins as you read my posts. What I said on this thread:

      “Correction, I will keep dismantling the opposition for as long as they keep arguing with me. As I mentioned before, I take sadistic pleasure in consistently taking people’s arguments apart.” -thebesig

      “One of the reasons to why I argue against them is that I take sadistic pleasure in destroying their arguments, seeing their reactions, and seeing them expose more of their apparent psychological profile. I end up leveraging the later to say the right words, sentences, paragraphs, combinations, etc., to get them to react a certain way. It worked like a charm with you, it worked like a charm with MarineDad61, and it worked like a charm with the others that I have used this tactic on.” -thebesig.

      THAT is what I take sadistic pleasure in doing, destroying arguments, advanced by commenters like you, watching your reactions, adjusting my wording, and repeat cycle.

      I was not talking about the posts that I put up. But, now that I know what angers you, I’m going to keep doing what you demand I stop doing.

      MarineKaren61: then I will call him out on it.

      Nope, you did not call me out on anything. Don’t mistake your coming here, acting like an entitled Karen, as your “calling” me out. It isn’t. It’s you acting entitled, and going on a power trip, and not you trying to set anything straight.

      But, do keep pulling your entitled Karen comments. The more tendency a person has towards anger issues, control issues, and narcissism issues, the more fun it is to watch them react to my arguments.

      MarineKaren61: All the evidence I need is right here, in this 1 long thread of his ugly ass comments.

      Anybody with critical thinking ability would look at this thread, at our argument, and see that the evidence does not argue in your favor. Instead, the evidence will show that you don’t know what you’re talking about, that you attempt to make up for that with strawman arguments, you follow that up by insisting that your strawman arguments are relevant and to the thread, that you get verbally abusive when you get your rear end cut and shoved down your throat, that when the opposition treats you the way you treat others, that you don’t like it, that you would ignore your own actions when complaining about what the opposition does to you, etc.

      I could go on, but understand that you have been blinded by your own narcissism throughout this thread. You have an excessive, overinflated, sense of who you are and what your value is here that far exceeds what you actually are.

      The fact that you would dismiss my comments as “ugly ass comments” is an indicator of how I’ve repeatedly hit you dead center mass on this thread.

      MarineKaren61: I care too much about the topic and cause of Stolen Valor…

      Baloney! That’s what you want the readers to believe, but that is not what you actually believe.

      Nope, you don’t care too much about the topic and cause of Stolen Valor. You care too much about the fact that you’re consistently getting your rear end handed to you on this thread, that you can’t get your way on this thread, that you’re getting your BS persona demolished, etc.

      Your attitude and conduct on this thread, and on the others, indicate that you’re doing this because this is all about you and about your phony sense of worth on this website to make up for the lack of it in the real world.

      If you cared about the topic and cause of Stolen Valor, you would not be doing anything on your end that keeps a non-stolen valor article active beyond an article’s normal activity day range. Quit your virtue signaling.

      MarineDad61: … to let 1 bird brain article writer

      Your calling me a “bird brain” in response to my identifying your brain as a “once brained celled activity” is you subconsciously acknowledging that indeed you’re getting your rear end cut off and shoved down your throat repeatedly.

      I mean, your one brain celled activity, being too small to wonder on its own, wondered out on its own on this thread and got “smoked” by a “bird brain”. I wonder what would be louder to the audience that you speak to… The poop particle blast spraying out of your mouth, or your head repeatedly contracting and your ears bump against each other while your mouth is releasing crap blasts.

      I would suspect that you are regretting, by now, being outside making mud puddles when God was issuing brains.

      MarineDad61: flail in his attempts to insult me, discredit me, or otherwise bash me.

      Nope, not “flailing” but succeeded. I’ve succeeded in insulting you, based on your reactions. I’ve succeeded in discrediting you, based on showing you the disconnect between your claims and your actions. I’ve succeeded in bashing you, based on the way that you’re responding.

      If I were not successful in insulting you, discrediting you, and bashing you, in response to your flaming me, you would have given up on this thread a long time ago. Your actions contradict your words.

      MarineDad61: I’d rather stick around for the Stolen Valor and other general interest articles by all the staff, and when he rears his ugly beak on me or others, out him for what he is. Cuckoo. Cuckoo.

      This statement is a contradiction in terms. If you would rather stick around for the Stolen Valor and other articles by all the staff, then you would completely ignore my articles. Not fart your opinions about my articles based partly on your spectacular failure at reading comprehension.

      Hint: Advancing strawman arguments, getting verbally abusive, getting offended when you get your own treatment back as if “you did not warrant it”, is not calling anybody out for anything. It simply you pulling a “Karen.”

    • thebesig says:

      Response to MarineDad61, October 8, 2021, Part 3A

      This post reads like a page out of a novel or scene of a movie. This entire rant suggests that you read a lot of action novels, or watch a lot of action movies, where the protagonist single handedly overcomes adversity, oppression, evil, etc., and declares that he won’t let the enemies get away with doing their antics because, if they do, they will be watching and they will act.

      If this is the case, it would an indication that you chose reality escapes that metaphorically allows you make up for the fact that your real life is “ho hum” at best, a failure at worst. You most certainly behave like people on Facebook who are failures, near failures, or “ho hum” in the real world.

      You’re too proud to see that you fell for my tactics hook, line, and sinker. You should be old enough to know that acting out in anger does not bode well. Your statements indicate that you’re acting out of anger rather than with a cool head. I would not be surprised that people described you as “hotheaded”. I wonder if they would also describe your anger as “something that they could feel” when they see it in your face.

  26. MarineDad61 says:

    Mellis will be in Judge Sullivan’s court today.
    4:15pm EST

    Anyone can call the 888 number and listen in.
    No charge.
    List of Judges, teleconference phone numbers, and access codes at the link below.

    Should be interesting….
    Especially if anyone in court
    tries to mention the talking points / claims in this article.

    https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/covid-19-emergency-public-access-teleconference-information-for-judges