Curry Pervert wrote:

Lu Zwei wrote: Sat Jan 24, 2026 1:10 pm Dude, you are the worst. Seriously. Get fucked you white uppity trash piece of shit.

I said what I said. Fuck you again, sideways and all over yourself. FUCK. YOU!

I understand your anger and your position. Not sure you're gonna make any progress with such a combative attitude though. We could all benefit from dialing things down a bit sometimes.

OrthodoxEaster wrote: Sat Jan 24, 2026 1:18 pm I suspect your knowledge of the world doesn't extend much beyond your parents' basement. I feel bad for your ex. Never mind your kid.

Wow.
Really? I understand reacting to what Lu said and that's fair enough. He maybe went a little overboard. But bringing partners and children into things? I honestly thought you were better than that.

More than a little, I'd say. And I'm hardly the first to point this out re: Lu. For years.

I mean, if someone's gonna call a person "white trash" (what the fuck, by the way? is Lu now the PRF's own Lizzie Grubman? [bonus points if you get the reference]), all bets are off.

If Lu wants to dish it out like that in response to a critique that was not remotely personal against him, he'd better be able to take it—harder. I kinda doubt he's severely traumatized by any of my (admittedly trivial, flippant, inconsequential) retorts. And to be frank, I can only imagine how someone w/his temper might deal w/the kind of garden-variety family disagreements that everyone has at home. Simple as that.

Curry Pervert wrote:

OrthodoxEaster wrote: Sat Jan 24, 2026 1:03 pm That said, bringing a gun to any protest, legal or not, in which you might have a run-in w/law enforcement seems like asking for trouble.

Why should it make a difference if you're carrying? If you're not drawing it in anger, what's the diff with someone who isn't carrying?

Pointing out the irony of certain stripes of the left recently getting all anti-gun-control. Also, it's just an unwise move in the first place.

I'm against firearms in any way, shape, or form, other than maybe target practice, sport shooting, and certain types of hunting (ie food). Regardless of whom, good intentions or not. Totally opposed to the concept of "carrying" in the first place. Drawn or otherwise. Makes a bigger mess. Seems like a right-wing solution. Guns mostly kill people and get people killed. Statistically true.

Rarely do guns accomplish much good, if ever. You are unlikely to save your ass w/the police or anyone else b/c you're carrying. If you're not prepared to draw it, why would you have it in the first place? Begs the question, at least to the cops. If anything, your odds of being murdered are generally far greater than your odds of shooting your way out of trouble. It's the same as when people say teachers should arm themselves against school shootings. Fuck that. Good luck w/it. Even if you're some well-trained militia jerk.

Plus, the feds can't wait for a good excuse to kill a protestor. You're playing right into their trap.

Curry Pervert wrote:

cakes wrote: Sat Jan 24, 2026 5:51 pm Kristi Noems new thing is saying anyone who owns a gun does it for violence. That's the justification for shooting this guy. He was guilty of legally owning a gun, which required his execution in the street.

Holy shit, I never thought horseshoe theory would have ended up here.

For once, we agree! Yeah, totally bonkers coming from her. What a world.

Interesting to see gun advocacy groups tearing into Maga goblins making false claims about Pretti. California Goblin Bill Essayli couldn’t help himself and started posting that the NRA and Gun Owners of America were colluding with leftwing extremists like Tim Waltz.

llllllllllllllllllll wrote: Sat Jan 24, 2026 8:53 pm

cakes wrote: Sat Jan 24, 2026 8:47 pm Oh my bad. Usually professionals in law enforcement don't blatantly execute people in broad public viewing

I wish I had your brain

I don't know what you mean but apparently I'm not good at sarcasm.

Curry Pervert wrote: Sat Jan 24, 2026 10:59 pm

llllllllllllllllllll wrote: Sat Jan 24, 2026 8:43 pm Apparently the killer was a border patrol officer for eight-years. Democrats are pushing the narrative that this is a training issue, which is the dumbest fucking thing I have ever heard in my life.

Maybe you're just *hearing* the Democrats for the first time in your life.

you're saying things like this quote from Connecticut Democratic Senator Chris Murphy are dumb?

“This has never been about public safety,” Murphy said in a video posted to X (https://x.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/2015216385983479894). “This is likely about trying to rig and steal the election.”

Murphy noted that Bondi’s letter included a provision about voter records. The letter demanded that Minnesota “allow the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice to access voter rolls to confirm that Minnesota’s voter registration practices comply with federal law as authorized by the Civil Rights Act of 1960.”

“Donald Trump is wildly unpopular, he’s not committed to Democracy,” he said. Murphy added shortly thereafter, “He’s saying to Minneapolis: ‘if you don’t give me control of the voter rolls, then ICE isn’t leaving.’”

I haven't personally seen the training issue argument yet about the murderer's background. Can't agree with that, because they clearly did exactly as they were expected/encouraged to do by murdering a protestor

OrthodoxEaster wrote: Sun Jan 25, 2026 12:05 am More than a little, I'd say. And I'm hardly the first to point this out re: Lu. For years.

I mean, if someone's gonna call a person "white trash" (what the fuck, by the way? is Lu now the PRF's own Lizzie Grubman? [bonus points if you get the reference]), all bets are off.

If Lu wants to dish it out like that in response to a critique that was not remotely personal against him, he'd better be able to take it—harder. I kinda doubt he's severely traumatized by any of my (admittedly trivial, flippant, inconsequential) retorts. And to be frank, I can only imagine how someone w/his temper might deal w/the kind of garden-variety family disagreements that everyone has at home. Simple as that.

I think sometimes it's just better to recognize when someone is never going to engage with you in good faith and just block 'em. Whose signature was "maintain a healthy foe list?" I forget.

Curry Pervert wrote: Sat Jan 24, 2026 10:56 pm I understand your anger and your position. Not sure you're gonna make any progress with such a combative attitude though. We could all benefit from dialing things down a bit sometimes.

Do you? Do you really? Great and duly noted. Any reaction to that situation as a Stephen A Smith meme in real life should merit a complete and utter backlash in any shape and form, but only directed towards that person's.

It's basically this, but Alex Pretti:



And then to water down with the bullshit excuse how we all hate guns and we all hate violence and yada yada. but I have read for about 900 pages in this bitch about your flawless constitution and how it grants you these wonderful unicorn freedoms that never can be and never will be abused or broken by anyone. Some of the people here are constantly moving goal posts, blowing words in binary form just for the sake of self blowing to feel any type of righteous in shitty situations that, quite frankly, are and will never be gray.

The only response to that situation is and ever will be: That dude should not be murdered PERIOD. If there is a but or yeah well or with everything taken in consideration type of response, then you're the morally bankrupt person I do not associate with in real life or in this pretend one. I have no idea when did empathy become selective. It is not and it will never be selective or conditional. No amount of similar music that we listen to will bond us closer together over that.

OrthodoxEaster wrote: Sat Jan 24, 2026 1:18 pm Wow.
Really? I understand reacting to what Lu said and that's fair enough. He maybe went a little overboard. But bringing partners and children into things? I honestly thought you were better than that.

Nope, I don't think I did. I just went appropriately on board. I'm allowing him to go after my ex partner, she remarried a Joe Rogan listening Trump apologist, that's fair game. Mentioning my kid? Yeah, we are drawing the line there. Not gonna even entertain this basement remark, as we lived in a single story house with full foundations, could not make that happen even if I wanted or tried.

Lu Zwei wrote: Sun Jan 25, 2026 5:48 am The only response to that situation is and ever will be: That dude should not be murdered PERIOD. If there is a but or yeah well or with everything taken in consideration type of response, then you're the morally bankrupt person I do not associate with in real life or in this pretend one. I have no idea when did empathy become selective.

I think this might be the trouble. You seem to want to referee the entire conversation. I take the human, emotional, empathetic response to tyrannical violence as a given. It's bottom line decency I assume of every member here until someone wanders in and says something obviously disturbing.

If there can only be one allowable response then this thread is a tragedy update a day (maybe more the way things are going) a solemn acknowledgement that it was horrific, a few agreements and then repeat.

But this is the politics thread. When horrific things happen they have political implications which means questions of legal and constitutional matters, questions of policy, history, precedent, economics etc. The questions about any possibility of legal repercussions for the killer of that man are important. The question of whether one of us would choose to bring a firearm to a protest seems very appropriate to ask in the current circumstances. If you're afraid someone wondering that or advising against it is somehow saying the killing of this man is somehow justified or that the goal posts are being moved you're not getting it.

Bondi's list of demands to governor Walz are fucking chilling. At a moment of visible right wing splintering at yesterday's events you'd think they'd at least be fake conciliatory. But no, the White House stands over a homicide scene and says, "You don't like it? Well you'd better hand over your voter rolls so we can go through them or this kind of thing just might happen again."

losthighway wrote: Sun Jan 25, 2026 7:48 am

Lu Zwei wrote: Sun Jan 25, 2026 5:48 am The only response to that situation is and ever will be: That dude should not be murdered PERIOD. If there is a but or yeah well or with everything taken in consideration type of response, then you're the morally bankrupt person I do not associate with in real life or in this pretend one. I have no idea when did empathy become selective.

I think this might be the trouble. You seem to want to referee the entire conversation. I take the human, emotional, empathetic response to tyrannical violence as a given. It's bottom line decency I assume of every member here until someone wanders in and says something obviously disturbing.

If there can only be one allowable response then this thread is a tragedy update a day (maybe more the way things are going) a solemn acknowledgement that it was horrific, a few agreements and then repeat.

But this is the politics thread. When horrific things happen they have political implications which means questions of legal and constitutional matters, questions of policy, history, precedent, economics etc. The questions about any possibility of legal repercussions for the killer of that man are important. The question of whether one of us would choose to bring a firearm to a protest seems very appropriate to ask in the current circumstances. If you're afraid someone wondering that or advising against it is somehow saying the killing of this man is somehow justified or that the goal posts are being moved you're not getting it.

I am really sorry for not seeing both sides to, or even three sides to it:

- executing this dude is WRONG
- executing this dude is wrong, BUT
- executing this dude was JUSTIFIED

I feel like we will just have to stay on our opposite sides on this one.

Lu Zwei wrote: Sun Jan 25, 2026 8:08 am I am really sorry for not seeing both sides to, or even three sides to it:

- executing this dude is WRONG
- executing this dude is wrong, BUT
- executing this dude was JUSTIFIED

I feel like we will just have to stay on our opposite sides on this one.

Yeah, you don't get it. Sweetheart, no on here is ever going to say or think it was anything other than wrong. That's not what anyone is saying. There is no other side on this issue. That's why you're mad. It's reading comprehension.