Jump to content

JmOz

HERO Member
  • Posts

    9,741
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Posts posted by JmOz

  1. 1 minute ago, Chris Goodwin said:

     

    BLM "riots" were people literally asking for cops to stop randomly killing Black people.  

     

    The "riot" in Washington was a literal attempt to overthrow the lawful government of the United States of America.  People died.  There is no both sides there.

     

    Which side are you on?

    If your view is that black and white the answer would be neither

  2. 10 minutes ago, Chris Goodwin said:

     

     

     

    I'm sorry, but no.  You don't get to minimize and "both-sides" a literal attempt to overthrow the US Government.  


    Which side are you on, exactly?  There is no middle ground with treason.

    1) Riots in Washington WRONG,  Individuals who did it deserve Jail Time. 

    2) BLM Riots WRONG.  Individuals who did it deserve Jail Time.

    3) Claims of one side doing or saying something, more often than not, can be made about BOTH SIDES (What I was specifically referring to when I said Both Sides) 

    4) A person should be held responsible for what they did, not what we feel they did.  

     

  3. 6 minutes ago, archer said:

     

    A good article from a constitutional law professor who has the same opinion as you do on "incitement". That charge brings up free speech issues and the exact dictionary meaning of words and whether that's exactly what the president did.

     

    He's arguing that they ought to impeach for "seditious conspiracy" which fits the exact definition of what happened and which just happens to carry double the jail sentence that incitement does (if it later goes as far as a criminal prosecution). 

     

    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/01/10/trump-impeachment-articles-incite-insurrection-seditious-conspiracy-456937

    Just skimmed it, seems to go after the election tampering (Which is shady as shit, and defiantly something that should be tried in court).  Will read it when I have more time

     

    My issue however stands, with the core idea that standards should be standards.  IF party A does X and gets consequence Z, then when Party B does X is should not get consequence Y.   The hatred people feel for him should not change the consequences.  

  4. 2 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

     

    No.  Biden and Obama never, never said "Punch a Protester" at one of his rallies. 

     

    They never said an attempted murder of a congressmen was deserved.

     

    You are literally the neighbor ignoring the signs of a battered wife because you find it easy to excuse yourself.  Then you get to act surprised when you find out the husband beat her to death.

     

    As that battered wife in that scenario, I am not happy about this

    Nice personal Assualt.  I will not engage further with you on this issue.  

  5. 1 minute ago, TrickstaPriest said:

     

    His campaign, and the media of the right wing, have been continuously 'joking/not-saying' about 'inevitable' civil war and literal murdering liberals for a while.  From major and official mouthpieces.

     

    If you forgive someone for 'joke starting' a civil war, or you know attempted coup, you'll have them try it again.

     

    And again.

     

    And again.

     

    Until they win.

    Both sides.  How it is reported is very different....

    8 minutes ago, Cygnia said:

    Glad I live in the middle of nowhere

  6. 16 minutes ago, Starlord said:

    I hold the people who actually did the deed responsible in all instances.  However, the POTUS seems to have directly incited (ie., the action of provoking unlawful behavior or urging someone to behave unlawfully) the proceedings right before they happened.  Also, there seems to be evidence that his administration also may have interfered with, or just ignored, efforts to defend the capitol.  He should bear some responsibility for that and should be punished accordingly.

    My bringing the riots up was just an example of allowing the hatred people feel towards him modify their view of his actions.  

     

    However, having watched what he said, etc... He told people to do something constitutional (march and cheer on "Their people"), could a reasonable person see that it would lead to violence, debatable, but did he advocate for it, based on what he said, I think no.  If you can find where he told his followers to do anything outside of a constitutionally protected protest, please correct me.

    Taking the BLM riots, they lasted longer, cost more in lives and property, and literally took over city blocks, while I respect your opinion that the scale could be worse, a fair argument can be made that the actual consequences were a lot worse for the BLM riots.  As for the rhetoric, we both know how EASY it would be to find BLM comments as terrible.  

  7. This might be a bit of a vent...

     

    But is anyone else sick of the "elephant" controlling the "rider".  

     

    I am against violence, I am against double standards.  I was against the riots this summer, I am against what happened at the capital. 

     

    BUT it REALLY annoys me that the left can and did support one group, while the president (who I find to be an ass) is held responsible for the other riots (Yes, he added fuel, but I do not feel he lit the fuse).  See my issue is NOT who to hold responsible, but that I feel that a certain standard should be applied, condemn Trump to your hearts desire, but then hold AOC, Harris, and Peloski responsible for the midsummer riots, or don't hold any of them responsible (where I honestly stand, I hold those who DID riot responsible).  On a very personal level I can't stand Trump, but I see a certain level of hypocrisy with how the left and the right behave with him in the middle of it all,  that makes me feel I have to defend the jerk.  This is not a position I like to be in.  

     

    The problem IMO is because it is all about emotion (the perfectly reasonable HATRED of Trump), instead of fairness, justice, or truth


    Vent off

  8. 1 minute ago, steriaca said:

    I like the cape clasp. By the way, I believe a young fox is a kit, not a cub.

    Most are actually called pups, but cubs and kits are also used, at least according to a quick google search.  I originally was going to name him Kit, but I just knew there would be to many Knight Rider jokes for me liking...

  9. Oh, it is.  I'm going to try to get one new project out a month.  The Fox is the glue that ties it together.  Basically everything is his files, so first will be the Star Knights, then will be the first part of his armory (Will cover about 15-20 belt gadgets, my idea on different types of Utility Belts, and a 2-3 costumes) .  I might include the Base and Computer as well, but not sure on that one yet, thinking they might be branched off to their own work, but the "Warehouse of Justice" might get in there...

  10. Nope, got a character in universe with the same name, a Power Armor character who runs my version of Xavier, Ravenwood, PS238, Sky High...

     

    He might look a bit like Johnathan Franks...

     

    Anyways, did some revision on the boots for Cub, but how do you guys like the others?

  11. 6 hours ago, assault said:

    Over my roleplaying career, I recall two instances when my character whacked another PC. In both cases, the other PC was of "CD" alignment, and a threat to the survival of the rest of the party.

    I did it once.  I was playing someone pragmatic in a CoC game...shot to wound while we were running away from someone...missed and luckily drew attention to some cultists hiding in the woods (That I did not know about)

  12. 2 hours ago, steriaca said:

    Makes me wonder, does The Fox have a generation villain? He should. 

     

    Let's call him The Gargoyle. The first one was a master criminal who lucks in to a superweapon or super tech. He wields a sword (so he can fence with The Fox), a gun or two (quite normal ones), and a VVP which can only be changed in a lab (to explain the gadgets and weapons he uses in his crimes). He was active between around 1920s to 1948 or so. He was thought to have died many times, only to come back as a bad penny.

     

    Gargoyle 2 is his son, who originally called himself "The Gargoyle's Ghost" (using a special belt which allows him to go through solid objects). Like the original Gargoyle, he also uses a sword and gadgets built by other people which he steals. He was active between 1950's to 1960's.

     

    Gargoyle 3 is the son of Gargoyle 2, and he is basically more of a mastermind and master criminal as opposed to a gadget laden guy. He has a utility belt on equal par with The Fox. This one is the Fox's dark mirror. He was active between the late 70's to the 90's.

     

    Gargoyle 4 is....someone. To the current Fox he is a bad name which keeps on coming up. He has yet to actually see him, and wonders if someone is just using his name.

     

    What do you think?

    Can't use the name Gargoyle but love what you have done here...might steal big parts of it :)

     

  13. So yes and no.  more yes than no, but he does not know it.

     

    The original fox killed a man, that man became a ghost.  That ghost has continually possesed people, who he then guides to positions of power (Mayors, head of industries, etc...)

  14. 2 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

    You know, even when I was a kid, I just assume those were cheerleaser skirts, with the shirts underneath.  And I would _like_ to think the Great Scott would arrive at a similar solution.

     

    I really, _really_ would....

    I'm sure they are the cheerleader outfits that have the bottoms under the skirts.  However, with a kilt....

  15. 6 hours ago, archer said:

    I liked the red in the original cape and the jaw of the mask being the same color as the crown of the head.

     

    If it isn't very time consuming, could you throw that combination up for us to look at?

    Hard to be precise with colors, but something like this?

    undo (21).png

×
×
  • Create New...