Immediately explained because there is no question whatsoever that’s what it was.

You have all this fake information…but from where? I know you won’t answer because it’s embarrassing….because the answer is Twitter.
None of it resembles the official reports from police, not one detail is close to correct. It’s pure unadulterated lies you bought hook line and sinker because you want to, or that you made up yourself, not because you have a scintilla of evidence, and it’s all 100% opposed by the reality that an armed MAGgot drove to Pelosi’s house with weapons and zip ties, broke in, and beat an 82 year old man he pulled out of bed with the hammer in front of police, fully dressed, screaming “where’s Nancy”.

I think you people took the fact that he’s a nudist and pretended he was nude at the failed assassination….no, that’s almost rational, I now see Musk just made it up, tweeted it out to millions, then quietly retracted it once he planted the seed of insanity in your fertile skulls, and it grew like a weed in the manure you keep there. Every accusation you make is an admission.

Depapi is pure, undeniably MAGA. You have no evidence otherwise. Police have tons to back that up.
He is far right politically, not all over the place. There were no guards, no dogs, no cameras, no alarm, no third person, no tall wall, no attacker in his underwear. Every bit of that is made up by far right liars like yourself to try to hide from the fact that he’s absolutely one of you, just like you, a splitting image of yourself, believing every crazy conspiracy theory you believe. No evidence he’s a “doper” although that would mean nothing, most republicans are dopers, rush Limbaugh was the biggest heroin addict in recent history, Trump likes speed.
Mr Pelosi called him “friend” to calm him down, not because he was his friend you tool.
Was a failed political assasination by the far right, with prodding from politicians for years up to the “fire Pelosi with a rifle” add on the day before the failed assassination.
Funny, every place your alternative facts were put up is down, not those my info came from. Derp

You just don’t like who you are and seeing yourself in the mirror disgusts you, so you came up with a story from your own life when your gay lover beat you up. It’s so incredibly stupid, and shows you are not a bit serious, just ranting and blaming anyone but terrorist maggots.

Only the completely insane like you believe everything in the universe is on their side at all times…. all truth, all facts, all ideas, all goodness, even god….but somehow you just keep losing constantly, bigly. Maybe it’s just you!

But to recap, you don’t get to ask questions until you answer one….and you can’t.

I can at times be all three, for sure, but it’s not something I would be proud about.

There’s a big difference between verbal confrontation and this.

I still say it’s impossible for me to believe both intelligent stars (with their pr teams) and the Oscars all got together and said this would be a good trick to play for ratings. Maybe I’m naive, I just can’t believe that many people would be that stupid with time to think it over.

The best evidence it wasn’t staged came from Colbert….Will Smith isn’t that good of an actor! *slam*

I’ve spent a lot of time in the bad part of towns, living in East Palo Alto before gentrification, etc. I just kind of expect every random third person to be armed and a powder keg. Confronting a stranger in anger over a joke, even a joke at my wife’s expense, seems risky. I’ve seen people stabbed over less.
In her physical defense, I’m happy to take that risk.

230-page book called Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, published in 1977 by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Highlights:


Called for the sex-integration of prisons and reformatories so that conditions of imprisonment, security and housing could be equal. She explained, “If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.” (Page 101)





>Called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to people who are “less than 12 years old.” (Page 102)


>Asserted that laws against “bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist” are unconstitutional. (Page 195)


>Objected to laws against prostitution because “prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.” (Page 97)
>Ginsburg wrote that the Mann Act (which punishes those who engage in interstate sex traffic of women and girls) is “offensive.” Such acts should be considered “within the zone of privacy.” (Page 98)


>Demanded that we “firmly reject draft or combat exemption for women,” stating “women must be subject to the draft if men are.” But, she added, “the need for affirmative action and for transition measures is particularly strong in the uniformed services.” (Page 218)


>An indefatigable censor, Ginsburg listed hundreds of “sexist” words that must be eliminated from all statutes. Among words she found offensive were: man, woman, manmade, mankind, husband, wife, mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, serviceman, longshoreman, postmaster, watchman, seamanship, and “to man” (a vessel). (Pages 15-16)


>Wanted he, she, him, her, his, and hers to be dropped down the memory hole. They must be replaced by he/she, her/him, and hers/his, and federal statutes must use the bad grammar of “plural constructions to avoid third person singular pronouns.” (Page 52-53)

>Condemned the Supreme Court’s ruling in Harris v. McRae and claimed that taxpayer-funded abortions should be a constitutional right.
http://humanevents.com/2005

I know a lot of people from Thailand, mostly second gen Thai Americans, but some Viet, Mong, and Cambodians whose parents were in refugee camps in Thailand or who worked at those refugee camps. I don't live in Thailand though, so I'm giving a second/third person account, but several of my friends who have Thai influences laugh and joke about the Hitler thing. Nothing shocking to someone who lived in BKK or had parents who did. I feel thankful for having grown up with Thai people, all of whom i met in honors and AP classes in high school.

But basically what that means is, I don't know any of these misinformed Thai people, just those that left Thailand for America and tell tales of their homeland.

@MilkmanDan, thanks for filling in some the gaps of my knowledge with your exp!

I did not expect to sit through the whole 1/2 hour...but I found him intelligent and informative.
He's only the third person I've ever heard talk about the extinction event happening to dinosaurs BEFORE the asteroid hit.
Well worth the watch.

Pretty, and the driving section looked amazing, but wow, aren't we all bored of third person cover shootin now.

Fun Fact: "The Amazing Do Nothing Machine" is how I refer to myself in third person around the house. #WhyImSingle

Picturing him in my mind making and narrating this video himself..., talking about himself in third person.

Lol, you're the third person to let me know. Can't seem to get it right no matter how many people tell me

The "first person" in "first person shooter" means the narrative mode.

Modes of Narration:

1st person narrative: You're speaking of yourself.
"I walked into the room, and yelled 'BLARGH!' "

2nd person narrative: You're speaking of the person you are speaking to.
"You walked into the room, and yelled 'BLARGH!' "

3rd person narrative: You are speaking of a third person.
"He walked into the room, and yelled 'BLARGH!' "

GTA's "flyby" cinematic camera comes to mind as an example of 2nd person mode.

This video grabbed my eye because I always wondered why "third-person" was adopted and not "second-person". First-person your view is through the eyes of your avatar. Third-person your view is as if you're standing behind your avatar or from the view of another "person". But why would that other person be the "third-person"?

I have a friend who I went to school with who is gay. There was a group of about five or six of us who were really close friends. We all suspected he was gay but it just wasn't an issue and it never came up in conversation or anything. When we finished school his family moved abroad for a couple of years but then things went a bit wrong for them and they moved back. It was great to see him again.

After about a month of him being back we'd seen each other a few times and I got a phone call from him. He sounded a little weird, like something was up and he said 'I've got something to tell you.'

I said straight away 'are you gay?'

There was a huge pause and he eventually said 'Er, yes. You're the third person to say that.'

I told him we'd suspected it for a long time. It never came up in the same way that you wouldn't turn round to one of us and say 'hey, you like girls, right?' It was an all boys school so there weren't girls around all the time to force the issue. None of us were mega cool and although a few had girlfriends every now and then none of them were particularly serious so most of the time when we hung out it was just the guys anyway.

Even so we'd all got a reasonable gaydar on us and knew he liked boys. I'd be very surprised if a family didn't realise their kid/brother/sister was gay.

Only one of our friends had any issue with him being gay, the rest of us just got on with things as normal as nothing had changed for us, we already knew. It was good to be able to talk to him about it though, or more for him to be able to talk to us. By this time most of us were in relationships and it's been really interesting seeing his relationship with his boyfriend flourish over time as my relationship with my now wife has done.

I saw the whole thing as a sign that I'd found some pretty good friends. No judging, no awkwardness, no nothing. Good guys.

Oh, apart from the one who did have a problem. Funnily enough there was only one religious person amongst our group of friends too...

I love the 2004 Punisher game. I love it.
You can "interrogate" people in it, meaning you outright torture them for information or gratuitous, explicit death scenes. You can shove people into woodchippers, drill holes in their skull with a powerdrill, chromeplating heads or smash their pelvis with a prison cell door to pieces. Additionally there are four basic "interrogations" that you can do anywhere from banging peoples head open on the floor to threatening them with a gun (that goes off a lot). And that goes on top off the usuall ultraviolence you find in such first and third person shooters.
However, the game mechanics reward you for not killing people during interrogations and using them as well as the human shields tactically. I started playing for points, not mayhem. Which is really hard to do if you hide in a coffin with an M60 during a mob burial. It's nice to see the Punisher impaling people on actual Rhinos or crushing them in giant gears in Tony Starks living room but I'm playing to get the gold medal on that level, I wanna take the flamethrower to the zoo.
The game mechanics were really great and rewarded strategy and restraint with unlockable stuff. You actually became less violent in exchange for concept art and additional gear. That game is awesome.
The only thing that ever made me want to be violent was the way certain people behaved towards me or others. Games just feed my morbid sense of entertainment.

That's not really any different though. It's just a matter of camera placement. In Mario 64, like any 3D game, the camera could have been positioned in Mario's head to make it first-person rather than third-person with the camera above him.

(Tangent: I've always wondered what it would be like to play a second-person game.)

First off you're the third person on here that I've gotten into a discussion about guns. All 3 have called me names while I continue to be polite.

Second your bigoted comment is very offensive not just to me who works with special needs adults but anyone with down syndrom, says a lot about you.

Third, while I used to light up a joint at the end of the day and chill out and have nothing against it, I like to take my guns to the range to "take the edge off, to relax after a hard day." What I do with my guns is legal and fun. Legal gun owners are not the villians that bigots and others try to potray them as.

Guns are used in so many sporting ways I can't even list them all but the olympics is a big one.

You've already been called out on your knowledge of history so I won't bother.

I live in Canada and have been raised by a very "left wing" family. I have a close hippy aunt and uncle who live in a community of american draft dogers. My parents always vote for the left. I grew up with those ideals and choose to work with people with autism. Doesn't pay much but it's satisfying and giving back, so your comment about me being "right wing" is pretty far off.

Legal gun owners are not evil. They want the same things as most people including the best tool for self defense (which we're not allowed to use in Canada). We in Canada like to hunt and target shoot at paper. Nothing about that is evil. Learn some facts instead of making bigioted sweeping comments.

Good day.