Intruder enters and attacks Pelosi's Husband

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Fine. We'll do it your way.

Your reply to kookbreaker was that:



This statement is factually untrue, misleading in context, and irrelevant.

1.Factually untrue: This applies only to new construction. You found out later that it doesn't even apply to all new construction. The State has no requirement for 'doors', unless you are building new.

2. Misleading in context: since the Pelosi 'manse' was built in 1938, we have no reason to assume these are spiffy replacement doors that would be subject to modern codes. Your statement suggests otherwise.

3. Irrelevant: we don't know what kind of door this was, or whether it had decorative glass, so no one on planet earth would have any idea what to expect on that property unless that information was publicized.



Here, you go on to abruptly vacillate between tempered glass and safety glass. They are not the same thing. That's called 'moving the goalposts'. Citing the UBC64 was a nice touch, as that code was not in effect when the house was built and is not in effect now. You do know that it was thrown in the trash (no: properly placed in the recycling bin before being thrown in the landfill) decades ago, right? And sections of code are sometimes deleted wholesale when new codes are adopted?

{eta: forgot: the tempered glass code for 'glass doors' you refer to applied to what we now call 'sliders', not wood framed doors with glass inserts. Ya double-screwed the pooch on that one.}





I'm a building contractor. Please, lecture me some more about construction!

Btw, a broken pane on a door has no requirement to be upgraded to safety or tempered glass. You can absolutely break out the glazing and points and replace an individual pane on a 9 lite with plate glass. I've done so many times myself, and they do so in Cali, too. Beveled and leaded glass, very common on high end building, usually exempt. Individual panes under 3" (like on a mosaic) are also exempt on new construction.





I particularly love how you perpetuate the argument with long responses citing irrelevant codes and information, then act like it is someone else doing that.

Sigh. I actually wrote out a response disproving the above but decided not to. I will say this:

This was never an "argument" for me which I tried to explain to you earlier. But you felt almost immediately personally challenged by the information I presented for some reason and went into a defensive snit. Not once did you present a citation for anything you claimed, or a citation disproving anything I presented. Instead, you got snarky by challenging me about your vintage home's door as if I claimed that it had to be retrofitted to meet the new code, which I never did. You accused me of "moving the goalpost" saying I "vacillate between tempered glass and safety glass". But tempered class is one of the four types of safety glass. I used "tempered" where I was being specific and "safety glass" when I was referring to safety glass in general.

I suggest you stop being so defensive and seeing things where they don't exist.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by ZiprHead

To be fair, there is about a half dozen Capital Police officers monitoring 1,800 security cameras from all over the country. Obviously in this day and age this is inadequate.

Sticking with the principal at the expense of places the principal is not seems like the utmost definition of adequate, to me.

Also, the Pelosis are neither poor nor stupid. They're more than capable of seeing to their own contingency plans for those times when Nancy's security detail follows her in the discharge of her duties, but they want a bit more security at the residence in the meantime. Do the adult spouses of insider-trading moguls really need a lot of extra tax dollars to make them safe? Is this not something they can be reasonably expected to be responsible for, on their own initiative?

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by Thermal

She wasn't a recipient ...
When some of us smell pork, though, we rail.

Railing over pork she didn't receive is misplaced venting.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by crescent

Things like this can be so wildly dispiriting. People run, run RUN to the conspiracy mindset so quickly.

I remember on January 6 when the right-wing went from "this is a patriotic rally to hold congress accountable" to "ANTIFA DIDDIT!" in the span of just a few hours.

So we see that here. The hard right wing is now set on claiming that Pelosi let DePape in, that Pelosi told police the DePape was his friend, that DePape was in his underwear.

To some extent all of those things were reported or claimed in the very early reporting of the event. But as the story has developed those claims have also been proven wrong. There is video of DePape breaking the glass to open the door, it was DePape who yelled that he was a friend (loud enough for the 911 operator to hear it and include in the notes), it was Pelosi who was in his underwear as is normal for a man sleeping in his own house at 2 a.m.

But the hard right wing will accept none of those facts, my social media is full of idiots SCREAMING WITH JOY about Paul Pelosi's fail homosexual tryst. They are fully invested in lampooning this as a failed gay rendezvous, mocking Mr. Pelosi for getting his skull fractured. Flat out wrong and loud as hell - and largely in control of the Republican party with a good chance of winning the House and Senate next week.

God. People disgust me.

I agree with you 100% on your assessment of the right-wing.

Originally Posted by crescent

(and honestly, cut the crap with the windows and glass or start a new thread. You've made your points, nobody cares and it's pretty well irrelevant anyway)

I've said all I'm going to say on that subject. However, lots of people go on for pages and pages bickering over something I find equally "who cares" and "irrelevant". The recent exchange between two members in the Roe v Wade thread is one. But I choose to skip over it instead of telling them to "cut the crap".

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

I know there was less security (meaning no actual guards on site). You would figure they would at least do a better job of monitoring the security cameras though.

The Capitol Police are not assigned to protect Paul Pelosi or the house when Nancy isn't there so there was no reason to closely monitor the cameras at the house.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Thermal

I'd venture that her place in the line of succession is of less import than her prominence as the Speaker standalone.


Agreed, and it was entirely within her means to safeguard her home. A multi millionaire in a multi million dollar home can make that crib an attractive and discrete absolute fortress with her cigarette money.

Windows can easily be reinforced with metal bars in a grid pattern that look just like old fashioned window panes. Glass options are available right up to actual bulletproof. She would just need to break out that Visa card. Yet every single day, she elected to tell her husband that he was on his own to face whoever came at him because of the job she took, while she sauntered off with her taxpayer-funded security detail.

Wealthy people have the means and responsibility to protect their own homes. While you could argue that Americans should go without a little more tax-funded assistance so that millionaires can get another freebie, in the here and now, this was the choice she willingly made.

Wow. Just wow.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

The sad thing is, she shouldn't have to have to harden her house and have enhanced security. She didn't have to, until Trump/MAGA.

Exactly. When was the last time something like this happened? 1865 from what I've found.

[Chris_Halkides]

Originally Posted by dudalb

You do know Dinesh D'Souza has been proven a liar time and time again?

But...but...he is just asking a question. More seriously, at Vox Dylan Matthews has a retrospective of his career. It provides a modicum of context for D'Souza's pseudo-questions about this incident.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Thermal

She wasn't a recipient. She chose to do little to nothing to protect her home and husband, despite being aware of the risks and having ample means. Us poor folk buy deadbolt and all to protect our families out of pocket. The argument here is that she should get garden-variety middle-class homeowner protections on the working classes taxpayer dime.

You don't know what she did or didn't do to protect her home and husband. Stop assuming you do. For all you know, she has a top-of-the-line home security system that her husband failed to activate.

Quote:

Like I said before, kudos to her faith in human nature, believing she was under no threat worthy of interfering with her champagne budget. That she values her home and husband so little should be the prime indicator of how much taxpayer freebies she should receive.

[TheGoldcountry]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Exactly. When was the last time something like this happened? 1865 from what I've found.

Well, extremist violence against politicians isn't new, just ask Gabby Giffords.
This is just widening the net. Wait until some kids get hurt, I can't wait to see the pretzels the apologists tie themselves into to rationalize that.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry

Well, extremist violence against politicians isn't new, just ask Gabby Giffords.
This is just widening the net. Wait until some kids get hurt, I can't wait to see the pretzels the apologists tie themselves into to rationalize that.

No, it isn't new...but we're talking about their homes, not out in public.

What 'apologists' are you referring to?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry

Well, extremist violence against politicians isn't new, just ask Gabby Giffords.
This is just widening the net. Wait until some kids get hurt, I can't wait to see the pretzels the apologists tie themselves into to rationalize that.

What are you talking about?

Giffords was not attacked by a political extremist.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Quote:

Well, extremist violence against politicians isn't new, just ask Gabby Giffords.

What are you talking about?

Giffords was not attacked by a political extremist.

From: Wikipedia
The tone of Loughner's online writings and videos from immediately before the attack was described by The Guardian as "almost exclusively conservative and anti-government, with echoes of the populist campaigning of the Tea Party movement".

(Now, the Wikipedia article does mention his dislike for other politicians, like Bush, and it does highlight some of his other... mental issues. But given the above quotation, I think its reasonable to assume that he had at least some influence from the right wing/tea partiers.

[TheGoldcountry]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

No, it isn't new...but we're talking about their homes, not out in public.

What 'apologists' are you referring to?

The ones who either buy into wild conspiracy theories so they don't have to face the realities of their party's hate politics, or blame the victim.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Sigh. I actually wrote out a response disproving the above but decided not to. I will say this:

This was never an "argument" for me which I tried to explain to you earlier. But you felt almost immediately personally challenged by the information I presented for some reason and went into a defensive snit. Not once did you present a citation for anything you claimed, or a citation disproving anything I presented. Instead, you got snarky by challenging me about your vintage home's door as if I claimed that it had to be retrofitted to meet the new code, which I never did. You accused me of "moving the goalpost" saying I "vacillate between tempered glass and safety glass". But tempered class is one of the four types of safety glass. I used "tempered" where I was being specific and "safety glass" when I was referring to safety glass in general.

*Thermal continues to click on "Unsubscribe" frantically*

Quote:

I suggest you stop being so defensive and seeing things where they don't exist.

And I suggest you stop trying to be an armchair psychologist or psychic or whatever the **** you are playing at here. It won't likely work out better than trying to Google-bluff your way around building codes (which you know nothing about) with a building contractor.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

You don't know what she did or didn't do to protect her home and husband. Stop assuming you do. For all you know, she has a top-of-the-line home security system that her husband failed to activate.

Who cares what kind of security system she may or may not have had? Unless it was going to taze the nutcase, it would have called the Pelosis first to verify that it wasn't a false alarm, then called police. Mr Pelosi called police directly, saving the false alarm step and getting the cops there faster.

More to the point (and already discussed), security systems are for alerting you that security has been breached. In short, that everything had failed. What we have been talking about is actual security, meaning steps taken to stop the crazy mother ******* with $5 hammers from breaching security in the first place.

Security= being secure. Safe.

Security systems= notifying you (too late) that security has been breached. Not safe, as the good Mr Pelosi would likely agree.

Eta: it is annoying to a realist to talk about an alarm system to deal with nutjobs. I don't know if that makes sense to you. Probably not.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Thermal

She wasn't a recipient. She chose to do little to nothing to protect her home and husband...

I wouldn't say she "did nothing".

Some of the articles referenced a security system. And the place was monitored by security cameras. Now, true, there may not have had guards when she wasn't there, but the cameras were still monitored and the security system still available. So the issue of safety doesn't seem to be ignored. I could imagine someone thinking "a security system and cameras should be enough...", without considering all the possible contingencies. They may have been told "capitol police are monitoring the cameras", without them every being told the details about "by the way, they only look at the camera feed once an hour".

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

I wouldn't say she "did nothing".

Some of the articles referenced a security system. And the place was monitored by security cameras. Now, true, there may not have had guards when she wasn't there, but the cameras were still monitored and the security system still available. So the issue of safety doesn't seem to be ignored. I could imagine someone thinking "a security system and cameras should be enough...", without considering all the possible contingencies. They may have been told "capitol police are monitoring the cameras", without them every being told the details about "by the way, they only look at the camera feed once an hour".

Well, that has been my point. Security means being secure. Alarms going off mean you are definitely not secure, and need to prepare to kill or die while you find out how long it takes for police to get to you.

Most of us don't have the financial wherewithal to simply call a contractor to make our home practically impervious to break-ins, yet be warm and cozy and elegant and all. The Pelosis have that luxury.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry

The ones who either buy into wild conspiracy theories so they don't have to face the realities of their party's hate politics, or blame the victim.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Who cares what kind of security system she may or may not have had? Unless it was going to taze the nutcase, it would have called the Pelosis first to verify that it wasn't a false alarm, then called police. Mr Pelosi called police directly, saving the false alarm step and getting the cops there faster.

More to the point (and already discussed), security systems are for alerting you that security has been breached. In short, that everything had failed. What we have been talking about is actual security, meaning steps taken to stop the crazy mother ******* with $5 hammers from breaching security in the first place.

Security= being secure. Safe.

Security systems= notifying you (too late) that security has been breached. Not safe, as the good Mr Pelosi would likely agree.

Eta: it is annoying to a realist to talk about an alarm system to deal with nutjobs. I don't know if that makes sense to you. Probably not.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by ZiprHead

He couldn't because he was an illegal alien.

Ohio GOP Senate hopeful J.D. Vance says Paul Pelosi attack wasn't 'reflective of Republicans' because assailant was a 'violent illegal alien' during fiery town hall appearance

That explains it all.

The right-wing is jumping all over this claim although it seems to have come from one source:

Quote:

Bill Melugin
@BillFOXLA
NEW: Per ICE source, David DePape, the suspect accused of beating Paul Pelosi in his home with a hammer after breaking into his home, is currently in the U.S. illegally as a “longtime” visa overstay.
@FoxNews

Even if true, this makes me laugh. The typical GOP anti-immigrant fear mongering. DePape grew in British Columbia and, according to Melugin, overstayed his visa. Looks like it's time to build a wall along the Canada/US border!

[a_unique_person]

Build a wall on the Canadian border?

[Tero]

Lukovich cartoon:
https://www.ajc.com/resizer/p8anMtfK...HOWROW2YVY.jpg

[I Am The Scum]

Martians could launch nukes at our planet and half this forum would be arguing over the difference between fusion and fission instead of seeking shelter.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

Martians could launch nukes at our planet and half this forum would be arguing over the difference between fusion and fission instead of seeking shelter.

I doubt it. Half of the forum would be saying that the chances of anything coming from Mars, are a million to one...

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

.....
Even if true, this makes me laugh. The typical GOP anti-immigrant fear mongering. DePape grew in British Columbia and, according to Melugin, overstayed his visa. Looks like it's time to build a wall along the Canada/US border!

Apparently it is true.

Quote:

The man accused of attacking House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband with a hammer is a Canadian citizen who was in the United States illegally and is facing possible deportation after his criminal cases are resolved, the Department of Homeland Security said late Wednesday.

“U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) lodged an immigration detainer on Canadian national David DePape with San Francisco County Jail, Nov. 1, following his Oct. 28 arrest,” DHS officials said in an email.
.....
Federal records show that DePape entered the United States legally on March 8, 2008, via Mexico. He crossed at the San Ysidro port of entry, an official border crossing that links San Diego County with Tijuana.

Canadians traveling for business or pleasure generally do not require visas, officials said, and he was admitted as a “temporary visitor,” traveling for pleasure, DHS said.

Canadians admitted for pleasure are generally permitted to stay for up to six months. DHS did not say precisely when DePape’s permission to stay in the United States expired.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...-david-depape/

"Overstaying his visa" doesn't make his presence any less illegal. Arrving on a tourist or some other short-term visa is probably how a majority of migrants enter the U.S. Canadians don't actually need visas. But they can only stay six months, and they can't work. It looks like this guy's been here for around 14 years, which raises a lot of questions.

[Parsman]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Apparently it is true.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...-david-depape/

"Overstaying his visa" doesn't make his presence any less illegal. Arrving on a tourist or some other short-term visa is probably how a majority of migrants enter the U.S. Canadians don't actually need visas. But they can only stay six months, and they can't work. It looks like this guy's been here for around 14 years, which raises a lot of questions.

Oh come on Bob. You know what the right wing are raising the vision of when saying illegal immigrant. They mean someone of dusky hue. Trump even seemed keen on immigration from places like Norway rather than South America. They aren't going to point out that he is a white Canadian, they are going to let their followers come to their own conclusions.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Parsman

Oh come on Bob. You know what the right wing are raising the vision of when saying illegal immigrant. They mean someone of dusky hue. Trump even seemed keen on immigration from places like Norway rather than South America. They aren't going to point out that he is a white Canadian, they are going to let their followers come to their own conclusions.

Exactly. That's what I meant about the "typical GOP anti-immigrant fear mongering". All certain people hear is "illegal immigrant", which is why they've latched onto that. The intent is to imply it's not the violent GOP rhetoric that's behind DePape's assault of Pelosi, but his being an "illegal immigrant". They did the same thing with that 10 yr. old pregnant girl in Ohio: their abortion restrictions aren't the problem. It's the fact her rapist is an illegal immigrant.

[Bob001]

Pelosi out of hospital.

Quote:

CNN — Paul Pelosi has been released from a San Francisco hospital after recovering from surgery to repair a skull fracture and injuries to his hand and arm, according to a source familiar with the matter. Pelosi, husband of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is home and resting just six days after the brutal attack last week, the source said.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/03/polit...tal/index.html

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Pelosi out of hospital.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/03/polit...tal/index.html

Good news. I hope he has a speedy recovery.

[Trebuchet]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Build a wall on the Canadian border?

I can see the Canadian border from my house. There are several hundred feet of water there. Gonna be quite a wall.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Pelosi out of hospital.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/03/polit...tal/index.html

I doubt they'd have released him this early if there were any indications of neurological damage. He's a lucky man.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Bob001

The Pentagon spends $750+ billion a year. Do you know what it buys? No, because nobody does. The Pentagon has never been successfully audited. If you want to be chapped about government spending, that's the place to start.

I can handle being bothered by both, but this isn't a thread on the pentagon's government spending. If there is one, I'd be happy to show my discontent in it.

Originally Posted by varwoche

Very much so.

And we don't even know for sure that she was a recipient of the 10k. You're getting worked up over a whole lot of supposition.

Worked up? Wow, doesn't take much to reach that level, eh?

Whether she, specifically, received it or not wasn't really the point. You could apply that to the majority of both the Senate and the House.

Quote:

As of 2020, over half of the members of Congress were millionaires and the median net worth of members was approximately $1 million.

So yes, I do feel that they can foot the bill for their own security. It might be a drop in the bucket, it might not be much in the grand scheme of the Pentagon budget, some people might not consider it being worth talking about, but when those same congress people are looking at stripping social security and **** like that, while receiving money to upgrade their home security, then yes. It bothers me. It doesn't bother you guys? Great. That's good for you. I'd like to trim that spending every chance we get.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by plague311

So yes, I do feel that they can foot the bill for their own security. It might be a drop in the bucket, it might not be much in the grand scheme of the Pentagon budget, some people might not consider it being worth talking about, but when those same congress people are looking at stripping social security and **** like that, while receiving money to upgrade their home security, then yes. It bothers me. It doesn't bother you guys? Great. That's good for you. I'd like to trim that spending every chance we get.

The official compensation for being a congress critter is nowhere near enough to afford personal security. I'd rather foot that bill and shut down whatever means of corruption they're using to enrich themselves in their position of power, than require them to enrich themselves to pay for access to that power. The money's coming from the taxpayer anyway, so it might as well not be greasing anyone else's wheel.

[newyorkguy]

I support the government paying for personal security for members of Congress. It seems like basic fairness to me. Members of Congress are facing the possibility of threats against them personally because of their employment: being a member of Congress. I think it's not only reasonable but just for the employer -- in this case the federal government -- to compensate them for enhanced security measures they have to take as a result of their employment.

[Thermal]

Specialized personal security details, sure. Generic home security at an inflated allowance? Not so much. What's next? They are serving the public, so we should treat them to a grocery budget too? Hey, a tailored suit doesn't buy itself, either, and they need to look good while hustling donations to run for reelection over half the year representing their constituents.

This little piggy has gotten fabulously wealthy on the taxpayer dime. As long as children go without food, they can lay off that taxpayer teat a bit.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by plague311

....
So yes, I do feel that they can foot the bill for their own security. It might be a drop in the bucket, it might not be much in the grand scheme of the Pentagon budget, some people might not consider it being worth talking about, but when those same congress people are looking at stripping social security and **** like that, while receiving money to upgrade their home security, then yes. It bothers me. It doesn't bother you guys? Great. That's good for you. I'd like to trim that spending every chance we get.

Let's not put everybody in the same bucket. The only congresspeople talking about cutting or killing Social Security and Medicare belong to the party that starts with R. And the ones getting the most threats belong to the party that starts with D.

[Chris_Halkides]

"The San Francisco District Attorney is shooting down “public interest” in releasing the police bodycam footage and the 911 call from the night of the attack against Paul Pelosi, the husband of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. However, members of the Pelosi family were given the opportunity to see and listen to the footage...“For us, revealing that evidence through the media is just not what we think is appropriate. We want to make sure that this individual is held accountable for these egregious acts. For us, we’re going to make sure that we limit the evidence as much as possible in order to get that done,” she added." Conservative Brief.

According to Mr. D'Souza, this was a huge announcement. My question is "Where's the beef?" If it never got released, I might concede that he has a point.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides

"The San Francisco District Attorney is shooting down “public interest” in releasing the police bodycam footage and the 911 call from the night of the attack against Paul Pelosi, the husband of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. However, members of the Pelosi family were given the opportunity to see and listen to the footage...“For us, revealing that evidence through the media is just not what we think is appropriate. We want to make sure that this individual is held accountable for these egregious acts. For us, we’re going to make sure that we limit the evidence as much as possible in order to get that done,” she added." Conservative Brief.

According to Mr. D'Souza, this was a huge announcement. My question is "Where's the beef?" If it never got released, I might concede that he has a point.

I don't see why it would need to be released at all. To prove that an attack occurred? They can shove their conspiracy theories unless there is some evidence of shenanigans. Like the birther twats, they should not be entertained. Otherwise, it's just jerking off to watching an old man get violently assaulted by a nut job.

Eta: if they are so convinced it is fake, what good would a bodycam video do? They would just claim it is staged.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Thermal

I don't see why it would need to be released at all. To prove that an attack occurred? They can shove their conspiracy theories unless there is some evidence of shenanigans. Like the birther twats, they should not be entertained. Otherwise, it's just jerking off to watching an old man get violently assaulted by a nut job.

Eta: if they are so convinced it is fake, what good would a bodycam video do? They would just claim it is staged.

Exactly, the days of video evidence being proof for a conspiracy theorist has long, long since gone by. The only reason they want it released is because it would slightly embarrass Paul because he was in his underwear in the middle of the night. That's it.