Anyone else watching the Kyle Rittenhouse trial?
- Thread starter BodegaBud
- Start date
Sir Napsalot
Well-Known Member
CatHedral
Well-Known Member
What is the point of a holster without something being, um.
Holsted.
on Wall St. they call it 'shorting'.
V256.420
Well-Known Member
Kyle kills a few guys. Everyone's jaw drops. Sick fuck this sick fuck that. He should go to jail. blah blah blah.
Seems the dead and wounded victims weren't nice people.
Oh well that's WAY different.
Kyle kills guys in self defense. Everyone relaxes. Good for him. What a fellow! He should get a medal.
What a sick fucking cracked world we live in. Glad I wont be around much longer to "enjoy" it
Seems the dead and wounded victims weren't nice people.
Oh well that's WAY different.
Kyle kills guys in self defense. Everyone relaxes. Good for him. What a fellow! He should get a medal.
What a sick fucking cracked world we live in. Glad I wont be around much longer to "enjoy" it
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Maybe you didn't see any proof because you weren't looking.
Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information - Wikipedia
Maybe you are playing a child's game of gotcha. The people endangered by Trump's leak were not troops but high level intelligence agents, not US but agents working for our allies. The guy who pretends he doesn't like Trump is defending him? I think your sock has a hole in it. Time for a new one.
Disclosure in May 2017[edit]
President Donald Trump discussed classified information provided by a U.S. ally regarding a planned Islamic State operation during an Oval Office meeting on May 10, 2017 with the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, providing sufficient details that could be used by the Russians to deduce the identity of the ally and the manner in which it was collected, according to current and former government officials.[3][4][5][6][7] The meeting had been closed to the U.S. press, although a photographer from the Russian press contingent was present.[1] The disclosure was first reported in The Washington Post on May 15, 2017. White House staff initially denied the report, but the following day Trump defended the disclosure, stating that he has the "absolute right" to "share" intelligence with Russia.[8]
Smokinggun
Well-Known Member
One more time...There's at least twelve people in Wisconsin who would disagree with you.
Applesauceisgood
Well-Known Member
Maybe you didn't see any proof because you weren't looking.
Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Maybe you are playing a child's game of gotcha. The people endangered by Trump's leak were not troops but high level intelligence agents, not US but agents working for our allies. The guy who pretends he doesn't like Trump is defending him? I think your sock has a hole in it. Time for a new one.
Disclosure in May 2017[edit]
President Donald Trump discussed classified information provided by a U.S. ally regarding a planned Islamic State operation during an Oval Office meeting on May 10, 2017 with the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, providing sufficient details that could be used by the Russians to deduce the identity of the ally and the manner in which it was collected, according to current and former government officials.[3][4][5][6][7] The meeting had been closed to the U.S. press, although a photographer from the Russian press contingent was present.[1] The disclosure was first reported in The Washington Post on May 15, 2017. White House staff initially denied the report, but the following day Trump defended the disclosure, stating that he has the "absolute right" to "share" intelligence with Russia.[8]
Is this the same incident @hanimmal is referencing? There was new controversy daily with Trump. That wikipedia entry ends with the following in regards to the extraction of the CIA agent. "A CIA spokesperson said the news reports were "misguided speculation", and a White House spokesperson said the reporting was "incorrect" and "has the potential to put lives in danger," although they did not specify why they considered the reporting flawed."
I believe it's possible to dislike someone while refusing to come to judgment based on an accusation, speculation, and anonymous sources. From my perspective, the most damning point in regards to Trump is his lack of leadership qualities. I think he owns few effective leadership traits. I'd argue that is far worse condemnation than any of his isolated scandals although they go hand-in-hand.
Last edited:
StonedGardener
Well-Known Member
Year gonna need a hat partner.........beautiful f'ing work !
StonedGardener
Well-Known Member
I know. I could of had a list a mile long. Just trying to float the idea. Bad example. I need to focus and spend more time thinking through these matters.
Herb & Suds
Well-Known Member
Herb & Suds
Well-Known Member
Once again projection or confession
SOS
Applesauceisgood
Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
there's this thing called "intent"...i'm fairly certain Obama's intent was to show that he thought something was ok....i'm also fairly certain that when a fascist white supremacist thug displays the same symbol, it does not carry the same intent, that it is meant to be a symbol of white hate. you, being the enormous asshole you are, know this, and know that we know it as well, so why do you keep trying to convince us when we all know you're full of horseshit...and horse semen?
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
here, i'll leave the two of you alone for a while....
V256.420
Well-Known Member
Why does that horse have 5 legs?
doublejj
Well-Known Member
the thing I'm most concerned about is the fact that we are seemingly okaying a teenager's right to take an AR-15 into an area where there's civil unrest, that's really scary and concerning. But this is where we are with gun laws. This is why we have to have safer gun laws in place, to protect ourselves, to protect each other. It wasn't a shocking verdict. But one that poses a great risk going forward if we continue to go down this path of opеn carry and statеs determining that people can just carry- even underage people and weapons of war -- this is America. We're treading down a dangerous path
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
kickstand....Why does that horse have 5 legs?
Applesauceisgood
Well-Known Member
You're dealing with ubiquitous aspects of language that held zero historical negative connotations prior to an online message board trolling a political group. You proved their point. The word you are looking to demonize is "okay". Do you think it's a good idea to allow individuals to be the sole arbiters of speech and symbol when determining who can and cannot use a word or sign? That's what you're attempting to do. Thankfully, society hasn't reached a consensus on OK being hateful. The people who did so took it upon themselves after being trolled, without the remainder of civilized society.
You've decided Kyle Rittenhouse is a fascist white supremacist thug therefore he is not allowed to use that hand sign. Was he a fascist white supremacist thug prior to using the "ok" gesture or does doing so confirm your suspicion? Are people that display the "okay" hand sign outside of your consent doing so as a symbol of white power or simply to troll you? Have you taken a step back to analyze your position? You know I know they know your judgment is shit. I don't think we should allow 4chan to hijack innocent aspects of language to provide another avenue for you to demonize people you hate. Nor do I find it appropriate for you to determine intent and give consent in regards to human communication. Your ideas have an eerily similar vibe to what you claim to hate.
Last edited: