Search results

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-rittenhouse-trial-begins-1.6233850 You read this article (and don't bother with your liberal bs media retorts either) and look into the face of that kid and you tell me that he doesn't know exactly what he is doing (including that choreographed act that he put...

LoL! There you have it folks, you can't have an intelligent convo with a person who is blind to the truth. Come on, he made so many excuses for Russia during his presidency (including a hack that everyone else in his admininstration admitted was carried out by Russia) and he still tried to...

Well we all know uncle Vlad has always considered Ukraine as part of the soviet union. Under the trump administration, Putin would have had free reign to march right across eastern Europe with no resistance or help from the U.S, and now because trumps gone, Putin has to try and do things the...

What was the spec change between the model years that you wanted but didn't want to wait for?

Bwaahahahahaha! You make it sound like he's the victim who is now suffering like he was a war hero who served his country or something, LoL! OMFG! Robin Williams was so right...........

Every Prosecutor in every court room in every case in the world tries to read the defendent's mind. That's how they form their case thesis, LoL! You have to prove intent and the only way you can do that is by getting the court to believe your version of events Oh and by the way, every police...

The phoney act Rittenhouse put on on that stand was better than Steven Seagal in Southpark....

Anyways I have better things to waste my bandwidth on and I already bowed out earlier so have fun!

So, once again you are saying two wrongs make a right. You are trying to justify him being there and you can't and to say that nobody was obeying it does not make him being there justifiable especially when he was not defending his own property yet you are still trying to make him look like a...

I merely said technicality because I wanted to separate it from the possiblility he gets off because of ideology that's all. That's really the only two ways he can get off. Either through a technicality or by jury who believes his ideology for being there was justified. Turtle are you going to...

Everyone has the right to defend themselves with lethal force if neccessary and on a technical level, violating a curfew doesn't also mean that you can link it to him wanting to go down there with intent to kill however his voice recording about wanting to shoot the shoplifters (notice he didn't...

His life wouldn't have been in jeopardy if he hadn't been there. Gawd this "rights" bs just knows no bounds. What about him breaking curfew? Tell me how someone breaks the law by breaking curfew, puts their own life in jeopardy willingly, and then you think he's in the right to save his own life...

"No - Governor Evers had declared a State of Emergency for the area and there was an 8 PM curfew." And that "right" that Rittenhouse just had has now been taken away thanks to a curfew order and he broke it in order to not defend his own property. But by your logic 2 wrongs make it right, LoL...

If are willing to put yourself in harms way then you also have to be willing to accept the consequences. He still had no reason to be there and if he wasn't there, there wouldn't have been a shooting and anybody that says he prevented potential further damage to innocent people is speculating...

Oh I get it, believe me I do. As mentioned I am pro gun and generally of a libertarian viewpoint. I also believe that gov'ts should always live in fear of the people and not the other way around and that's why you have militias. I'm just not a fan of the proud boys however or their northern...

Whether he was confrontational or not is secondary. He had no reason to be there and his reasons for being there were obvious and I don't need betazoid level thinking to know that, just a single brain cell......

Funny how you continue to talk about rights yet not once have you preached the responsibility part that goes along with having those rights....

You are justifying vigilanteism when there is still rule of law (even though it may not have looked like it) and he's not law enforcement nor is he defending his own property. Nothing else needs to be said. He was there only to show his heros that he was on guard, just admit it. Anyway, I'm done!

Wow! and you tell me I'm speculating, LoL! You make it like he's a hero for stopping someone from any future crime they might have committed by shooting them, bwahahahaah! Now who's being the thought police!?!?!?!?! I think you, Rittenhouse, and Walter Mitty all better get a room together so you...

I disagree. I think it's pretty easy to connect the dots. Let's look at it another way. Lets say it was the proud boys that were looting and rioting, do you think he would be there defending someone elses' property? Most likely he would be joining in the rioting. It was a racially/ideologically...