Kyl;e Rittenhouse will be a billionaire by the time his lawyers are done.

[AZrailwhale]

Actually we know you pretty damn well. You are really sick in the mind.

You are a confused Moon Bat that never gets anything right.

You hate the Bill of Rights.

You are obsessed and butt hurt that Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty for using an AR-15 to defend himself against a vicious attack by your BLM buddies.

Just go take your TDS medication and lie down and take a nap. You will feel better when you wake up.

If Kyle had used a flintlock, Joe would be advocating for the banning of flintlocks.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Sally Hemmings wasn't a person when Jefferson was screwing her. She was property like a horse or cow.

She was his sister in law. His deceased wife's sister who came to the Jefferson household to raise the daughter.

 

[JoeB131]

I take it you have no link or source?

You don't merit the effort. I've posted links to Trumps racism a bunch of times... Google is your friend.

And? The jury acquitted Rittenhouse and you don't accept their conclusions. So what?

The jury was instructed to ignore their own eyes, pretty much. And weren't given the whole story. It's not quite the same as THREE medical examiners, Doctors, who examined Floyd's corpse and concluded SCIENTIFICALLY that Chauvin killed him.

Sally Hemmings wasn't a person when Jefferson was screwing her. She was property like a horse or cow.

I'm sure you miss those good old days.

That's a given. But if that's the case, why are you talking to me?

Comedy value.. it's hysterical to get you all wound up.

 

[JoeB131]

If Kyle had used a flintlock, Joe would be advocating for the banning of flintlocks.

If all Kyle had was a flintlock, he would have kept his pussy ass in Antioch and spared us all the trouble.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You don't merit the effort.

I guess that means you don't have a link or source. No surprise there.

I've posted links to Trumps racism a bunch of times...

Yet you can't provide one now?

Google is your friend.

But apparently it's not yours.

The jury was instructed to ignore their own eyes, pretty much.

No they weren't. They and the prosecutors were told simply not to refer to Rosenbaum et al as "victims" during the trial. The very purpose of the trial was to determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether they were actually victims or not. The prosecution failed to do this and it was not because no one could refer to them as "victims".

That's just asinine to think a jury would be so stupid as to assess the guilt or innocence of someone, not based on presented evidence, but simply because they couldn't use a certain word during the trial. If Rittenhouse's guilt was as plain as you say then something this inconsequential shouldn't have mattered.

And weren't given the whole story.

They were given everything that mattered and pertained to the shooting.

It's not quite the same as THREE medical examiners, Doctors, who examined Floyd's corpse and concluded SCIENTIFICALLY that Chauvin killed him.

I still don't buy it. I think the fact that half the country was poised to go to war over a not guilty verdict was an influence on their objectivity.

I think Floyd died as a result of the fentanyl and other crap in his system and his stress aggravating it. As I said, he was saying he couldn't breathe long before they even had him on the ground.

Comedy value.. it's hysterical to get you all wound up.

I doubt that. I think you're just obsessed.

 

[JoeB131]

I guess that means you don't have a link or source. No surprise there.

Sure here's a link for you, buddy.

Gun laws

Proof of Joe's point about gun laws

rr.noordstar.me

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Sure here's a link for you, buddy.

Gun laws

Proof of Joe's point about gun laws

rr.noordstar.me

I'm not clicking on that shit, it has nothing to do with what I asked for. I asked for a link or source that quotes Trump about what he said about cops. I just want to see how much you embellished, conflated or exaggerated what he actually said.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm not clicking on that shit, it has nothing to do with what I asked for. I asked for a link or source that quotes Trump about what he said about cops. I just want to see how much you embellished, conflated or exaggerated what he actually said.

Trump calls for Police Brutality

Police chiefs around the nation condemned the presidents remarks today

rr.noordstar.me

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Trump calls for Police Brutality

Police chiefs around the nation condemned the presidents remarks today

rr.noordstar.me

Still no link or source?

 

[JoeB131]

Still no link or source?

You obviously don't realize when you are being mocked.

You are being mocked.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You obviously don't realize when you are being mocked.

You are being mocked.

View attachment 636239

I don't feel mocked by a person who has no authenticity or scruples, is guilty of every logical fallacy in the books and never backs up his claims.

All your bullshit moralizing about racism and shootings and you lie like a dead rat. All you've done is trade one moral principle for another. More likely, you've traded ALL your moral principles for one and even then you don't do that one very well because your pet victims are only props to you.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't feel mocked by a person who has no authenticity or scruples, is guilty of every logical fallacy in the books and never backs up his claims.

All your bullshit moralizing about racism and shootings and you lie like a dead rat. All you've done is trade one moral principle for another. More likely, you've traded ALL your moral principles for one and even then you don't do that one very well because your pet victims are only props to you.

You are taking this way to seriously....

 

[Jarlaxle]

I don't feel mocked by a person who has no authenticity or scruples, is guilty of every logical fallacy in the books and never backs up his claims.

All your bullshit moralizing about racism and shootings and you lie like a dead rat. All you've done is trade one moral principle for another. More likely, you've traded ALL your moral principles for one and even then you don't do that one very well because your pet victims are only props to you.

He has the morals of Beria.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

View attachment 636271

You are taking this way to seriously....

Don't flatter yourself, I've been saying this almost since I ran into you here.

My point was that you are too stupid, too narrow minded, too dishonest, too simplistic, too reactionary and too ignorant of basic debate rules for me to feel mocked by the likes of you.

One of those basic rules is to provide a credible source for any claims or assertions you make but you never do. You never do because the claims you make are all your own. You knew full well that Trump didn't say what you attribute to him quite the way you interpreted it and that's why you refused.

 

[JoeB131]

One of those basic rules is to provide a credible source for any claims or assertions you make but you never do. You never do because the claims you make are all your own. You knew full well that Trump didn't say what you attribute to him quite the way you interpreted it and that's why you refused.

Please point that rule out to me.

Thanks.

 

[JohnDB]

Please point that rule out to me.

Thanks.

Again more goal shifting, obfuscation, and generally ignoring the subject matter at hand which is your lack of integrity.

You refuse to discuss any subject in an honest manner.

You have clearly demonstrated, by your conduct with everyone, to be an honest person.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Please point that rule out to me.

Thanks.

How long have you been doing this? I've been on discussion forums for close to twenty years and this has been an (unwritten) rule everywhere.

If you attribute something that was supposedly said by another individual, be they a politician, celebrity, professional (scientist, doctor, lawyer, etc.) or even just another board poster, you are expected to cite a source and/or a direct quote. Doing so eliminates any doubt that the poster is merely paraphrasing, misinterpreting the original quote or deliberately conflating (as you so often do).

Just saying "Google is your friend" does not cut it. If you bring up or relate something someone said then the burden is on you to support it. If you don't, or if you refuse to do so then it can be dismissed out of hand and you will not be taken seriously, no matter how much you may foam at the mouth over an injustice.

You are required by the rules of this very forum to provide a link or source to any thread you start. This rule is not applied to individual posts but it is understood by most that this is what is expected.

I know you've been here long enough to have seen posts by individuals asking for a link in response to certain posts. You've most likely been asked this numerous times yourself.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Again more goal shifting, obfuscation, and generally ignoring the subject matter at hand which is your lack of integrity.

You refuse to discuss any subject in an honest manner.

You have clearly demonstrated, by your conduct with everyone, to be an dishonest person.

I believe this is what you meant to say. Apologies if it was not.

 

[JohnDB]

I believe this is what you meant to say. Apologies if it was not.

Oh I don't mind in the least.
He is guilty of very determined dishonest discourse. Where the rules of forum conduct may not require the rules as you have mentioned...most absolutely do and of course polite and honest discourse require it as well.
In the end he is yet another one worthy of the "ignore" button as he has nothing to add to a discussion except rude behavior, illogic, lies, and general dishonesty. One only need to read his above replies to see this quite clearly.

 

[JoeB131]

How long have you been doing this? I've been on discussion forums for close to twenty years and this has been an (unwritten) rule everywhere.

So you just admitted that there is no such rule.

Here's my rule.

I post links WHEN I FEEL LIKE IT. You could just as easily have googled it.