Nick Sandmann case against NBC goes to Discovery Phase

[rightwinger]

I mean , hey , why didn't the DRUM BANGER just move to the left or the right and avoid the smiling kid RWinger ??

There was no left or right...he was moving forward until blocked by the smirking Sandmann

Please show where Sandmann moved into the "adult's" way to block him. Failing that, admit that the "adult" moved toward Sandmann and deliberately got in his face.

I realize that this is pivotal to your argument that somehow Sandmann is responsible for the standoff, but you need to be honest about this.

While in a crowd, seeing someone coming at you trying to get through the crowd, the proper response is to step aside and let the person pass

Now, there is no law that says you must. But if you choose to hold your ground and give a creepy smirk......you are just being a jerk

Sandmann was criticized for being a jerk

 

[pismoe]

i know that you want your OPINION to be enforced Law but it is not yet Law RWinger . Kid did as he liked as he peacefully Smiled , smirked , grimaced or had Gas and a belly ache and I approve of his actions RWinger

 

[Polishprince]

I mean , hey , why didn't the DRUM BANGER just move to the left or the right and avoid the smiling kid RWinger ??

There was no left or right...he was moving forward until blocked by the smirking Sandmann

Please show where Sandmann moved into the "adult's" way to block him. Failing that, admit that the "adult" moved toward Sandmann and deliberately got in his face.

I realize that this is pivotal to your argument that somehow Sandmann is responsible for the standoff, but you need to be honest about this.

While in a crowd, seeing someone coming at you trying to get through the crowd, the proper response is to step aside and let the person pass

Now, there is no law that says you must. But if you choose to hold your ground and give a creepy smirk......you are just being a jerk

Sandmann was criticized for being a jerk

You know, RW, that's bullshit.

The full videos of the situation disprove your hypothesis here, and the drunken man in injun garb sought the confrontation, not the polite young southern gentlemen.

For urban ruffians to attack these private small town school children from the southlands, who were on their best behavior in their visit to the city, is unconscionable.

 

[hadit]

I mean , hey , why didn't the DRUM BANGER just move to the left or the right and avoid the smiling kid RWinger ??

There was no left or right...he was moving forward until blocked by the smirking Sandmann

Please show where Sandmann moved into the "adult's" way to block him. Failing that, admit that the "adult" moved toward Sandmann and deliberately got in his face.

I realize that this is pivotal to your argument that somehow Sandmann is responsible for the standoff, but you need to be honest about this.

While in a crowd, seeing someone coming at you trying to get through the crowd, the proper response is to step aside and let the person pass

Now, there is no law that says you must. But if you choose to hold your ground and give a creepy smirk......you are just being a jerk

Sandmann was criticized for being a jerk

When an adult is approaching a small group of underage teenagers that obviously know each other and are waiting for something, the expected behavior is to walk around said group, not attempt to force your way into it, banging on a drum and chanting, only to come face to face with a teenager who simply stands there and smiles at you. Then, expected behavior is to realize you just made a jerk out of yourself and not compound the issue. You are expected to walk around said youth and go about your way, not stand there banging your drum and chanting inches from his face.

The "adult" was not attempting to travel through the group or around it. He was attempting to confront someone in the group. He therefore bears responsibility for the incident.

I know you will never deviate from your chosen path that Sandmann is responsible for the incident and the "adult" bears none because I've pointed all of this out to you before, but yours is not an honest stance to take, because you are stretching credulity ever further in your attempts to make it true. It simply is not.

 

[pismoe]

I mean , hey , why didn't the DRUM BANGER just move to the left or the right and avoid the smiling kid RWinger ??

There was no left or right...he was moving forward until blocked by the smirking Sandmann

Please show where Sandmann moved into the "adult's" way to block him. Failing that, admit that the "adult" moved toward Sandmann and deliberately got in his face.

I realize that this is pivotal to your argument that somehow Sandmann is responsible for the standoff, but you need to be honest about this.

While in a crowd, seeing someone coming at you trying to get through the crowd, the proper response is to step aside and let the person pass

Now, there is no law that says you must. But if you choose to hold your ground and give a creepy smirk......you are just being a jerk

Sandmann was criticized for being a jerk

--------------------------------------------- POPULAR OPINION by a crowd eh . I don't think that Popular Opinion matters RWinger . Only thing that would matter is if the good Catholic Kid Sandman had started some Violence Which would be illegal RW ,

 

[EvMetro]

I mean , hey , why didn't the DRUM BANGER just move to the left or the right and avoid the smiling kid RWinger ??

There was no left or right...he was moving forward until blocked by the smirking Sandmann

Please show where Sandmann moved into the "adult's" way to block him. Failing that, admit that the "adult" moved toward Sandmann and deliberately got in his face.

I realize that this is pivotal to your argument that somehow Sandmann is responsible for the standoff, but you need to be honest about this.

While in a crowd, seeing someone coming at you trying to get through the crowd, the proper response is to step aside and let the person pass

Now, there is no law that says you must. But if you choose to hold your ground and give a creepy smirk......you are just being a jerk

Sandmann was criticized for being a jerk

Really? You want to go after an innocent child? This kind of trash is why lefties will lose 2020. Going after children, supporting ms13, and kneeling for the flag spells 2020 doom for commies.

 

[daveman]

You think -- sorry, wrong word -- you believe your resume is more impressive than Trump's?

LOL!

I don't know who said that but now that you mention it, yeah it sure is. My resume has actual JOBS on it. You know, actual positions of responsibility. Then again almost everybody's does, don't they. Almost.

You just keep leaving these YUGE bigly openings and I just keep driving trucks through 'em.

ATTENTION, USMB:

Today I learned that Donald J. Trump has never had a job, and has never held a position of responsibility.

Where were you when I was out here pointing this out four years ago?

Now you see there, if slow thinkers like you kept up more we could have averted being the world laughingstock. But nooOOOOoooo, we had to have a mass of low-info voters waddle into the voting booths and go "hey I've heard of this guy, seen him on TV" just before yelping "HEY THERE'S NO TOILET PAPER IN HERE!".

1. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you lying 4 years ago didn't affect reality then, and it doesn't affect reality now.

Sorry, I don't recall "lying 4 years ago". What I do recall is pointing out that Rump, until the inauguration, has literally never held a job in his life, never taken on responsibility, never had the experience of filling out an application, sitting through an interview, waiting to find out if he'd been selected, knowing that he might not, and if he was, facing an indefinite future where he'd have to meet somebody else's expectations whether he felt like it that day or not, knowing that if he did not meet those expectations he could be replaced and have to start all over. You know, like you did, like I did, like everybody who hasn't had everything just handed to him for nothing, did. In fact he's bent over backward to avoid every kind of responsibility, from bankruptcies to destroying the USFL to failing to acknowledge he was wrong about the Central Park Five to even parenting. An endless torrent of "didn't happen" and "I licensed my name, I wasn't in charge". He can't even admit he said "Tim Apple". Incapable of taking responsibility.

I then pointed out the wisdom, or lack thereof, in putting such an irresponsible subject into what is arguably the most responsible job in the world.

Yeah I remember that pretty well. And yet, here you are just now finding out. Whattaya gonna do, I tried.

2. People like you are why Trump won to begin with. You insult the people you need to support you, then can't believe they don't support you.

I don't "need" Rump to support me. I need him to fuck off to Antarctica or somewhere, although that's a mean thing to do to penguins. And Rump certainly doesn't support me -- I'm a thinker. He loves the poorly educated, and of course he does. Much more malleable.

(/offtopic)

Why do you say you didn't lie 4 years ago and then tell the same lies you told 4 years ago? You stamping your feet and pouting doesn't make it true.

Are you jealous of his success?

And at least try to pay attention, you moron. I said you need the support of conservatives so they vote for the candidates you prefer.

But you're just too damn stupid.

 

[daveman]

The so-called adult's actions deserve much more criticism. The kid did nothing wrong.

I was raised to step aside in a crowd when someone is trying to get through

Sandman was obviously raised to block their path and stare at them with a creepy smirk

Again, the so-called adult's actions are far more deserving of criticism than the teenager's. Obviously, the adult was seeking a confrontation and NOT just trying to get through. Your characterization of the situation is incorrect. Equally obviously, the teenager did not give him the confrontation, but simply stood there, not saying a word while the so-called adult banged a drum in his face. He is to be lauded for not escalating the situation.

Actually there's a strong case to be made that smirking DOES escalate the situation.

----- why else would two people standing around become a "news" item? If the kid doesn't smirk, this thread doesn't exist.

The kid's smile -- you repeatedly calling it a smirk only proves the depth of your programming -- was a reaction to the alleged adult getting in his face, an effort to show he wasn't getting angry.

It's pretty obviously a posture of defiance.

And before Pizzazz comes trotting in with "it's not illegal", it's not illegal. But it is communication.

It's funny how you claim to be an independent thinker then spew leftist programming.

Run along.

 

[daveman]

Actually there's a strong case to be made that smirking DOES escalate the situation.

----- why else would two people standing around become a "news" item? If the kid doesn't smirk, this thread doesn't exist.

The kid's smile -- you repeatedly calling it a smirk only proves the depth of your programming -- was a reaction to the alleged adult getting in his face, an effort to show he wasn't getting angry.

Try thinking for yourself for a change. Note that you'll probably smell some smoke; that's common.

Yyyyeah I don't smell smoke -- I smell smirk. Body language, I know.

You were told he was smirking, so that's what you mindlessly repeat.

It's that whole inability to think for yourself thing.

It looked like a nervous smile to me, not a "smirk". They don't have people like Phillips or Black Congressional Israelites in Kentucky and he had to stay on his best behavior and did.

Ain't nothing "nervous" about a smirk. He's mocking the other person. I understand that's legal (<<disclaimer).

And get off the "Kentucky" song and dance. Covington Kentucky is a suburb of Cincinnati. Right over the river. They ain't a bunch of hicks.

Yeah,, Covington's such a hotbed of psycho black supremacists.

"Mocking". Well if anyone would know what it's like getting mocked, it's you.

 

[daveman]

I see you doing a LOT of condemning the boys' actions, but nothing for the actions of a supposed adult who got in a kid's face.

In a showdown between a kid and an adult, I expect the adult to have the greater responsibility and maturity. In this case the roles were reversed.

Which one smirked?

Which one approached the other?

It's okay. You can criticize the guy. You won't burst into flame, but your fellow leftists might call you racist. Pay them no mind -- they're idiots.

I don't know. Nor does it matter. There's nothing in the physical communication about "approach".

Nor is this germane to the topic, which is did (whatever) media source defame the kid, and if so, where is the evidence.

Which one approached the other? You tried to float the ridiculous idea that a smirk could be provocation -- but a stranger getting in your face in a public place isn't?

Damn, you're an idiot.

I don't believe I said anything about 'provocation'. Got a quote?

My mistake; you said "escalation".

Post 165, where you continue to ignore the adult initiating the incident because you were told it's all the minor's fault.

"Actually there's a strong case to be made that smirking DOES escalate the situation."

He wasn't smirking. He was smiling uncomfortably because there was a crazy adult in his face and the kid had no way of knowing what the crazy adult's intentions were.

But you just make sure you don't blame the adult for initiating the event, because you were told it's the minor's fault, and you're not bright enough to question your programming.

 

[daveman]

I mean , hey , why didn't the DRUM BANGER just move to the left or the right and avoid the smiling kid RWinger ??

There was no left or right...he was moving forward until blocked by the smirking Sandmann

Please show where Sandmann moved into the "adult's" way to block him. Failing that, admit that the "adult" moved toward Sandmann and deliberately got in his face.

I realize that this is pivotal to your argument that somehow Sandmann is responsible for the standoff, but you need to be honest about this.

He's a leftist. It's impossible for him to be honest.

 

[Pogo]

Which one smirked?

Which one approached the other?

It's okay. You can criticize the guy. You won't burst into flame, but your fellow leftists might call you racist. Pay them no mind -- they're idiots.

I don't know. Nor does it matter. There's nothing in the physical communication about "approach".

Nor is this germane to the topic, which is did (whatever) media source defame the kid, and if so, where is the evidence.

Which one approached the other? You tried to float the ridiculous idea that a smirk could be provocation -- but a stranger getting in your face in a public place isn't?

Damn, you're an idiot.

I don't believe I said anything about 'provocation'. Got a quote?

My mistake; you said "escalation".

Post 165, where you continue to ignore the adult initiating the incident because you were told it's all the minor's fault.

"Actually there's a strong case to be made that smirking DOES escalate the situation."

He wasn't smirking. He was smiling uncomfortably because there was a crazy adult in his face and the kid had no way of knowing what the crazy adult's intentions were.

But you just make sure you don't blame the adult for initiating the event, because you were told it's the minor's fault, and you're not bright enough to question your programming.

Actually, and feel free to go ahead and check me on this, I don't think I attributed "fault" to anybody. I'm not sure there's an actual event for anyone to be AT "fault" over. Or one that was "initiated". I thought the whole point of endlessly long video accounts was to show it was a complex setting involving multiple parties.

 

[Pogo]

I don't know who said that but now that you mention it, yeah it sure is. My resume has actual JOBS on it. You know, actual positions of responsibility. Then again almost everybody's does, don't they. Almost.

You just keep leaving these YUGE bigly openings and I just keep driving trucks through 'em.

ATTENTION, USMB:

Today I learned that Donald J. Trump has never had a job, and has never held a position of responsibility.

Where were you when I was out here pointing this out four years ago?

Now you see there, if slow thinkers like you kept up more we could have averted being the world laughingstock. But nooOOOOoooo, we had to have a mass of low-info voters waddle into the voting booths and go "hey I've heard of this guy, seen him on TV" just before yelping "HEY THERE'S NO TOILET PAPER IN HERE!".

1. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you lying 4 years ago didn't affect reality then, and it doesn't affect reality now.

Sorry, I don't recall "lying 4 years ago". What I do recall is pointing out that Rump, until the inauguration, has literally never held a job in his life, never taken on responsibility, never had the experience of filling out an application, sitting through an interview, waiting to find out if he'd been selected, knowing that he might not, and if he was, facing an indefinite future where he'd have to meet somebody else's expectations whether he felt like it that day or not, knowing that if he did not meet those expectations he could be replaced and have to start all over. You know, like you did, like I did, like everybody who hasn't had everything just handed to him for nothing, did. In fact he's bent over backward to avoid every kind of responsibility, from bankruptcies to destroying the USFL to failing to acknowledge he was wrong about the Central Park Five to even parenting. An endless torrent of "didn't happen" and "I licensed my name, I wasn't in charge". He can't even admit he said "Tim Apple". Incapable of taking responsibility.

I then pointed out the wisdom, or lack thereof, in putting such an irresponsible subject into what is arguably the most responsible job in the world.

Yeah I remember that pretty well. And yet, here you are just now finding out. Whattaya gonna do, I tried.

2. People like you are why Trump won to begin with. You insult the people you need to support you, then can't believe they don't support you.

I don't "need" Rump to support me. I need him to fuck off to Antarctica or somewhere, although that's a mean thing to do to penguins. And Rump certainly doesn't support me -- I'm a thinker. He loves the poorly educated, and of course he does. Much more malleable.

(/offtopic)

Why do you say you didn't lie 4 years ago and then tell the same lies you told 4 years ago? You stamping your feet and pouting doesn't make it true.

Are you jealous of his success?

And at least try to pay attention, you moron. I said you need the support of conservatives so they vote for the candidates you prefer.

But you're just too damn stupid.

I'm not aware of any "lies" either time. Far as I know I've repeated the same thing now that I said then. That being that Rump has never held a job. In the four intervening years I've heard nothing to challenge that. So yeah it does strike me as bizzaro to thrust a septuagenarian who's never had a job or position of responsibility into the most responsible job in the world.

Now I guess you could take issue with the POTUS being characterized as the most responsible job in the world. Go ahead.

 

[Polishprince]

Which one approached the other?

It's okay. You can criticize the guy. You won't burst into flame, but your fellow leftists might call you racist. Pay them no mind -- they're idiots.

I don't know. Nor does it matter. There's nothing in the physical communication about "approach".

Nor is this germane to the topic, which is did (whatever) media source defame the kid, and if so, where is the evidence.

Which one approached the other? You tried to float the ridiculous idea that a smirk could be provocation -- but a stranger getting in your face in a public place isn't?

Damn, you're an idiot.

I don't believe I said anything about 'provocation'. Got a quote?

My mistake; you said "escalation".

Post 165, where you continue to ignore the adult initiating the incident because you were told it's all the minor's fault.

"Actually there's a strong case to be made that smirking DOES escalate the situation."

He wasn't smirking. He was smiling uncomfortably because there was a crazy adult in his face and the kid had no way of knowing what the crazy adult's intentions were.

But you just make sure you don't blame the adult for initiating the event, because you were told it's the minor's fault, and you're not bright enough to question your programming.

Actually, and feel free to go ahead and check me on this, I don't think I attributed "fault" to anybody. I'm not sure there's an actual event for anyone to be AT "fault" over. Or one that was "initiated". I thought the whole point of endlessly long video accounts was to show it was a complex setting involving multiple parties.

The only reason why it was a news story at all was that the Media was looking to discourage other young people from getting involved in civic affairs like the boys from Kentucky were.

If they were in DC for a Black Power March wearing Obama gear, it wouldn't have been a story, even if they would committed violence.

The media's hope was to punish the kids for wearing patriotic headgear at a demonstration for life. All the children really were doing was waiting for their ride back to their old Kentucky homes.

 

[hadit]

ATTENTION, USMB:

Today I learned that Donald J. Trump has never had a job, and has never held a position of responsibility.

Where were you when I was out here pointing this out four years ago?

Now you see there, if slow thinkers like you kept up more we could have averted being the world laughingstock. But nooOOOOoooo, we had to have a mass of low-info voters waddle into the voting booths and go "hey I've heard of this guy, seen him on TV" just before yelping "HEY THERE'S NO TOILET PAPER IN HERE!".

1. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you lying 4 years ago didn't affect reality then, and it doesn't affect reality now.

Sorry, I don't recall "lying 4 years ago". What I do recall is pointing out that Rump, until the inauguration, has literally never held a job in his life, never taken on responsibility, never had the experience of filling out an application, sitting through an interview, waiting to find out if he'd been selected, knowing that he might not, and if he was, facing an indefinite future where he'd have to meet somebody else's expectations whether he felt like it that day or not, knowing that if he did not meet those expectations he could be replaced and have to start all over. You know, like you did, like I did, like everybody who hasn't had everything just handed to him for nothing, did. In fact he's bent over backward to avoid every kind of responsibility, from bankruptcies to destroying the USFL to failing to acknowledge he was wrong about the Central Park Five to even parenting. An endless torrent of "didn't happen" and "I licensed my name, I wasn't in charge". He can't even admit he said "Tim Apple". Incapable of taking responsibility.

I then pointed out the wisdom, or lack thereof, in putting such an irresponsible subject into what is arguably the most responsible job in the world.

Yeah I remember that pretty well. And yet, here you are just now finding out. Whattaya gonna do, I tried.

2. People like you are why Trump won to begin with. You insult the people you need to support you, then can't believe they don't support you.

I don't "need" Rump to support me. I need him to fuck off to Antarctica or somewhere, although that's a mean thing to do to penguins. And Rump certainly doesn't support me -- I'm a thinker. He loves the poorly educated, and of course he does. Much more malleable.

(/offtopic)

Why do you say you didn't lie 4 years ago and then tell the same lies you told 4 years ago? You stamping your feet and pouting doesn't make it true.

Are you jealous of his success?

And at least try to pay attention, you moron. I said you need the support of conservatives so they vote for the candidates you prefer.

But you're just too damn stupid.

I'm not aware of any "lies" either time. Far as I know I've repeated the same thing now that I said then. That being that Rump has never held a job. In the four intervening years I've heard nothing to challenge that. So yeah it does strike me as bizzaro to thrust a septuagenarian who's never had a job or position of responsibility into the most responsible job in the world.

Now I guess you could take issue with the POTUS being characterized as the most responsible job in the world. Go ahead.

He's held the same kind of "job" as the presidency nearly his entire life.

 

[Pogo]

I don't know. Nor does it matter. There's nothing in the physical communication about "approach".

Nor is this germane to the topic, which is did (whatever) media source defame the kid, and if so, where is the evidence.

Which one approached the other? You tried to float the ridiculous idea that a smirk could be provocation -- but a stranger getting in your face in a public place isn't?

Damn, you're an idiot.

I don't believe I said anything about 'provocation'. Got a quote?

My mistake; you said "escalation".

Post 165, where you continue to ignore the adult initiating the incident because you were told it's all the minor's fault.

"Actually there's a strong case to be made that smirking DOES escalate the situation."

He wasn't smirking. He was smiling uncomfortably because there was a crazy adult in his face and the kid had no way of knowing what the crazy adult's intentions were.

But you just make sure you don't blame the adult for initiating the event, because you were told it's the minor's fault, and you're not bright enough to question your programming.

Actually, and feel free to go ahead and check me on this, I don't think I attributed "fault" to anybody. I'm not sure there's an actual event for anyone to be AT "fault" over. Or one that was "initiated". I thought the whole point of endlessly long video accounts was to show it was a complex setting involving multiple parties.

The only reason why it was a news story at all was that the Media was looking to discourage other young people from getting involved in civic affairs like the boys from Kentucky were.

If they were in DC for a Black Power March wearing Obama gear, it wouldn't have been a story, even if they would committed violence.

The media's hope was to punish the kids for wearing patriotic headgear at a demonstration for life. All the children really were doing was waiting for their ride back to their old Kentucky homes.

We've been over this ground before too --- "the media", whatever we mean by that, gets no benefit whatsoever from "discouraging" or "punishing" anybody for anything. The media gets its benefit from the advertising it runs, and it maximizes that advertising by running emotional bait-hook stories like this. ***THAT*** is why it's a story at all. Period.

 

[daveman]

Which one approached the other?

It's okay. You can criticize the guy. You won't burst into flame, but your fellow leftists might call you racist. Pay them no mind -- they're idiots.

I don't know. Nor does it matter. There's nothing in the physical communication about "approach".

Nor is this germane to the topic, which is did (whatever) media source defame the kid, and if so, where is the evidence.

Which one approached the other? You tried to float the ridiculous idea that a smirk could be provocation -- but a stranger getting in your face in a public place isn't?

Damn, you're an idiot.

I don't believe I said anything about 'provocation'. Got a quote?

My mistake; you said "escalation".

Post 165, where you continue to ignore the adult initiating the incident because you were told it's all the minor's fault.

"Actually there's a strong case to be made that smirking DOES escalate the situation."

He wasn't smirking. He was smiling uncomfortably because there was a crazy adult in his face and the kid had no way of knowing what the crazy adult's intentions were.

But you just make sure you don't blame the adult for initiating the event, because you were told it's the minor's fault, and you're not bright enough to question your programming.

Actually, and feel free to go ahead and check me on this, I don't think I attributed "fault" to anybody. I'm not sure there's an actual event for anyone to be AT "fault" over. Or one that was "initiated". I thought the whole point of endlessly long video accounts was to show it was a complex setting involving multiple parties.

Goodness, you sure do like to change the subject when you're been called out.

I'd ask you if you think the whole thing would have happened if the "responsible and mature" adult hadn't invaded a minor's personal space with unknowable intentions, but we both know you're not ever going to honestly answer the question.

 

[daveman]

ATTENTION, USMB:

Today I learned that Donald J. Trump has never had a job, and has never held a position of responsibility.

Where were you when I was out here pointing this out four years ago?

Now you see there, if slow thinkers like you kept up more we could have averted being the world laughingstock. But nooOOOOoooo, we had to have a mass of low-info voters waddle into the voting booths and go "hey I've heard of this guy, seen him on TV" just before yelping "HEY THERE'S NO TOILET PAPER IN HERE!".

1. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you lying 4 years ago didn't affect reality then, and it doesn't affect reality now.

Sorry, I don't recall "lying 4 years ago". What I do recall is pointing out that Rump, until the inauguration, has literally never held a job in his life, never taken on responsibility, never had the experience of filling out an application, sitting through an interview, waiting to find out if he'd been selected, knowing that he might not, and if he was, facing an indefinite future where he'd have to meet somebody else's expectations whether he felt like it that day or not, knowing that if he did not meet those expectations he could be replaced and have to start all over. You know, like you did, like I did, like everybody who hasn't had everything just handed to him for nothing, did. In fact he's bent over backward to avoid every kind of responsibility, from bankruptcies to destroying the USFL to failing to acknowledge he was wrong about the Central Park Five to even parenting. An endless torrent of "didn't happen" and "I licensed my name, I wasn't in charge". He can't even admit he said "Tim Apple". Incapable of taking responsibility.

I then pointed out the wisdom, or lack thereof, in putting such an irresponsible subject into what is arguably the most responsible job in the world.

Yeah I remember that pretty well. And yet, here you are just now finding out. Whattaya gonna do, I tried.

2. People like you are why Trump won to begin with. You insult the people you need to support you, then can't believe they don't support you.

I don't "need" Rump to support me. I need him to fuck off to Antarctica or somewhere, although that's a mean thing to do to penguins. And Rump certainly doesn't support me -- I'm a thinker. He loves the poorly educated, and of course he does. Much more malleable.

(/offtopic)

Why do you say you didn't lie 4 years ago and then tell the same lies you told 4 years ago? You stamping your feet and pouting doesn't make it true.

Are you jealous of his success?

And at least try to pay attention, you moron. I said you need the support of conservatives so they vote for the candidates you prefer.

But you're just too damn stupid.

I'm not aware of any "lies" either time. Far as I know I've repeated the same thing now that I said then. That being that Rump has never held a job. In the four intervening years I've heard nothing to challenge that. So yeah it does strike me as bizzaro to thrust a septuagenarian who's never had a job or position of responsibility into the most responsible job in the world.

Now I guess you could take issue with the POTUS being characterized as the most responsible job in the world. Go ahead.

Dear Diary:

Today I learned owning multiple businesses and making multi-million-dollar real estate deals isn't a "real job" and has "never had any responsibility".

The really funny part?

You believe your own bullshit.

 

[Polishprince]

I don't know. Nor does it matter. There's nothing in the physical communication about "approach".

Nor is this germane to the topic, which is did (whatever) media source defame the kid, and if so, where is the evidence.

Which one approached the other? You tried to float the ridiculous idea that a smirk could be provocation -- but a stranger getting in your face in a public place isn't?

Damn, you're an idiot.

I don't believe I said anything about 'provocation'. Got a quote?

My mistake; you said "escalation".

Post 165, where you continue to ignore the adult initiating the incident because you were told it's all the minor's fault.

"Actually there's a strong case to be made that smirking DOES escalate the situation."

He wasn't smirking. He was smiling uncomfortably because there was a crazy adult in his face and the kid had no way of knowing what the crazy adult's intentions were.

But you just make sure you don't blame the adult for initiating the event, because you were told it's the minor's fault, and you're not bright enough to question your programming.

Actually, and feel free to go ahead and check me on this, I don't think I attributed "fault" to anybody. I'm not sure there's an actual event for anyone to be AT "fault" over. Or one that was "initiated". I thought the whole point of endlessly long video accounts was to show it was a complex setting involving multiple parties.

Goodness, you sure do like to change the subject when you're been called out.

I'd ask you if you think the whole thing would have happened if the "responsible and mature" adult hadn't invaded a minor's personal space with unknowable intentions, but we both know you're not ever going to honestly answer the question.

There are all kinds of weirdos in Washington DC. Nate Phillips and the Black Congressional Israelites aren't the only oddballs, they just happened to be the ones hanging around the Lincoln Memorial while the children were waiting on their bus back to Kentucky.

The fault is with the media in making a big deal about it and literally crucifying the southern boys.

 

[Pogo]

Where were you when I was out here pointing this out four years ago?

Now you see there, if slow thinkers like you kept up more we could have averted being the world laughingstock. But nooOOOOoooo, we had to have a mass of low-info voters waddle into the voting booths and go "hey I've heard of this guy, seen him on TV" just before yelping "HEY THERE'S NO TOILET PAPER IN HERE!".

1. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you lying 4 years ago didn't affect reality then, and it doesn't affect reality now.

Sorry, I don't recall "lying 4 years ago". What I do recall is pointing out that Rump, until the inauguration, has literally never held a job in his life, never taken on responsibility, never had the experience of filling out an application, sitting through an interview, waiting to find out if he'd been selected, knowing that he might not, and if he was, facing an indefinite future where he'd have to meet somebody else's expectations whether he felt like it that day or not, knowing that if he did not meet those expectations he could be replaced and have to start all over. You know, like you did, like I did, like everybody who hasn't had everything just handed to him for nothing, did. In fact he's bent over backward to avoid every kind of responsibility, from bankruptcies to destroying the USFL to failing to acknowledge he was wrong about the Central Park Five to even parenting. An endless torrent of "didn't happen" and "I licensed my name, I wasn't in charge". He can't even admit he said "Tim Apple". Incapable of taking responsibility.

I then pointed out the wisdom, or lack thereof, in putting such an irresponsible subject into what is arguably the most responsible job in the world.

Yeah I remember that pretty well. And yet, here you are just now finding out. Whattaya gonna do, I tried.

2. People like you are why Trump won to begin with. You insult the people you need to support you, then can't believe they don't support you.

I don't "need" Rump to support me. I need him to fuck off to Antarctica or somewhere, although that's a mean thing to do to penguins. And Rump certainly doesn't support me -- I'm a thinker. He loves the poorly educated, and of course he does. Much more malleable.

(/offtopic)

Why do you say you didn't lie 4 years ago and then tell the same lies you told 4 years ago? You stamping your feet and pouting doesn't make it true.

Are you jealous of his success?

And at least try to pay attention, you moron. I said you need the support of conservatives so they vote for the candidates you prefer.

But you're just too damn stupid.

I'm not aware of any "lies" either time. Far as I know I've repeated the same thing now that I said then. That being that Rump has never held a job. In the four intervening years I've heard nothing to challenge that. So yeah it does strike me as bizzaro to thrust a septuagenarian who's never had a job or position of responsibility into the most responsible job in the world.

Now I guess you could take issue with the POTUS being characterized as the most responsible job in the world. Go ahead.

Dear Diary:

Today I learned owning multiple businesses and making multi-million-dollar real estate deals isn't a "real job" and has "never had any responsibility".

The really funny part?

You believe your own bullshit.

I thought you learned that earlier in the thread.

Tell the class Davey Wavey ---- who did Rump "apply" to? His father? How do you suppose the "job interview" went? Who were the other "candidates"? What was his "salary"? You know, when he was "hired"? Where did he apply that he wasn't hired?

Hey, the invitation is W I D E O P E N to find something that would dispute it. Been open for four years. It's not closing now.