Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You are, ShortBus. As evidenced by your delusions about me. Posting first to others is obviously not a symptom of obsession as everyone here does that. If me posting first to you in this thread means I'm obsessed with you then that means you're obsessed with EvilEyeFleegle since you first posted to him. Is that what you're saying? Or is this just yet another shiny example of you simply not thinking these things through?You were first to respond to my post. Who is the obsessed one? OCD ridden fat fuck.
LOLOL
Oh look, a rightard who thinks his morals are superior to Liberals. You don't see that around here very often.
LOLOLDude. You're a soulless monster. ALL righties KNOW that our morals are superior to yours. Dumbass.
False. It does not show that he did not confront the protestors. Considering he illegally obtained a weapon and traveled across State lines to go to the spot where the protestors were, it wont be a hard thing for the prosecution to argue (that he sought out and confronted the protestors). Neither will the idea that the protestors perceived a threat by a person confronting them with a rifle. The prosecution will have to make a more compelling argument than the defense's argument that he simply happened to be near them and the protestors confronted him.But no he didn't.
And the video evidence clearly shows that.
There's already video where the guys with rifles are talking among each other how some others among them were pointing firearms at protesters.False. It does not show that he did not confront the protestors. Considering he illegally obtained a weapon and traveled across State lines to go to the spot where the protestors were, it wont be a hard thing for the prosecution to argue (that he sight out and confronted the protestors). Neither will the idea that the protestors were threatened by a person confronting them with a rifle. The prosecution will have to get over the defense's argument that is the idea that he simply happened to be near them and the protestors confronted him.
I did not even read what you wrote but it’s funny to get you all riled up. Fat fuck.LOLOL
You're so fucked in the head, ShortBus, it's amusing.
I obviously didn't. Had I actually looked it up, I would have been able to provide you a definitive answer. But I didn't. I recalled from memory, which you would have recognized if you weren't such an imbecile, which is why I said, "I believe both were, ShortBus."
Well, maybe. They have to fully convince 12 jurors.There's already video where the guys with rifles are talking among each other how some others among them were pointing firearms at protesters.
And there's video of Rosenbaum freaking out over someone pointing their firearm at him.
All it takes is one witness to say they saw Rittenhouse do that at Rosenbaum just before the chase, or a video of it, and it's over for Rittenhouse.
LOLOLI did not even read what you wrote but it’s funny to get you all riled up. Fat fuck.
Wrong.False. It does not show that he did not confront the protestors. Considering he illegally obtained a weapon and traveled across State lines to go to the spot where the protestors were, it wont be a hard thing for the prosecution to argue (that he sought out and confronted the protestors). Neither will the idea that the protestors perceived a threat by a person confronting them with a rifle. The prosecution will have to make a more compelling argument than the defense's argument that he simply happened to be near them and the protestors confronted him.
Basically, what you are arguing.
You don't actually think you're fooling anyone with this, do you?LOLOL
You're too funny, ShortBus. I'm literally laughing at you but your obsession leads you to believe you rile me up.
The people doing the prosecuting are they same folks who have been refusing to prosecute these rioters, for the most part.
Based on that alone, fuck the laws...... it either applies to everybody equally or it applies to no one at all.
But does not in any way show that he did not first confront the protestors. The defense does not get to pretend the universe did not exist before the start of the video. Sorry.The video shows him being attacked, and defending himself.
Lmao…you responded first. How am I stalking when you were the first to initiate? Please explain that one you OCD ridden fat fuck.You are, ShortBus. As evidenced by your delusions about me. Posting first to others is obviously not a symptom of obsession as everyone here does that. If me posting first to you in this thread means I'm obsessed with you then that means you're obsessed with EvilEyeFleegle since you first posted to him. Is that what you're saying? Or is this just yet another shiny example of you simply not thinking these things through?
It doesn't show him not doing it, is somehow evidence that he did?But does not in any way show that he did not first confront the protestors. The defense does not get to pretend the universe did not exist before the start of the video. Sorry.
You keep responding…too easy. Go eat another donut. Fat Fuck. You didn’t even understand why it matters if Rittenhouse killed those with a violent past and a criminal record vs peaceful protesters without a record. Idiot.LOLOL
You're too funny, ShortBus. I'm literally laughing at you but your obsession leads you to believe you rile me up.
Oh yeah. The fat fuck just ordered three Whoppers, he is so upset.You don't actually think you're fooling anyone with this, do you?
AzogtheDefiler has got your number.
LOLYou don't actually think you're fooling anyone with this, do you?
AzogtheDefiler has got your number.
Gross. Projecting again? Eh OCD ridden fat fuck. Still need help understanding the difference between those with and without criminal records.LOL
Suuure, he does. And now he owes you dinner for that reach-around.
You mean like you keep responding to my posts?You keep responding…too easy. Go eat another donut. Fat Fuck. You didn’t even understand why it matters if Rittenhouse killed those with a violent past and a criminal record vs peaceful protesters without a record. Idiot.
