Texas A&M: No, Kyle Rittenhouse Won’t Be Admitted. Arizona State: He Won’t Be Coming Back Here Either

[AZrailwhale]

Killing two people. Got off on a technicality.


Well, then the FBI shouldn't have planted instigators inside the Weathermen, then.

Let's not forget what the Weathermen were protesting - an illegal war against a third world country that killed three million people.

Self-defense isn’t a technicality. It’s the ultimate defense. Only you would excuse terrorists like the Weathermen.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Well, it is if the jury doesn't hear all the evidence, and the judge won't even let the prosecutors call the people he killed "Victims".


Except the Weathermen were able to PROVE FBI misconduct. The J-6 Idiots got into this all on their own. Well, with some help from Trump, who is now pretending he never met them.


Well, no, not really. the Weathermen were protesting a criminal war. The J-6 idiots were just upset they lost an election.

A crime has to be proven before anyone can legally be called a victim in a court. Self-defense is no crime, so the three dead rioters weren’t “victims”. The only legal victim was Rittenhouse who was attacked by at least four violent rioters.

 

[JoeB131]

What legal body or code deemed the Vietnam War illegal or criminal? The Pentagon Papers are NEITHER code nor legal entity. They could be used towards such a determination but where has that been the case? As such, it remains an OPINION that America’s involvement in Vietnam was illegal or criminal much like the Iraq War, the 2020 Election, and other historical events; by stupid and smart people alike.

You are really stretching to defend the January 6 traitors.

The reality was, most of the anti-war protestors got pardons by 1980 for a good reason... people realized they were right.

The Jan 6 clowns are going to spend long times in prison, and no one will ask them to teach at a university.

 

[JoeB131]

A crime has to be proven before anyone can legally be called a victim in a court. Self-defense is no crime, so the three dead rioters weren’t “victims”. The only legal victim was Rittenhouse who was attacked by at least four violent rioters.

Shooty McFlopsweat can contemplate that as he is unable to enroll in any university.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Shooty McFlopsweat can contemplate that as he is unable to enroll in any university.

Because ignorant, prejudiced asshats like you endlessly work against him.

 

[JoeB131]

Because ignorant, prejudiced asshats like you endlessly work against him.

Yes, he will be hounded for the rest of his life. As he should be.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The Weathermen weren’t anti-war protestors, they were terrorists, criminals and murderers.

 

[JoeB131]

The Weathermen weren’t anti-war protestors, they were terrorists, criminals and murderers.

No, they were anti-war protestors working against a criminal government that was forced to resign for it's misconduct.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

 

[Unkotare]

You are really stretching to defend the January 6 traitors.

The reality was, most of the anti-war protestors got pardons by 1980 for a good reason... people realized they were right.

The Jan 6 clowns are going to spend long times in prison, and no one will ask them to teach at a university.

What a pathetic hypocrite.

 

[LeftofLeft]

You are really stretching to defend the January 6 traitors.

The reality was, most of the anti-war protestors got pardons by 1980 for a good reason... people realized they were right.

The Jan 6 clowns are going to spend long times in prison, and no one will ask them to teach at a university.

I’m not defending one or the other…. Nor am I going that far. I’m pointing out that the mindset given the actions are parallel yet the outcomes are stark contrast.

Ayers bombed the Capitol… he gets asked to teach at universities. Yahoos vandalize the Capitol and are thrown in prison. It is you who are defending one side’s violence against the Capitol, not me.

 

[AZrailwhale]

No, they were anti-war protestors working against a criminal government that was forced to resign for it's misconduct.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Nope, anyone who uses terror to achieve a political end is a terrorist. Neither JFK nor LBJ were forced to resign, Vietnam was their war, started, expanded and fought under their control. Nixon won the war by forcing the PRVN to sign the Paris Peace Accords and brought our troops home.

 

[JoeB131]

I’m not defending one or the other…. Nor am I going that far. I’m pointing out that the mindset given the actions are parallel yet the outcomes are stark contrast.

Ayers bombed the Capitol… he gets asked to teach at universities. Yahoos vandalize the Capitol and are thrown in prison. It is you who are defending one side’s violence against the Capitol, not me.

Well, here's the thing. Ayers was merely part of the group, he didn't actually plant the bombs. In fact, no one was ever arrested for the Capitol bombing.

On the other hand, the January 6 Idiots all took selfies.

Nope, anyone who uses terror to achieve a political end is a terrorist. Neither JFK nor LBJ were forced to resign, Vietnam was their war, started, expanded and fought under their control. Nixon won the war by forcing the PRVN to sign the Paris Peace Accords and brought our troops home.

This is what you are going with, that Nixon, who illegally expanded the bombing into Laos and Cambodia, was the "good guy" here because he eventually sold out all our allies in the region?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well, here's the thing. Ayers was merely part of the group, he didn't actually plant the bombs. In fact, no one was ever arrested for the Capitol bombing.

On the other hand, the January 6 Idiots all took selfies.



This is what you are going with, that Nixon, who illegally expanded the bombing into Laos and Cambodia, was the "good guy" here because he eventually sold out all our allies in the region?

which was it? An illegal war or we sold out our allies? As for he sold out who that would be the democrats in 1974 and 75 when they sold out the South. As for bombing being illegal cite with reference to when that was established.

 

[JoeB131]

which was it? An illegal war or we sold out our allies? As for he sold out who that would be the democrats in 1974 and 75 when they sold out the South. As for bombing being illegal cite with reference to when that was established.

Cambodia and Laos were not parties to the war, so bombing them was illegal. That's why Nixon did it in secret.

The notion that 'Democrats" sold out the South Vietnamese regime is also bullshit. We continued to fund them all the way up to the day Saigon fell.

The Myth That Congress Cut Off Funding for South Vietnam

Since partisans have turned the April 30, 1975, Communist takeover of South Vietnam into a political weapon, I’m going to spend the anniversary doing a little myth-busting.

historynewsnetwork.org

Mel Laird, Richard Nixon’s defense secretary, started the modern myth that “Congress snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by cutting off funding for our ally in 1975” in a 2005 article in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations.

It wasn't true, but that never stopped a meme.

$700 Million

A quick, easy check of an old newspaper database shows Laird's cutoff claim to be false. In the fiscal year running from July 1, 1974, to June 30, 1975, the congressional appropriation for military aid to South Vietnam was $700 million.

The Times reported that with National Security Adviser and Secretary of State Henry "Kissinger's personal prestige tied to peace in Vietnam, his aides have said that he will try to pin the blame for failure there on Congress." He tried to do just that at a March 26, 1975 news conference in which he framed the question facing Congress as "whether it will deliberately destroy an ally by withholding aid from it in its moment of extremity." Three years earlier, in October 1972, the month in which Kissinger publicly proclaimed that "peace is at hand," he privately told the President that their own settlement terms would destroy South Vietnam.



Congressional aid cuts didn't determine the war's final outcome. Saigon's fate was sealed long before, when Nixon forced it accept his settlement terms in January 1973.

As for Laird's "cut off" of funds for Saigon, it just never happened. Even Nixon acknowledged the 1975 military appropriation for Saigon of $700 million (on page 193 of No More Vietnams).

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Cambodia and Laos were not parties to the war, so bombing them was illegal. That's why Nixon did it in secret.

The notion that 'Democrats" sold out the South Vietnamese regime is also bullshit. We continued to fund them all the way up to the day Saigon fell.

The Myth That Congress Cut Off Funding for South Vietnam

Since partisans have turned the April 30, 1975, Communist takeover of South Vietnam into a political weapon, I’m going to spend the anniversary doing a little myth-busting.

historynewsnetwork.org

Mel Laird, Richard Nixon’s defense secretary, started the modern myth that “Congress snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by cutting off funding for our ally in 1975” in a 2005 article in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations.

It wasn't true, but that never stopped a meme.

$700 Million

A quick, easy check of an old newspaper database shows Laird's cutoff claim to be false. In the fiscal year running from July 1, 1974, to June 30, 1975, the congressional appropriation for military aid to South Vietnam was $700 million.

The Times reported that with National Security Adviser and Secretary of State Henry "Kissinger's personal prestige tied to peace in Vietnam, his aides have said that he will try to pin the blame for failure there on Congress." He tried to do just that at a March 26, 1975 news conference in which he framed the question facing Congress as "whether it will deliberately destroy an ally by withholding aid from it in its moment of extremity." Three years earlier, in October 1972, the month in which Kissinger publicly proclaimed that "peace is at hand," he privately told the President that their own settlement terms would destroy South Vietnam.



Congressional aid cuts didn't determine the war's final outcome. Saigon's fate was sealed long before, when Nixon forced it accept his settlement terms in January 1973.

As for Laird's "cut off" of funds for Saigon, it just never happened. Even Nixon acknowledged the 1975 military appropriation for Saigon of $700 million (on page 193 of No More Vietnams).

Simply not true but then lies by you are common right?

 

[AZrailwhale]

Well, here's the thing. Ayers was merely part of the group, he didn't actually plant the bombs. In fact, no one was ever arrested for the Capitol bombing.

On the other hand, the January 6 Idiots all took selfies.



This is what you are going with, that Nixon, who illegally expanded the bombing into Laos and Cambodia, was the "good guy" here because he eventually sold out all our allies in the region?

Laos and Cambodia were both allowing PAVN and VC troops to openly operate and maintain bases in their countries. That violated their neutrality and made them combatants. Legally the USA and RVN could have gone to war against them rather than just bombing the jungle where the communist bases and Ho Chi Minh Trail were.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Yes, he will be hounded for the rest of his life. As he should be.

You’re a miserable, rotten piece of shit.

Please do attend all possible gatherings with your fellow Antifa filth, and please do indulge your violent impulses against those armed to take care of filth like you.

 

[JoeB131]

Laos and Cambodia were both allowing PAVN and VC troops to openly operate and maintain bases in their countries. That violated their neutrality and made them combatants. Legally the USA and RVN could have gone to war against them rather than just bombing the jungle where the communist bases and Ho Chi Minh Trail were.

Then they should have done that. They should have passed a bill in Congress to declare war...

Oh, wait, by that point, most American wanted out of that war.

 

[JoeB131]

You’re a miserable, rotten piece of shit.

Please do attend all possible gatherings with your fellow Antifa filth, and please do indulge your violent impulses against those armed to take care of filth like you.

Sorry, man, we know you don't have the balls to fuck up you nice quiet life like Rittenhouse has.

 

[Mac-7]

Rittenhouse my not have the creds for Texas A&M

The last report is that he will enroll in Blinn (jr) College

If he applies himself he can still earn a 4 year degree of his choice

Just maybe not at A&M which is trending very liberal