Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[josh]

They are guilty of slander.

Tried and convicted by the Kourt of Kid.

[josh]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/29/politics/pentagon-oklahoma-vaccine/index.html

DoD denies the Oklahoma request and directs NG members to be vaccinated.

[kidcarter8]

They are guilty of slander.

No. They are not.

He shot three people during a BLM protest.

Not guilty does not mean innocent.

"Not guilty" means he is not a murderer.

[Hairy Lime]

"Tragic? Perhaps. But unnecessary because HE made the wrong choices."

This is one of those examples in which you demonstrate that you believe public execution for minor crimes is acceptable.

Unnecessary because they both made wrong choices[/i]

Tragic because it cost one his life and will cost the other mentally/emotionally for the rest of her life, even if it does not cost her her job or more, which it well might.

His mistake did not have to cost anybody a life or livelihood.

Hers did.

 

If dumbfuck showed up in court, he'd be alive. Maybe behind bars, but alive.

His fuck-up led to the accidental shooting.

Dispute that.

No need to make up things that haven't happened. Leave that to the AZ-hole.

The end.

Once again Forrest is perfectly fine with the public execution of petty criminals. And blatantly ignorant of the legal principles of causation.

[Hairy Lime]

"Tragic? Perhaps. But unnecessary because HE made the wrong choices."

This is one of those examples in which you demonstrate that you believe public execution for minor crimes is acceptable.

Unnecessary because they both made wrong choices[/i]

Tragic because it cost one his life and will cost the other mentally/emotionally for the rest of her life, even if it does not cost her her job or more, which it well might.

His mistake did not have to cost anybody a life or livelihood.

Hers did.

 

If dumbfuck showed up in court, he'd be alive. Maybe behind bars, but alive.

His fuck-up led to the accidental shooting.

HER fuck-up caused his death.

His fuck-up was not an excuse for her killing him.

Did he earn prison time? Sure. Death? Not even slightly.

Um...his fuck-up put him in the position for the accidental shooting to occur. No one here is arguing he deserved to die, just that his own actions created the circumstance.

That's pretty much indisputable.

You want to argue his death is great loss to society? 

"What you inferred from other posts was actually something that I have never said, and your willful misinterpretation is just a method of trying to dismiss my opinion out of hand.

It's an old tactic, used commonly by those who have no real counterargument."

[Hairy Lime]

In an interview last year, the incoming CEO of Twitter, Parag Agrawal, made it clear that free speech is not a priority for the company, and that his platform would not be bound by the First Amendment. Agrawal said
The kinds of things that we do about this is, focus less on thinking about free speech, but thinking about how the times have changed.

Which is the definition of an idiot.

No worries. You can go peddle your lies on Parler

Missed that idiocy. Free speech is not GM's priority either. And Twitter is not bound by the first amendment. You would think the pro business constitutional expert would know those things.

[Hamilton Samuels]

"Tragic? Perhaps. But unnecessary because HE made the wrong choices."

This is one of those examples in which you demonstrate that you believe public execution for minor crimes is acceptable.

Unnecessary because they both made wrong choices[/i]

Tragic because it cost one his life and will cost the other mentally/emotionally for the rest of her life, even if it does not cost her her job or more, which it well might.

His mistake did not have to cost anybody a life or livelihood.

Hers did.

 

If dumbfuck showed up in court, he'd be alive. Maybe behind bars, but alive.

His fuck-up led to the accidental shooting.

Dispute that.

No need to make up things that haven't happened. Leave that to the AZ-hole.

The end.

Once again Forrest is perfectly fine with the public execution of petty criminals. And blatantly ignorant of the legal principles of causation.

Once again, you have deliberately mischaracterized my opinion in order to advance yours.

It's wrong. It's lazy intellectually, it shows you've got no compelling counterpoint.



By adopting Goebbels's methods as your trump card, you lose again.

[Hairy Lime]

"Tragic? Perhaps. But unnecessary because HE made the wrong choices."

This is one of those examples in which you demonstrate that you believe public execution for minor crimes is acceptable.

Unnecessary because they both made wrong choices[/i]

Tragic because it cost one his life and will cost the other mentally/emotionally for the rest of her life, even if it does not cost her her job or more, which it well might.

His mistake did not have to cost anybody a life or livelihood.

Hers did.

 

If dumbfuck showed up in court, he'd be alive. Maybe behind bars, but alive.

His fuck-up led to the accidental shooting.

Dispute that.

No need to make up things that haven't happened. Leave that to the AZ-hole.

The end.

Once again Forrest is perfectly fine with the public execution of petty criminals. And blatantly ignorant of the legal principles of causation.

Once again, you have deliberately mischaracterized my opinion in order to advance yours.

It's wrong. It's lazy intellectually, it shows you've got no compelling counterpoint.



By adopting Goebbels's methods as your trump card, you lose again.

So the use of Nazi imagery is only antisemitic when Larry uses it? Got it.

[Holly Martins]

In an interview last year, the incoming CEO of Twitter, Parag Agrawal, made it clear that free speech is not a priority for the company, and that his platform would not be bound by the First Amendment. Agrawal said
The kinds of things that we do about this is, focus less on thinking about free speech, but thinking about how the times have changed.

Which is the definition of an idiot.

What did Agrawal actually say?  Entire direct quote, please.  Not going to respond to secondhand account of what was said.

And touche, to the post above this one.

[Holly Martins]

You want to argue his death is great loss to society?  Go right ahead. I'd like to hear why.

Our society is not supposed to assign a value on a sliding scale to human life.  That is the core premise of equality before the law.   The victims character or potential future contributions are not on trial, so that is another of your red herrings.

[Holly Martins]

No respect for the law. It's a settled case. That you didn't like the outcome is just too damn bad.

Under the law, he's free.

 https://bnc.tv/arizona-state-university-students-want-school-to-withdraw-kyle-rittenhouse/

Fear is not irrational.  Rittenhouse might consider after what has happened that he should publicly renounce guns on his own part, and vow that he will never carry again. 

[Hamilton Samuels]

"Tragic? Perhaps. But unnecessary because HE made the wrong choices."

This is one of those examples in which you demonstrate that you believe public execution for minor crimes is acceptable.

Unnecessary because they both made wrong choices[/i]

Tragic because it cost one his life and will cost the other mentally/emotionally for the rest of her life, even if it does not cost her her job or more, which it well might.

His mistake did not have to cost anybody a life or livelihood.

Hers did.

 

If dumbfuck showed up in court, he'd be alive. Maybe behind bars, but alive.

His fuck-up led to the accidental shooting.

Dispute that.

No need to make up things that haven't happened. Leave that to the AZ-hole.

The end.

Once again Forrest is perfectly fine with the public execution of petty criminals. And blatantly ignorant of the legal principles of causation.

Once again, you have deliberately mischaracterized my opinion in order to advance yours.

It's wrong. It's lazy intellectually, it shows you've got no compelling counterpoint.



By adopting Goebbels's methods as your trump card, you lose again.

So the use of Nazi imagery is only antisemitic when Larry uses it? Got it.

You put the shoe on, and it fits perfectly.

Nice to see you keeping at it and confirming your status as merely a propagandist, Joey.

[Holly Martins]

They are guilty of slander.

No. They are not.

He shot three people during a BLM protest.

Not guilty does not mean innocent.

"Not guilty" means he is not a murderer.

No it means there is reasonable doubt, in Wisconsin law.  Many a scoundrel in history has ridden the reasonable doubt train.

[Hamilton Samuels]

No respect for the law. It's a settled case. That you didn't like the outcome is just too damn bad.

Under the law, he's free.

 https://bnc.tv/arizona-state-university-students-want-school-to-withdraw-kyle-rittenhouse/

Fear is not irrational.  Rittenhouse might consider after what has happened that he should publicly renounce guns on his own part, and vow that he will never carry again.

What the "students" there are doing is not really different than this:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/30/donald-trump-called-top-aides-capitol-riot-biden

 

[Hamilton Samuels]