MovieChat Forums > SolarisPatchwork > Replies
SolarisPatchwork's Replies
The second he crossed the line I'd defend myself, then sue the school. A person like that would have a history of students he'd abused, probably even some who dropped out or worse. The school would be desperate to settle. Plus it'd be trivial to record him with a smartphone (even back then) and utterly destroy him.
The movie showed that a single tanker's worth of water was such a precious commodity that it was treated like gold. There clearly wasn't enough water to just be dumping it on the ground to evaporate. They were dumping a tanker's worth every minute or so. That'd be like telling all the poor people in a country they'd be rich now, then burning a palette of $1B in front of them.
>Also, he was keeping people prisioner, which de facto makes him worse, or are you in favor of slavery?
In the context of a post-apocalyptic humanity, I'm in favor of survival and freedom, in that order. The world of Mad Max made it clear that slavery was necessary for survival, which reflects what we know from history.
"B-b-but you're on drugs"
The modern version would have invented history for the sake of diversity. Much like "Hidden Figures" has done (to a great degree), or the intentional alt-history "For All Mankind," which has such egregious misrepresentations of the culture of NASA at the time that it's disgusting, and should be disgusting to anyone who has an actual interest in the real history of the US space program.
How do leftists deal with the observation that these trials all occurred right when he needed to go out to campaign? Or are they cool with abuse of the judicial system and lawfare?
Human behavior is very complicated. Sex is not
Gained nothing? The entire point was to redistribute wealth from present and future US citizens and put it into the pockets of the military industrial complex. They accomplished everything.
And which of his actions predate intervention from the CIA et al?
I thought he's taking the blame for Obama. Under Obama the intelligence apparatus staged a coup in Ukraine in 2014 that ousted their democratically elected leader who wanted good relations with Russia, and installed a leader who would: 1. install Democrat-connected cronies into political positions of influence, like on oil company boards; 2. arrange more US interference; and 3. pursue friendly relations with NATO and hostile relations with Russia.
The extended B-plot with two FBI agents was 100% unnecessary and probably included because Jason Statham was too white and male. They could've (and should've) cut that subplot out entirely, or down to just two scenes.
Statham's character was already motivated to pursue vengeance by his connection to his scamming/suicide victim friend, he was already operating outside the confines of the law, and he didn't need any assistance from the FBI. In fact, when I first watched it I figured those daughter would recognize the importance of extralegal interference, go rogue, and start feeding him intel behind her partner's back. That may have been her and/or her partner's arc, but instead he already had the means to get all that intel himself.
It feels like an older action movie screenplay with diversity glued on to satisfy the current requirements for getting a movie produced.
What is it you propose he could've done better? We see two alternatives in the movie, which I outlined above, and they're much, much worse.
*A* good guy? No. *THE* good guy? Sure. But in those circumstances there isn't exactly room for a paragon of virtue.
He's like a Neutral Good version of Mark Wahlberg, who is Neutral Evil
OnanTheBarbarian has been told that many times, and shown videos, and saw sworn testimony from Rittenhosue's *accusers* agreeing to those basic facts. He's just off in his own universe at this point, playing with himself.
>We're not talking about cleaning graffiti. Really? You think that's what Rittenhouse was doing there that night?
He cleaned graffiti off a church and put out a fire. Here he is with the fire extinguisher and the dumpster: https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/Z0mu77L63ngOGYpinogrRC6V-2zcpsXiinxM3bQVDrfs55PPe6h_xl8QakL4lvXh-JkFlyJ1z4cocSsSciwA-pY1NmA?loadFrom=PastedDeeplink&ts=5705.16
Here he is cleaning graffiti from a church the same day, before the nightly BLM communist riot: https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/08/kyle-rittenhouse-graffiti3.jpg?quality=75&strip=all&w=1024
>I support law and order, not high school kids playing cop.
You support children being murdered and Americans not having the right to defend themselves from thugs, communists, insurrectionists, fake medics, and child-rapists
>All I saw there was some unhinged nut show up with a gun,
What you saw and what constitutes reality are very different things
>Who gives a rat's ass about the race or religion of anyone there? The Proud Boys did. I don't.
You clearly do
>You ignore that Rittenhouse drank and partied with the Proud Boys after the shooting.
Do you mean when he fired his attorney who was using him for photo ops? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNCpFkpfmuU It came up in the trial you didn't watch:
"Rittenhouse says the photo was one of the reasons he decided to fire Pierce, who was 'putting me in situations...with people I don’t agree with'" Look it up.
But I'm sure it's not hard for you to believe he was lying, since you think that him being physically assaulted by a child rapist screaming "fight me, n---er, kill me, ni--er!", then later on his back with a riot around him, as men kick his head and another swings a skateboard at him isn't reason enough to believe he feared for his life. (Even though the prosecution's star witness, the one-armed "medic" who illegally owned a firearm, agreed with the defense that Rittenhouse had reason to fear for his life.) This is on video, and the FBI drone footage in the trial shows that Rosenbaum was attacking Rittenhouse as he fled. It also shows that the riot shot at him first, with shots fired by a John Doe #2.
>Again, as I proved allover this thread, nobody tried to kill Rittenhouse, only disarm him after he shot a man.
What you've *proven* is that you've given me a great opportunity to point out how easy it is to defend the child's actions on that night.
>And if your boy is such a "child", why wasn't he at home sucking on a bottle, rather than playing cop at a protest march?
The amount of seething you have for a friend showing up and literally putting out a fire and cleaning graffiti off a church (put there by the side you're defending, who were rioting, being destructive and violent) is telling.
Nothing Rittenhouse did was illegal. And if you're so concerned with illegality, why aren't you concerned with the literal felon child rapist and the "medic" who illegally owned a firearm and tried to kill a kid with it?
>Again, Huber hit him in the shoulder. That's not gonna kill him.
"The child should've just laid on the ground and let the screaming man at the vanguard of a riotous mob pursuing him swing a skateboard at his head."
>And Grosskreutz had a gun but didn't shoot him. Nobody was trying to kill Rittenhouse.
Grosskreutz admitted on the stand that he was swinging the firearm around towards Rittenhouse's head and AGREED that Rittenhouse was right to fear for his life from his own actions. He also was recorded by his friend at the hospital saying his only regret is not killing Rittenhouse earlier.
All you have are lies and seething and coping, and you're hilariously incensed that I pointed out only one of his attackers was black and therefore your argument about it being about race has no merit.
>Now tell us all some more about these three evil Jews whom you think deserved to die.
I think anyone who attacked a child in those circumstances deserves to die. That's the difference between you and me: I see facts and can look at the actual circumstances.
It's pretty funny that you sit around fantasizing about killing children.
>Here's your hero Rittenhouse beating the crap out of a 15-year-old girl
Oh no, a school fight where he was attacked.
>He's obviously not trying to kill the brat, just stop him from shooting.
Your goal is to stop a child from shooting. You see that the child has a gun. You see the child is running away from your mob. You see he has his hands up. You see he's running towards police. You see he's yelling "Help! I just shot someone!" You hear the mob scream, "GET THAT N-----," "KILL HIM," and "FUCK THAT WHITE C------!" The mob is comprised of communists, anti-white racists, and has been rioting throughout the night, burning down property and screaming constant hatred.
Do you:
A) Chase after the child and attempt to kill him
or
B) Let him continue runing to police
If you chose A, then you'd have made a decision as bad as Huber and would currently be in the advanced stages of decomposition in the ground, and your victim would be living his life with the emotional scars you gave him--but otherwise safe, thank God.
>There wouldn't have been a mass shooting if Kyle Rittenhouse had stayed home that night. People do have a right to protest in the U.S. And police would never shoot a man for lighting fire to a trash can.
What an oddity: a "mass shooting" where the only people shot were people who were attempting to murder the shooter! There's another name for it but I can't quite put my finger on what it is...
>Oh please, you say these three men were attempted child killers, and then you point out the irrelevant fact that they were all Jewish. Anti-Semitic bullshit.
lol you seem to have forgotten you started the conversation with accusations that the post-starter was a white supremacist. I pointed out the men killed were all non-black. You bristled at this and seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder.
>Too bad Huber and Grosskreutz weren't at Sandy Hook. Lives could have been saved, you anti-Semitic git.
Based on proven events, they'd be the ones attempting to kill children, not save them. Perhaps that's the reason for the-one-armed-child-murderer's new name. You don't really seem capable of absorbing those points, though, and are more accustomed to arguing by using irrelevant accusations and other emotion-centric outbursts.
I remembered Ali G and found it kind of funny back in the day, but I lost any respect for him when I had looked into his supposed smoking-gun evidence on Rudy Giuliani attempting to sleep with a young reporter. It was immediately obvious he used deception, editing, and outright lying to lure Giuliani into a compromising-looking situation, then used unrelated behavior to claim Giuliani was doing something inappropriate.
In other words, slimy backstabby propaganda that was intended to serve as ammunition for a political party, while pretending to be comedy and entertainment.