It's not just about one kid getting away with murder - Kyle Rittenhouse Discussion

Not getting many hits on this lol, nice try though 😀

reply

Title is misleading. There were no murders, only assailants who fucked around and found out.

reply

It is from the link.
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/live-experience/cps/624/cpsprodpb/vivo/live/images/2021/11/19/9b2a6eb4-06b9-4922-9a01-540ffd3e32df.jpg

reply

[–] joej2923 (2959) 2 years ago

Rittenhouse was not an active shooter. He was running away from aggressors in both instances. Your heroes in this situation are all rogues. All of those guys have criminal records while Kyle Rittenhouse does not. Gaige should have just followed Rittenhouse and pointed him out to the police. Instead, Gaige urged the crowd to GET HIM during his livestream and that led to a mob of eight or ten people chasing and attacking Rittenhouse. Huber attacked Rittenhouse TWICE with a skateboard. Jump kick man was identified and he has a lengthy criminal record.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10217197/Jump-kick-man-filmed-kicking-Kyle-Rittenhouse-head-revealed.html

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Let me explain to you the order of events. Kyle shows up with an AR-15 looking for trouble. He shoots somebody because a plastic bag flew in his direction. Two others come to apprehend Kyle because they believe he’s an active shooter. He kills them. He gets away with it because the Judge wants to eat Mrs Rottenhouse’s carpet. The end.

reply

[–] Guitar King (4357) 2 years ago

Shut up, ignoramus!

reply

[–] Bloodshot77 (9617) 2 years ago

Kyle shows up with an AR-15 looking for trouble

This is really the main point here.

reply

[–] Befus (493) 2 years ago

The only ones who showed up looking for trouble were the rioters. If they hadn't been there nobody else would have had to show up to stand in their way. And All Rittenhouse showed up to do was clean up after the fools and give basic first aid.

reply

[–] Bloodshot77 (9617) 2 years ago

How do you give first aid with a gun?

reply

[–] Befus (493) 2 years ago

He didn't genius. He had a medical bag, the gun was for defense. Which he obviously needed.

reply

[–] Bloodshot77 (9617) 2 years ago

If he didn't have it, he would not have needed it.

reply

[–] Befus (493) 2 years ago

If he didn't have it he'd be dead.

reply

[–] Bloodshot77 (9617) 2 years ago

Why was he attacked?

reply

[–] Befus (493) 2 years ago

Because the pathetic treasonous rioters were mad at him for putting out fires that they started.

reply

[–] asom (6509) 2 years ago

You're really dumb, or uninformed.

reply

[–] Bloodshot77 (9617) 2 years ago

Well we know which one you are.... so there is that.

reply

[–] immattj (4042) 2 years ago

Asom is a genius in disguise. He told me that he pulls in six figures at WalMart.

reply

[–] immattj (4042) 2 years ago

But I still believe him when he tells me how intelligent he is.

reply

[–] Bloodshot77 (9617) 2 years ago

He says some pretty dumb stuff

reply

[–] RogueDemonHunter (2648) 2 years ago

Are you asking how someone carrying a rifle can carry out first aid on someone?

reply

[–] bond998 (1206) 2 years ago

Nah, Both Kyle and the Rioters where looking for trouble. You don't got to a riot with a gun and not looking for trouble. I can see both sides are in the fucking wrong. People are so blind by corporate media on both the right and the left and playing on tibalistic teams. You cant think remotely objectively. Kyle isn't a fucking hero and roiter are butch of morons. Neither should have been there in the first place. Because of this where probably going have copycat 17 year old running playing rambo shooting random people.

reply

[–] Befus (493) 2 years ago

The rioters were looking for trouble, Kyle just wanted to help. There's nothing wrong with that.

reply

[–] ProgsReturn (1764) 2 years ago

And thanks to Kyle, there are 2 less trouble-makers on the streets.

reply

[–] sokar (2098) 2 years ago

If all the rioters, looters, criminals and arsonists were not there burning, stealing and destroying property then no one would have been there in the first place.

reply

[–] joej2923 (2959) 2 years ago

He didn't show up looking for trouble. He worked at the Kenosha YMCA and he considered the town of Kenosha to be his community. He showed up to defend the car dealership from rioters who caused $50M of damage the previous night. There is video of Rosenbaum pushing a flaming dumpster towards cop cars so he showed up looking for trouble. Rosenbaum should have been in a mental institution but insane people are allowed to walk the streets for some reason.

He had to shoot Rosenbaum because Rosenbaum chased after him. Rosenbaum tried to grab the gun and that's never a good idea. Kyle was startled when Ziminski walked towards him with a gun in his hand and Rosenbaum was running towards Kyle in effort to outflank him. Kyle decided to run and Ziminski fired his gun while Rosenbaum was chasing Kyle and throwing the plastic bag at him. An active shooter is actively shooting BUT Kyle was not shooting when he was being chased by Rosenbaum and the mob of criminals. It's also important to note that the mob were attacking him instead of trying to apprehend him.

There's zero evidence that the septuagenarian judge wanted to eat Mrs. Rittenhouse's carpet. That's just your sick fantasy.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Show me how Rottenhouse “defended the car dealership”? That’s also not his responsibility to defend any property that isn’t his. He’s not law enforcement. He’s a minor. He accomplished nothing except killing three people because he had an itchy trigger finger.

Regardless of where Rosenbaum was in the vicinity of allegedly “pushing a flaming dumpster,” the fact is that Rosenbaum was not pushing a flaming dumpster at Rottenhouse. All he did was follow him and toss a plastic bag. He never touched Rottenhouse’s weapon. There are other witnesses who testified that Rosenbaum was not a threat, just an idiot.

reply

[–] joej2923 (2959) 2 years ago

The 20 second clip of him defending the dealership is below. There was more footage of him walking around being interviewed but I can't find it presently. I do agree that Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there BUT the rioters also should not have been there. When law enforcement doesn't do its job, the citizens have to defend themselves and this could be the new normal.

https://youtu.be/JfAwXIhov9U *** 20 second clip in front of car dealership ***

Per the reuters link below, a witness testified that Rosenbaum lunged for Rittenhouse's gun. The second link has a video of Rosenbaum pushing the dumpster and another video of him looking for a fight at the gas station. Anybody who thought that Rosenbaum wasn't a threat is an idiot since anybody can be a threat in a dark alley.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/juror-dismissed-rittenhouse-trial-joke-about-jacob-blake-shooting-2021-11-04/ *** witness testified that rosenbaum tried to grab the gun ***

https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2020/09/08/kyle-rittenhouse-fire-extinguisher/ *** dumpster fire ***

reply

[–] Befus (493) 2 years ago

I'm just going to say it. You are a fucking fool who refuses to see what's plain and obvious because it doesn't line up with your worldview.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Prove me wrong then

reply

[–] Befus (493) 2 years ago

All you need to do is watch the trial or look at the mountains of proof that's been available on the internet ever since the shooting. But you'll just say the opposite of what you see because you're either a troll who just wants to stir things up, or you're a partisan who can't accept that bullshit your side has been spewing doesn't line up with the facts.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

So, you can’t prove me wrong. Gotcha. I’ve seen all the evidence. The trial was a miscarriage of justice. If Rottenhouse was black then he would have been convicted in less than 24 hours. Boo hoo, poor lil misunderstood murdering white boi.

reply

[–] Befus (493) 2 years ago

I literally told where to find poof. But you like I said refuse to see it.

reply

[–] asom (6509) 2 years ago

You are really ignorant, that's NOT what happened.

reply

[–] immattj (4042) 2 years ago

A semicolon would have been appropriate.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

And here we have a perfect example of how the leftwing media turns its devotees into mindless zombies, spewing out the lies that were spoon-fed to them without even bothering to check if they're true.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Says the guy who probably reads Breitbart for a living. Get a life.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

Typical. Brainwashed moron spouts the lies he learned from the MSM, then criticizes others for the news they listen to.

The media I read and listened to told me the facts about Kyle Rittenhouse and what happened that night, and I came to the conclusion he was going to be found innocent.

And guess what? Unlike you, reality turned out to be on my side.

Seriously, aren't you pissed off that the mainstream media lied to you, causing you to come on here and make a fool of yourself by blathering idiocy?

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

I don’t read MSM. Nice try asshat

You’re very good at making ASS-umptions. Fortunately you’re wrong: everything I’ve said is factually true and substantiated.

You probably got your info from Wisconsin Now or some other alt right source.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

everything I’ve said is factually true and substantiated."

Really?

Kyle shows up with an AR-15 looking for trouble."

Please substantiate how you know what Kyle was thinking.

He shoots somebody because a plastic bag flew in his direction.

The drone footage proves that's a lie. Rosenbaum chased Kyle after threatening to kill him. Kyle ran, and only shot Rosenbaum when Rosenbaum cornered him.

Two others come to apprehend Kyle because they believe he’s an active shooter.

Kyle was running away from them, not shooting anyone. They chased him down and then attacked him.

Clearly self defense.

He kills them. He gets away with it because the Judge wants to eat Mrs Rottenhouse’s carpet.

Please substantiate how you know the judge wanted to perform cunnilingus on Kyle's mother. (Have you seen the woman? That's gross.)

Yeah, you're a moron.

But thanks for provided some laughs in the middle of my day.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Rottenhouse is quoted as saying he wanted to “shoot liberals” while watching the riots on tv.

Rosenbaum never touched Rottenhouse. All he did was follow him, then Rottenhouse shot him when a plastic bag flew his way, hardly “sElF dEfEnSe”.

No one “attacked” Rottenhouse until he unjustly gunned down a man because a plastic bag flew at him. If he’s that nervous around Guns then he shouldn’t carry them as a minor. Or be crossing state lines.

My proof is that the Judge threw the case because he wanted some 80 year old poon tang from Mrs Rottenhouse

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

Rottenhouse is quoted as saying he wanted to “shoot liberals” while watching the riots on tv.

That's a lie.

All he did was follow him, then Rottenhouse shot him when a plastic bag flew his way, hardly “sElF dEfEnSe”.

Rosenbaum threatened to kill him, then chased him.

The drove video shows how he chased him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z9Ov7QBg6U

So you're lying again.

No one “attacked” Rottenhouse until he unjustly gunned down a man because a plastic bag flew at him.

Liar. The drone video shows Rosenbaum attacking him.

If he’s that nervous around Guns then he shouldn’t carry them as a minor.

He was carrying legally.

Or be crossing state lines.

Not sure why you morons keep bringing up 'state lines.'

My proof is that the Judge threw the case because he wanted some 80 year old poon tang from Mrs Rottenhouse

You claimed everything you said was 'substantiated', but you haven't provided any proof to substantiate anything. Your proof is that you said so.

What a fucking idiot.

You retards aren't even trying today.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

It’s not a lie, Rottenhouse is factually quoted as saying he wanted to “shoot liberals” while he watched the riots in tv. Stop denying evidence, it’s not a good look.

Rosenbaum never threatened Rottenhouse, he was speaking generally to a group of guys and Rottenhouse was in earshot. It was never directed at Rottenhouse’s specifically. No threats were made towards him.

That drone footage doesn’t show anything except Rosenbaum following Rottenhouse. Doesn’t show him being attacked if anything. More alt-right lies from retardicans.

Doesn’t matter that he was “carrying legally,” he still crossed state lines when he had no business being there because he wasn’t law enforcement or in any way qualified to be there.

reply

[–] Befus (493) 2 years ago

It is a lie. He said nothing about liberals, and you would know that if you actually watched the clip.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Oh, you’ve seen the clip then? Tell me what he said.

reply

[–] Befus (493) 2 years ago

While watching a group of looters looting and smashing a drugstore he said verbatim

"It looks like one of them has a weapon. Bro I wish I had my fucking AR...I'd start shooting rounds at them."

Literally nothing about liberals. He just said out loud what most of the country was thinking when we watched violent mobs burn loot and murder their way across the nation.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

So you admit that Rottenhouse wanted to shoot liberals. Good job.

reply

[–] Befus (493) 2 years ago

What the fuck is wrong with your head? Or are you implying that all looters and rioters are liberals? Because in that case you'd be more or less correct.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

So you’re saying I’m right then? Gotcha

reply

[–] Befus (493) 2 years ago

I almost feel sorry for trolls like you. Is this really the only way you can feel anything? Going online and spitting lies that anyone with an internet connection and two minutes to spare can disprove?

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

And yet you haven’t once “disproved” any of my main points. In fact you’ve given up. Doesn’t reflect well on your cognitive stamina.

reply

[–] Befus (493) 2 years ago

The evidence disproves your so called points. But you wont accept that.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Can you only repeat one lame talking point Beefus?

reply

[–] Befus (493) 2 years ago

Facts and evidence are "lame talking points". Fucks sake man...

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Lmao, something you clearly lack in spades. The irony….

reply

[–] Befus (493) 2 years ago

I'll say it one more time. Watch the videos and watch the trial. It's plain to see Rittenhouse did nothing wrong. Get fucked troll, I don't care anymore.

reply

[–] Befus (493) 2 years ago

Also the rest of what you said is bullshit too.

He wasn't watching the riots on TV he was there watching it happen right in front of him.

Rosenbaum told Rittenhouse he would kill him if he got him alone. Literally personally threatening him.

The drone footage as well as many other videos from several points of view DO show Rosenbaum attack and then get smoked by Rittenhouse.

What the fuck difference does it make that he crossed state lines? He lived on the border twenty minutes away and worked and had family in Kenosha. He had every right to be there. He wanted to help his community.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

I already debunked most of these points earlier. I accept your defeat now that you’re arguing in circles.

reply

[–] Befus (493) 2 years ago

I'm not arguing in circles. I'm simply restating the facts that you refuse to accept. You didn't debunk anything. Lying about what's plain to see for anyone who actually watched the trial and all the videos is not debunking.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

"It’s not a lie, Rottenhouse is factually quoted as saying he wanted to “shoot liberals”"

Link?

Liar.

"Rosenbaum never threatened Rottenhouse, he was speaking generally to a group of guys and Rottenhouse was in earshot. It was never directed at Rottenhouse’s specifically. No threats were made towards him."

From a witness who, unlike you, was THERE:
https://www.insider.com/witness-says-joseph-rosenbaum-threatened-to-kill-him-and-rittenhouse-2021-11

"When I turned around, Rosenbaum was right there in front of my face, yelling and screaming," Balch said. "I said, 'Back up, chill, I don't know what your problem is.' He goes, 'I catch any of you guys alone tonight, I'm going to fucking kill you.'"

When Binger asked Balch to clarify that Rosenbaum's remarks were directed at both Balch and Rittenhouse, Balch responded, "The defendant was there, so yes."

Liar.

"That drone footage doesn’t show anything except Rosenbaum following Rottenhouse. Doesn’t show him being attacked if anything."

Liar. The drone footage shows Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse, clear as day. The jury saw it. You're just too stupid to see it.

"he still crossed state lines"

Once again, what does 'state lines' have to do with anything?

Moron.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

You’re lucky I can’t debate anymore because the page has run out of room.

reply

[–] Befus (493) 2 years ago

There is no debate. You're blatantly lying about what the evidence says. You're saying what you wish had happened rather than what the evidence plainly shows.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

I’m not lying about the evidence at all. You’re just a butthurt Republican who has attention deficit disorder. Educating you on ethics and logic is rather entertaining though.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

"I’m not lying about the evidence at all."

Of course you are. Otherwise you'd be posting links from serious sources backing up your claims.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

What claims haven’t been backed up? People have posted numerous links to these claims from third party news sources already. I don’t feel compelled to paste anything one can easily find in a few mouse clicks. You’ll just have to take my word for it and do the research yourself.

reply

[–] Befus (493) 2 years ago

How about you just go watch the actual videos and then watch the whole trial instead of ANY news source.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

This must be your official jump the shark moment

reply

[–] immattj (4042) 2 years ago

wat r u toking bout? me n befus no wats happning cuz we ony wach fox nooz! shawn hannty duz not ly!

reply

[–] Befus (493) 2 years ago

Were you dropped on your head as a child?

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

Here comes the mental midget immattj with his cheerleader pom-poms.

Perhaps you can help degray9 out and provide the links to the evidence he claims exists, but somehow can't seem to post them.

He really needs the help. Please?

reply

[–] immattj (4042) 2 years ago

r u seeryus? i woch fox nooz so i no wat happnd!!!!

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

Aw, can't help him, can you?

Too bad. He's drowning in stupidity.

And you're incapable of nothing but throwing rocks from the shore.

reply

[–] immattj (4042) 2 years ago

But why bother?
You guys are like that bat-shit senile old judge.
You are impervious to anything but the version you are locked into.
It would be a waste of time & effort.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

"It would be a waste of time & effort."

Translation: "I got nothing."

You need to stick to correcting others' punctuation. You still look like a moron, but it's not as embarrassing for you.

reply

[–] immattj (4042) 2 years ago

I only correct the punctuation of those who tell me how stupid I am & how intelligent that they are. I believe every word they tell me, as related to their obvious intelligence, & I am just trying to help them get the little things right--the things that might detract from their credibility as a genius.

But seriously, ANYTHING that anybody puts up that doesn't support your version, you guys twist. So it's pointless. You know that's true, but you will twist that also.

So like Bullshit O'Reilley used to say: you get the last word.

reply

[–] Befus (493) 2 years ago

It wouldn't surprise me at all if they're the same person.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

Could be. But it looks to me like one idiot spewing bullshit, and the other idiot wanting to join in, but having nothing intelligent to add.

But yeah, they could be the same psycho acting in both roles.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

How clever, responding to your own sock account.

You’re not fooling anyone.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

Now you're just getting desperate.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

And yet you keep responding…

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

Just trying to get you to debate honestly.

reply

[–] Befus (493) 2 years ago

You are so fucking pathetic. I'm telling you to watch the actual videos and you just keep saying they don't show what they do show.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

"You’ll just have to take my word for it and do the research yourself."

Hahahahahahaha!

What a fucking idiot.

Take your word for it and do the research myself.

LOL! I'm dying.

What a clueless fuck.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

The fact you don’t know how to take basic advice and use a search engine is painful. I weep for your generation.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

"The fact you don’t know how to take basic advice and use a search engine is painful. "

The fact that you don't know how debate works, where a person makes a claim and backs it up with evidence, and doesn't say, "research it yourself" just proves you're a moron.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

It’s like asking someone to prove that the pyramids exist. It’s a classic stalling tactic used by fallacious tools like yourself. You would just ignore the evidence anyway. But if you really really want I guess I can Google it for you. Say pretty please.

The fact you can’t just look this up yourself doesn’t speak well for your mental age. It’s literally the FIRST thing that pops up…. Useless twat.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

"It’s like asking someone to prove that the pyramids exist. "

So you're bullshit claims are just like the pyramids existing?

Hahahahahaha!

Fucking moron.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Hahaha, yeah it’s called Google, must be easy to deny the obvious

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

Yes, it's Google.

So easy for you to provide a link to back up your claims.

And yet you refuse to do so.

So the only logical conclusion is that you can't.

See? Simple logic.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Yes, it’s Google.

So easy for you to look up the link to see the obvious.

And yet you refuse to do so.

So the only logical conclusion is that you won’t.

See? Simple logic.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

Once again, you're too stupid to understand that the one making the claim, has the duty to back up that claim.

It's how debate works.

Seriously, are you retarded?

reply

[–] asom (6509) 2 years ago

Seriously, do you have to ask??

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

It's unbelievable. Like talking to a child.

He's like, "He gets away with it because the Judge wants to eat Mrs Rottenhouse’s carpet."

Any proof of that?

"Just Google it!"

Hahahahahaha! It's actually pretty funny.

reply

[–] asom (6509) 2 years ago

Yeah, but very sad.

And to realize that a LOT of Americans 'think" the same way ...

reply

[–] Befus (493) 2 years ago

I'm not a republican and you're not educating anybody. All you doing is displaying you're own ignorance and bias.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Regardless, you fall on the right side of the political spectrum mouthing Republican talking points. I continue to illuminate your brain with pertinent information you’re too lazy to put together yourself. What else sage wisdom can I impact?

reply

[–] immattj (4042) 2 years ago

You are wasting your time attempting to illuminate something that does not exist.

reply

[–] Befus (493) 2 years ago

Self defense is an individual right. Left and right have nothing to do with it.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Right wingers feel empowered when one of their toys starts gunning people down in the street. It gives them Wild West boners that makes them yearn for the old days when women and Minorities knew their place.

reply

[–] Befus (493) 2 years ago

You have no idea what you're talking about. People who carry don't want to have to use their gun any more than they want use their fire extinguisher to save their house from burning down or their seat belt to save them in a car crash. It's literally the same mindset. We think of them as emergency equipment that we hope and prey we never need, but if we do it will at least give us a fighting chance.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Lmao, Rottenmouse admitte d he couldn’t wait to use his gun. He went there wanting to shoot libs.

Fact: people who own guns are more like to be part of gun violence. Rottenmouse should have been more like the EMT.

reply

[–] Befus (493) 2 years ago

Go ahead, keep spitting lies and nonsense about things you know nothing about.

reply

[–] immattj (4042) 2 years ago

Rottenhouse is a wanna be EMT-B. Gaige Grosskreutz ios a paramedic.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

"I continue to illuminate your brain with pertinent information"

Hahahahahahaha!

You're killing me! LOL!

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

It’s not hard to logically kill you, RinkyDink

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

Then you should try it sometime.

Like actually providing actual evidence.

Not just bloviating and telling me to look things up for you.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Bloviating must be your new favourite word, must be a projection of your smooth-brained self.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

"Bloviating must be your new favourite word"

No, it just pops up frequently when responding to your posts.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Yes, it’s like you think repeating the same word over and over is the height of wit because it has more than 6 letters. Cute

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

"Yes, it’s like you think repeating the same word over and over is the height of wit"

Nope. I'm a professional writer. It's how I make my living.

So I've learned to use the appropriate words that fit the situation.

And you are a bloviator if there ever was one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloviation

Bloviation is a style of empty, pompous, political speech which originated in Ohio and was used by US President Warren G. Harding, who described it as "the art of speaking for as long as the occasion warrants, and saying nothing". His opponent, William Gibbs McAdoo, described "the impression of an army of pompous phrases moving over the landscape in search of an idea."

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Fascinating, but no one asked

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

Just pointing out why the word fits you so well.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

The lengths you’ll go to for approval is sad.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

The lengths you'll go to avoid posting proof of your claims is pathetic.

The first two rules of debate:

https://www.sdstate.edu/students-association/keys-successful-debate

Provide relevant points that connect to the topic.

Provide proofs and credible data instead of just solely your own opinion. Your opinion is great and your experiences matter. Help bolster your claims by inserting data.

Do you understand the second point? Or is your skull too thick for it to sink in? Do you need help with the longer words?

It doesn't say, "Tell your opponent to provide data to back up your claims."

Moron.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

The fact you’re able to Google some random link no one asked for to make a nonexistent point, yet still unable to Google the basic evidence of the case as instructed is just making your stubborn ignorance all the more visible with each passing moment. Are you being purposefully obtuse in order to draw this out even further?

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

This is going nowhere. From now on, this will be my response to any post you make in this thread that isn't evidence to back up your claims:

The first two rules of debate:

https://www.sdstate.edu/students-association/keys-successful-debate

Provide relevant points that connect to the topic.

Provide proofs and credible data instead of just solely your own opinion. Your opinion is great and your experiences matter. Help bolster your claims by inserting data.

Do you understand the second point? Or is your skull too thick for it to sink in? Do you need help with the longer words?

It doesn't say, "Tell your opponent to provide data to back up your claims."

Moron.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

The irony. For all your prattling on about “the basic code of debating” you’ve forgotten the cardinal rule. Guess brevity is lost on you Huh? Give it a rest, it’s probably 1AM where you are.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

This is going nowhere. From now on, this will be my reply until you actually provide evidence of your claims.

The first two rules of debate:

https://www.sdstate.edu/students-association/keys-successful-debate

Provide relevant points that connect to the topic.

Provide proofs and credible data instead of just solely your own opinion. Your opinion is great and your experiences matter. Help bolster your claims by inserting data.

Do you understand the second point? Or is your skull too thick for it to sink in? Do you need help with the longer words?

It doesn't say, "Tell your opponent to provide data to back up your claims."

Moron.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Copy pasting/given up so soon? This is just sad.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

This is going nowhere. From now on, this will be my reply until you actually provide evidence of your claims.

The first two rules of debate:

https://www.sdstate.edu/students-association/keys-successful-debate

Provide relevant points that connect to the topic.

Provide proofs and credible data instead of just solely your own opinion. Your opinion is great and your experiences matter. Help bolster your claims by inserting data.

Do you understand the second point? Or is your skull too thick for it to sink in? Do you need help with the longer words?

It doesn't say, "Tell your opponent to provide data to back up your claims."

Moron.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

"You’re lucky I can’t debate anymore"

This was a debate?

LOL!

No, it was just you tossing out stupid lies without any evidence whatsoever.

You give yourself too much credit, moron.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

You’re right, it’s not a debate when I’ve been utterly wiping the floor with your points. Is that your asberger’s kicking in where you feel compelled to reply like an indignant lemming every time? You don’t have to fulfill your own stereotype.

Link?

It’s called Google you illiterate swine.

From a witness who, unlike you, was THERE:

Jesus, your points are so pathetic. Witnesses are notoriously unreliable. However, if you want to play that game then there’s another who testified that t Rosenbaum wasn’t acting like a threat. See, I can bring up evidence too. Regardless what was allegedly said or done hours before Rottenhous’s murderous rampage, the fact remains that at the moment Rottenhouse was in the parking lot with Rosenbaum that his life was not in immediate danger.

There is nothing in the drone footage to constitute a warranty of self defense. Like I said, it shows Rosenbaum following Rottenhouse’s into parking lot. Rottenhouse was looking for trouble.

The fact you can’t see how crossing state lines reinforces my overall position in this lecture I’m giving you just makes it clearer how myopic you are. Are you gonna bark more little alt-right doggie?

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

"It’s called Google you illiterate swine."

LOL! So you get to make dumbass claims, and I'm the one who has to look them up?

Hahahahaha!

You're an idiot.

"Witnesses are notoriously unreliable."

Someone who was there and saw what happened is much more reliable than a dumb-ass poster pulling shit out of his ass on a message board.

"However, if you want to play that game then there’s another who testified that t Rosenbaum wasn’t acting like a threat."

Link?

"Regardless what was allegedly said or done hours before Rottenhous’s murderous rampage, the fact remains that at the moment Rottenhouse was in the parking lot with Rosenbaum that his life was not in immediate danger."

Actually, the TRUE FACT is that the jury saw all the evidence and determined that Rittenhouse was not guilty. It's also a TRUE FACT you're a moron spewing bullshit on a message board.

"There is nothing in the drone footage to constitute a warranty of self defense. Like I said, it shows Rosenbaum following Rottenhouse’s into parking lot. "

No, it shows Rosenbaum CHASING Rittenhouse into a parking lot. You're so dishonest you can't even admit that simple fact. And like I said, the jury saw the video, and determined that Rittenhouse was defending himself.

Them: Jurors sworn to be unbiased.
You: Some metal midget bloviating on a message board.

See the difference?

"The fact you can’t see how crossing state lines reinforces my overall position in this lecture I’m giving you just makes it clearer how myopic you are."

Translation: "I can't explain why crossing state lines means anything, so I'll just spew more bullshit."

You're pathetic, dude.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

you get to make dumbass claims, and I'm the one who has to look them up?

Well… yeah. For one I have not requested any links from you because I never denied what factually happened. All of your “links” are irrelevant to my main points. It’s also how I know you’re not very knowledgeable about the case. It’s been mentioned numerous times in other threads that this testimony happened. I don’t really feel compelled to find it for you, nor you to find anything for me.

Someone who was there and saw what happened is much more reliable than a dumb-ass poster pulling shit out of his ass on a message board.

So you’re referring to yourself? I also quoted an eyewitness. That makes you a hypocrite.

TRUE FACT is that the jury saw all the evidence and determined that Rittenhouse was not guilty.

Yeah, it like there’s problems with our jury system not that juries haven’t made wrong conclusions before. Suuuuure lol

No, it shows Rosenbaum CHASING Rittenhouse into a parking lot.

I don’t really give a sh!t about what some inbred jury members concocted in their brains. It’s hilarious that anyone could scrounge that much imaginary detail from some grainy footage. All you can see are two dots approaching each other in a parking lot. Hardly enough evidence that Rottenshack was “in fear for his life.” Pretty sure it had more to do with his underdeveloped teenage brain shooting hormones.

Them: Jurors sworn to be unbiased.

Lmao it’s cute you have that much faith in jury systems . You’d be right at home in some banana republic, oh wait, you’re already there

The fact that you can’t connect the dots between crossing state lines and my original point has clearly caused the wires in your head to cross and malfunction. I’m clearly the Chad debated here, you Virgin intellectual cuck

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

"All of your “links” are irrelevant to my main points."

So me posting a link to a witness who was THERE and contradicts what you're claiming is irrelevant to your points?

So you're admitting that facts are irrelevant to your points.

Thanks for clearing that up.

"It’s been mentioned numerous times in other threads that this testimony happened. I don’t really feel compelled to find it for you"

Because it doesn't exist. If it did, you would post it.

"I also quoted an eyewitness."

Link?

You obviously don't understand what 'quoted' means.

"Yeah, it like there’s problems with our jury system not that juries haven’t made wrong conclusions before."

Juries have come to the correct conclusions WAY more often than idiots bloviating on message boards.

"I don’t really give a sh!t about what some inbred jury members concocted in their brains. It’s hilarious that anyone could scrounge that much imaginary detail from some grainy footage. All you can see are two dots approaching each other in a parking lot. Hardly enough evidence that Rottenshack was “in fear for his life.” Pretty sure it had more to do with his underdeveloped teenage brain shooting hormones."

Actually, the video footage was fairly clear, especially the blown up version that was high-def. You could even see the smoke from the rifle. If you're claiming it was just 'two dots', you obviously didn't watch it.

Liar.

"Lmao it’s cute you have that much faith in jury systems . You’d be right at home in some banana republic, oh wait, you’re already there"

Actually, a banana republic is where you couldn't trust the judicial system.

You're stupid.

"The fact that you can’t connect the dots between crossing state lines and my original point"

And once again, you can't explain why crossing state lines is relevant in this case. So you keep on bloviating.

Idiot.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Thanks for clearing that up.

It doesn’t “contradict” my point at all, lmao.

By the way, I also quoted an eye witness.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Because it doesn't exist

The fact you refuse to look up doesn’t mean it’s nonexistent. I haven’t asked for any of the links you posted because I knew it all beforehand. Doesn’t budge any of my arguments one iota.

Link?

Google.com

you couldn't trust the judicial system.

Clap clap clap yay you got it!

you can't explain why crossing state lines is relevant in this case

Just because you’ve conveniently forgotten my original point doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant. Just more deflection on your part

Keep it up champ

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

"By the way, I also quoted an eye witness."

No, you didn't. You said this:

"However, if you want to play that game then there’s another who testified that t Rosenbaum wasn’t acting like a threat."

That's not you quoting a witness. That's you claiming a witness said something. What's the actual quote and who said it?

Jeeze, you really are stupid.

"The fact you refuse to look up doesn’t mean it’s nonexistent."

No, the fact you refuse to post your links means they're nonexistent.

Once again, that's how intelligent debate works. You make a claim and then you back it up with proof.

Do you really need this explained to you?

Idiot.

"Clap clap clap yay you got it!"

Um, we're not living in a banana republic.

Derp.

"Just because you’ve conveniently forgotten my original point doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant."

And you're STILL not explaining why crossing state lines is relevant.

Hahahahahahaha!

This is like arguing with a five-year-old.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

The actual quote is something you can Google in 2 seconds. If you really understood the fact then you wouldn’t have this much trouble accepting it. Your continuous denial just highlights your highly visible lack of intellect and maturity.

The proof is literally two mouse clicks away. I’ll Google it for you if you say pretty please though. Deal?

we're not living in a banana republic.

Your naïveté is astounding. I lesrn something new about your cognitive dissonance with each response.

And you're STILL not explaining why crossing state lines is relevant.

And you’re STILL unable to scroll back up and read what I wrote. Why should I care if you can’t keep up with the conversation?

This is like playing chess with a pigeon.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

"The actual quote is something you can Google in 2 seconds."

So why don't you Google it? Prove your claim. That's how debate works.

"I’ll Google it for you if you say pretty please though. Deal?"

You want me to say pretty please for you to back up some dumbass claim you made?

Hahahahaha! You're fucking brain dead.

"Your naïveté is astounding. I lesrn something new about your cognitive dissonance with each response."

So you're saying the U.S. is a banana republic?

Good god, you are pathetic.

"And you’re STILL unable to scroll back up and read what I wrote."

Nope, you STILL haven't explained why crossing state lines is relevant to this case.

STILL waiting.

Now I'm wondering, are you Keelai? You debate in the same dumbass way. Refusing to answer simple questions.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

So why don't you Google it? Prove

I have already. I’ve read it numerous times. Yet you refuse to even attempt to look it up on principle. The fear coming from you is so palpable.

You want me to say pretty please

the fact your ego won’t let you ask for the evidence is funny. I guess you’re really not interested then. Don’t say I didn’t offer.

you STILL haven't explained why crossing state lines

Just because you didn’t pay attention the first time doesn’t mean it was never explained. Do you comprehend basic literacy?

Refusing to answer simple questions.

There’s no question I haven’t answered. More deflection on your part and stalling. This is fun

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

This is going nowhere. From now on, this will be my reply until you actually provide evidence of your claims.

The first two rules of debate:

https://www.sdstate.edu/students-association/keys-successful-debate

Provide relevant points that connect to the topic.

Provide proofs and credible data instead of just solely your own opinion. Your opinion is great and your experiences matter. Help bolster your claims by inserting data.

Do you understand the second point? Or is your skull too thick for it to sink in? Do you need help with the longer words?

It doesn't say, "Tell your opponent to provide data to back up your claims."

Moron.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

I already have provided evidence you daft twat. I gave you explicit instructions on how to find it. The fact you’re spending more time AVOIDING looking it up for yourself because of your fragile ego just shows how much of a cowardly Manlet you are. Also I literally OFFERED to Google it for you but you’re too lazy/scared to even accept that. Good night sweet cheeks

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

This is going nowhere. From now on, this will be my reply until you actually provide evidence of your claims.

The first two rules of debate:

https://www.sdstate.edu/students-association/keys-successful-debate

Provide relevant points that connect to the topic.

Provide proofs and credible data instead of just solely your own opinion. Your opinion is great and your experiences matter. Help bolster your claims by inserting data.

Do you understand the second point? Or is your skull too thick for it to sink in? Do you need help with the longer words?

It doesn't say, "Tell your opponent to provide data to back up your claims."

Moron.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Last word creep?

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

This is going nowhere. From now on, this will be my reply until you actually provide evidence of your claims.

The first two rules of debate:

https://www.sdstate.edu/students-association/keys-successful-debate

Provide relevant points that connect to the topic.

Provide proofs and credible data instead of just solely your own opinion. Your opinion is great and your experiences matter. Help bolster your claims by inserting data.

Do you understand the second point? Or is your skull too thick for it to sink in? Do you need help with the longer words?

It doesn't say, "Tell your opponent to provide data to back up your claims."

Moron.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

You mad bro?

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

This is going nowhere. From now on, this will be my reply until you actually provide evidence of your claims.

The first two rules of debate:

https://www.sdstate.edu/students-association/keys-successful-debate

Provide relevant points that connect to the topic.

Provide proofs and credible data instead of just solely your own opinion. Your opinion is great and your experiences matter. Help bolster your claims by inserting data.

Do you understand the second point? Or is your skull too thick for it to sink in? Do you need help with the longer words?

It doesn't say, "Tell your opponent to provide data to back up your claims."

Moron.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Staying mad

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

This is going nowhere. From now on, this will be my reply until you actually provide evidence of your claims.

The first two rules of debate:

https://www.sdstate.edu/students-association/keys-successful-debate

Provide relevant points that connect to the topic.

Provide proofs and credible data instead of just solely your own opinion. Your opinion is great and your experiences matter. Help bolster your claims by inserting data.

Do you understand the second point? Or is your skull too thick for it to sink in? Do you need help with the longer words?

It doesn't say, "Tell your opponent to provide data to back up your claims."

Moron.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

This is sad

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

This is going nowhere. From now on, this will be my reply until you actually provide evidence of your claims.

The first two rules of debate:

https://www.sdstate.edu/students-association/keys-successful-debate

Provide relevant points that connect to the topic.

Provide proofs and credible data instead of just solely your own opinion. Your opinion is great and your experiences matter. Help bolster your claims by inserting data.

Do you understand the second point? Or is your skull too thick for it to sink in? Do you need help with the longer words?

It doesn't say, "Tell your opponent to provide data to back up your claims."

Moron.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Stay mad boi

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

This is going nowhere. From now on, this will be my reply until you actually provide evidence of your claims.

The first two rules of debate:

https://www.sdstate.edu/students-association/keys-successful-debate

Provide relevant points that connect to the topic.

Provide proofs and credible data instead of just solely your own opinion. Your opinion is great and your experiences matter. Help bolster your claims by inserting data.

Do you understand the second point? Or is your skull too thick for it to sink in? Do you need help with the longer words?

It doesn't say, "Tell your opponent to provide data to back up your claims."

Moron.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Still mad I see

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

This is going nowhere. From now on, this will be my reply until you actually provide evidence of your claims.

The first two rules of debate:

https://www.sdstate.edu/students-association/keys-successful-debate

Provide relevant points that connect to the topic.

Provide proofs and credible data instead of just solely your own opinion. Your opinion is great and your experiences matter. Help bolster your claims by inserting data.

Do you understand the second point? Or is your skull too thick for it to sink in? Do you need help with the longer words?

It doesn't say, "Tell your opponent to provide data to back up your claims."

Moron.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Pathetic

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

This is going nowhere. From now on, this will be my reply until you actually provide evidence of your claims.

The first two rules of debate:

https://www.sdstate.edu/students-association/keys-successful-debate

Provide relevant points that connect to the topic.

Provide proofs and credible data instead of just solely your own opinion. Your opinion is great and your experiences matter. Help bolster your claims by inserting data.

Do you understand the second point? Or is your skull too thick for it to sink in? Do you need help with the longer words?

It doesn't say, "Tell your opponent to provide data to back up your claims."

Moron.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Still mad I see

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

degray9:

He gets away with it because the Judge wants to eat Mrs Rottenhouse’s carpet.

Me:

Any proof of that claim?

degray9:

You’ll just have to take my word for it and do the research yourself.

Me:

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

I googled it in 2 seconds… why can’t you do the same?

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

degray9:

He gets away with it because the Judge wants to eat Mrs Rottenhouse’s carpet.

Me:

Any proof of that claim?

degray9:

You’ll just have to take my word for it and do the research yourself.

Me:

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Still unable to Google basic info I see. Stay mad kid.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

degray9:

He gets away with it because the Judge wants to eat Mrs Rottenhouse’s carpet.

Me:

Any proof of that claim?

degray9:

You’ll just have to take my word for it and do the research yourself.

Me:

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Still mad I see. Hilarious

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

degray9:

He gets away with it because the Judge wants to eat Mrs Rottenhouse’s carpet.

Me:

Any proof of that claim?

degray9:

You’ll just have to take my word for it and do the research yourself.

Me:

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Still mad I see

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

degray9:

He gets away with it because the Judge wants to eat Mrs Rottenhouse’s carpet.

Me:

Any proof of that claim?

degray9:

You’ll just have to take my word for it and do the research yourself.

Me:

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Still mad I see. This is funny.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

degray9:

He gets away with it because the Judge wants to eat Mrs Rottenhouse’s carpet.

Me:

Any proof of that claim?

degray9:

You’ll just have to take my word for it and do the research yourself.

Me:

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Mad cuz bad

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

degray9:

He gets away with it because the Judge wants to eat Mrs Rottenhouse’s carpet.

Me:

Any proof of that claim?

degray9:

You’ll just have to take my word for it and do the research yourself.

Me:

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Yup still mad

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

degray9:

He gets away with it because the Judge wants to eat Mrs Rottenhouse’s carpet.

Me:

Any proof of that claim?

degray9:

You’ll just have to take my word for it and do the research yourself.

Me:

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Reply if you’re gay

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

degray9:

He gets away with it because the Judge wants to eat Mrs Rottenhouse’s carpet.

Me:

Any proof of that claim?

degray9:

You’ll just have to take my word for it and do the research yourself.

Me:

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Yep you’re gay

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

degray9:

He gets away with it because the Judge wants to eat Mrs Rottenhouse’s carpet.

Me:

Any proof of that claim?

degray9:

You’ll just have to take my word for it and do the research yourself.

Me:

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Cry more

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

degray9:

He gets away with it because the Judge wants to eat Mrs Rottenhouse’s carpet.

Me:

Any proof of that claim?

degray9:

You’ll just have to take my word for it and do the research yourself.

Me:

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Ooh if you feel like trolling me a lifetime of devotion, I second that emotion

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

degray9:

He gets away with it because the Judge wants to eat Mrs Rottenhouse’s carpet.

Me:

Any proof of that claim?

degray9:

You’ll just have to take my word for it and do the research yourself.

Me:

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Reply if you think you’re an assclown

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

degray9:

He gets away with it because the Judge wants to eat Mrs Rottenhouse’s carpet.

Me:

Any proof of that claim?

degray9:

You’ll just have to take my word for it and do the research yourself.

Me:

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Reply if you want to blow me

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

degray9:

He gets away with it because the Judge wants to eat Mrs Rottenhouse’s carpet.

Me:

Any proof of that claim?

degray9:

You’ll just have to take my word for it and do the research yourself.

Me:

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

If you respond again it means that you really want to blow me. Deal?

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

degray9:

He gets away with it because the Judge wants to eat Mrs Rottenhouse’s carpet.

Me:

Any proof of that claim?

degray9:

You’ll just have to take my word for it and do the research yourself.

Me:

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Oh yeah, open wide baby. Meet Md DeGray. Respond to open your mouth.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

degray9:

He gets away with it because the Judge wants to eat Mrs Rottenhouse’s carpet.

Me:

Any proof of that claim?

degray9:

You’ll just have to take my word for it and do the research yourself.

Me:

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

OH YEAH FEELS GOOD BABY, KEEP IT UP

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

Wow. Your homosexual fantasies are disturbing.

degray9:

He gets away with it because the Judge wants to eat Mrs Rottenhouse’s carpet.

Me:

Any proof of that claim?

degray9:

You’ll just have to take my word for it and do the research yourself.

Me:

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Nothin homosexual about getting your knob shined. Way I see it, you’re gay for shining my knob. Now keep at it boi

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

Wow. Your homosexual fantasies are disturbing.

degray9:

He gets away with it because the Judge wants to eat Mrs Rottenhouse’s carpet.

Me:

Any proof of that claim?

degray9:

You’ll just have to take my word for it and do the research yourself.

Me:

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Respond if you molest children

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

Wow. Your homosexual fantasies are disturbing.

degray9:

He gets away with it because the Judge wants to eat Mrs Rottenhouse’s carpet.

Me:

Any proof of that claim?

degray9:

You’ll just have to take my word for it and do the research yourself.

Me:

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

If you respond again you’ll be admitting to be a child molester. Deal?

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1693) 2 years ago

"but gunning people down in the street because they threw plastic bags at someone"

The following enhanced drone video clearly shows Rosenbaum chasing after Rittenhouse. No bag is thrown at the time of the shooting.

This is the video the jury saw that convinced them Rittenhouse was acting in self defense. Anyone with a brain can see it in the video.

Which obviously excludes you.

The drone footage begins around the 20 second mark:
https://www.yahoo.com/now/enhanced-drone-video-shows-first-155330597.html

This footage shows that idiots claiming Rittenhouse wasn't acting in self defense are dishonest assholes.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Wonder if RinkyDink realized I never responded and he’s an idiot

reply

[–] asom (6509) 2 years ago

Nothing you say is factually true. And that's a fact!!!

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

It’s a fact you’re an alt-right shill. How much they pay you to spread propaganda?

reply

[–] asom (6509) 2 years ago

Not as much as the communists pay you, unfortunately.

I could switch sides but at least the right pays me to tell the truth and I have a conscience, your side pays you to spread lies and propaganda and you enjoy it.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Hilarious, right wingers believe in communism for the rich, capitalism for the rest of us.

reply

[–] asom (6509) 2 years ago

Another non-factual claim that you make that you will NEVER bother to back up.

Let me guess, another thing I should google for myself ...

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Uh yeah, it’s common knowledge, I guess you don’t read books either. Great job flaunting your ignorance. Lower-IQ individuals are always flabbergasted when people say the obvious.

reply

[–] asom (6509) 2 years ago

it's common knowledge but so common that you cannot give ONE example.

As usual you're full of lies and bullshit propaganda.

It's common knowledge that you are a leftist moron so I don't need to add anything.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

I really don’t feel compelled to point out the obvious t you. Do you want me to Google everything for you? There’s no excuse for your own ignorance in this day and age. Lemme guess, you want “examples” that the Eiffel Tower exists as well? Don’t get out much do ya?

reply

[–] asom (6509) 2 years ago

There's nothing obvious here except for your ignorance and lies.

Guess what, If you would ask me about the Eiffel Towe I would assume that you are ignorant and stupid and give you AT least 2 sites to educate you about it. Because I'm a nice person and because I like to keep all my claims based on reality and I like to prove my point.

Which you obviously ... don't. For the simple reason that you cannot.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Are you really that dense and uneducated that you’ve never heard the term “socialism for the rich”? I’m amazed you’re able to dress yourself in the morning without assistance. Or maybe you can’t. Would explain a lot.

reply

[–] asom (6509) 2 years ago

You said "communism" now you switched to "socialism". Of course for an uneducated ignoramus like yourself the two are the same. Guess what: for people that actually read books they are NOT the same.

The socialist shit: I heard it a lot, professed by idiots like you that don't understand basic economy and what a loan is.

I was just waiting for you to bring some arguments that would had been so easy to refute. But you didn't bring any so ...

No wonder you don't understand why the prosecution lost big time in this trial, because they basically did what you're doing: lying and providing no evidence for their lies, and when they provide evidence that evidence proves that they are lying ...

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Communism is an advanced stage of socialism. This really isn’t that hard a concept to grasp . I switched out the words because it’s a colloquial term and easy to understand… except for ‘tards like yourself.

Also you keep claiming I “don’t know the facts of the case” and are “lying” when so far you are grasping and straws and have been unable to prove or backup any of your attempted character assassination. At this point I’m just running rings around you. Cry more kiddo.

reply

[–] asom (6509) 2 years ago

"Communism is an advanced stage of socialism." false. Like everything you're saying. But for you IS a hard concept to grasp. Go read.

While socialism is regarded as an intermediate step to communism it is quite different and communism is NOT an advanced stage of socialism.

You switched out the words because you are a moron that doesn't even know the terms.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Actually it’s quite common knowledge that socialism is just another step on the path to communism/Marxism, as illustrated by Karl Marx himself. Maybe try picking up a book and reading it properly next time?

I switched out the words to make it easier for you to comprehend basic logic. After all, it’s you who’s accusing people of being “communists” when you literally don’t even know what the term means. Hilarious and ironic.

reply

[–] asom (6509) 2 years ago

"Actually it’s quite common knowledge that socialism is just another step on the path to communism/Marxism" that's what I said, you idiot, but that doesn't make communism "and advanced stage of socialism". Again, read your books.

You switched out the words because you are ignorant.

And even if you talk about socialism, you brought no evidence for the claim. A claim that it's false anyway, the "rich" bailouts
(actually institutions/corporate bailouts, a lot of regular people have shares in those and their money were saved as well) were nothing else but loans that had been paid back, with interest, but an idiot like you wouldn't know that. So there is NO socialism there. But again, a dumbfuck like yourself has no idea.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Actually it’s fairly common knowledge that socialism is just another stepping stone on the path to communism/Marxism as Karl Marx wrote himself. But I wouldn’t expect an illiterate like yourself to be able to comprehend basic logic like that, considering you’re the type to accuse people of being communists with zero evidence. Hilarious and ironic.

Also we’re not talking about “bailouts” either but corporate welfare and wasteful taxpayer spending, something with Retardicans like yourself are so fond of, even when you can’t tell you’re being ripped off by the morons you vote into office. Hilarious and pathetic.

I’m here all day to educate you.

reply

[–] asom (6509) 2 years ago

The "not guilty" verdict proves how wrong and stupid and full of bullshit and lies you are. And this is a FACT!!!!

You should hide and cry in the face of palpable reality that contradicts your made up fantasy.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

Yeah, not like it was aknagaroo court or anything with a senile, out of touch judge who was determined to set Rottenmouse free. Congratulations, you’re one of many who just recognized the flaws in our broken “justice” system.

reply

[–] asom (6509) 2 years ago

"have been unable to prove or backup any of your attempted character assassination."

Wait?? WHAT?? The one that says "you can google it" now asks for proof??

WTF??

Are you that stupid?? Why don't YOU google it yourself???

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

I already have googled it. Why can’t you do the same?

reply

[–] nte1igentwon (933) 2 years ago

Don't forget him pointing his rifle at random demonstrators which instigated the VICTIMS trying to disarm him.

reply

[–] beancrisp (1422) 2 years ago

FACT: Bearing arms is not looking for trouble. Prove me wrong.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 2 years ago

FACT: you don’t know what facts are

reply

[–] SamNoyoun (4462) 2 years ago

The criminal records of the shooting victims and the lack of Kyle's are/were completely irrelevant to the case...

reply

[–] joej2923 (2959) 2 years ago

I disagree. Criminal and mental histories need to be made available to juries for consideration. An evaluation of an individual's history can reveal their tendencies and motives. The rioters and looters that attacked Kyle Rittenhouse all had lengthy criminal records while Kyle Rittenhouse did not.

reply

[–] SamNoyoun (4462) 2 years ago

I stand corrected, a defendant's criminal history(or lack thereof) does indeed come into play, but the fact remains that those of his alleged victims most certainly do NOT...https://aizmanlaw.com/how-criminal-history-affects-open-cases/

reply

[–] joej2923 (2959) 2 years ago

There may not be a correct answer in that each court case has its own set of facts and circumstances. I think there should be full transparency in court but there does appear to be a limit on criminal and mental history disclosure in the courts.

Rule 404(b) allows criminal evidence to be introduced to a court proceeding when it can be used to show a motive, intent, opportunity and few other things. The Arbery case lawyers are arguing over the inclusion of his criminal history under 404(b) so some judges do allow a victim's prior criminal history. Judges apparently decide whether to include or exclude evidence. I would conclude that Rosenbaum's history of violence and pedophilia would be relevant since he was chasing a seventeen-year-old male.

Rule 404(b). North Carolina Rule of Evidence 404(b) creates another exception to the limits on character evidence. It allows evidence of specific crimes, wrongs, or acts “for other purposes,” such as motive, intent, preparation, plan, and absence of mistake. The North Carolina courts have held that Rule 404(b) is a rule of inclusion. See State v. Coffey, 326 N.C. 268, 278–79 (1990). Prior acts, including acts of the victim, are admissible if they are relevant for some purpose other than to show that the person has the propensity, or character, to commit the current act under consideration.

https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/evidence-about-the-victim-in-self-defense-cases/

reply

[–] TriumphReq (1857) 2 years ago

Here's the scary irony. He killed an Aryan. He brown haired chubby faced milkboy killed an Aryan.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (14821) 2 years ago

They were all Jews lol.

Idiot.

reply

[–] CraigC (6956) 2 years ago

You are judged by those you revere as heroes. Nuff said.

That "support system" as you call it is the Constitution of the United States. I know it irritates you so I humbly request you move to China where they don't have one.

reply

[–] asom (6509) 2 years ago

Correct, it's about justice being preserved.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (10988) 2 years ago

Nobody was murdered. Didn't you hear the trial results?

reply

[–] tom8 (2903) 2 years ago

3 heroes?
LOL, this fucking moron right here hahahahaha

reply

[–] Starduster (268) 2 years ago

Perpetuating lies and making criminals into heroes. This is EXACTLY what the criminal left stands for.

Three man all with criminal backgrounds are now being labeled as "Hero's".
One of them, Rosenbaum is a convicted child molester and rapist.
When else in history have sick fucks lined up and called child molesters/rapists HERO'S.

reply

[–] immattj (4042) 2 years ago

A couple of unarmed citizens heroically attempting to disarm a mass shooter.

reply

[–] Starduster (268) 2 years ago

WTF are you yammering about .mass shooter????????????????
NOBODY was shot until they attempted to attack Rittenhouse. He them shot in DEFENSE
All evidence showed that.

reply

[–] asom (6509) 2 years ago

He's just a troll, you can safely ignore anything he says.

reply