Rittenhouse Trial Rant - Printable Version +- Rogue-Nation3 (https://rogue-nation3.com) +-- Forum: General and Breaking News Events (https://rogue-nation3.com/forum-11.html) +--- Forum: General News and Events (https://rogue-nation3.com/forum-13.html) +--- Thread: Rittenhouse Trial Rant (/thread-7995.html) Pages:
1
2
|
RE: Rittenhouse Trial Rant - Ninurta - 11-19-2021 (11-19-2021, 08:12 PM)ABNARTY Wrote:(11-19-2021, 07:42 PM)Ninurta Wrote: Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty on all charges. I hope they gave those 500 Guardsmen loaded magazines this time, unlike the unloaded guns they send them to the border with. Don't forget - he's got a crap ton of potentially lucrative civil suits against a whole lot of know it all loud mouths that he needs to be pursuing to helpfully assist some folks to learn about shooting their mouths off before they load their brains! Already on social media the Leftist troops are massing up and bemoaning what they think is "legalization of murder" - never mind the fact that the jury determined it was NOT murder, they will not be denied! One went so far as to say "what if it was your family member he shot? Wouldn't you want justice?" Well, first off, I try to teach my family members not to run in unreasoning, murderous, arsonist mobs, and second of all, if they are dumb enough to attack an armed man who has done them no wrong while they are high on an overdose of stupidity, they get what they get, so justice WAS served! And this just in, from Babylon Bee: https://babylonbee.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-asked-to-step-outside-and-defend-the-courthouse-while-verdict-is-being-read?fbclid=IwAR2_d8zLnvTOZQHmtSnpLRByzpjiLqgwV8FsSQksDkh8ZMq_A56-MZXdWjY . RE: Rittenhouse Trial Rant - BIAD - 11-19-2021 (11-19-2021, 08:31 PM)Ninurta Wrote: Already on social media the Leftist troops are massing up and bemoaning what they think is "legalization of murder" This is what is so alarming with today's debating tactics, not the question... the wording of the question like it is based in reality! 'What if', 'Imagine for a moment' and 'Maybe'...all fanciful offerings of mental conceptualisations. RE: Rittenhouse Trial Rant - Ninurta - 11-19-2021 (11-19-2021, 08:53 PM)BIAD Wrote:(11-19-2021, 08:31 PM)Ninurta Wrote: Already on social media the Leftist troops are massing up and bemoaning what they think is "legalization of murder" My usual response to such constructs is "Yeah. 'What if'. 'What if' frogs had wings? They wouldn't go along bumping their asses on the ground. But they don't, so they do. 'What if' means jack shit out here in the real world. So, 'what if'?" . RE: Rittenhouse Trial Rant - 727Sky - 11-20-2021 Found not guilty on all accounts....let the riots begin ? Seems justice is alive in this case for once.. I just hope whoever made the threats to the judge and jurors are all tracked down and have a stay at club fed for a few years. RE: Rittenhouse Trial Rant - Ninurta - 11-20-2021 I seriously doubt anyone will be held to account for the jury intimidation. It's not hard to find some of the intimidators - they could start with the prosecuting attorney for pointing a rifle at the jury with his finger on the trigger. Rittenhouse does need to civilly sue a great number of very public people who also wouldn't be hard to find, for slander, libel, and defamation, because they very publicly made derogatory statements against him, statements that can be proven false, and which are demonstrably injurious. The standard in most of those cases would not need to rise to malicious speech - it would only need to be reckless disregard for his person and reputation. The media talking heads were the worst offenders in that regard, and should be held to account - libelous and slanderous speech are not covered by the First Amendment, any more than the Second Amendment is a right to indiscriminately shoot any one for any reason or no reason. There are limits - people just usually try to capriciously set those limits in their own favor... but that is neither objective nor responsible. There are protests right now across the nation regarding this decision, but so far all of them that I am aware of are peaceful. Most of them are generic, and have nothing to do with the actual trial. People are protesting on the "what if..." basis discussed above. They are marching on "what if Rittenhouse had been black?" Well what if he had been? He wasn't, so we will never know, and the protests are on a flawed premise. Many of the protesters are disregarding ALL aspects of the case. I saw one sign on TV in New York that simply said "You Can't Have Capitalism Without Racism" - nothing to do with the case at all, just a generic Communist protesting generic Capitalism. Any excuse will do, I reckon. I don't know if the protests are peaceful so far because it's cold, or because protesters have been put on notice that if they turn rioter, and endanger folks, folks are legally allowed to endanger them right back. That seems to be a strange new alien concept to most of them. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Ahmad Arberry case in Georgia is wrapping up, and may present them another chance to protest. Those two shooters were pretty clearly in the wrong, and guilty of murder given the facts of that case. If they are found not guilty, that would present the protesters another opportunity to riot, and a more righteous one in my opinion. Maybe the protesters are just marshaling their resources and energies in case that happens... . RE: Rittenhouse Trial Rant - BIAD - 11-20-2021 The media are still pushing the racial-angle on the Rittenhouse verdict along with a consoling via the supposed 'anger' of the President of the United States. It seems the jury was wrong and Joe Biden doesn't appreciate the laws of the land he presides over. Or... the flu-fear is fading, Afghanistan has been put back in the box, an emotional televised court case has finished and it's a weekend. What's to write about?! Quote:Kyle Rittenhouse: Biden angry after teen cleared of shootingsArchived BBC Article: RE: Rittenhouse Trial Rant - Minstrel - 11-20-2021 The amount of attention they draw to 'Rittenhouse crossing state lines to a town where he didn't live' is nauseating. I served at the Naval installation at North Chicago (Illinois)...and virtually, right across the street from the base was, none other than Kenosha, WI. He was there to protect his father's business. And yet they twist ('spin' - thanks @"Ninurta" ) this irrelevant fact in every way imaginable, to wring every teardrop (spelled DOLLAR) possible from this soggy tissue. RE: Rittenhouse Trial Rant - BIAD - 11-20-2021 (11-20-2021, 03:11 PM)Minstrel Wrote: The amount of attention they draw to 'Rittenhouse crossing state lines' to a town where he didn't live is nauseating... Ah yes, but look at through the lens of 'TV criminality'... Bonnie and Clyde 'crossed State Lines' along with other 'bad' people. The narrative is warped in many areas to sneakily persuade a viewer/reader the idea that Rittenhouse is in that type of league! Quote:He was there to protect his father's business... But that would imply a family-orientated commitment and not inducing to the current dividing scheme. The lad put out fires, treated the injured with basic medical care and aimed to protect property from rioters. In a situation a jury agreed with, he had to defend himself in the most lethal of ways and the President of his country is angry with him. How f*ckin' puerile can you get...?! The leader of the most powerful nation in history is angry with a kid because he defended himself and isn't black. What's next...? Joe orders the military to destroy a business that makes breakfast cereal he doesn't like?! RE: Rittenhouse Trial Rant - Ninurta - 11-20-2021 (11-20-2021, 10:29 AM)BIAD Wrote: The media are still pushing the racial-angle on the Rittenhouse verdict along with a consoling via the supposed 'anger' Not a very flattering image of Blake's family. That's unfortunate, but I'm willing to bet intentional. Quote:The defence presented their client as a civic-minded teenager who had gone to the Midwestern US city to protect private property Here is an infographic rundown on their "heroes": Quote:The trial heard that Mr Rosenbaum had been acting erratically that night and chased Mr Rittenhouse before trying to grab his gun. Some times, you mess with the bull, you get the horn. Quote:"It sends the unacceptable message that armed civilians can show up in any town, incite violence, and then use the danger they Yes, because THEIR little darling could not possibly have done anything wrong. He was an innocent, I tell ya, only going about his own business of trying to burn a city down, and took umbrage, a righteous anger, when some little shit put out his glorious fire... but they are not the first idjits I've run across who misuse that word "unacceptable" in that manner. Here's a news flash - it is what it is, and will be what it will be, whether or not they "accept" it in their little world. The rest of us do not care what they find "unacceptable" - they're going to accept it anyhow, for the Greater Good, and the rest of us are going to move forward past their stuck-on-stupid asses. Quote:The BBC's Nomia Iqbal in Kenosha said a small number of protesters gathered outside the court, holding signs that read "No justice, no peace"? Isn't catchy slogans like that what got their dumb asses in this mess to begin with? It appears that some folks never learn, and may well be uneducatable... Quote:Quote: Following the verdict, right-wing Fox News host Tucker Carlson posted a clip of an exclusiveArchived BBC Article: That right there is more evidence of Rittenhouse's PTSD, as I mentioned in another post about him breaking down in the court room. It's a sad fact that NO ONE came out of this mess free as a dove. But the shit-stirrers just keep stirring onward.... . RE: Rittenhouse Trial Rant - Ninurta - 11-20-2021 (11-20-2021, 03:11 PM)Minstrel Wrote: The amount of attention they draw to 'Rittenhouse crossing state lines to a town where he didn't live' is nauseating. Indeed! It's almost as if they hold internal state boundaries inviolate, but external national boundaries as merely "a line on a map"... that seems a bit bass-ackwards to me, but what do I know? I'm just another citizen... Yes, states have boundaries, but we are (still - so far) allowed to travel among them more or less freely within our own nation, and the state lines merely mark a change of jurisdiction and taxation. International borders, on the other hand, used to be a Pretty Big Deal, where crossing them unauthorized once was what was called "an invasion", whereas now it's just called "seeking a better life", but a better life that has to be taken from someone else already legally there... just as invasion forces once did. My, how the times do change, but the more some things change, the more they stay the same under the surface. They just get a shiny new coat of paint. . RE: Rittenhouse Trial Rant - Ninurta - 11-20-2021 (11-20-2021, 03:26 PM)BIAD Wrote:(11-20-2021, 03:11 PM)Minstrel Wrote: The amount of attention they draw to 'Rittenhouse crossing state lines' to a town where he didn't live is nauseating... And let's not forget the Mann Act, that makes "transporting minors across state lines for immoral purposes" a Federal Felony... yeah, maybe a vague someone was vaguely pimpin'... Quote:Quote:He was there to protect his father's business... Yeah, what you just said! . RE: Rittenhouse Trial Rant - BIAD - 11-20-2021 (11-20-2021, 07:30 PM)Ninurta Wrote:Quote: You're correct, as the BBC places people of colour in the status of a 'lower rank' to fit their own victim narrative. However, I've believed for some time they're actually covertly ridicule those they constantly writing about. RE: Rittenhouse Trial Rant - ABNARTY - 11-21-2021 I have noticed a few things on my feed. Those lamenting the outcome of the case have nothing original to say. Simply recycled, feeble talking points from the news. Bring up a counter point or point out it isn't true and the "discussion" changes to another talking point. Zero engagement. This is expected because what they say is not their thought but someone else's. How do you reach someone bereft of their own cognitive agency? Kind of depressing. Some are so invested in that narrative, they can't let go. The entire trial was televised. 1000's of hours of commentary by lawyers and trial specialists on YT. The video of what happened has been available for anyone to watch since August 2020. Multiple sources from many view points. All the evidence is there for the public. Yet what do we get? People still regurgitating things which are demonstrably false time after time. It's amazing. I guess the feelings they get from being outraged are far more powerful than any desire to look at data. I'm not sure where to go with this. People I know and care about are mentally vacant I guess? What happens in their life when the time comes that no one is available to interject a thought into their head? Just a blank, buzzing sound? Has it always been this was throughout human history? If so, I can see why lunatics get away with that they do (e.g. Stalin) RE: Rittenhouse Trial Rant - Ninurta - 11-23-2021 (11-21-2021, 11:28 PM)ABNARTY Wrote: I have noticed a few things on my feed. Those lamenting the outcome of the case have nothing original to say. Simply recycled, feeble talking points from the news. Bring up a counter point or point out it isn't true and the "discussion" changes to another talking point. Zero engagement. This is expected because what they say is not their thought but someone else's. How do you reach someone bereft of their own cognitive agency? Kind of depressing. I've noticed the same thing, as well as a super-contortionist effort to maintain the narrative that this was somehow "racist". One white guy shooting 3 white guys who were trying to burn a city down and kill him, and they will make herculean efforts to turn that "racist". They generally trot out the old "well what if Kyle Rittenhouse had been black?" Well what if he HAD? He wasn't, so we will never know, now will we? They should confine themselves to examples that actually support the narrative they are trying to generate, rather than attempting to "fundamentally transform" a story that has no bearing on it whatsoever. This is why they can't win an argument, and why they are so easily shut down. It's also why they have to change the talking points every time they are countered, because they cannot defend their point and must abandon it. It's also the reason they have to shut down any dissenting views - any dissent at all destroys their carefully, if twistedly, crafted arguments forthwith. @"BIAD" likes to quote Some Guy, and it's just as true now as it was when first uttered - "they're not sending their best". . |