Total posts: 1,890
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Since you refuse to explain away your contradiction, let’s try this from another angle: what new law would you propose that would change the behavior and decisions of those who try to follow the law such as Rittenhouse?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Should Kyle be in jail for what he did? I would say yes. Should he have been found guilty of murder? No. Should he have been found guilty of any statutory crime? As far as I am aware of, no. But that is itself the problem.
This is doublespeak— jail? Yes. Guilty of breaking any laws? No.
Well, I hope it is merely doublespeak. The only other explanation would be fascism.
Actually, “doublespeak” isn’t the proper descriptor; contradictory is more accurate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Are you listening to what they’re actually saying?
They’re saying they are highly disappointed in the verdict— well, except for the President, who is attempting to play it both ways. Are you highly disappointed in the verdict, or are these elected officials not “credible left wing figures”?
Literally every single person I’ve heard talk about this. Sorry I didn’t take a list of names.
Ok, so various, evidently forgettable people you’ve heard somewhere other than Fox share your position on this. Thanks for the insight. Glad I asked…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
To clarify: my request was an addendum to your request, not aimed at you but to the same audience you yourself are addressing.
In other words, warn the border crossers of how oppressive the US is…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Then relate your story to the masses at the border, please.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well, even an irredeemably, systemically racist nation such as ours occasionally gets it right. Very occasionally…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I have yet to hear this view expressed by any credible left wing figure.
You don’t think the Vice President, certain congresspeople, or the Lt. Governor of Wisconsin are credible left wing figures? Or the President claiming to be angry about the verdict?
Every figure I seen talk about it has shared my basic overview
Other than perhaps Bill Maher, who exactly do you refer to here?
Created:
Posted in:
This left leaning woman claims to be happy about increasing gun ownership among black women:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
If it were an alt right white guy, the focus would be on that, which is fine as far as it goes if that is truly the case. The problem is that when violence doesn’t fit a certain narrative, such details are downplayed, ignored, or even worse in too many cases— a completely false context is created.
The media wing of the DNC has a lot to answer for…
Created:
Gee, couldn’t have happened to a nicer bunch of guys. Wonder if they will ever pay up?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don’t think Biden is personally that “angry or concerned.” He doesn’t have the core values. He and his advisors are just saying what they feel their constituency wants to hear.
Now, the people who actually ARE angry? Yeah, it’s a head scratcher. My short answer to that is simply TDS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I’m talking about people who advise him not on policy but on strengthening his image and appeal to the public. Think of the movie “Game Change” about Sarah Palin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I’m here primarily for my own amusement, and yours makes for an added bonus. I don’t know why you believe it is conspiracy theory to observe that the President has and requires handlers, though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Validity of details doesn’t matter— just that people believe the narrative, it seems. Even if Rittenhouse were guilty of possessing an illegal firearm (a really poor decision for an aspiring law enforcement officer), I would mention that Grosskreutz also brought an illegal firearm, and nobody seems to have an issue with that, so there’s that flaw in their rush to judgment…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@Fruit_Inspector
Yes, I was just talking to a couple who were home schooling their children. I told them that it seems to be more the norm as time goes on, and it’s no wonder. Postmodernism (simplified as moral/cultural relativism) is infiltrating every institution. The postmodernist thought in education yesterday is creating the educators, lawyers, journalists, HR specialists, executives, and politicians of today.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
When the President initially spoke, he said what GP quoted. Then his handlers must have counseled him because he later added the “angry and concerned” bit in writing. He also avoided the question of whether he *still* thinks Rittenhouse is a white supremacist.
Created:
Posted in:
The reactions from Biden, Harris, the governor and lt. governor of Wisconsin, and all like them are beyond the pale.
Did an innocent black kid get unjustly convicted? No.
Did the killer of an innocent black kid go free? No.
Not even close. But they all act as though this is exactly what the nation witnessed on Friday. It’s actually pathetic. We live in bizzarro world…
Created:
Posted in:
I gotta say, after 4 days of deliberations, I was getting very concerned with this unsequestered jury. My faith in our system is being sustained a bit…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Everyone who was not peacefully protesting
Their presence motivated Rittenhouse’s presence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
As I understand it, if a verdict against Rittenhouse is revealed, the defense has a lot of grounds for an appeal or mistrial.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I’m not arguing he should be charged with murder, I’m arguing he shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
Would there happen to be anyone else you believe shouldn’t have been there in the first place?
Created:
Hmmm… where to begin? I was really into guns in my younger years, but I’m not a “molon labe” (pry it from my cold dead hands) type either. I don’t really agree with any single group about guns, so I inhabit an odd, middle of the road territory on the issue. You might say both extremes disagree with me vehemently.
While guns are very much a part of US history, they didn’t really start getting collected and idolized (or whatever you want to call it) until the 1970’s. Why is that? No one seems to know! Since then, they have become a uniquely American phenomenon, and a uniquely American controversy.
Imo, both sides have major flaws. (Warning: large, sweeping generalizations soon to follow out of the need to for brevity! Not writing a book here, and if I did, no one would be bothered to read it) Pro-gun people want open access to all manner of weaponry and act as though that has no bearing at all on weapons ending up in the wrong hands. They fear gun bans via incrementalism, so they resist even “common sense,” effective gun measures. They also misunderstand the Constitution on the issue to an alarming degree. Anti-gun people fear guns excessively while tending towards being soft on crime and tough on police. The effects of that are on open display in many cities. They are entirely ignorant about guns, but that doesn’t stop them from preaching against them. They can’t understand why anyone would want a gun in the first place. They don’t believe that normal citizens can be trusted with firearms. They also come up with too many ineffective, largely symbolic gun control policies, such as “assault weapons” bans and bump stock bans.
There are, of course, effective ways to keep more firearms out of the wrong hands, but they are always opposed by pro-gunners. I think the Brady Campaign (named after James Brady who was shot by Hinckley in 1981) has the right idea for the most part. The key is to reduce the illegal trafficking of guns AND to properly enforce the laws that already exist! Thing is, pro-gunners might also be right to fear incrementalism, too.
It’s a very deep issue, but that’s enough for now…
Created:
Posted in:
I do not include the judge in that condemnation, I should add. He is on point…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I think you are giving them far too much credit. There are tons of actions they have taken that indicate they are sincerely trying to win this case, including pushing for the judge to include lesser offenses in the jury instructions, trying to trip Rittenhouse up on the stand, and introducing the idea of “provocation” in the jury instructions.
Oh, it’s not me saying that. I actually called it crackpot thinking. I find your insights informative regardless.
The fact is that they are trying to railroad this kid because their fundamental belief is that the rioters had a moral right to be there and to do what they were doing, while Rittenhouse did not have the right to be there in his attempts to mitigate the damage. That said, a prosecutor throwing a case because they don’t believe in the evidence should also mean a disbarment. They don’t have to take up the case if the evidence doesn’t support it at all. Risking putting an innocent man in prison for political considerations should = disbarment and jail time.
Perhaps. I definitely believe that the DA team should all be up for investigation into professional misconduct after this. This is the most kangarooish court I have seen within US borders outside of stories of the Jim Crow South.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
As evidenced by post #4 and elsewhere, there seems to be a sentiment here that the prosecution is being intentionally bad so as to throw the case in Rittenhouse’s favor. Presumably, they pressed charges in the first place to appease the BLM crowd. While the former is, of course, crackpottery, I can’t imagine why they indicted him within 48 hours for any reason other than the latter.
Now, to see what the jury finally decides…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Indeed. As Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley so courageously declared, “We don’t need black faces without Black voices.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
No one knows what brought that man to rape a woman. He is obviously not a man of privilege. Perhaps he is himself a victim— a victim of our aforementioned racist system. Depending on that very system to deal with him is obviously a self defeating notion.
As to your second point, I must educate you there— white supremacy is a global phenomenon. Even with whites in the minority, white supremacy could theoretically still reign. That said, there is an ideology which believes that whites reproducing with other whites (thus sustaining or increasing the current white population) is an act of white supremacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It’s the fault of our corrupt and racist system, not those who refuse to call the police.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The 2nd amendment was written in case the government became tyrannical.
That is not entirely correct. It was written to reduce the need for a large standing army, and to decentralize the national defense among the states. It was feared that a large standing army would enable tyranny in various ways. I suggest checking out the Federalist Papers on the subject and maybe even the Anti-federalist Papers (they REALLY feared centralized power).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Would you be able to speculate as to why so many prominent people continue to be convinced that Rittenhouse is a murderous vigilante?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The 2nd amendment exists to defend against tyranny. If that means shooting police officers who try to arrest you for an unjust law, so be it.
The 2nd amendment exists to defend against tyranny which either isn’t accountable (I.e. a foreign invading force) or refuses to be accountable to the Constitution (i.e. an insurrectionist). Police officers are ultimately accountable to the Constitution, so your hypothetical is operating outside the intent of the Constitution. It is an example of unlawful behavior, in other words.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Here’s a superintendent memo about it:
“Navigating EdEquityVA”:
And the part of the doe website dedicated to anti-racism in education, though the concept permeates the whole site, I would say:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Yes, I noticed the “you have this huge AR-15, and he has this puny little handgun… how is he a threat to you?” attempted narrative. Even worse, though, was the “He could have already shot you from 10-20 feet or so away. How was he still a threat up close if he hadn’t already shot you dead?”
Really??
Again, he rushed to indict Rittenhouse without proper investigation. It just got embarrassing from there for the prosecution…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Adding to all you said, I have noticed no one criticizing Grosskreutz for bringing a firearm to the riot, nor for pursuing a person while brandishing and pointing that firearm at a person’s head.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The increasingly agenda-driven nature of our once trusted institutions is becoming more apparent every year. It will lead to the opposite of what they intend…
Created:
Posted in:
The prosecution has been looking weak, but that’s not surprising considering they indicted Rittenhouse in only 48 hours. Just a bit hasty…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
“The left isn’t as susceptible to emotional appeals, so they voted for Youngkin?”
What?
I’m restating what you said in order to highlight to you the internal contradiction in your claim.
You said this:
What McAuliffe tried was to tap into the emotions of the left by making it about Trump which had little effect. It turns out the left isn’t as susceptible to that kind of nonsense, so the republican won.
To restate your claim yet another way:
“The left isn’t as susceptible to that kind of nonsense”… so, they went with the Republican kind of nonsense instead?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The left isn’t as susceptible to emotional appeals, so they voted for Youngkin?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You think it was less emotions based and more reason based for McAuliffe to equate Youngkin with Trump and declare that parents don’t really need a say in the education of their children?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I think it’s a variation of “Get woke, go broke.” And it almost goes without saying it means Carville is a racist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
We’re not talking about math or science. Race is a complex and controversial issue and it’s not going anywhere. Your child will be exposed to it and will eventually develop their own opinions on the matter which will be influenced by what they consume and who they talk to. If you’re not expecting and prepared to have those conversations with your child then that’s your failure.
You underestimate the scope of the movement. I could link a few sources which show how identity politics has affected the study of mathematics. You speak as though parents should be ok with controversial ideologies being taught to their children. You act as if you would be ok with, say, pro life or intelligent design ideology being taught in schools, but I don’t buy it, and other parents shouldn’t, either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Neither do I. If I think teachers are steering my child wrong on matters of race I’ll steer them back. I’m not running out to vote for governor over it, especially when I’m so concerned about my life being destroyed by gas prices, inflation and my freedoms being taken away which I am so convinced the current administration is entirely responsible for.
If you are largely unconcerned with the trends in your child’s education, you are in the minority. McAuliffe basically announced in the open that parents don’t really need a say in their child’s education, and the majority of parents disagree.
Created:
Posted in:
Yes, it’s all so anecdotal:
How many anecdotes before it becomes a real thing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
So the story is “poor communities have fewer trees”. The solution is “let’s plant more trees in poorer communities.”
The rest appears to be some weird hysteria.
Yes, trees are great. The weird hysteria is called “anti-racism.” If only it involved straightforward problems such as a dearth of trees…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, I don’t know. Marxism used to be about the haves and have nots, which could at least be quantified easily enough ($). And that was just 10 years ago. Now, the Marxist narrative is about identity politics/CRT/oppressor/oppressed/privilege/etc. etc.— which cannot really be quantified at all. And it is often contradictory; it is the tiger which eats its own tail…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
“Facile” does not simply mean “simple.” The actual definition of facile describes your claim perfectly, though.
So, do you believe that children who happen to be white are better off (I.e. less negatively influenced) as orphans, then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
“Racist parents are a negative influence on their children” is a facile statement and loaded.
To be honest, I didn’t think you were intending a serious response with it…
Created: