"Violent" is a semantic term and your definition might differ from mine. I'm more convinced that 1/6 was more dangerous and a bigger threat in general than the entirety of the BLM movement.

The idea of a mob of people storming the Capitol to try to kill congresspeople and overturn an election based on false evidence is.... not great

Posted by bagchucker on 11/23/2021 2:32:00 PM (view original):
too bad them hotheads didn't get down into the basement

string up pelosi and pence



we would have got us a true reckoning by now

It wouldn't matter because Republicans would defend and justify it, while simultaneously claiming it was the FBI and antifa who killed Pence and Pelosi

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/23/2021 2:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jetson21 on 11/23/2021 1:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/23/2021 1:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jetson21 on 11/23/2021 12:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/23/2021 12:47:00 PM (view original):
Wait, are you claiming that January 6th was more violent than the riots last summer? I really hope not. Please let me keep believing that you’re smarter than that.

January 6 by every barometer was more violent and serious.

This is absolutely absurd. You are claiming that a few hundred idiots rioting for a couple of hours before it was squashed and life went back to normal is more violent than riots that led to over $8B in property damage, over 30 people dead, and over 1000 injured. Yeah, I think I’ll bring up smarts. I know you’re smarter than this. Quit believing the propaganda.

You first.
I have a different set of priorities then you and btw it was way more then a few hundred and they were trying to kill political leaders and caused the death of 5 police officers and the maiming of many.
and those were armed police officers. And this is not many combined situations.
Did not stop until massive units of national guard and The Ringleader said to go home.

Really no point arguing over something rather axiomatic while it still can be.

Me first?

What propaganda am I believing? You’re not making any sense.

To all best estimates, about 800 people stormed the capital. It did NOT lead to the death of 5 police officers. It led to the death of 5 people total. Ashley Babbit, some person that over-dosed, a police officer that sustained injuries that day and 2 officers that committed suicide.

What they did was terrible. they deserve to be in jail and are heading that way. But it’s quite the stretch to claim it was more violent than the summer 2020 riots.

Something that defies fact is not axiomatic.

I’ll go with about 1000 people looking to murder the Vice President and the speaker of the house and anyone else in congress they could capture. And doing so in an attempt to stop the certification of the presidential election which they temporarily did.
And causing the death of several armed police officers and mutilating and injuring scores of others.

I’ll go with that one.
You could say that my mind is made up.

140 police officers reported serious injuries like loss of an eye....loss of fingers......lung damage and broken bones and concussions etc.
And then there were 4 officers dead as a result of the riot.

Even as of today there are 11 who have not returned to work.

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/23/2021 2:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 11/23/2021 1:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/23/2021 8:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Uofa2 on 11/23/2021 4:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/22/2021 8:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Uofa2 on 11/22/2021 6:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/22/2021 6:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 11/22/2021 3:47:00 PM (view original):
One could argue that illegally carrying an assault weapon to a protest is, in and of itself, contributing to an environment that is dangerous to human life.

EDIT: you removed the post to which this was a reply. I'll leave it here for now in case you're just making changes before reposting it.

He didn’t illegally carry an assault weapon. The charge was dropped because he was legally allowed to possess the weapon. He couldn’t purchase the weapon, but he could legally carry it.

P.S. Assault weapon is a loaded term and inaccurate here. An assault weapon is a gun that can be converted to a fully automatic weapon. The gun that Rittenhouse had did not have that capacity.

And his friend is being charged with an illegal straw man sale of the gun to Kyle, correct?

I have a hard time seeing this actually go to trial considering that it has already been proven in court that it wasn’t illegal for Kyle to have the gun.

Kyle having or not having the gun has nothing to do with an illegal straw man sale of the gun.

super cool seeing people bend over backwards for people to have guns.

I’ll always bend over backwards for people’s rights to have guns. It’s a constitutional right. Barring convicted violent offenders, I will defend anyone’s right to a gun. I’m also not afraid of people with guns.

I have no problem with people owning guns for protection and hunting, but there is no reason for a civilian to own a semi automatic weapon and no one has yet to give me a good reason. ( am not saying Rittenhouse had a semi automatic weapon..I don't know exactly what kind of weapon he had) I do think that for anyone to travel with any kind of a gun to a place where they know rioting is going on, is asking for trouble.

The vast majority of guns are semiautomatic. Essentially, you want to ban almost every gun in circulation.

It also doesn’t make sense to say that you’re for owning guns for protection, but then say you don’t believe people should take guns to protect themselves in areas that might be dangerous.

Maybe I should be clearer. A pistol for protection makes sense to me. A hunting rifle for hunting makes sense to me. An AR-15 does not make sense to me for any civilian.
Also, I did not say was for owning guns for protection. I said I had no problem with someone owning a gun for protection. In my view, it is not the same thing. I don't own any guns and it is unlikely I ever will. Just like I am in favor of a woman's right to choose an abortion (up to a certain point in the pregnancy) but I highly doubt I'd be happy if my daughter chose to have one.
As fast it not making sense to say guns for protections are okay but you shouldn't take guns to that might be dangerous, it is one thing if you HAVE to go somewhere dangerous and take a gun with you. Rittenhouse did not have to go to Kenosa, he chose to. IMO that was a stupid thing to do.
I also think you know what I meant about semi-automatic weapons. There is no reason for a civilian to have an AR-15 or an Uzi. I notice you didn't give me a good reason.

Posted by Jetson21 on 11/23/2021 12:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/23/2021 12:47:00 PM (view original):
Wait, are you claiming that January 6th was more violent than the riots last summer? I really hope not. Please let me keep believing that you’re smarter than that.

January 6 by every barometer was more violent and serious.

Yup

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/07/facebook-posts/no-proof-black-lives-matter-killed-36-people-injur/

Meanwhile, people who were lied and used by Trump and his people attacked the Capitol and erected gallows and Tucker Carlson had a special saying it was a false flag attack. Two Fox News people resigned in protest over it.

Nobody serious supports the rioting during the Floyd protests, which a lot of was caused by right wing agitators such as the precinct burning in Minneapolis, but the largest right wing personality says 1/6 was a false flag.

yeah I think one is more serious

Posted by bruceleefan on 11/23/2021 11:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Uofa2 on 11/23/2021 10:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bruceleefan on 11/23/2021 9:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/23/2021 8:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 11/22/2021 11:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/22/2021 7:59:00 PM (view original):
What sane person hoped their were riots?

I don't know about hoping, but bruceleefan was pushing the whole "jury might acquit because they're scared of rioting" stance pretty hard. That claim is even more bullshit in hindsight.

That claim wasn’t bullshit at all. I easily could have seen a compromised verdict because of it. I mean hell, the judge was receiving dozens of death threats. You’re insane if you don’t think public pressure can sway a jury.

It's like making fun of the guy who boarded his windows for a pending storm and then when the storm doesn't materialize, claiming he was "hoping" for the direct hit and what bullshit his window prep was.

100% not like that because an impending storm has some scientific reasoning for backing it up.

The jury feeling threatened to make a decision because of possible riots was always in the heads of only a few and yes since nothing happened I can point out that it wasn’t based in any reality.

The reality is there was much misinformation spread and unnecessary division and tension over this case.
I imagine the local folks weren't swayed by the nonsense and that's awesome.

Yet protests took place around the country mourning this "miscarriage of justice" and "blatant example of how far we still have to go".
Talk about bullshit.

In Portland a few even got violent throwing rocks at police and smashing windows.
In NY "protesters" vandalized police supporters homes.

But yeah, keep telling yourself the concern wasn't based in any reality.

So there were no riots? Yeah I know.

Posted by wylie715 on 11/23/2021 6:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/23/2021 2:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 11/23/2021 1:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/23/2021 8:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Uofa2 on 11/23/2021 4:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/22/2021 8:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Uofa2 on 11/22/2021 6:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/22/2021 6:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 11/22/2021 3:47:00 PM (view original):
One could argue that illegally carrying an assault weapon to a protest is, in and of itself, contributing to an environment that is dangerous to human life.

EDIT: you removed the post to which this was a reply. I'll leave it here for now in case you're just making changes before reposting it.

He didn’t illegally carry an assault weapon. The charge was dropped because he was legally allowed to possess the weapon. He couldn’t purchase the weapon, but he could legally carry it.

P.S. Assault weapon is a loaded term and inaccurate here. An assault weapon is a gun that can be converted to a fully automatic weapon. The gun that Rittenhouse had did not have that capacity.

And his friend is being charged with an illegal straw man sale of the gun to Kyle, correct?

I have a hard time seeing this actually go to trial considering that it has already been proven in court that it wasn’t illegal for Kyle to have the gun.

Kyle having or not having the gun has nothing to do with an illegal straw man sale of the gun.

super cool seeing people bend over backwards for people to have guns.

I’ll always bend over backwards for people’s rights to have guns. It’s a constitutional right. Barring convicted violent offenders, I will defend anyone’s right to a gun. I’m also not afraid of people with guns.

I have no problem with people owning guns for protection and hunting, but there is no reason for a civilian to own a semi automatic weapon and no one has yet to give me a good reason. ( am not saying Rittenhouse had a semi automatic weapon..I don't know exactly what kind of weapon he had) I do think that for anyone to travel with any kind of a gun to a place where they know rioting is going on, is asking for trouble.

The vast majority of guns are semiautomatic. Essentially, you want to ban almost every gun in circulation.

It also doesn’t make sense to say that you’re for owning guns for protection, but then say you don’t believe people should take guns to protect themselves in areas that might be dangerous.

Maybe I should be clearer. A pistol for protection makes sense to me. A hunting rifle for hunting makes sense to me. An AR-15 does not make sense to me for any civilian.
Also, I did not say was for owning guns for protection. I said I had no problem with someone owning a gun for protection. In my view, it is not the same thing. I don't own any guns and it is unlikely I ever will. Just like I am in favor of a woman's right to choose an abortion (up to a certain point in the pregnancy) but I highly doubt I'd be happy if my daughter chose to have one.
As fast it not making sense to say guns for protections are okay but you shouldn't take guns to that might be dangerous, it is one thing if you HAVE to go somewhere dangerous and take a gun with you. Rittenhouse did not have to go to Kenosa, he chose to. IMO that was a stupid thing to do.
I also think you know what I meant about semi-automatic weapons. There is no reason for a civilian to have an AR-15 or an Uzi. I notice you didn't give me a good reason.

But the car dealership needed protection! I mean the owner said it didn’t but it needed it!

Posted by Uofa2 on 11/23/2021 7:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bruceleefan on 11/23/2021 11:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Uofa2 on 11/23/2021 10:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bruceleefan on 11/23/2021 9:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/23/2021 8:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 11/22/2021 11:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/22/2021 7:59:00 PM (view original):
What sane person hoped their were riots?

I don't know about hoping, but bruceleefan was pushing the whole "jury might acquit because they're scared of rioting" stance pretty hard. That claim is even more bullshit in hindsight.

That claim wasn’t bullshit at all. I easily could have seen a compromised verdict because of it. I mean hell, the judge was receiving dozens of death threats. You’re insane if you don’t think public pressure can sway a jury.

It's like making fun of the guy who boarded his windows for a pending storm and then when the storm doesn't materialize, claiming he was "hoping" for the direct hit and what bullshit his window prep was.

100% not like that because an impending storm has some scientific reasoning for backing it up.

The jury feeling threatened to make a decision because of possible riots was always in the heads of only a few and yes since nothing happened I can point out that it wasn’t based in any reality.

The reality is there was much misinformation spread and unnecessary division and tension over this case.
I imagine the local folks weren't swayed by the nonsense and that's awesome.

Yet protests took place around the country mourning this "miscarriage of justice" and "blatant example of how far we still have to go".
Talk about bullshit.

In Portland a few even got violent throwing rocks at police and smashing windows.
In NY "protesters" vandalized police supporters homes.

But yeah, keep telling yourself the concern wasn't based in any reality.

So there were no riots? Yeah I know.

I never once used the word riot. Sorry.

As far as you guys acting like I just pulled the idea out of thin air, here's a few excerpts from an article published in Rolling Stone yesterday.

"As Kenosha knows, any one of these conflicts can escalate, and all it takes is one for lives to be lost. The city is still haunted by what happened in the summer of 2020. Jacob Blake is still suffering from injuries he sustained after being shot by police. Gaige Grosskreutz, who Rittenhouse shot in a conflict during the ensuing protests, is permanently injured as well. Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum are dead".

"More than a year later, the environment outside the courthouse — filled with political and racial tension, angry and opposing protests, throngs of reporters and the provocateurs they attract — is perilously similar to that violent, terrifying stretch that left a city in flames and two people dead".

"Lifelong Kenoshan Mary Beth Mogensen just hoped tensions outside the courthouse wouldn’t culminate in a tragedy similar to the one that brought them there. “This trial has been a huge weight on Kenosha the last year,” she tells Rolling Stone. “My hands are shaking like they did last year during the protests. I’m just really nervous. It’s tearing the community in half.

Posted by wylie715 on 11/23/2021 6:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/23/2021 2:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 11/23/2021 1:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/23/2021 8:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Uofa2 on 11/23/2021 4:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/22/2021 8:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Uofa2 on 11/22/2021 6:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/22/2021 6:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 11/22/2021 3:47:00 PM (view original):
One could argue that illegally carrying an assault weapon to a protest is, in and of itself, contributing to an environment that is dangerous to human life.

EDIT: you removed the post to which this was a reply. I'll leave it here for now in case you're just making changes before reposting it.

He didn’t illegally carry an assault weapon. The charge was dropped because he was legally allowed to possess the weapon. He couldn’t purchase the weapon, but he could legally carry it.

P.S. Assault weapon is a loaded term and inaccurate here. An assault weapon is a gun that can be converted to a fully automatic weapon. The gun that Rittenhouse had did not have that capacity.

And his friend is being charged with an illegal straw man sale of the gun to Kyle, correct?

I have a hard time seeing this actually go to trial considering that it has already been proven in court that it wasn’t illegal for Kyle to have the gun.

Kyle having or not having the gun has nothing to do with an illegal straw man sale of the gun.

super cool seeing people bend over backwards for people to have guns.

I’ll always bend over backwards for people’s rights to have guns. It’s a constitutional right. Barring convicted violent offenders, I will defend anyone’s right to a gun. I’m also not afraid of people with guns.

I have no problem with people owning guns for protection and hunting, but there is no reason for a civilian to own a semi automatic weapon and no one has yet to give me a good reason. ( am not saying Rittenhouse had a semi automatic weapon..I don't know exactly what kind of weapon he had) I do think that for anyone to travel with any kind of a gun to a place where they know rioting is going on, is asking for trouble.

The vast majority of guns are semiautomatic. Essentially, you want to ban almost every gun in circulation.

It also doesn’t make sense to say that you’re for owning guns for protection, but then say you don’t believe people should take guns to protect themselves in areas that might be dangerous.

Maybe I should be clearer. A pistol for protection makes sense to me. A hunting rifle for hunting makes sense to me. An AR-15 does not make sense to me for any civilian.
Also, I did not say was for owning guns for protection. I said I had no problem with someone owning a gun for protection. In my view, it is not the same thing. I don't own any guns and it is unlikely I ever will. Just like I am in favor of a woman's right to choose an abortion (up to a certain point in the pregnancy) but I highly doubt I'd be happy if my daughter chose to have one.
As fast it not making sense to say guns for protections are okay but you shouldn't take guns to that might be dangerous, it is one thing if you HAVE to go somewhere dangerous and take a gun with you. Rittenhouse did not have to go to Kenosa, he chose to. IMO that was a stupid thing to do.
I also think you know what I meant about semi-automatic weapons. There is no reason for a civilian to have an AR-15 or an Uzi. I notice you didn't give me a good reason.

If you want a gun for protection...a shotgun is what you want.

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/21/2021 1:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 11/21/2021 12:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/21/2021 12:41:00 PM (view original):
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dailycaller.com/2021/11/19/the-independent-falsely-stated-rittenhouse-shot-3-black-men-kyle-rittenhouse

Here goes a story about the article. The actual article has disappeared.

Yeah that's really bad. A slight, slight pass for the Independent not being American, but you just can't get the basic facts of the case wrong.

Yeah, I thought about giving them a pass for that, but nah. Did you see Glenn Greenwald’s tweet in the article about what he sees in the Brazil papers? Glenn Greenwald definitely ain’t no conservative.

Lol yes he is

Posted by bruceleefan on 11/23/2021 9:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Uofa2 on 11/23/2021 7:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bruceleefan on 11/23/2021 11:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Uofa2 on 11/23/2021 10:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bruceleefan on 11/23/2021 9:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/23/2021 8:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 11/22/2021 11:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/22/2021 7:59:00 PM (view original):
What sane person hoped their were riots?

I don't know about hoping, but bruceleefan was pushing the whole "jury might acquit because they're scared of rioting" stance pretty hard. That claim is even more bullshit in hindsight.

That claim wasn’t bullshit at all. I easily could have seen a compromised verdict because of it. I mean hell, the judge was receiving dozens of death threats. You’re insane if you don’t think public pressure can sway a jury.

It's like making fun of the guy who boarded his windows for a pending storm and then when the storm doesn't materialize, claiming he was "hoping" for the direct hit and what bullshit his window prep was.

100% not like that because an impending storm has some scientific reasoning for backing it up.

The jury feeling threatened to make a decision because of possible riots was always in the heads of only a few and yes since nothing happened I can point out that it wasn’t based in any reality.

The reality is there was much misinformation spread and unnecessary division and tension over this case.
I imagine the local folks weren't swayed by the nonsense and that's awesome.

Yet protests took place around the country mourning this "miscarriage of justice" and "blatant example of how far we still have to go".
Talk about bullshit.

In Portland a few even got violent throwing rocks at police and smashing windows.
In NY "protesters" vandalized police supporters homes.

But yeah, keep telling yourself the concern wasn't based in any reality.

So there were no riots? Yeah I know.

I never once used the word riot. Sorry.

As far as you guys acting like I just pulled the idea out of thin air, here's a few excerpts from an article published in Rolling Stone yesterday.

"As Kenosha knows, any one of these conflicts can escalate, and all it takes is one for lives to be lost. The city is still haunted by what happened in the summer of 2020. Jacob Blake is still suffering from injuries he sustained after being shot by police. Gaige Grosskreutz, who Rittenhouse shot in a conflict during the ensuing protests, is permanently injured as well. Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum are dead".

"More than a year later, the environment outside the courthouse — filled with political and racial tension, angry and opposing protests, throngs of reporters and the provocateurs they attract — is perilously similar to that violent, terrifying stretch that left a city in flames and two people dead".

"Lifelong Kenoshan Mary Beth Mogensen just hoped tensions outside the courthouse wouldn’t culminate in a tragedy similar to the one that brought them there. “This trial has been a huge weight on Kenosha the last year,” she tells Rolling Stone. “My hands are shaking like they did last year during the protests. I’m just really nervous. It’s tearing the community in half.

She says she’s barely been able to talk to her six older brothers this past year because they support Rittenhouse’s actions — and she doesn’t. “It comes up often in conversation [in Kenosha],” she says. “People want to chat about it, but they’re scared because they don’t know what side you’re on.”

"On day four of jury deliberations, Kenoshans, law enforcement, and protesters remained wary of the potential for escalation"

But I'm sure the concerns of actual residents was just complete bullshit too.

Not a single ******* thing here shows that they were worried about riots because of a not guilty verdict, which came, and with no rioting. You continually implied and continue to imply they were worried about a not guilty verdict, which came, because of rioting, which never came; with no actual reasoning.

it’s okay to say you were wrong, pal.

Of course my comment was purely speculation, as I wasn't in the jury room.

Again, my concern arose from the constant and continual flow of misinformation aimed at escalating tension and division.

It was a successful campaign as is evidenced by many reports cited in this thread.

The reaction of the town of Kenosha is very commendable and I am honestly very glad my concern was not warranted here.

cain wait for arbery

the difference as i see it

in rittenhouse the armed was cornered

in arbery the unarmed

Posted by bruceleefan on 11/23/2021 10:01:00 PM (view original):
Of course my comment was purely speculation, as I wasn't in the jury room.

Again, my concern arose from the constant and continual flow of misinformation aimed at escalating tension and division.

It was a successful campaign as is evidenced by many reports cited in this thread.

The reaction of the town of Kenosha is very commendable and I am honestly very glad my concern was not warranted here.

Only Rittenhouse defenders showed up with guns, which you neglected to comment on before and maybe will now.