Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

#5,651
#5,651
volfanhill said:
Good lord. No one went Sherman. Is that what you need. You are so intellectually dishonest. You have been propagandized. You know this was bs and you refuse to say so. Stop lying to yourself. BLM rioted and looted in major cities. Despicable people. And I actually agree with a lot of their beefs. You are an enabler of their knuckleheads. Which is why it will fail. Smart people aren't allowed to say "you are correct here and wrong here."
Click to expand...
What's intellectually dishonest is the "cities burning" take.
I think anyone rioting should be arrested and prosecuted. I've said that all along.
 
#5,652
#5,652
luthervol said:
What's intellectually dishonest is the "cities burning" take.
I think anyone rioting should be arrested and prosecuted. I've said that all along.
Click to expand...

What percentage of a city must be lit on fire before you consider it no longer intellectually dishonest? Is that percentage based on land mass or population of the city? Do the demographics of the area on fire come into play in that percentage, such as lower income versus upper income areas? Is there a minimum number of buildings on fire required? What about non structural fires?
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and 1vol8
#5,653
#5,653
When it comes down to it, legal or not, when you decide to get violent with someone, you are rolling the dice. There are several possible outcomes, but you are ultimately responsible for them all since you decided to roll the dice. Once someone decides to take it to that level as the aggressor they cease being a victim. Those dead scumbags got better than they deserved and the world's a slightly better place without them. Don't put your hands on people unless you're willing to accept that possible outcome, and remember that no matter what the law says, it's better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, StarRaider and 1vol8
#5,655
#5,655
luthervol said:
My problem is with the bastardization of the 2a, not with people being able to legally being able to purchase and own guns.
Not wanting a 3 year old playing with a machine gun doesn't mean you are anti 2a, it means you realize that there are rational and reasonable restrictions that should be in place.
Only an idiot would claim 2a doesn't leave room for restrictions.
Click to expand...
That’s an anti 2A argument. Although you and I both agree a 3yo maybe shouldn’t be playing with a machine gun (which has already been infringed on btw), you want to make it law where I say it’s the parents call how young they start teaching their kids. I feel that under the 2A a 5 year old that chooses to wash cars to make the money should be able to buy a gun in a gun store if he/she so chooses. With parental supervision of course but none the less.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HammondB3Vol
#5,656
#5,656
The argument that “if he didn’t have a gun, no one would’ve been killed” is absolute garbage. You can argue weather or not his decision to be there was stupid or brave but not the gun. But you gotta ask yourself IF you were decide to enter such a thing s as a riot for whatever reason, would you go unarmed? Right or left, I know your answer would be no because given the situation in Kenosha, you’re more stupid going to something like that without something to protect yourself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#5,657
#5,657
Vol8188 said:
Possibly the dumbest take possible. We’d obviously both agree prisons are filled with black men. How do you think they got there?
Click to expand...
The point about prisons is disconnected to unequal law enforcement, so I'm going to ignore it.

My comment wasn't meant literally. It was in response to someone saying rittenhouse wasn't receiving equal treatment under the law and that he'd have been better off if he were black. Any notion that rittenhouse was dealt with unfairly is absurd based on the content and result of the trial.
 
#5,658
#5,658
jvol1 said:
The point about prisons is disconnected to unequal law enforcement, so I'm going to ignore it.

My comment wasn't meant literally. It was in response to someone saying rittenhouse wasn't receiving equal treatment under the law and that he'd have been better off if he were black. Any notion that rittenhouse was dealt with unfairly is absurd based on the content and result of the trial.
Click to expand...

You believe prisons are full of black men because of racism in law enforcement? That’s interesting take.

Would we not agree black people are about 6-7 times more likely to be murdered? Who’s murdering them?

The majority of homicides in this country are committed by 13% of the population. If anything black neighborhoods are under policed. It’s a blatantly false and absurd notion that black men are in prison because of racism. They’re in prison because they commit the majority of all violent crime in this country.

The unfair aspect of the Rittenhouse trial is that there was zero evidence counter to his self defense claim. If he were black this would have never went to trial. It went to trial for the same reason the Covington Catholic kids became famous, because the media created a false narrative. The reason for the false media narrative was that he was seen as being a white conservative
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and Rickyvol77
#5,661
#5,661
DynaLo said:
What percentage of a city must be lit on fire before you consider it no longer intellectually dishonest? Is that percentage based on land mass or population of the city? Do the demographics of the area on fire come into play in that percentage, such as lower income versus upper income areas? Is there a minimum number of buildings on fire required? What about non structural fires?
Click to expand...
I think we all agree that one minor structure in one city would not constitute "cities burning".
We all agree that one minor structure in two cities would not constitute "cities burning".
We probably all even agree that two minor structures in two cities would not constitute "cities burning".

So you see, there is a continuum.
The continued use of the term "cities burning" is absurd. It's intended to paint a picture far worse than the reality.
It worked on the right.
Some of you nuts think BLM were protests were basically violent riots....and that's plain ignorant.
 
#5,663
#5,663
luthervol said:
I think we all agree that one minor structure in one city would not constitute "cities burning".
We all agree that one minor structure in two cities would not constitute "cities burning".
We probably all even agree that two minor structures in two cities would not constitute "cities burning".

So you see, there is a continuum.
The continued use of the term "cities burning" is absurd. It's intended to paint a picture far worse than the reality.
It worked on the right.
Some of you nuts think BLM were protests were basically violent riots....and that's plain ignorant.
Click to expand...
And some of you idiots think Jan 6 was an insurrection. That’s just as ignorant.
 
#5,664
#5,664
luthervol said:
I think we all agree that one minor structure in one city would not constitute "cities burning".
We all agree that one minor structure in two cities would not constitute "cities burning".
We probably all even agree that two minor structures in two cities would not constitute "cities burning".

So you see, there is a continuum.
The continued use of the term "cities burning" is absurd. It's intended to paint a picture far worse than the reality.
It worked on the right.
Some of you nuts think BLM were protests were basically violent riots....and that's plain ignorant.
Click to expand...

We both agree there was billions of dollars worth or property damage, correct?
 
#5,668
#5,668
Vol8188 said:
That seems like a lot. You don’t consider that a lot?
Click to expand...
I consider it 1/65th the amount of damage of Hurricane Ida and 65 times more damage than the Jan 6th riot.
It is NOWHERE near the summer of "cities burning" that the right continues to portray.
 
#5,669
#5,669
luthervol said:
I consider it 1/65th the amount of damage of Hurricane Ida and 65 times more damage than the Jan 6th riot.
It is NOWHERE near the summer of "cities burning" that the right continues to portray.
Click to expand...

2 billion is a lot of damage and there was a lot of arson and a lot more attempted arson. Actual police precincts were burned, attempts to burn down federal courthouses, museums, car lots, etc

Why do you feel this is important to downplay?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, StarRaider and Rickyvol77
#5,670
#5,670
Vol8188 said:
2 billion is a lot of damage and there was a lot of arson and a lot more attempted arson. Actual police precincts were burned, attempts to burn down federal courthouses, museums, car lots, etc

Why do you feel this is important to downplay?
Click to expand...
Because he is making excuses for criminal behavior. “It’s not THAT bad”
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland, UT_Dutchman and StarRaider
#5,672
#5,672
Vol8188 said:
2 billion is a lot of damage and there was a lot of arson and a lot more attempted arson. Actual police precincts were burned, attempts to burn down federal courthouses, museums, car lots, etc

Why do you feel this is important to downplay?
Click to expand...
I'm just trying to give it perspective.
Why do you think it was so important for the right to overplay it?
Why were they so invested in only showing the riots and not the 93% of peaceful protests?
We all know the answer.
Rioters are despicable. They are scum. They should be arrested and prosecuted.
 
#5,674
#5,674
luthervol said:
I'm just trying to give it perspective.
Why do you think it was so important for the right to overplay it?
Why were they so invested in only showing the riots and not the 93% of peaceful protests?
We all know the answer.
Rioters are despicable. They are scum. They should be arrested and prosecuted.
Click to expand...

Should they be? The left wing media openly defended not protesting, but rioting and looting. Even going well far as saying protests do not have to be peaceful.

I’m not convinced what the left is attempting to promote is peaceful protest. With slogans like no justice no peace, and silence is violence, it’s seems their real efforts are to normalize political aggression. Why do you believe the most property destruction and outright attacks on government buildings were in the most left wing of cities if this is not a part of mainstream left wing thought?

If you walk around peacefully with signs that say “no justice, no peace” that’s more than a wink and a nod at violent rioters, it’s openly embracing it
 
#5,675
#5,675
Vol8188 said:
You believe prisons are full of black men because of racism in law enforcement? That’s interesting take.

Would we not agree black people are about 6-7 times more likely to be murdered? Who’s murdering them?

The majority of homicides in this country are committed by 13% of the population. If anything black neighborhoods are under policed. It’s a blatantly false and absurd notion that black men are in prison because of racism. They’re in prison because they commit the majority of all violent crime in this country.

The unfair aspect of the Rittenhouse trial is that there was zero evidence counter to his self defense claim. If he were black this would have never went to trial. It went to trial for the same reason the Covington Catholic kids became famous, because the media created a false narrative. The reason for the false media narrative was that he was seen as being a white conservative
Click to expand...
What goes to trial and what doesn't is always going to be on a case by case basis. It seems like you're trying to build some sort of wall around your psyche in terms of saying it couldnt possibly be viewed any other way. Wisconsin law is complicated in terms of self defense and provocation.
Determining how the law applies in this case in court wasn't unreasonable. There's really no way to conclude the trial represents discrimination against white people unless you're participating in a victim mentality of your own.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top