Lurker > the_pika

probably an unpopular opinion, but I prefer leather straps to the metal linked straps.

Why do you guys constantly give off the impression that you're more interested in "sticking it" to MAGAts than the actual law?

The Rittenhouse trial isn't about Left Vs. Right. This upcoming civil trial isn't about Left vs. Right. Neither of these cases in any way, shape, or form prove your ideological belief correct.

The upcoming Trump cases will be a far more prominent indictment of the GOP specifically if he is convicted, assuming the evidence is as rock solid as we all assume. Even still, that is not going to be a "blow" to fundamental conservative ideals, just a set-back in their political momentum. We don't "win" by convicting Trump, or Kyle Rittenhouse for that matter.

You know what's going to be really hilarious?

Watching these ardent defenders of the righteousness and infallibility of the justice system when it comes to acquitting people like Kyle Rittenhouse turn into conspiracy theorists and critics of an unjust "deep state" system if and when Trump and his criminal enterprise are found guilty of the various crimes he's been indicted for.

I am aware, and this was addressed in abundant detail in the trial. I am actually acutely aware of the State's statute in question because of that.

I love smart watches, something actually useful unlike a regular watch most of them over priced bullshit.

Nobody in this topic is arguing that Rittenhouse isn't a shitty person, guy. You have demonstrated through this topic a juvenile inability to separate moral assessments from criminality, and seem to be ignorant of many fundamental and critical aspects to a functioning legal system.

Kyle Rittenhouse could be the reincarnation of Hitler and he would still be afforded the same rights and legal protections as anyone else. Those protections are codified in law, meaning we have statutes that specifically outline, in few uncertain terms, what those protections are, what their limits are, and the scenarios by which you lose those protections. If you are going to make a legalistic argument then your argument must pertain to those specific statutes and the superstructure that is common law. If you are going to make a moral argument then you can use whatever evidence you believe is convincing enough. What you cannot do is use a moral argument to reach a legalistic conclusion. That is just pure ignorance and utterly dangerous behavior--You would surely agree if your perceived moral opposition, let's say the GOP, tried to do the same. Let's say they tried to argue that it's immoral to get an abortion, and thus abortion access should be denied to everybody despite decades of legal precedence and obviously beneficial social policy. That would be a dumb way to approach the world, yes?

If you want to argue that Rittenhouse is a shitty person then go ahead. I legitimately don't think anyone in this topic would disagree. Actually, let's test that:

Does any participant in this topic think Rittenhouse is of even vaguely moral character? If yes, please respond!

Cool, now that that's out of the way, we can avoid the moral arguments and instead use legally relevant arguments going forward. Right? Riiiiggghhhttt?

I have a nickel allergy, but I just wear a stainless steel belt buckle and that solves it.
It took me years to figure out what was causing the rash.

There isn't one poster who believes your shit (Who isn't also playing this kind of stupid game), because you spend all your time defending fascists. You are as "liberal" as Dave Ruben or Alan Dershowitz. I don't even believe you lack self-awareness like you pretend to, you are just purposefully trying to be infuriating. This, "I'm a centrist liberal, but here is some right wing shit I'm going to constantly pump out" is the most boring kind of trolling that goes on these boards.

If you truly didn't want people to think you weren't some MAGA type pretending to be a liberal, you'd show, rather than constantly tell, your liberal-ness.

This is true.
This is irrelevant but true.
This is not true.
This is true though being somewhat misrepresented as it was about an unrelated situation.
This is not true.

Good job, you managed to mostly say true things this time. That doesnt change that several things youve said before are not backed up by the available evidence.

I had hoped we were done with watch topics.

Sorry if you dont like it when people dont go along with you making stuff up, I guess?

Theres that one CEgal who loves taking the virginity of CEmen so yeah

flutter shy (the pony)

oh, that fluttershy, thank you for clearing that up.

there's no need; playing 'but the other guy!' is a chud move and i don't entertain it.

you want to absolve him of any responsibility or intent. just admit it.

This means literally nothing.
The evidence does not support this.
The evidence does not support this.
The evidence does not support this.
It is, because the reasons you say its not are things that you made up which are not supported by the evidence.

Self defense is not an alt-right cause.

You are making up a scenario that the evidence presented in court does not support.

Infinite is decent on its own but it was a bait & switch if you watch earlier trailers.

Silent Hill nurses

Youre getting way too riled up about this and just flinging shit with wild abandon. I think Rittenhouse is a shit awful person too, I just dont think having terrible beliefs or a hero fantasy strip somebody of the right to self defense when they are shown to have been attacked by the evidence in their trial.

Literally does not exist. It never did exist.

Porque no los dos?

yes

Yeah, there's something really impressive about the ability to make such a fluid game on the Game Boy. The only other game I ever played that felt anywhere close to that on the Game Boy was Kirby's Dreamland 2.

Which millennial / zoomer actor will do this when we're older

gobstoppers has the keys to the kingdom, there. Not me.

Please post the fanfic, gob.

I actually read the whole damn thing. The conservatrolls are trying and absolutely having a day with this one.

That one scene in Crisis Core was about the only thing akin to that.

Sadly it didnt end there.https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/0/9/AAXm8_AAEzQN.jpg

https://twitter.com/RexChapman/status/1299847372185403392

Legitimately I've not heard of this. Do you have a video?

Of course they are. Terrible idea and no country should do this, but of course people will do stupid things anyways because their incentives are not aligned with humanity's survival.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/9/4/AAXm8_AAEzP-.jpg

I now don't give a shit about this topic and just want to see the MAGA Naruto fanfiction

If he just fucked off after the ruling it would have been fine. But he's been trying to be a poster boy for the conservative movement and he deserves all the scrutiny he gets. He's a little turd

He milked his 15 minutes for as much as he could. He was on with Ted Nugent I think.

Lie with dogs...

Has someone actually said no such thing as pitbulls?

Because back when he was involved with PayPal Musk thought X would be a cool and awesome name for the business but was shot down by others when customers who were asked about it either hated the name or were just confused by it. Since then he's seethed about PayPal not adopting his cool and awesome name so he decided to force it on a company that couldn't say no because he'd taken it private.

Prove your claim or fuck off. Those are your choices.

No, he went there to defend people and property. Then he got assaulted, somebody reached to try to steal his weapon, and he was forced to defend himself.

Ignoring the specific case, I do think that the courts ruling that a death was a valid case of self defense should preclude wrongful death suits being made against the defender. The courts have already determined the death to not be wrongful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFGS2t9ASEw

It is now a main character stepping aside so Cyrax blows up the world lol.

When I was a foster parent, the case worker who did our monthly visits dinged us because our house "smelled like dog". Yes, because we owned two dogs. Apparently, a dog smell was grounds for a write-up, which we had to have corrected within a week or they would remove the foster kids from our home.

Foster parents are held to almost impossible standards to raise kids that aren't theirs, with all sorts of psychological issues from past trauma, yet biological parents are given an insane amount of leeway where things like this can happen.

Stories like these just piss me off, as we fostered due to not being able to have kids of our own, and the system put us through hell for something we volunteered to do. And then you have parents like this who cannot appreciate the kids they do have, and care more about themselves and "winning" than the kids they supposedly fought so hard to keep. And the system often enables this kind of behavior with the number of chances bio parents are given to clean themselves up.