leh-nerd skin-erd

Fair enough, but I have to tell you--it's a fair bet a number of jury members want to put him away on the murder charges regardless of what the footage shows. It's simple math really, gun control is a hot button issue, and invariably when someone shoots another the instinct for some is "he's guilty". On the other hand, if the defense made a compelling argument that he had no choice in the moment, it will be enough. By the way--while you see it as crystal clear, and I lean toward the self-defense angle, the jury has had the case for two days and it seems they don't see it as a slam dunk. Narratives matter.

No hard feelings, but that wasn't my intent. I generally appreciate your ground and pound approach to asking questions, and will acknowledge I'm incorrect if at some point I see the importance of the question. It doesn't matter why he was there, unless of course he's acknowledged being there to off some rioters. That hasn't been the position taken by the defense. That's the prosecution's assertion, wild child white supremacist travels to kenosha to dust some heros. If the prosecution convinces the jury that's what happened, it doesn't matter why he really was there even if it was to save the world from rioters. If the defense prevails, it doesn't actually matter if he WAS there to shoot some boy scouts jamboreeing around a campfire made with expensive furniture from a local store. At this point, the trial boils down to which side sells the more credible tale to the jury. All the rest is window dressing.

Settle down Chef Pippy Longstocking. I just showed up at at the ho-down and haven't even grabbed a beer yet. I'll rephrase. It doesn't much matter why he was there. It's a free country, and other people were there, lots of them, and not a whole lot of them are on trial for murder. Why do you think that matters?

Assuming his reason wasn't to wax innocent individuals on the street, does it matter?

In a free society, there can be no room for memos! The problem is that the Dems need to send a memo about the memo, but in a free society there can be no room for memos! 🤯

Beasley is a receiving genius, a very capable guy who will retire a Bill with a SB ring+ if all is right in the world. The fact that we have ongoing discussions on how good this guy actually is shows how far we have come as a franchise.

I was speaking more to national pundits than our merry little band of misfits, Tim. I agree with you that if he had common sense, he would not have been there armed or otherwise. Still, the question remains at one point does the average citizen decide when a city is burning to the ground with no assistance from govt, when IS the time to render aid?

Presumptuous.

What’s lost on all these “he shouldn’t’a been there” people is he had every right to be there. He’s under no obligation to stay away, avoid the area or steer clear, heck we learned that in Rambo.

Some men see things as they are and ask “Why?”, I see things that never were and ask “Why not?”. It would be presumptuous for me to assume he wanted to be welcomed back, it’s not at all presumptuous to declare I’ll be there because I will. You have to know the difference or your tenure of pretend moderator may well be brief. Have you no originality sir? You’re an amiable dullard!

What I believe in personally—which is worlds away from how you as a simpleton have chosen to characterize me—is important to me personally. That doesn’t change regardless of what you or others think—that’s the point with deeply held personal convictions. So Tibsy, if the dye is cast because you and folks like you buy into the notion, for example, that you’re a perpetual victim because of your upbringing, life experiences or the like, it simply is what it is. It changes nothing for me.

You’re losing what little focus you have, likely because you’re consumed with changing what other people post. Once @John Adams brings the pretend mod hammer down, you’ll be singing a different tune and I’ll be here to welcome you back so long as you are humbled, reflective and rehabilitated.

We both know there are serious questions about whether or not Flynn lied to the FBI, and as evidence previously withheld from the defense was revealed, so did the defense approach to the case. Be that it may, I demand justice.

@John Adams , Tibs nefarious action of changing another poster’s text is a clear violation of TOS and probably violates the spirit of The Hague Convention of 19ought7 and is in conflict with the Paris Climate Accord. I exercise my right to hue and cry!

I left you off my post because I assumed you must be crazy busy with the pretend moderator gig! I was trying to be nice knowing how hectic it can be to issue pretend bans and pretend warning points, and this is the pretend thanks I get! Some people!

Fair enough but it seems to me that this is exactly the type of play that the architects of “clear and convincing evidence” had in mind when considering overturning the on-the-field call. There are questions that can be answered both ways, the on the field guy made the call and onward.

Hold up. A few posts up, you were citing the jets glove hand as evidence the foot behind the hand wasn’t down. Now, with a screen shot showing the foot down, you’re dismissing it? On the plus side, I’ve reached out to copyright “Blur of nothingness”, and before long, you’ll be like the guy who shared the idea to create the restaurant that ultimately became Taco Bell but did not know what he had.

@Chef Jim read the above post and get back some of those IQ points JA swiped from you on the d-low. We’ll get you back in the mid-80s in no time!

The only reason I think you’re “for it” is because the dozen or so posts in this thread where you clearly indicate you’re “for it”. The Benghazi debacle came about because a US ambassador and members of his security detail were murdered on the watch of the Obama administration, the administration cooked up a story as to the root cause of the attack which was quickly revealed to be false, and the Secretary of State was directly responsible for overseeing the safety of the ambassador. You’re comparing that to a political committee targeting individuals looking for, in your words, cool Christmas presents that may or may not exist? To targeting a guy who does a podcast? Law enforcement has a virtually unlimited number of options to investigate all of this, and the political capital to run with it. Yet… I was not in favor of the Starr investigation, I was a bit more liberal minded in those days and saw it as a political witch hunt. As that morphed into Clinton’s escapades with Lewinsky and his perjury charges, coupled with Hillary’s attack on the women he victimized, I thought it was a waste of time. I’ve come to realize Clinton’s hubris was his undoing, he viewed himself as the smartest person in the planet and exposed his throat to his enemies. In the end, however, it was irrelevant as his wife went on to be the flag bearer of the dem party, the heir apparent to a new class of stunningly hypocritical woke voters.

This sounds dramatic enough, with “undermining democracy”, “peddled…conspiracy” and wondering aloud about thought crimes that have yet to occur. It means nothing. Still, you’re clearly pro-tribunal and pro-dirty politics, and you don’t seem to have any idea what it is that they plan to find. I’m not surprised, of course, because they haven’t said what they expect to find when interviewing Bannon, Meadows or anyone else. They use the same nonsensical argument over and over and over, and that is “We’re going to dig, speculate, leak and manipulate the American people because we can….”. If history is any indication, it won’t be too long before you’re humming along with the inevitable “If they have nothing to hide, they should just submit”. There’s nothing sacred about that. Oh, and where was your moral high ground when dem leaders ran the grift on Trump stealing the election, or staging his coup when he beat Clinton? You don’t have to be their rube, Dazzy. Almost forgot—thank you for the honest reply. I disagree with all of it but I appreciate the time spent.

@daz28 we were having a civil conversation on Mr. Bannon and the Democrat beacon shining the light of truth on what happened on 1/6. Then, you were gone. What is Bannon and/or Meadows going to produce to bring down the Rs? What truths shall they reveal that have you so revved up?

In spite of some serious flaws with that characterization, I think the jury ends up voting that way. The folks watching the outcome closely will fall into two categories—those who think he was railroaded and found guilty of a crime he didn’t commit who will be disappointed, and the anarchists who have already demonstrated a sincere willingness to burn down &*$# and rage for extended periods of time. The govt already mobilized the national guard, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see what a not guilty verdict will yield. In the end, it boils down to one man’s life v more anarchy and bloodshed.

You are posing a 1/6 question to the wrong guy, but be that as it may: Nothing about this is "cool" to me. Seeing an American town being sacked, pillaged and burned by anarchists is a disgrace and the elected officials who allowed it to happen should be run out of town on a rail, preferably not to my town or anywhere in South Florida where I plan to spend winters in the not too distant future. Understanding that in spite of time, effort and scoodles of money spent by law-abiding citizens to run the town meant absolutely nothing when trouble came to call is disgraceful. Unfortunately, those left to fend for themselves must avail themselves of what's available to them in the moment. What strikes me as odd is that not long ago, a young lady was sexually assaulted on a train in Philly. The story goes that as the situation escalated from harassment to violent sexual assault in front of on-lookers, not one of the 15-20 people on stepped up to help her. Naturally, outrage followed and decent people everywhere likely asked themselves, "Jeesh, what would I do in that situation?". Well, no one really knows the extent of the violence and debauchery that occurred that night and on others like it across the country in the summer of 2020. As sure as night follows day, when anarchy reigns, bad %$#@ happens. In a sense, the talking heads (political and media) have suggested that the good people of Kenosha should have just sat back and let it happen, like those train passengers did when that young lady was assaulted. We saw an armed police officer gun down an unarmed civilian at the Capitol on 1/6. While suddenly for folks like you the fact that she was unarmed ain't a big thing while officers being targeted with knives, guns and force are supposed to just let it all happen or shoot 'em in the baby toe, I applied the same logic to that event as I try in every police shooting. In that case, I feel it was justified. I assume in your scenario, the private citizen doing the shooting on 1/6 would be faced with similar circumstances as Rittenhouse faced--other individuals intent on doing him serious bodily harm up to and including trying to end his life. In that case, I'd apply the same logic I am applying to the Rittenhouse case: 1. How frigging dumb to you have to be to insert yourself into a riot; 2. How frigging dumb in 2021 are you to threaten anyone at all with physical violence; 3. How frigging dumb in 2021 are you to assault another individual in an attempt to do him/her in; 4. How incredibly dumb are you to point as weapon at anyone, let alone in the middle of a massive riot; 5. While tragic for those who love you, your death should serve as a cautionary tale to those who would otherwise be similarly as frigging dumb as the departed; Under that scenario, I'd feel the same as I do today.

Another win for the Prosecution per @Tiberius! It was a smokescreen charge!

I’ve been uncomfortable with the “enemy of the people” phrasing. Collectively, on a national scale, the media certainly is the enemy of objective reporting.