Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


jon_mx last won the day on May 17

jon_mx had the most liked content!


10,019 Excellent

About jon_mx

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

29,792 profile views
  1. We are on a fantasy football message board which main activity is to speculate on performances, so the idea we must sit and wait seems like an odd principle to assert. Anyways, this event has already happened and was captured on film. Nothing that goes on in court is going to change what happened. The evidence presented in the charging documents describe self-defense. The video shows self-defense. Experts say it is self-defense. The prosecution has entered no evidence yet that changes anything. Even the silver bullet which allegedly shows Rittenhouse did something to start it, is legally meaningless under the law once Rittenhouse retreats. There is nothing possible the prosecution has which overcomes the evidence we already have. From what I have seen from these pretrial hearings, the prosecution is incompetent and have yet to make a solid argument. I just want to hear a single possibility what we witnessed on film and testimony we have heard from the key witnesses can somehow turn form a clear-cut case of self-defense to murder. I have heard nothing but irrelevant facts, lies, and hatred to attempt to justify the case against him.
  2. So can one of you smart people explain how the case that this is not self-defense? The expert on use of lethal force has testified in over 60 cases unequivocally stated that Rittenhouse acted in a textbook self-defense manner under Wisconsin law. So far the entire case against Rittenhouse has been to smear the kid and try a very loose guilt by association, has been correctly thrown by the judge. I have yet to see even one remotely intelligent argument that Rittenhouse is guilty of murder.
  3. After a half dozens of posts calling me a liar and a disingenuous troll, you certainly are a sensitive one.
  4. The language was far broader and undefined and suggested a very active role for the DOJ and FBI for very minor incidents which does not justify this amount of attention....except for the politics and for the intimidation factor from the full force of the federal government. You can continue to dismiss it as a lie, but you are full of crap or a extremely naive big government statist.
  5. We are to the point of defining speech against our politics as intimidation. We are getting the full force of the FBI and DOJ lining up against parents in a situation they have no business in. I am beyond disgusted with today's modern liberalism. How can you not see how crappy that is and how it is an assault on free speech? Garland is taking the weaponizing of the DOJ to historic heights (which BTW he testified in his conformation hearings he would not do and even criticized the Obama administration).
  6. Every race and religion has a history of behaving badly. But yet civilizations advanced and grew and improved. These evil white people inventing all kinds of things and created governments which advanced human rights, machinery, medicine, computers. There were conflicts and wars fought over land and wealth and power and religion. There is so much more to history than just looking at things from the spectrum of racism. Race is so over analysized and discussed today to the point it is become a detriment and is mostly a wedge. It is just far too common to watch TV/internet and see people painted with virtue for simply being a person of color and a person looked down upon for being white. At some point we need to scream stop the stupid non-sense. We need to Unite.
  7. No, that is a ridiculous assertions. It had zero to do about teaching about slavery or the Holocaust. It had to do with combating the critical race theory nonsense, which view of history primary focus is to teach how evil white people are and to project racism into everything. Nobody is against teaching about the Holocaust or slavery, but history is much more complex than turning it into everything is about race.
  8. What I am suggesting is a lawyer should look at the law and advise the administrator on how to apply the law. I have doubts the guidance being provided is correct.
  9. There is a real intimidation factor going on. It is a powerful tool being given to teachers and board members to harass people who speak out against vacinnes. To have a special hotline to trigger an FBI investigation is a powerful tool. I would feel very reluctant to speak out against vacinne mandates based on this. Whether or not you committed a crime has nothing to do with it. Your life can be made hell based on some flimsy accusation.
  10. I did not say I favored the law. I just think this is not really news. It is interesting to point out this is happening, but have a legal expert explain if this administrator is misinterpreting the law or if this is a real consequence of the law.
  11. Give me a break....trolling? are you kidding me. I sincerely find the federal government getting involved in school board debates to be a disturbing assault on free speech. Intimidating a public official can be very broad and now we are going to get hundreds of reports of such intimidation and alleged threats, so these ordinary citizens will be subjected to FBI questioning because some school board official is uncomfortable with what someone said. I see the left taking first amendment and flushing it down the toilet.
  12. There is a holine for reporting crimes which will lead to what? An investigation. I picked this up from reading the DOJ memo.
  13. That is just a single administrator trying to instruct teachers on what he/she thinks the law means. I have no idea how the law is written , but the administrator seems to be taking a bizarre interpretation to be in compliance. He/she could be reading too many kookie websites or maybe the law is that poorly written. What some administer thinks the law means and is secretly recorded saying is really not news. What would be news is finding out what the law actually says and how to educate administrasters who are perhaps confused.
  14. Here is the first paragraph of the DOJ memo: "Citing an increase in harassment, intimidation and threats of violence against school board members, teachers and workers in our nation’s public schools, today Attorney General Merrick B. Garland directed the FBI and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices to meet in the next 30 days with federal, state, Tribal, territorial and local law enforcement leaders to discuss strategies for addressing this disturbing trend. These sessions will open dedicated lines of communication for threat reporting, assessment and response by law enforcement." They are going beyond just threats of vience, and also includes things like harassment and intimidation. Nothing in the letter mentions any concern for the parents rights to speak out. They are setting up special phone lines for teachers and board members, providing training for identifying what is criminal and educating them on properly capturing criminal activity. The memo is written in an entirely anti-parent and pro-teacher perspective. The DOJ is preemptively taking sides and politicizing it. Had these been against policies they support such as violence directed at oil pipelines, the DOJ would be silent. You can rationalize their action, but it is the politically selective nature of actions that the DOJ consistently does which is disturbing. It is a pre-emptive strike which serves as federal government intimidation against free speech on political topics. ETA: I find the whole full stop non-sense particularly odd. I have said nothing that is offensive and have zero reason to stop. It is a political discussion.
  15. I never said they were investigating parents for holding particular beliefs. They may or may not be targeting them, but we don't know. What we do know is that the DOJ and FBI are letting the public know that they are taking these school board disruptions very seriously, so they are putting them on notice to watch what they say or face consequences. Which is exactly what this topic is about, the intimidation tactics on free speech that in the vast majority of instances is driven by modern liberalism.
  • Create New...