15-20 FBI agents raid man's home because he pushed somebody and 15-20 is totally reasonable. (1 Viewer)

[jon_mx]

And see...that is part of the problem. Zero really about the topic...just posting in it to try and take hypothetical shots at liberal posters as you make assertions as to how they would act.
Whats the point of doing that? Why not just discuss the topic rather than always discussing the posters?

You are too superior to me to address my points (of which there are many and on topic) and just told me how you never want me to respond to you. Then you take this passive-aggressive pot shots. You not only lie, exaggerate, but you also pretend that you are better than everyone. What a piece of work.

 

[jon_mx]

Liberals in this forum: This is not political!!!! How dare you call this political, you victimhood bigot!

Well..... Kristen Clarke is the prosecutor in this case. Every since she has taken over, she has been hellbent on picking up these protestors outside of abortion clinics, while purposefully ignoring violence and vandalism at other clinics. You think that is a lie?

Well let's see why Kristen Clarke is not pursuing far worst cases of violence and vandalism at pro-life clinics. Here is a recent Tweet:


Kristen Clarke
@KristenClarkeJD


Make no mistake, today's decision at the #SCOTUS striking down a CA disclosure requirement for crisis pregnancy centers is part of a coordinated strategy to tear down #RoevWade. The anti-choice movement will stop at nothing. #EndTheLies #ExposeFakeClincs.

Should someone in the Justice Department be making statements which undermine the authority of the Supreme Court decisions and considers Health Clinics which do not provide abortions as "FakeClinics"? She has ZERO respect for the law. She is very POLITICAL which was obvious from the cases she is pursuing and is crystal clear after seeing this tweet. She has no business being in the position of a prosecutor if she wants to ignore the real law and take the law into her own hands.

 

[sho nuff]

My post wasn’t about you jon.

And I dont go back and forth because every tome we did turned into snark and meaningless arguments that ended up with one or both of us suspended.
That is why I refuse. That and you taking pot shots as you just fid in a post that had zero to do with you. So don’t call me a liar or other bogus claims about me.

 

[Zow]

At my in-laws. They love Fox. Holy **** is Tucker Carlson mad about this.

Jon, is Tucker you and you is Tucker?

 

[jon_mx]

At my in-laws. They love Fox. Holy **** is Tucker Carlson mad about this.

Jon, is Tucker you and you is Tucker?

I never watch Tucker. But there is reason to be mad. The use if the Justice Depart to be weaponized to this magnitude against political opponents has never been done this openly and to this scale, ateast not in this country.

 

[knowledge dropper]

Here’s a good article on who’s pulling the strings at the DOJ

We were warned about Kristen Clarke

 

[(HULK)]

Liberals in this forum: This is not political!!!! How dare you call this political, you victimhood bigot!

Well..... Kristen Clarke is the prosecutor in this case. Every since she has taken over, she has been hellbent on picking up these protestors outside of abortion clinics, while purposefully ignoring violence and vandalism at other clinics. You think that is a lie?

Well let's see why Kristen Clarke is not pursuing far worst cases of violence and vandalism at pro-life clinics. Here is a recent Tweet:


Kristen Clarke
@KristenClarkeJD


Make no mistake, today's decision at the #SCOTUS striking down a CA disclosure requirement for crisis pregnancy centers is part of a coordinated strategy to tear down #RoevWade. The anti-choice movement will stop at nothing. #EndTheLies #ExposeFakeClincs.

Should someone in the Justice Department be making statements which undermine the authority of the Supreme Court decisions and considers Health Clinics which do not provide abortions as "FakeClinics"? She has ZERO respect for the law. She is very POLITICAL which was obvious from the cases she is pursuing and is crystal clear after seeing this tweet. She has no business being in the position of a prosecutor if she wants to ignore the real law and take the law into her own hands.

I'm not familiar with her but based on this, she should be fired. The enforcement of laws needs to do its best to be unbiased.

 

[(HULK)]

If you guys want to make this about Kristen Clarke and selective enforcement, cool, I'll listen.

If you guys want to keep acting like a guy who admits he assaulted a senior citizen getting arrested is the worst thing to ever happen, Imma tune out to that noise.

 

[Zow]

At my in-laws. They love Fox. Holy **** is Tucker Carlson mad about this.

Jon, is Tucker you and you is Tucker?

I never watch Tucker. But there is reason to be mad. The use if the Justice Depart to be weaponized to this magnitude against political opponents has never been done this openly and to this scale, ateast not in this country.

Eh, I'd say even assuming arguendo that the acts you're railing against are "weaponized" and "political witch hunts" or whatever terms you like, I'd say the DOJ's torture of political and national enemies after 9/11 was significantly worse.

 

[jon_mx]

If you guys want to make this about Kristen Clarke and selective enforcement, cool, I'll listen.

If you guys want to keep acting like a guy who admits he assaulted a senior citizen getting arrested is the worst thing to ever happen, Imma tune out to that noise.

Assault is not that simple. In PA there has to be intent to injure. If the old man was threatening the child, he also is considered as committing assault and depending on the age could hold much stiffer penalties.

But the reality is, this is a federal case about FACE, not assault, where the issue will be whether the defendant was trying to prevent this old man from preforming a health service (illegal) or was he trying to keep this old man away from his kid (legal). And from everything I have seen the later is the case and there was nothing in the indictment that would make me think otherwise.

 

[(HULK)]

If you guys want to make this about Kristen Clarke and selective enforcement, cool, I'll listen.

If you guys want to keep acting like a guy who admits he assaulted a senior citizen getting arrested is the worst thing to ever happen, Imma tune out to that noise.

Assault is not that simple. In PA there has to be intent to injure. If the old man was threatening the child, he also is considered as committing assault and depending on the age could hold much stiffer penalties.

But the reality is, this is a federal case about FACE, not assault, where the issue will be whether the defendant was trying to prevent this old man from preforming a health service (illegal) or was he trying to keep this old man away from his kid (legal). And from everything I have seen the later is the case and there was nothing in the indictment that would make me think otherwise.

You do understand that plenty of people think that he was absolutely trying to interfere with people performing a health service and no evidence they've seen thus far would make them think otherwise, right?

That's why it goes to a court for a jury trial.

Just because you assume it's not a good charge doesn't mean it isn't. And it doesn't mean it's political either.

 

[jon_mx]

If you guys want to make this about Kristen Clarke and selective enforcement, cool, I'll listen.

If you guys want to keep acting like a guy who admits he assaulted a senior citizen getting arrested is the worst thing to ever happen, Imma tune out to that noise.

Assault is not that simple. In PA there has to be intent to injure. If the old man was threatening the child, he also is considered as committing assault and depending on the age could hold much stiffer penalties.

But the reality is, this is a federal case about FACE, not assault, where the issue will be whether the defendant was trying to prevent this old man from preforming a health service (illegal) or was he trying to keep this old man away from his kid (legal). And from everything I have seen the later is the case and there was nothing in the indictment that would make me think otherwise.

You do understand that plenty of people think that he was absolutely trying to interfere with people performing a health service and no evidence they've seen thus far would make them think otherwise, right?

That's why it goes to a court for a jury trial.

Just because you assume it's not a good charge doesn't mean it isn't. And it doesn't mean it's political either.

If they have sufficent collaborating evidence to convict him that shows it was Houck's intent to prevent this man from doing his job, then it should go to court. If the evidence comes down to one activists word vs. the other, that is insufficient and taking it to court is pure harassment and abuse of authority and a waste of taxpayers dollars. It is not the Justice Department's job to take sides and to harass people of one political affiliation. It is there job to fairly apply the law without prejudice.

 

[(HULK)]

If you guys want to make this about Kristen Clarke and selective enforcement, cool, I'll listen.

If you guys want to keep acting like a guy who admits he assaulted a senior citizen getting arrested is the worst thing to ever happen, Imma tune out to that noise.

Assault is not that simple. In PA there has to be intent to injure. If the old man was threatening the child, he also is considered as committing assault and depending on the age could hold much stiffer penalties.

But the reality is, this is a federal case about FACE, not assault, where the issue will be whether the defendant was trying to prevent this old man from preforming a health service (illegal) or was he trying to keep this old man away from his kid (legal). And from everything I have seen the later is the case and there was nothing in the indictment that would make me think otherwise.

You do understand that plenty of people think that he was absolutely trying to interfere with people performing a health service and no evidence they've seen thus far would make them think otherwise, right?

That's why it goes to a court for a jury trial.

Just because you assume it's not a good charge doesn't mean it isn't. And it doesn't mean it's political either.

If they have sufficent collaborating evidence to convict him that shows it was Houck's intent to prevent this man from doing his job, then it should go to court. If the evidence comes down to one activists word vs. the other, that is insufficient and taking it to court is pure harassment and abuse of authority and a waste of taxpayers dollars. It is not the Justice Department's job to take sides and to harass people of one political affiliation. It is there job to fairly apply the law without prejudice.

There are cameras all over the outside of that clinic. Why on earth would you think this is a he said vs he said case? It's not.

 

[Boston]

Well. the good news is now that he has been arrested those 15-20 or whatever # of FBI agents were there can go back to investigating Jane's Revenge...will be interesting to see how that plays out.

 

[jon_mx]

If you guys want to make this about Kristen Clarke and selective enforcement, cool, I'll listen.

If you guys want to keep acting like a guy who admits he assaulted a senior citizen getting arrested is the worst thing to ever happen, Imma tune out to that noise.

Assault is not that simple. In PA there has to be intent to injure. If the old man was threatening the child, he also is considered as committing assault and depending on the age could hold much stiffer penalties.

But the reality is, this is a federal case about FACE, not assault, where the issue will be whether the defendant was trying to prevent this old man from preforming a health service (illegal) or was he trying to keep this old man away from his kid (legal). And from everything I have seen the later is the case and there was nothing in the indictment that would make me think otherwise.

You do understand that plenty of people think that he was absolutely trying to interfere with people performing a health service and no evidence they've seen thus far would make them think otherwise, right?

That's why it goes to a court for a jury trial.

Just because you assume it's not a good charge doesn't mean it isn't. And it doesn't mean it's political either.

If they have sufficent collaborating evidence to convict him that shows it was Houck's intent to prevent this man from doing his job, then it should go to court. If the evidence comes down to one activists word vs. the other, that is insufficient and taking it to court is pure harassment and abuse of authority and a waste of taxpayers dollars. It is not the Justice Department's job to take sides and to harass people of one political affiliation. It is there job to fairly apply the law without prejudice.

There are cameras all over the outside of that clinic. Why on earth would you think this is a he said vs he said case? It's not.

If there was incriminating video evidence:
1. He would if been prosecuted by locals
2. He woukd of had a winning civil case
3. The FBI would have leaked or released it to fight the negative press they are getting

I have seen enough of these political cases. They never have more. I always hear from the defenders, oh just wait, they have more. They never do. There was no indication in the indictment. There have been no statements or leaks about it. The only video will be from a fellow protestor and it will be exonerating as it will show the old man screaming at the kid and have nothing to do with taking the patient into the clinic.

 

[(HULK)]

If you guys want to make this about Kristen Clarke and selective enforcement, cool, I'll listen.

If you guys want to keep acting like a guy who admits he assaulted a senior citizen getting arrested is the worst thing to ever happen, Imma tune out to that noise.

Assault is not that simple. In PA there has to be intent to injure. If the old man was threatening the child, he also is considered as committing assault and depending on the age could hold much stiffer penalties.

But the reality is, this is a federal case about FACE, not assault, where the issue will be whether the defendant was trying to prevent this old man from preforming a health service (illegal) or was he trying to keep this old man away from his kid (legal). And from everything I have seen the later is the case and there was nothing in the indictment that would make me think otherwise.

You do understand that plenty of people think that he was absolutely trying to interfere with people performing a health service and no evidence they've seen thus far would make them think otherwise, right?

That's why it goes to a court for a jury trial.

Just because you assume it's not a good charge doesn't mean it isn't. And it doesn't mean it's political either.

If they have sufficent collaborating evidence to convict him that shows it was Houck's intent to prevent this man from doing his job, then it should go to court. If the evidence comes down to one activists word vs. the other, that is insufficient and taking it to court is pure harassment and abuse of authority and a waste of taxpayers dollars. It is not the Justice Department's job to take sides and to harass people of one political affiliation. It is there job to fairly apply the law without prejudice.

There are cameras all over the outside of that clinic. Why on earth would you think this is a he said vs he said case? It's not.

If there was incriminating video evidence:
1. He would if been prosecuted by locals
2. He woukd of had a winning civil case
3. The FBI would have leaked or released it to fight the negative press they are getting

I have seen enough of these political cases. They never have more. I always hear from the defenders, oh just wait, they have more. They never do. There was no indication in the indictment. There have been no statements or leaks about it. The only video will be from a fellow protestor and it will be exonerating as it will show the old man screaming at the kid and have nothing to do with taking the patient into the clinic.

The FACE charge is Federal, locals can't prosecute it.

There is NO RECORD of this supposed civil case. I sorta doubt it existed.

The DOJ would be unwise to leak evidence ahead of a trial, polluting the jury pool and making a conviction harder to achieve.


Why not wait and see? Your rush to judgement is not due to a rationale approach IMO. The guy aligns with you politically so you want him to be innocent. But listen buddy, hopes and dreams won't have an impact on the facts of the case, which we really do not know much about at this juncture. All you're doing is setting yourself up to be very wrong at a later date by taking such an intractable stance.

 

[jon_mx]

If you guys want to make this about Kristen Clarke and selective enforcement, cool, I'll listen.

If you guys want to keep acting like a guy who admits he assaulted a senior citizen getting arrested is the worst thing to ever happen, Imma tune out to that noise.

Assault is not that simple. In PA there has to be intent to injure. If the old man was threatening the child, he also is considered as committing assault and depending on the age could hold much stiffer penalties.

But the reality is, this is a federal case about FACE, not assault, where the issue will be whether the defendant was trying to prevent this old man from preforming a health service (illegal) or was he trying to keep this old man away from his kid (legal). And from everything I have seen the later is the case and there was nothing in the indictment that would make me think otherwise.

You do understand that plenty of people think that he was absolutely trying to interfere with people performing a health service and no evidence they've seen thus far would make them think otherwise, right?

That's why it goes to a court for a jury trial.

Just because you assume it's not a good charge doesn't mean it isn't. And it doesn't mean it's political either.

If they have sufficent collaborating evidence to convict him that shows it was Houck's intent to prevent this man from doing his job, then it should go to court. If the evidence comes down to one activists word vs. the other, that is insufficient and taking it to court is pure harassment and abuse of authority and a waste of taxpayers dollars. It is not the Justice Department's job to take sides and to harass people of one political affiliation. It is there job to fairly apply the law without prejudice.

There are cameras all over the outside of that clinic. Why on earth would you think this is a he said vs he said case? It's not.

If there was incriminating video evidence:
1. He would if been prosecuted by locals
2. He woukd of had a winning civil case
3. The FBI would have leaked or released it to fight the negative press they are getting

I have seen enough of these political cases. They never have more. I always hear from the defenders, oh just wait, they have more. They never do. There was no indication in the indictment. There have been no statements or leaks about it. The only video will be from a fellow protestor and it will be exonerating as it will show the old man screaming at the kid and have nothing to do with taking the patient into the clinic.

The FACE charge is Federal, locals can't prosecute it.

There is NO RECORD of this supposed civil case. I sorta doubt it existed.

The DOJ would be unwise to leak evidence ahead of a trial, polluting the jury pool and making a conviction harder to achieve.


Why not wait and see? Your rush to judgement is not due to a rationale approach IMO. The guy aligns with you politically so you want him to be innocent. But listen buddy, hopes and dreams won't have an impact on the facts of the case, which we really do not know much about at this juncture. All you're doing is setting yourself up to be very wrong at a later date by taking such an intractable stance.

If it was in fact an assault with injuries, locals can and would prosecute it.

The DOJ/FBI leaks information all the time. Winning the war of public opinion is a primary objective.

You are rushing to judgement also. You keep calling the wife a liar, you have stated he beated the old man (since deleteled), you think he has admitted an assault, you are convinces there is incriminating video evidence.

 

[Cowboysfan8]

Oh how horrible is the plight of the white man in modern day America. ITS SO UNFAIR!

Is there anything a white male can complain about without you responding this way?

 

[jon_mx]

Oh how horrible is the plight of the white man in modern day America. ITS SO UNFAIR!

Is there anything a white male can complain about without you responding this way?

It is impossible for white/male/conservatives to be treated unfairly. They are subhuman. They don't deserve to be treated fairly and to suggest otherwise they must be mocked. It is the sad state of liberalism. No matter how rude, how unfair, how nasty and evil they are treated, they must suck it up and accept it.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Oh how horrible is the plight of the white man in modern day America. ITS SO UNFAIR!

Is there anything a white male can complain about without you responding this way?

Of course.

But this is the correct response to the absurd claims of white victimhood we hear constantly from jon and others. The idea that white males are the real victims in a society that white males have owned and ruled with an iron fist for ~ 300 years is beyond ludicrous.

 

[Boston]

Oh how horrible is the plight of the white man in modern day America. ITS SO UNFAIR!

Is there anything a white male can complain about without you responding this way?

One correction...it is white male that is conservative.

 

[(HULK)]

If you guys want to make this about Kristen Clarke and selective enforcement, cool, I'll listen.

If you guys want to keep acting like a guy who admits he assaulted a senior citizen getting arrested is the worst thing to ever happen, Imma tune out to that noise.

Assault is not that simple. In PA there has to be intent to injure. If the old man was threatening the child, he also is considered as committing assault and depending on the age could hold much stiffer penalties.

But the reality is, this is a federal case about FACE, not assault, where the issue will be whether the defendant was trying to prevent this old man from preforming a health service (illegal) or was he trying to keep this old man away from his kid (legal). And from everything I have seen the later is the case and there was nothing in the indictment that would make me think otherwise.

You do understand that plenty of people think that he was absolutely trying to interfere with people performing a health service and no evidence they've seen thus far would make them think otherwise, right?

That's why it goes to a court for a jury trial.

Just because you assume it's not a good charge doesn't mean it isn't. And it doesn't mean it's political either.

If they have sufficent collaborating evidence to convict him that shows it was Houck's intent to prevent this man from doing his job, then it should go to court. If the evidence comes down to one activists word vs. the other, that is insufficient and taking it to court is pure harassment and abuse of authority and a waste of taxpayers dollars. It is not the Justice Department's job to take sides and to harass people of one political affiliation. It is there job to fairly apply the law without prejudice.

There are cameras all over the outside of that clinic. Why on earth would you think this is a he said vs he said case? It's not.

If there was incriminating video evidence:
1. He would if been prosecuted by locals
2. He woukd of had a winning civil case
3. The FBI would have leaked or released it to fight the negative press they are getting

I have seen enough of these political cases. They never have more. I always hear from the defenders, oh just wait, they have more. They never do. There was no indication in the indictment. There have been no statements or leaks about it. The only video will be from a fellow protestor and it will be exonerating as it will show the old man screaming at the kid and have nothing to do with taking the patient into the clinic.

The FACE charge is Federal, locals can't prosecute it.

There is NO RECORD of this supposed civil case. I sorta doubt it existed.

The DOJ would be unwise to leak evidence ahead of a trial, polluting the jury pool and making a conviction harder to achieve.


Why not wait and see? Your rush to judgement is not due to a rationale approach IMO. The guy aligns with you politically so you want him to be innocent. But listen buddy, hopes and dreams won't have an impact on the facts of the case, which we really do not know much about at this juncture. All you're doing is setting yourself up to be very wrong at a later date by taking such an intractable stance.

If it was in fact an assault with injuries, locals can and would prosecute it.

The DOJ/FBI leaks information all the time. Winning the war of public opinion is a primary objective.

You are rushing to judgement also. You keep calling the wife a liar, you have stated he beated the old man (since deleteled), you think he has admitted an assault, you are convinces there is incriminating video evidence.

The wife has been shown to have lied and exaggerated.

The usage of the team "beating" was a mistake on my part, something which I corrected and owned and that is still in this thread for all to read. When I make a mistake, I'm happy to admit it and adjust. Maybe take a note there.

He has admitted to pushing the guy. That's admitting to assault IMO.

I am convinced there is video evidence. 1) the accused says there is a video. 2) the clinic has multiple exterior cameras that are visible in pictures and videos of the clinic. 3) the fact that they did not interview the accused ahead of filing charges indicates a strong likelihood that they have multiple sources of evidence against him. It is a logical assumption that they have video of the incident. If they don't, I'll happily stand corrected.

 

[(HULK)]

Oh how horrible is the plight of the white man in modern day America. ITS SO UNFAIR!

Is there anything a white male can complain about without you responding this way?

It is impossible for white/male/conservatives to be treated unfairly. They are subhuman. They don't deserve to be treated fairly and to suggest otherwise they must be mocked. It is the sad state of liberalism. No matter how rude, how unfair, how nasty and evil they are treated, they must suck it up and accept it.

Being arrested when charged with a crime is being treated fairly. It is what happens to people of all races.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Oh how horrible is the plight of the white man in modern day America. ITS SO UNFAIR!

Is there anything a white male can complain about without you responding this way?

Thermostats. Bad fish tacos.

 

[Boston]

If you guys want to make this about Kristen Clarke and selective enforcement, cool, I'll listen.

If you guys want to keep acting like a guy who admits he assaulted a senior citizen getting arrested is the worst thing to ever happen, Imma tune out to that noise.

Assault is not that simple. In PA there has to be intent to injure. If the old man was threatening the child, he also is considered as committing assault and depending on the age could hold much stiffer penalties.

But the reality is, this is a federal case about FACE, not assault, where the issue will be whether the defendant was trying to prevent this old man from preforming a health service (illegal) or was he trying to keep this old man away from his kid (legal). And from everything I have seen the later is the case and there was nothing in the indictment that would make me think otherwise.

You do understand that plenty of people think that he was absolutely trying to interfere with people performing a health service and no evidence they've seen thus far would make them think otherwise, right?

That's why it goes to a court for a jury trial.

Just because you assume it's not a good charge doesn't mean it isn't. And it doesn't mean it's political either.

If they have sufficent collaborating evidence to convict him that shows it was Houck's intent to prevent this man from doing his job, then it should go to court. If the evidence comes down to one activists word vs. the other, that is insufficient and taking it to court is pure harassment and abuse of authority and a waste of taxpayers dollars. It is not the Justice Department's job to take sides and to harass people of one political affiliation. It is there job to fairly apply the law without prejudice.

There are cameras all over the outside of that clinic. Why on earth would you think this is a he said vs he said case? It's not.

If there was incriminating video evidence:
1. He would if been prosecuted by locals
2. He woukd of had a winning civil case
3. The FBI would have leaked or released it to fight the negative press they are getting

I have seen enough of these political cases. They never have more. I always hear from the defenders, oh just wait, they have more. They never do. There was no indication in the indictment. There have been no statements or leaks about it. The only video will be from a fellow protestor and it will be exonerating as it will show the old man screaming at the kid and have nothing to do with taking the patient into the clinic.

The FACE charge is Federal, locals can't prosecute it.

There is NO RECORD of this supposed civil case. I sorta doubt it existed.

The DOJ would be unwise to leak evidence ahead of a trial, polluting the jury pool and making a conviction harder to achieve.


Why not wait and see? Your rush to judgement is not due to a rationale approach IMO. The guy aligns with you politically so you want him to be innocent. But listen buddy, hopes and dreams won't have an impact on the facts of the case, which we really do not know much about at this juncture. All you're doing is setting yourself up to be very wrong at a later date by taking such an intractable stance.

If it was in fact an assault with injuries, locals can and would prosecute it.

The DOJ/FBI leaks information all the time. Winning the war of public opinion is a primary objective.

You are rushing to judgement also. You keep calling the wife a liar, you have stated he beated the old man (since deleteled), you think he has admitted an assault, you are convinces there is incriminating video evidence.

The wife has been shown to have lied and exaggerated.

The usage of the team "beating" was a mistake on my part, something which I corrected and owned and that is still in this thread for all to read. When I make a mistake, I'm happy to admit it and adjust. Maybe take a note there.

He has admitted to pushing the guy. That's admitting to assault IMO.

I am convinced there is video evidence. 1) the accused says there is a video. 2) the clinic has multiple exterior cameras that are visible in pictures and videos of the clinic. 3) the fact that they did not interview the accused ahead of filing charges indicates a strong likelihood that they have multiple sources of evidence against him. It is a logical assumption that they have video of the incident. If they don't, I'll happily stand corrected.

If they have video evidence why did the locals not charge him...would seem like a no-brainer.

 

[dkp993]

Of course.

But this is the correct response to the absurd claims of white victimhood we hear constantly from jon and others. The idea that white males are the real victims in a society that white males have owned and ruled with an iron fist for ~ 300 years is beyond ludicrous.

Can I complain about your Avatar. I’m still super pissed at the dude and every time you post it just rips the wound open again.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Of course.

But this is the correct response to the absurd claims of white victimhood we hear constantly from jon and others. The idea that white males are the real victims in a society that white males have owned and ruled with an iron fist for ~ 300 years is beyond ludicrous.

Can I complain about your Avatar. I’m still super pissed at the dude and every time you post it just rips the wound open again.

Bullpen night tonight. Could get ugly.

 

[Dickies]

Oh how horrible is the plight of the white man in modern day America. ITS SO UNFAIR!

Is there anything a white male can complain about without you responding this way?

It is impossible for white/male/conservatives to be treated unfairly. They are subhuman. They don't deserve to be treated fairly and to suggest otherwise they must be mocked. It is the sad state of liberalism. No matter how rude, how unfair, how nasty and evil they are treated, they must suck it up and accept it.

I couldn’t imagine going through life thinking that a third of the people I come into contact view me this way, but you do you. Keep playing the victim.

 

[dkp993]

Of course.

But this is the correct response to the absurd claims of white victimhood we hear constantly from jon and others. The idea that white males are the real victims in a society that white males have owned and ruled with an iron fist for ~ 300 years is beyond ludicrous.

Can I complain about your Avatar. I’m still super pissed at the dude and every time you post it just rips the wound open again.

Bullpen night tonight. Could get ugly.

Really not understanding why and BoMel hasn’t really given any explanation (that I’ve seen). I get he’s wants to avoid using Manaea against the Dodgers but the bullpen went long the last 2 nights. Just don‘t get it. Also stating Dixon at DH? Feels like a give up game just when we can’t afford it.

 

[Boston]

FBI allegedly engaging in 'purge' of conservative employees, retaliating against whistleblowers: Jim Jordan

The FBI is allegedly engaging in a “purge” of conservative employees and retaliating against whistleblowers who have made protected disclosures to Congress, Fox News Digital has learned.

www.foxnews.com

 

[jon_mx]

Oh how horrible is the plight of the white man in modern day America. ITS SO UNFAIR!

Is there anything a white male can complain about without you responding this way?

It is impossible for white/male/conservatives to be treated unfairly. They are subhuman. They don't deserve to be treated fairly and to suggest otherwise they must be mocked. It is the sad state of liberalism. No matter how rude, how unfair, how nasty and evil they are treated, they must suck it up and accept it.

I couldn’t imagine going through life thinking that a third of the people I come into contact view me this way, but you do you. Keep playing the victim.

No....I keep insisting that people get treated equally. How you manipulate that into playing victim is extremely disgusting bigotry and very telling of today's leftist ideology.

 

[Dickies]

Oh how horrible is the plight of the white man in modern day America. ITS SO UNFAIR!

Is there anything a white male can complain about without you responding this way?

It is impossible for white/male/conservatives to be treated unfairly. They are subhuman. They don't deserve to be treated fairly and to suggest otherwise they must be mocked. It is the sad state of liberalism. No matter how rude, how unfair, how nasty and evil they are treated, they must suck it up and accept it.

I couldn’t imagine going through life thinking that a third of the people I come into contact view me this way, but you do you. Keep playing the victim.

No....I keep insisting that people get treated equally. How you manipulate that into playing victim is extremely disgusting bigotry and very telling of today's leftist ideology.

Let me count the ways you are playing the victim in that one post

1. whites, males and conservatives are treated unfairly
2. they are subhuman
3. the notion that they deserve to be treated fairly is mocked
4. they receive rude, nasty, unfair and evil treatment but must just accept it

Everything is unfair.

 

[jon_mx]

FBI allegedly engaging in 'purge' of conservative employees, retaliating against whistleblowers: Jim Jordan

The FBI is allegedly engaging in a “purge” of conservative employees and retaliating against whistleblowers who have made protected disclosures to Congress, Fox News Digital has learned.

www.foxnews.com

This is a serious problem and is the left's MO at taking over organizations. As much as the FBI leadership claims everything is on the up and up because they follow strict guidelines, that is a hollow claim as those guidelines are very subjective and can be manipulated if you like or don't like someone based on their politics. Many beliefs such as the Covid virus being started in a Chinese lab would have been labeled as extremist (until later when it proved to be the case) and would of been enough to get their clearance revoked. It is too easy to put additional scrutiny on employees you wish to get rid and find minor questions about them to deny their clearance. There has just been too many signs of the FBI becoming way too political in recent years.

 

[jon_mx]

Oh how horrible is the plight of the white man in modern day America. ITS SO UNFAIR!

Is there anything a white male can complain about without you responding this way?

It is impossible for white/male/conservatives to be treated unfairly. They are subhuman. They don't deserve to be treated fairly and to suggest otherwise they must be mocked. It is the sad state of liberalism. No matter how rude, how unfair, how nasty and evil they are treated, they must suck it up and accept it.

I couldn’t imagine going through life thinking that a third of the people I come into contact view me this way, but you do you. Keep playing the victim.

No....I keep insisting that people get treated equally. How you manipulate that into playing victim is extremely disgusting bigotry and very telling of today's leftist ideology.

Let me count the ways you are playing the victim in that one post

1. whites, males and conservatives are treated unfairly
2. they are subhuman
3. the notion that they deserve to be treated fairly is mocked
4. they receive rude, nasty, unfair and evil treatment but must just accept it

Everything is unfair.

It is not me making different standards for different people based on sex, race, and political affiliation. This concept that to fix past bigotry you must be bigger bigots, is such a grossly flawed, hate-filled and divisive position, and yet it is the mainstream position of Democrats.
- Women must be believed. - It is impossible to be bigoted towards whites.
- Making harder standards for whites in the name of equity.
- the targeting of people because of their politics

What has happened to this country? We no longer share basic principles which are enshrined in our Constitution. Only a modern day leftist would mock someone for insisting that all people should be treated equally.

 

[(HULK)]

If you guys want to make this about Kristen Clarke and selective enforcement, cool, I'll listen.

If you guys want to keep acting like a guy who admits he assaulted a senior citizen getting arrested is the worst thing to ever happen, Imma tune out to that noise.

Assault is not that simple. In PA there has to be intent to injure. If the old man was threatening the child, he also is considered as committing assault and depending on the age could hold much stiffer penalties.

But the reality is, this is a federal case about FACE, not assault, where the issue will be whether the defendant was trying to prevent this old man from preforming a health service (illegal) or was he trying to keep this old man away from his kid (legal). And from everything I have seen the later is the case and there was nothing in the indictment that would make me think otherwise.

You do understand that plenty of people think that he was absolutely trying to interfere with people performing a health service and no evidence they've seen thus far would make them think otherwise, right?

That's why it goes to a court for a jury trial.

Just because you assume it's not a good charge doesn't mean it isn't. And it doesn't mean it's political either.

If they have sufficent collaborating evidence to convict him that shows it was Houck's intent to prevent this man from doing his job, then it should go to court. If the evidence comes down to one activists word vs. the other, that is insufficient and taking it to court is pure harassment and abuse of authority and a waste of taxpayers dollars. It is not the Justice Department's job to take sides and to harass people of one political affiliation. It is there job to fairly apply the law without prejudice.

There are cameras all over the outside of that clinic. Why on earth would you think this is a he said vs he said case? It's not.

If there was incriminating video evidence:
1. He would if been prosecuted by locals
2. He woukd of had a winning civil case
3. The FBI would have leaked or released it to fight the negative press they are getting

I have seen enough of these political cases. They never have more. I always hear from the defenders, oh just wait, they have more. They never do. There was no indication in the indictment. There have been no statements or leaks about it. The only video will be from a fellow protestor and it will be exonerating as it will show the old man screaming at the kid and have nothing to do with taking the patient into the clinic.

The FACE charge is Federal, locals can't prosecute it.

There is NO RECORD of this supposed civil case. I sorta doubt it existed.

The DOJ would be unwise to leak evidence ahead of a trial, polluting the jury pool and making a conviction harder to achieve.


Why not wait and see? Your rush to judgement is not due to a rationale approach IMO. The guy aligns with you politically so you want him to be innocent. But listen buddy, hopes and dreams won't have an impact on the facts of the case, which we really do not know much about at this juncture. All you're doing is setting yourself up to be very wrong at a later date by taking such an intractable stance.

If it was in fact an assault with injuries, locals can and would prosecute it.

The DOJ/FBI leaks information all the time. Winning the war of public opinion is a primary objective.

You are rushing to judgement also. You keep calling the wife a liar, you have stated he beated the old man (since deleteled), you think he has admitted an assault, you are convinces there is incriminating video evidence.

The wife has been shown to have lied and exaggerated.

The usage of the team "beating" was a mistake on my part, something which I corrected and owned and that is still in this thread for all to read. When I make a mistake, I'm happy to admit it and adjust. Maybe take a note there.

He has admitted to pushing the guy. That's admitting to assault IMO.

I am convinced there is video evidence. 1) the accused says there is a video. 2) the clinic has multiple exterior cameras that are visible in pictures and videos of the clinic. 3) the fact that they did not interview the accused ahead of filing charges indicates a strong likelihood that they have multiple sources of evidence against him. It is a logical assumption that they have video of the incident. If they don't, I'll happily stand corrected.

If they have video evidence why did the locals not charge him...would seem like a no-brainer.

Maybe DOJ told them to step aside? I dunno. Let's stop pretending any of us know why. None of us do. Saying he's innocent because the locals didn't charge him is just a guess and no more or less likely than anything else. People refusing to see that are wish casting.

 

[(HULK)]

The accused has now raised over $300K from suckers, in less than a week. Since his wife appeared on Tucker last night, I'm betting that number keeps growing significantly.

All because he got arrested for a crime he admits he committed.

The people crying "unfair" over this are so tone deaf.

 

[(HULK)]

I'm a white male. I should go get myself arrested for something MAGA-ish and then go on Tucker and cry about how I'm being unfairly treated for being a white male and get rich from donations.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Oh how horrible is the plight of the white man in modern day America. ITS SO UNFAIR!

Is there anything a white male can complain about without you responding this way?

It is impossible for white/male/conservatives to be treated unfairly. They are subhuman. They don't deserve to be treated fairly and to suggest otherwise they must be mocked. It is the sad state of liberalism. No matter how rude, how unfair, how nasty and evil they are treated, they must suck it up and accept it.

I couldn’t imagine going through life thinking that a third of the people I come into contact view me this way, but you do you. Keep playing the victim.

No....I keep insisting that people get treated equally. How you manipulate that into playing victim is extremely disgusting bigotry and very telling of today's leftist ideology.

Let me count the ways you are playing the victim in that one post

1. whites, males and conservatives are treated unfairly
2. they are subhuman
3. the notion that they deserve to be treated fairly is mocked
4. they receive rude, nasty, unfair and evil treatment but must just accept it

Everything is unfair.

It is not me making different standards for different people based on sex, race, and political affiliation. This concept that to fix past bigotry you must be bigger bigots, is such a grossly flawed, hate-filled and divisive position, and yet it is the mainstream position of Democrats.
- Women must be believed. - It is impossible to be bigoted towards whites.
- Making harder standards for whites in the name of equity.
- the targeting of people because of their politics

What has happened to this country? We no longer share basic principles which are enshrined in our Constitution. Only a modern day leftist would mock someone for insisting that all people should be treated equally.

Most people want everybody treated equally, so you can stop with that crap. Just seems in 2022 there is disagreement over who is currently being treated unfairly the most.

You seem to feel it's white, conservative, dudes. Others disagree.

 

[sho nuff]

I'm a white male. I should go get myself arrested for something MAGA-ish and then go on Tucker and cry about how I'm being unfairly treated for being a white male and get rich from donations.

Seems a solid money making opportunity.

 

[Boston]

If you guys want to make this about Kristen Clarke and selective enforcement, cool, I'll listen.

If you guys want to keep acting like a guy who admits he assaulted a senior citizen getting arrested is the worst thing to ever happen, Imma tune out to that noise.

Assault is not that simple. In PA there has to be intent to injure. If the old man was threatening the child, he also is considered as committing assault and depending on the age could hold much stiffer penalties.

But the reality is, this is a federal case about FACE, not assault, where the issue will be whether the defendant was trying to prevent this old man from preforming a health service (illegal) or was he trying to keep this old man away from his kid (legal). And from everything I have seen the later is the case and there was nothing in the indictment that would make me think otherwise.

You do understand that plenty of people think that he was absolutely trying to interfere with people performing a health service and no evidence they've seen thus far would make them think otherwise, right?

That's why it goes to a court for a jury trial.

Just because you assume it's not a good charge doesn't mean it isn't. And it doesn't mean it's political either.

If they have sufficent collaborating evidence to convict him that shows it was Houck's intent to prevent this man from doing his job, then it should go to court. If the evidence comes down to one activists word vs. the other, that is insufficient and taking it to court is pure harassment and abuse of authority and a waste of taxpayers dollars. It is not the Justice Department's job to take sides and to harass people of one political affiliation. It is there job to fairly apply the law without prejudice.

There are cameras all over the outside of that clinic. Why on earth would you think this is a he said vs he said case? It's not.

If there was incriminating video evidence:
1. He would if been prosecuted by locals
2. He woukd of had a winning civil case
3. The FBI would have leaked or released it to fight the negative press they are getting

I have seen enough of these political cases. They never have more. I always hear from the defenders, oh just wait, they have more. They never do. There was no indication in the indictment. There have been no statements or leaks about it. The only video will be from a fellow protestor and it will be exonerating as it will show the old man screaming at the kid and have nothing to do with taking the patient into the clinic.

The FACE charge is Federal, locals can't prosecute it.

There is NO RECORD of this supposed civil case. I sorta doubt it existed.

The DOJ would be unwise to leak evidence ahead of a trial, polluting the jury pool and making a conviction harder to achieve.


Why not wait and see? Your rush to judgement is not due to a rationale approach IMO. The guy aligns with you politically so you want him to be innocent. But listen buddy, hopes and dreams won't have an impact on the facts of the case, which we really do not know much about at this juncture. All you're doing is setting yourself up to be very wrong at a later date by taking such an intractable stance.

If it was in fact an assault with injuries, locals can and would prosecute it.

The DOJ/FBI leaks information all the time. Winning the war of public opinion is a primary objective.

You are rushing to judgement also. You keep calling the wife a liar, you have stated he beated the old man (since deleteled), you think he has admitted an assault, you are convinces there is incriminating video evidence.

The wife has been shown to have lied and exaggerated.

The usage of the team "beating" was a mistake on my part, something which I corrected and owned and that is still in this thread for all to read. When I make a mistake, I'm happy to admit it and adjust. Maybe take a note there.

He has admitted to pushing the guy. That's admitting to assault IMO.

I am convinced there is video evidence. 1) the accused says there is a video. 2) the clinic has multiple exterior cameras that are visible in pictures and videos of the clinic. 3) the fact that they did not interview the accused ahead of filing charges indicates a strong likelihood that they have multiple sources of evidence against him. It is a logical assumption that they have video of the incident. If they don't, I'll happily stand corrected.

If they have video evidence why did the locals not charge him...would seem like a no-brainer.

Maybe DOJ told them to step aside? I dunno. Let's stop pretending any of us know why. None of us do. Saying he's innocent because the locals didn't charge him is just a guess and no more or less likely than anything else. People refusing to see that are wish casting.

For someone who says stop pretending any of us know what happened you have done a pretty good job in this thread knowing what happened.

 

[Cowboysfan8]

Oh how horrible is the plight of the white man in modern day America. ITS SO UNFAIR!

Is there anything a white male can complain about without you responding this way?

Of course.

But this is the correct response to the absurd claims of white victimhood we hear constantly from jon and others. The idea that white males are the real victims in a society that white males have owned and ruled with an iron fist for ~ 300 years is beyond ludicrous.

Not as ludicrous as all the “experts” after the trade deadline saying that the Padres were going to be a serious threat to the Dodgers

 

[dkp993]

Not as ludicrous as all the “experts” after the trade deadline saying that the Padres were going to be a serious threat to the Dodgers

Hitting. Below. The. Belt. Might just hit the report button for the first time ever.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Oh how horrible is the plight of the white man in modern day America. ITS SO UNFAIR!

Is there anything a white male can complain about without you responding this way?

Of course.

But this is the correct response to the absurd claims of white victimhood we hear constantly from jon and others. The idea that white males are the real victims in a society that white males have owned and ruled with an iron fist for ~ 300 years is beyond ludicrous.

Not as ludicrous as all the “experts” after the trade deadline saying that the Padres were going to be a serious threat to the Dodgers

Cowboys fan with a Dodger avatar. Let me guess, you’re also Roll Tide in football and a Duke hoops fan.

 

[jon_mx]

The accused has now raised over $300K from suckers, in less than a week. Since his wife appeared on Tucker last night, I'm betting that number keeps growing significantly.

All because he got arrested for a crime he admits he committed.

The people crying "unfair" over this are so tone deaf.

Why in the world would you call people suckers unless you are assuming the facts and making prejudgements? He did not admit to violating FACE, so you are misstating facts again. He did not even admit to assault, which is not the crime he is being charged with. You continually put left-wing spin and prejudgements on many of your points while insisting the rest of us should wait for the facts.

 

[jon_mx]

Oh how horrible is the plight of the white man in modern day America. ITS SO UNFAIR!

Is there anything a white male can complain about without you responding this way?

It is impossible for white/male/conservatives to be treated unfairly. They are subhuman. They don't deserve to be treated fairly and to suggest otherwise they must be mocked. It is the sad state of liberalism. No matter how rude, how unfair, how nasty and evil they are treated, they must suck it up and accept it.

I couldn’t imagine going through life thinking that a third of the people I come into contact view me this way, but you do you. Keep playing the victim.

No....I keep insisting that people get treated equally. How you manipulate that into playing victim is extremely disgusting bigotry and very telling of today's leftist ideology.

Let me count the ways you are playing the victim in that one post

1. whites, males and conservatives are treated unfairly
2. they are subhuman
3. the notion that they deserve to be treated fairly is mocked
4. they receive rude, nasty, unfair and evil treatment but must just accept it

Everything is unfair.

It is not me making different standards for different people based on sex, race, and political affiliation. This concept that to fix past bigotry you must be bigger bigots, is such a grossly flawed, hate-filled and divisive position, and yet it is the mainstream position of Democrats.
- Women must be believed. - It is impossible to be bigoted towards whites.
- Making harder standards for whites in the name of equity.
- the targeting of people because of their politics

What has happened to this country? We no longer share basic principles which are enshrined in our Constitution. Only a modern day leftist would mock someone for insisting that all people should be treated equally.

Most people want everybody treated equally, so you can stop with that crap. Just seems in 2022 there is disagreement over who is currently being treated unfairly the most.

You seem to feel it's white, conservative, dudes. Others disagree.

Certainly not most liberals or Democrats. It is all about equal outcomes which can only occur with authoritarian power by treating some people unequally to produce such result.

 

[jon_mx]

FBI allegedly engaging in 'purge' of conservative employees, retaliating against whistleblowers: Jim Jordan

The FBI is allegedly engaging in a “purge” of conservative employees and retaliating against whistleblowers who have made protected disclosures to Congress, Fox News Digital has learned.

www.foxnews.com

There is not one leftist on this forum who seems even remotely concerned about whistle blowers being retaliated against......because they are conservatives and they deserve no concern.

 

[tommyGunZ]

FBI allegedly engaging in 'purge' of conservative employees, retaliating against whistleblowers: Jim Jordan

The FBI is allegedly engaging in a “purge” of conservative employees and retaliating against whistleblowers who have made protected disclosures to Congress, Fox News Digital has learned.

www.foxnews.com

There is not one leftist on this forum who seems even remotely concerned about whistle blowers being retaliated against......because they are conservatives and they deserve no concern.

Why would I believe anything Jim Jordan has to say? He’s a lying partisan hack who looked the other way while kids he coaches were being molested.

 

[jon_mx]

FBI allegedly engaging in 'purge' of conservative employees, retaliating against whistleblowers: Jim Jordan

The FBI is allegedly engaging in a “purge” of conservative employees and retaliating against whistleblowers who have made protected disclosures to Congress, Fox News Digital has learned.

www.foxnews.com

There is not one leftist on this forum who seems even remotely concerned about whistle blowers being retaliated against......because they are conservatives and they deserve no concern.

Why would I believe anything Jim Jordan has to say? He’s a lying partisan hack who looked the other way while kids he coaches were being molested.

You support and believe lying partisan hacks who support mutilating children when they are on your side.

 

[massraider]

How you manipulate that into playing victim is extremely disgusting bigotry and very telling of today's leftist ideology

Why is this allowed here again?

 

[whoknew]

If you guys want to make this about Kristen Clarke and selective enforcement, cool, I'll listen.

If you guys want to keep acting like a guy who admits he assaulted a senior citizen getting arrested is the worst thing to ever happen, Imma tune out to that noise.

Assault is not that simple. In PA there has to be intent to injure. If the old man was threatening the child, he also is considered as committing assault and depending on the age could hold much stiffer penalties.

But the reality is, this is a federal case about FACE, not assault, where the issue will be whether the defendant was trying to prevent this old man from preforming a health service (illegal) or was he trying to keep this old man away from his kid (legal). And from everything I have seen the later is the case and there was nothing in the indictment that would make me think otherwise.

You do understand that plenty of people think that he was absolutely trying to interfere with people performing a health service and no evidence they've seen thus far would make them think otherwise, right?

That's why it goes to a court for a jury trial.

Just because you assume it's not a good charge doesn't mean it isn't. And it doesn't mean it's political either.

If they have sufficent collaborating evidence to convict him that shows it was Houck's intent to prevent this man from doing his job, then it should go to court. If the evidence comes down to one activists word vs. the other, that is insufficient and taking it to court is pure harassment and abuse of authority and a waste of taxpayers dollars. It is not the Justice Department's job to take sides and to harass people of one political affiliation. It is there job to fairly apply the law without prejudice.

There are cameras all over the outside of that clinic. Why on earth would you think this is a he said vs he said case? It's not.

If there was incriminating video evidence:
1. He would if been prosecuted by locals
2. He woukd of had a winning civil case
3. The FBI would have leaked or released it to fight the negative press they are getting

I have seen enough of these political cases. They never have more. I always hear from the defenders, oh just wait, they have more. They never do. There was no indication in the indictment. There have been no statements or leaks about it. The only video will be from a fellow protestor and it will be exonerating as it will show the old man screaming at the kid and have nothing to do with taking the patient into the clinic.

The FACE charge is Federal, locals can't prosecute it.

There is NO RECORD of this supposed civil case. I sorta doubt it existed.

The DOJ would be unwise to leak evidence ahead of a trial, polluting the jury pool and making a conviction harder to achieve.


Why not wait and see? Your rush to judgement is not due to a rationale approach IMO. The guy aligns with you politically so you want him to be innocent. But listen buddy, hopes and dreams won't have an impact on the facts of the case, which we really do not know much about at this juncture. All you're doing is setting yourself up to be very wrong at a later date by taking such an intractable stance.

If it was in fact an assault with injuries, locals can and would prosecute it.

The DOJ/FBI leaks information all the time. Winning the war of public opinion is a primary objective.

You are rushing to judgement also. You keep calling the wife a liar, you have stated he beated the old man (since deleteled), you think he has admitted an assault, you are convinces there is incriminating video evidence.

The wife has been shown to have lied and exaggerated.

The usage of the team "beating" was a mistake on my part, something which I corrected and owned and that is still in this thread for all to read. When I make a mistake, I'm happy to admit it and adjust. Maybe take a note there.

He has admitted to pushing the guy. That's admitting to assault IMO.

I am convinced there is video evidence. 1) the accused says there is a video. 2) the clinic has multiple exterior cameras that are visible in pictures and videos of the clinic. 3) the fact that they did not interview the accused ahead of filing charges indicates a strong likelihood that they have multiple sources of evidence against him. It is a logical assumption that they have video of the incident. If they don't, I'll happily stand corrected.

If they have video evidence why did the locals not charge him...would seem like a no-brainer.

LOCAL DA IS SO POLITICAL! HE WOULDN'T CHARGE ANYONE WHO ASSAULTS A LIBERAL! LIBERALS CAN'T GET TREATED FAIRLY!