Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

January 6th - what will happen?


Maik Jeaunz

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, the rover said:

Facts and logic won’t ever overcome cognitive dissonance.

This is kinda cute from the guy that started a discussion with a premeditated murder comment and an incorrect statement about what was actually said in the case regarding rittenhouse. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, the rover said:

It’s weird how much people want to bend over backward to defend insurrectionists.  The San Diego Union is a very conservative paper.   

I am not defending anybody. I am criticizing the tribune and sho for posting it. That piece is a journalistic turd.

They are quoting an unnamed source identifying unnamed people that said an undisclosed thing. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

I am not defending anybody. I am criticizing the tribune and sho for posting it. That piece is a journalistic turd.

They are quoting an unnamed source identifying unnamed people that said an undisclosed thing. 

 

 

Probably because there is still investigation of what is going on (as it states in the article...someone who was briefed on the investigation...doubt they are briefing janitors)...still cases that will need to be tried against certain people.  Still arrests being made.  So yeah, you are going to get unnamed sources about an unnamed person.  What they said is almost irrelevant at this point as the point was more that they communicated at all.  Someone of an extremist group, communicating with someone inside the WH is a bad look.  Especially preceding what happened that day.

The article, nor I, have opined that anything was coordinated between the group and the WH.

But was interesting that travel among the Proud Boys was coordinated with each other and the plan to disrupt (sort of showing this was premeditated)...and contacts between several extremist groups and Roger Stone is also a very bad look for Trump.

Its an interesting piece that added information...and more will come as the investigation goes further and more arrests are made.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, The General said:

BS

What exactly is BS?  Did you not know the Rittenhouse worked as a lifeguard in Kenosha?  That is his turf, despite living just across the state border.  The forum is oblivious to facts that are not fed to them by the MSM and eats up their spin.  Rittenhouse is a local.  The people he shot, not so much.  Two of the victims travelled further than Rittenhouse.

Edited by jon_mx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

What exactly is BS?  Did you not know the Rittenhouse worked as a lifeguard in Kenosha?  That is his turf, despite living just across the state border.  The forum is oblivious to facts that are not fed to them by the MSM and eats up their spin.  Rittenhouse is a local.  The people he shot, not so much.

He didn't work at the Y in Kenosha. He worked part time at the Y in Lindenhurst, IL (over 20 miles away from Kenosha), and hadn't worked there since March.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

He didn't work at the Y in Kenosha. He worked part time at the Y in Lindenhurst, IL (over 20 miles away from Kenosha), and hadn't worked there since March.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/11/19/kyle-rittenhouse-says-he-doesnt-regret-bringing-gun-to-kenosha-hes-not-part-of-a-militia/?sh=3131de44429f

 

Quote

Prior to the shootings, Rittenhouse had spent the day working his lifeguarding job in Kenosha, and then volunteered to clean graffiti at a local school and protect a car dealership that had been burned the night before

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The left loves this Guy:  A meth head with a 10-year long prison record.  Recently again convicted of beating a woman (body slammed her to the ground causing her to bleed profusely) and was just released from jail after spending three weeks there and then checked into a mental facility.  Released earlier than day, he joined the rioters that night.  He proceeding to verbally assault people protecting businesses, and then pushed a flaming dumpster towards a gas station before he was stopped. He was filmed wielding a chain just moments before he started screaming at a 17-year old kid and then chasing him full speed in a violent pursuit.  Of course this psychopath had no bad intentions and the 17-year old kid had no reason to be scared.   The kid was obviously a mass-shooter who should be put away for the rest of his life.

In a million years, I could never buy into the left's narrative on this case.  It is utterly ridiculous.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

The left loves this Guy:  A meth head with a 10-year long prison record.  Recently again convicted of beating a woman (body slammed her to the ground causing her to bleed profusely) and was just released from jail after spending three weeks there and then checked into a mental facility.  Released earlier than day, he joined the rioters that night.  He proceeding to verbally assault people protecting businesses, and then pushed a flaming dumpster towards a gas station before he was stopped. He was filmed wielding a chain just moments before he started screaming at a 17-year old kid and then chasing him full speed in a violent pursuit.  Of course this psychopath had no bad intentions and the 17-year old kid had no reason to be scared.   The kid was obviously a mass-shooter who should be put away for the rest of his life.

In a million years, I could never buy into the left's narrative on this case.  It is utterly ridiculous.

 

No one on the left loves this guy. No. One.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

The left loves this Guy:  A meth head with a 10-year long prison record.  Recently again convicted of beating a woman (body slammed her to the ground causing her to bleed profusely) and was just released from jail after spending three weeks there and then checked into a mental facility.  Released earlier than day, he joined the rioters that night.  He proceeding to verbally assault people protecting businesses, and then pushed a flaming dumpster towards a gas station before he was stopped. He was filmed wielding a chain just moments before he started screaming at a 17-year old kid and then chasing him full speed in a violent pursuit.  Of course this psychopath had no bad intentions and the 17-year old kid had no reason to be scared.   The kid was obviously a mass-shooter who should be put away for the rest of his life.

In a million years, I could never buy into the left's narrative on this case.  It is utterly ridiculous.

 

People can be against both violent riots and vigilante murder.   Find an example of anyone on the “left” that loves this guy.  Or are you just making things up again?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, the rover said:

People can be against both violent riots and vigilante murder.   Find an example of anyone on the “left” that loves this guy.  Or are you just making things up again?

Apparently. Earlier he claimed Kyle Rittenhouse lived in Kenosha at the time of the killings, which was false, it is well documented that his residence was in Antioch Illinois.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jon_mx said:

What exactly is BS?  Did you not know the Rittenhouse worked as a lifeguard in Kenosha?  That is his turf, despite living just across the state border.  The forum is oblivious to facts that are not fed to them by the MSM and eats up their spin.  Rittenhouse is a local.  The people he shot, not so much.  Two of the victims travelled further than Rittenhouse.

He did not live there. Should anyone who lives 20 miles from where a crazy protest is going to occur show up armed to play Batman vigilante? Should pro-government guy shown up on Jan 6th and started picking off those nuts rioting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The General said:

He did not live there. Should anyone who lives 20 miles from where a crazy protest is going to occur show up armed to play Batman vigilante? Should pro-government guy shown up on Jan 6th and started picking off those nuts rioting?

Side note, if a person lives more than 5 miles from their place of employment, they’re not a local, they’re a commuter. Case in point, I’ve lived in the same spot for the past 10 years, and various jobs have had me travel anywhere from 10-50 miles away. I’m not local to those places, I’m a visitor. Same case with this guy.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, The General said:

He did not live there. Should anyone who lives 20 miles from where a crazy protest is going to occur show up armed to play Batman vigilante? Should pro-government guy shown up on Jan 6th and started picking off those nuts rioting?

You have two completely different set of standards you jidge people by.  Sorry i can't help you.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Kal El said:

Side note, if a person lives more than 5 miles from their place of employment, they’re not a local, they’re a commuter. Case in point, I’ve lived in the same spot for the past 10 years, and various jobs have had me travel anywhere from 10-50 miles away. I’m not local to those places, I’m a visitor. Same case with this guy.

So basically no one in LA is local.  Interesting definition. 

Edited by jon_mx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, the rover said:

People can be against both violent riots and vigilante murder.   Find an example of anyone on the “left” that loves this guy.  Or are you just making things up again?

It was self-defense.  The way the left falsely frames the story is criminal.  This pyschopath was charging at him full steam like a raging maniac. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jon_mx said:

So basically no one in LA is local.  Interesting definition. 

Time spent in a location also matters. The average worker spends a third of the day in their place of work, and little more. They also tend to not wander away from work except maybe for lunch, and even then, that’s for an hour at most. Attempt at derailing this aside, how would I(to use an example) be considered a local in Vero Beach, a place 50 miles from my home, and where I don’t go anywhere else except to and from work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, the rover said:

Facts and logic won’t ever overcome cognitive dissonance.

You're right. 

How does that relate to thinking an unnamed source is being fact based?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

It was self-defense.  The way the left falsely frames the story is criminal.  This pyschopath was charging at him full steam like a raging maniac. 

You just said people on the left love the guy.  Your response is to repeat Lin Wood’s story of self defense.  Where are the facts of “the left loves this guy”?   Seems to me you just can’t help digging deeper and deeper holes based on lies.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kal El said:

Time spent in a location also matters. The average worker spends a third of the day in their place of work, and little more. They also tend to not wander away from work except maybe for lunch, and even then, that’s for an hour at most. Attempt at derailing this aside, how would I(to use an example) be considered a local in Vero Beach, a place 50 miles from my home, and where I don’t go anywhere else except to and from work?

He volunteered there that day cleaning graffiti off the walls of a school.  The town he lives on literally has a border on the state line.  You cross the street you are in Wisconsin.  It is just odd that Rittenhous lives closer than two of the people he shot, but is the only one people lable as an outsider.  The only one more 'local' was the first guy, who was homeless and had been in prison and a mental hospital for the month prior.  Before that he was living out of motels and a tent.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, the rover said:

You just said people on the left love the guy.  Your response is to repeat Lin Wood’s story of self defense.  Where are the facts of “the left loves this guy”?   Seems to me you just can’t help digging deeper and deeper holes based on lies.

I am not repeating anyone's story.  I have watched various video's of the timeline and can only see one logical conclusion.  It was self-defense in all three cases. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

He volunteered there that day cleaning graffiti off the walls of a school.  The town he lives on literally has a border on the state line.  You cross the street you are in Wisconsin.  It is just odd that Rittenhous lives closer than two of the people he shot, but is the only one people lable as an outsider.  The only one more 'local' was the first guy, who was homeless and had been in prison and a mental hospital for the month prior.  Before that he was living out of motels and a tent.  

Who is saying those dudes weren’t outsiders, who thinks they should have been there with guns? 

Who thinks it’s a good idea to go into this situation and play like you’re a cop?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

He volunteered there that day cleaning graffiti off the walls of a school.  The town he lives on literally has a border on the state line.  You cross the street you are in Wisconsin.  It is just odd that Rittenhous lives closer than two of the people he shot, but is the only one people lable as an outsider.  The only one more 'local' was the first guy, who was homeless and had been in prison and a mental hospital for the month prior.  Before that he was living out of motels and a tent.  

I see nothing that qualifies him as a local. This is like saying someone in West Palm is local to Jupiter, which is clearly not the case. He was an outsider who came in to cause trouble under the guise of keeping the peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Mr.Pack said:

You're right. 

How does that relate to thinking an unnamed source is being fact based?

Journalists often cite unnamed sources.  Consumers of information need to be able to use their own discernment as to the reliability of the reporter and the publication.  In this case, the publication has a strong reputation as a conservative news outlet, and other than one embarrassing incident involving a fake Pulitzer Prize winning story about 10 years ago, it has a stellar reputation.  Rejecting valid information based solely on your personal agenda is cognitive dissonance.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The General said:

Who is saying those dudes weren’t outsiders, who thinks they should have been there with guns? 

Who thinks it’s a good idea to go into this situation and play like you’re a cop?

Guy loads up on guns and ammo to go “defend” a random gas station in another city.  Gets told by police to leave so he goes and “defends” another random gas station.  Breaks a curfew imposed to prevent violence like this.  Then he shoots and kills people.  He did exactly what he was there to do, and he got charged accordingly.   

Edited by the rover
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, the rover said:

Guy loads up on guns and ammo to go “defend” a random gas station in another city.  Gets told by police to leave so he goes and “defends” another random gas station.  Breaks a curfew imposed to prevent violence like this.  Then he shoots and kills people.  He did exactly what he was there to do, and he got charged accordingly.   

I tend to agree.

At the very least no one should think it’s a good idea for this kid, or anyone, to insert himself into this and play cop. 

Months later he’s hanging with Proud Boys and flashing their little white power sign in pics. 

This kid is horribly lost.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

I am not repeating anyone's story.  I have watched various video's of the timeline and can only see one logical conclusion.  It was self-defense in all three cases. 

You don’t understand the laws relating to first degree murder or self defense and have clearly demonstrated it multiple times in the last few pages.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

So basically no one in LA is local.  Interesting definition. 

The dude from West Hollywood shouldn’t be rolling into Brentwood heavily armed playing cop to protect a gas station or whatever. So ridiculously stupid and unnecessary.

Edited by The General
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jon_mx said:

The left loves this Guy:  A meth head with a 10-year long prison record.  Recently again convicted of beating a woman (body slammed her to the ground causing her to bleed profusely) and was just released from jail after spending three weeks there and then checked into a mental facility.  Released earlier than day, he joined the rioters that night.  He proceeding to verbally assault people protecting businesses, and then pushed a flaming dumpster towards a gas station before he was stopped. He was filmed wielding a chain just moments before he started screaming at a 17-year old kid and then chasing him full speed in a violent pursuit.  Of course this psychopath had no bad intentions and the 17-year old kid had no reason to be scared.   The kid was obviously a mass-shooter who should be put away for the rest of his life.

In a million years, I could never buy into the left's narrative on this case.  It is utterly ridiculous.

 

The left loves this guy?  

Imma call BS again.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

You have two completely different set of standards you jidge people by.  Sorry i can't help you.  

Okay, you do not have a law degree.  What is your college degree in and where did you graduate from?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, the rover said:

You don’t understand the laws relating to first degree murder or self defense and have clearly demonstrated it multiple times in the last few pages.   

One guy was screaming at him running at him like a madman, another hit him across the head with a skateboard, and third third had a loaded handgun and was about a half second away from killing him.  Not sure by what law those are not self-defense.  He will either be found not guilty or have a hung jury if the prosecution can get a few gun-hating anti-self defense leftists in the jury.  This is about as clear of a case of self-defense as they come. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

One guy was screaming at him running at him like a madman, another hit him across the head with a skateboard, and third third had a loaded handgun and was about a half second away from killing him.  Not sure by what law those are not self-defense.  He will either be found not guilty or have a hung jury if the prosecution can get a few gun-hating anti-self defense leftists in the jury.  This is about as clear of a case of self-defense as they come. 

Nope.  Kid gonna fry before he punches another girl or murders another human.  Buh bye, Kyle.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, General Malaise said:

Nope.  Kid gonna fry before he punches another girl or murders another human.  Buh bye, Kyle.  

$100?  No conviction on 1st degree homocide.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jon_mx said:

One guy was screaming at him running at him like a madman, another hit him across the head with a skateboard, and third third had a loaded handgun and was about a half second away from killing him.  Not sure by what law those are not self-defense.  He will either be found not guilty or have a hung jury if the prosecution can get a few gun-hating anti-self defense leftists in the jury.  This is about as clear of a case of self-defense as they come. 

No, it isn’t.  As usual, you just don’t know what you’re talking about.   There was no deadly force used against him, so he had no justification to murder these people. Wisconsin is not a “stand your ground state.” Lin Wood, notable liar and unethical lawyer, is the architect of this self-defense argument.  As you’ve been told, the court has determined there is probable cause for first degree murder charges, so your claim that this is intentional homicide is “delusional” is flat wrong.  His actions don’t meet the requirement of using deadly force for self defense.  He went there (breaking two laws to do so) ready to shoot people and he did what he intended.   You are defending murder because it fits your political agenda.  Your facts are wrong and your understanding of the law is wrong, and you’ve shown that clearly over pages of uniformed posts.   
 

root for this murderer all you want.  It doesn’t change anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, the rover said:

No, it isn’t.  As usual, you just don’t know what you’re talking about.   There was no deadly force used against him, so he had no justification to murder these people. Wisconsin is not a “stand your ground state.” Lin Wood, notable liar and unethical lawyer, is the architect of this self-defense argument.  As you’ve been told, the court has determined there is probable cause for first degree murder charges, so your claim that this is intentional homicide is “delusional” is flat wrong.  His actions don’t meet the requirement of using deadly force for self defense.  He went there (breaking two laws to do so) ready to shoot people and he did what he intended.   You are defending murder because it fits your political agenda.  Your facts are wrong and your understanding of the law is wrong, and you’ve shown that clearly over pages of uniformed posts.   
 

root for this murderer all you want.  It doesn’t change anything.

You seem to be making up laws.  The law in Wisconsin is  Rittenhouse had to “reasonably believe that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.”   No where does it require thst deadly force was used against him.  That would be a really dumb rule as you would be dead before you could defend yourself.  

Edited by jon_mx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, sho nuff said:

Probably because there is still investigation of what is going on (as it states in the article...someone who was briefed on the investigation...doubt they are briefing janitors)...still cases that will need to be tried against certain people.  Still arrests being made.  So yeah, you are going to get unnamed sources about an unnamed person.  What they said is almost irrelevant at this point as the point was more that they communicated at all.  Someone of an extremist group, communicating with someone inside the WH is a bad look.  Especially preceding what happened that day.

The article, nor I, have opined that anything was coordinated between the group and the WH.

But was interesting that travel among the Proud Boys was coordinated with each other and the plan to disrupt (sort of showing this was premeditated)...and contacts between several extremist groups and Roger Stone is also a very bad look for Trump.

Its an interesting piece that added information...and more will come as the investigation goes further and more arrests are made.

 

What really could have led to a lot more info, Amazon shouldn't have kicked Parlor off their servers.  The feds could have got involved on that forum, and these people were freely sharing info.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

$100?  No conviction on 1st degree homocide.  

Find it interesting that you are defending a guy that beats up girls.  

Have Rover (an actual lawyer) draft up terms of our bet and make it $200. 

May this kid rot in the sort of prison that is unkind to girl beaters. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, the rover said:

He has two separate and different charges of first degree homicide.  Which one?  

Either.  There is no way that either stands as first degree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, the rover said:

No, it isn’t.  As usual, you just don’t know what you’re talking about.   There was no deadly force used against him, so he had no justification to murder these people. Wisconsin is not a “stand your ground state.” Lin Wood, notable liar and unethical lawyer, is the architect of this self-defense argument.  As you’ve been told, the court has determined there is probable cause for first degree murder charges, so your claim that this is intentional homicide is “delusional” is flat wrong.  His actions don’t meet the requirement of using deadly force for self defense.  He went there (breaking two laws to do so) ready to shoot people and he did what he intended.   You are defending murder because it fits your political agenda.  Your facts are wrong and your understanding of the law is wrong, and you’ve shown that clearly over pages of uniformed posts.   
 

root for this murderer all you want.  It doesn’t change anything.

I don't know all of the facts in his particular case.  He was basically in a riot situation, wondering if they are using him as the whipping boy here.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, General Malaise said:

Find it interesting that you are defending a guy that beats up girls.  

Have Rover (an actual lawyer) draft up terms of our bet and make it $200. 

May this kid rot in the sort of prison that is unkind to girl beaters. 

The guy you love is a convicted girl beater.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mr.Pack said:

You're right. 

How does that relate to thinking an unnamed source is being fact based?

Ummm how is it being an unnamed source meaning they aren’t reporting facts?  Do you believe they made up the source and the information?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...