Aaron747 wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Fact: in English, we use ‘would not HAVE been’ in past perfect unreal conditionals.

Come on man. Grammar police?
Is everybody around the world required to use flawless English now?

It was the repeat of the error that caught my eye. I didn’t say anything about perfection - this is basic 3rd grade English!

Maybe to you but again a big chunk of this planet doesn't use English in 3rd grade. Or any grade for that matter.
You understood that post perfectly well.
Are we gonna go after commas too now?

PixelPilot wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

Come on man. Grammar police?
Is everybody around the world required to use flawless English now?

It was the repeat of the error that caught my eye. I didn’t say anything about perfection - this is basic 3rd grade English!

Maybe to you but again a big chunk of this planet doesn't use English in 3rd grade. Or any grade for that matter.
You understood that post perfectly well.
Are we gonna go after commas too now?

See post edit above please.

"CNN is centrist." Nearly spit my coffee on the keyboard over that one.

cairns wrote:

"CNN is centrist." Nearly spit my coffee on the keyboard over that one.

Compared to MSNBC or CBS? Unquestionably so. There are many progressives who call for deplatforming CNN’s ‘corporate agenda’.

casinterest wrote:

Person with a firearm wouldn't have had one if he had followed the law and hadn't shown up based on lies . Fact.

Are we talking about Rittenhouse or Grosskreutz here? Just wondering because Grosskreutz was carrying illegally. What's funny is that people complain because Rittenhouse open carried, which is the legal way for him to carry. Yet, Grosskreutz carried concealed, which was illegal without a CCW and his had been expired for awhile.

johns624 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Person with a firearm wouldn't have had one if he had followed the law and hadn't shown up based on lies . Fact.

Are we talking about Rittenhouse or Grosskreutz here? Just wondering because Grosskreutz was carrying illegally. What's funny is that people complain because Rittenhouse open carried, which is the legal way for him to carry. Yet, Grosskreutz carried concealed, which was illegal without a CCW and his had been expired for awhile.

And yet Grosskruetz didn't fire.

I mean the moral of the story is, Shoot the guy with the gun, because he will probably shoot you if he perceives any kind of threat. Rittenhouse claims he was afraid of what they would do if he got his gun, which is part of the reason why none of this would have happened without the guns.

Aaron747 wrote:

cairns wrote:

"CNN is centrist." Nearly spit my coffee on the keyboard over that one.

Compared to MSNBC or CBS? Unquestionably so. There are many progressives who call for deplatforming CNN’s ‘corporate agenda’.

According to this website below, they are a tad to the left , but quite a bit more centrist than Fox news,


https://adfontesmedia.com/

Take a look at your favorite sources and determine where your point of center is.

Aaron747 wrote:

windy95 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

They would not of been shot and killed if they did not show up to a riot.
They would not of been shot if they did not attack a person in possession of a firearm.....Facts

Fact: in English, we use ‘would not HAVE been’ in past perfect unreal conditionals.

The contraction 'would've' (for would have) sounds like 'would of' when spoken and many people didn't pay attention in school.

casinterest wrote:

Person with a firearm wouldn't have had one if he had followed the law and hadn't shown up based on lies . Fact.

Which one didn't follow which law?

Elkadad313 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

windy95 wrote:

Fact: in English, we use ‘would not HAVE been’ in past perfect unreal conditionals.

The contraction 'would've' (for would have) sounds like 'would of' when spoken and many people didn't pay attention in school.

Don’t I know it...punchy from all the errors I caught in work product today.

casinterest wrote:

johns624 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Person with a firearm wouldn't have had one if he had followed the law and hadn't shown up based on lies . Fact.

Are we talking about Rittenhouse or Grosskreutz here? Just wondering because Grosskreutz was carrying illegally. What's funny is that people complain because Rittenhouse open carried, which is the legal way for him to carry. Yet, Grosskreutz carried concealed, which was illegal without a CCW and his had been expired for awhile.

And yet Grosskruetz didn't fire.

I mean the moral of the story is, Shoot the guy with the gun, because he will probably shoot you if he perceives any kind of threat. Rittenhouse claims he was afraid of what they would do if he got his gun, which is part of the reason why none of this would have happened without the guns.

Grosskreutz must've not considered Rittenhouse a threat if he didn't fire. As much as you might not like it, or consider it stupid (like I do), Rittenhouse had every legal right to be there. When I say I consider it stupid, I don't mean I think the law is stupid. It's just that I was taught in my CPL class to never go anywhere with a gun that you wouldn't go without one.

johns624 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Are we talking about Rittenhouse or Grosskreutz here? Just wondering because Grosskreutz was carrying illegally. What's funny is that people complain because Rittenhouse open carried, which is the legal way for him to carry. Yet, Grosskreutz carried concealed, which was illegal without a CCW and his had been expired for awhile.

And yet Grosskruetz didn't fire.

I mean the moral of the story is, Shoot the guy with the gun, because he will probably shoot you if he perceives any kind of threat. Rittenhouse claims he was afraid of what they would do if he got his gun, which is part of the reason why none of this would have happened without the guns.

Grosskreutz must've not considered Rittenhouse a threat if he didn't fire. As much as you might not like it, or consider it stupid (like I do), Rittenhouse had every legal right to be there. When I say I consider it stupid, I don't mean I think the law is stupid. It's just that I was taught in my CPL class to never go anywhere with a gun that you wouldn't go without one.

But this is part of the issue. Your training. We now have laws allowing open carry without training in some of the states. People that don't have much of a definition of where they wouldn't go, are going to cause a lot more problems.

This is one of the reasons the sheriffs of the old west used to confiscate guns when everyone came to town.

KWexpress wrote:

It really doesn't matter why he was there. It's not illegal for any US citizen to be in a public area.

It does matter. If his parents had done their job as he never would have been there in the first place. It should be obvious why people are either ignoring or try to deflect the role of his parents in this whole mess

casinterest wrote:

[ People that don't have much of a definition of where they wouldn't go, are going to cause a lot more problems.

This should probably apply to all four people there. None were protesting police brutality, they were there to start sh*t. I would consider Huber armed with a deadly weapon, as he was wielding a large skateboard. One hit with that could cause serious injury or death. Rosenbaum was a nutcase whose own family doesn't know why he was there. Grosskreutz was carrying a gun illegally and had also had DV charges. All three were combative individuals. Rittenhouse's problem was that he was in over his head. He thought his gun would keep others from bothering him. As I've found out over the years, pointed guns don't scare some people, either because of anger, mind-altering substances or just don't-give-sh*t-ism.

LMP737 wrote:

KWexpress wrote:

It really doesn't matter why he was there. It's not illegal for any US citizen to be in a public area.

It does matter. If his parents had done their job as he never would have been there in the first place. It should be obvious why people are either ignoring or try to deflect the role of his parents in this whole mess

Well, for one thing, it seems his father wasn't anywhere to be found. Of course, where were the other three's parents when they were growing up and needed to be taught right from wrong?

johns624 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

. What's funny is that people complain because Rittenhouse open carried, which is the legal way for him to carry.

It's a sad indictment on this country that a child can legally open carry a weapon that he had to have someone else buy for him because it was illegal for him to purchase said weapon.

stratosphere wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Person with a firearm wouldn't have had one if he had followed the law and hadn't shown up based on lies . Fact.

Sooooo you didn't watch the trial nor the video documentary I posted.
This tells that you don't really care about facts.

The left does not care about facts or even video evidence. You know the ironic thing is that video evidence saved the day in both the Rittenhouse case and the George Floyd case. I would venture both cases would have had a different outcome had they not had video evidence.

Fact-free mindset is alive and well on both sides.

johns624 wrote:

Well, for one thing, it seems his father wasn't anywhere to be found.

And the mother was clueless.

johns624 wrote:

Of course, where were the other three's parents when they were growing up and needed to be taught right from wrong?

Whataboutism.

LMP737 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Of course, where were the other three's parents when they were growing up and needed to be taught right from wrong?

Whataboutism.

No. People keep saying that Rittenhouse had no reason to be there. The same could be said for the other three. They weren't civil rights activists, they were low level criminal sh*t starters. Once again, people are getting carried away by what they wish the law was, or what they thought the law was. Sorry, but you have to go by what the law really is.

johns624 wrote:

LMP737 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Whataboutism.

No. People keep saying that Rittenhouse had no reason to be there. The same could be said for the other three. They weren't civil rights activists, they were low level criminal sh*t starters. Once again, people are getting carried away by what they wish the law was, or what they thought the law was. Sorry, but you have to go by what the law really is.

You're right, but that just backs up what I have been saying for over a year on the riot topic - conservatives have been eager to lump all of BLM and the Floyd movement together as a happy gang of rioters, but that's not so. Political protests always invite this nascent criminal and anarchist element, all of whom have very little interest in politics, and high interest in being destructive and getting their jollies.

Aaron747 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

LMP737 wrote:

No. People keep saying that Rittenhouse had no reason to be there. The same could be said for the other three. They weren't civil rights activists, they were low level criminal sh*t starters. Once again, people are getting carried away by what they wish the law was, or what they thought the law was. Sorry, but you have to go by what the law really is.

You're right, but that just backs up what I have been saying for over a year on the riot topic - conservatives have been eager to lump all of BLM and the Floyd movement together as a happy gang of rioters, but that's not so. Political protests always invite this nascent criminal and anarchist element, all of whom have very little interest in politics, and high interest in being destructive and getting their jollies.

That's why I'm a "moderate". I agree with the left on a few things, agree with the right on a few, and think that they're FOS on most platforms.

Aaron747 wrote:

conservatives have been eager to lump all of BLM and the Floyd movement together as a happy gang of rioters, but that's not so. Political protests always invite this nascent criminal and anarchist element, all of whom have very little interest in politics, and high interest in being destructive and getting their jollies.

While I agree, isn't it ironic that some of our more liberal members here are also lumping them in with the legitimate protesters?

The kid’s interview with hyperemotional Tucker dropped last night:

https://youtu.be/do7sbWaZstQ

Aaron747 wrote:

stratosphere wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

Sooooo you didn't watch the trial nor the video documentary I posted.
This tells that you don't really care about facts.

The left does not care about facts or even video evidence. You know the ironic thing is that video evidence saved the day in both the Rittenhouse case and the George Floyd case. I would venture both cases would have had a different outcome had they not had video evidence.

Fact-free mindset is alive and well on both sides.

My point is that he is guilty of manslaughter in all of the cases. he brought a deadly weapon and used it. Without that weapon, the issues and the rhetoric never would have occurred.

casinterest wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

stratosphere wrote:

The left does not care about facts or even video evidence. You know the ironic thing is that video evidence saved the day in both the Rittenhouse case and the George Floyd case. I would venture both cases would have had a different outcome had they not had video evidence.

Fact-free mindset is alive and well on both sides.

My point is that he is guilty of manslaughter in all of the cases. he brought a deadly weapon and used it. Without that weapon, the issues and the rhetoric never would have occurred.

Except for the little FACT that a jury of his peers found him Not Guilty. Deal with it!
Like I've said before...people need to thinking or wishing that the law is different than it actually was. People here are always ranting about the "Rule of Law". Well, here it is.
PS--If Rosenbaum had kept his crazy, arson-setting ass away and Huber had left his skateboard at home and Grosskreutz had left his gun at home, none of this would've happened, either.

johns624 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Fact-free mindset is alive and well on both sides.

My point is that he is guilty of manslaughter in all of the cases. he brought a deadly weapon and used it. Without that weapon, the issues and the rhetoric never would have occurred.

Except for the little FACT that a jury of his peers found him Not Guilty. Deal with it!
Like I've said before...people need to thinking or wishing that the law is different than it actually was. People here are always ranting about the "Rule of Law". Well, here it is.
PS--If Rosenbaum had kept his crazy, arson-setting ass away and Huber had left his skateboard at home and Grosskreutz had left his gun at home, none of this would've happened, either.

The problem is that with the law the way it is, it will create more dangerous issues and deaths. These laws are not written well for public interactions especially when there are heated and controversial subjects at hand. Especially when both sides are willing to beleive lies. Guns are killing weapons. Skateboards are not. Plastic bags are not. Guns have no place in democratic demonstrations other than in the hands of the police.

casinterest wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

stratosphere wrote:

The left does not care about facts or even video evidence. You know the ironic thing is that video evidence saved the day in both the Rittenhouse case and the George Floyd case. I would venture both cases would have had a different outcome had they not had video evidence.

Fact-free mindset is alive and well on both sides.

My point is that he is guilty of manslaughter in all of the cases. he brought a deadly weapon and used it. Without that weapon, the issues and the rhetoric never would have occurred.

No he's not.
Do you know that in Wisconsin when somebody grabs your weapon (can be just the tip of a barrel) that person is considered as armed?
AGAIN, just watch the thing. It is really eye opening if you care about facts, truth and all those values the left preaches so hard.

UNLESS you don't care about facts and you just want it your way.

PixelPilot wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Fact-free mindset is alive and well on both sides.

My point is that he is guilty of manslaughter in all of the cases. he brought a deadly weapon and used it. Without that weapon, the issues and the rhetoric never would have occurred.

No he's not.
Do you know that in Wisconsin when somebody grabs your weapon (can be just the tip of a barrel) that person is considered as armed?
AGAIN, just watch the thing. It is really eye opening if you care about facts, truth and all those values the left preaches so hard.

UNLESS you don't care about facts and you just want it your way.

I care about facts. But I care about lives more than the gun folks. These gun laws only promote more needless deaths. if that is the way society wants to go, then we will wind up like inner chicago where multiple people wind up dead with no charges. That isn't right. and these gun laws only make it more likely to happen. Guns are a killing device. Not a tool.

casinterest wrote:

Guns are killing weapons. Skateboards are not. Plastic bags are not.

Yes, they are. It all depends on the mindset of the wielder. So are baseball bats, screwdrivers, ropes and SUVs.

casinterest wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

casinterest wrote:

My point is that he is guilty of manslaughter in all of the cases. he brought a deadly weapon and used it. Without that weapon, the issues and the rhetoric never would have occurred.

No he's not.
Do you know that in Wisconsin when somebody grabs your weapon (can be just the tip of a barrel) that person is considered as armed?
AGAIN, just watch the thing. It is really eye opening if you care about facts, truth and all those values the left preaches so hard.

UNLESS you don't care about facts and you just want it your way.

I care about facts. But I care about lives more than the gun folks. These gun laws only promote more needless deaths. if that is the way society wants to go, then we will wind up like inner chicago where multiple people wind up dead with no charges. That isn't right. and these gun laws only make it more likely to happen. Guns are a killing device. Not a tool.

You care about lives by defending an aggressive pedophile (convicted) attacking a guy that didn't agitate anything?
That's how you care?

johns624 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Guns are killing weapons. Skateboards are not. Plastic bags are not.

Yes, they are. It all depends on the mindset of the wielder. So are baseball bats, screwdrivers, ropes and SUVs.

Yes, but Guns allow for a bit easier trigger for a bad person. Especially if they just start waving it around. People with skateboards, plastic bags, and no intention to cause death, are just collateral damage to the gun lobby.

PixelPilot wrote:

casinterest wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

No he's not.
Do you know that in Wisconsin when somebody grabs your weapon (can be just the tip of a barrel) that person is considered as armed?
AGAIN, just watch the thing. It is really eye opening if you care about facts, truth and all those values the left preaches so hard.

UNLESS you don't care about facts and you just want it your way.

I care about facts. But I care about lives more than the gun folks. These gun laws only promote more needless deaths. if that is the way society wants to go, then we will wind up like inner chicago where multiple people wind up dead with no charges. That isn't right. and these gun laws only make it more likely to happen. Guns are a killing device. Not a tool.

You care about lives by defending an aggressive pedophile (convicted) attacking a guy that didn't agitate anything?
That's how you care?

So you are protecting a girl abusing coward that used a gun on a person he had no clue was the above?

casinterest wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

casinterest wrote:

My point is that he is guilty of manslaughter in all of the cases. he brought a deadly weapon and used it. Without that weapon, the issues and the rhetoric never would have occurred.

No he's not.
Do you know that in Wisconsin when somebody grabs your weapon (can be just the tip of a barrel) that person is considered as armed?
AGAIN, just watch the thing. It is really eye opening if you care about facts, truth and all those values the left preaches so hard.

UNLESS you don't care about facts and you just want it your way.

I care about facts. But I care about lives more than the gun folks. These gun laws only promote more needless deaths. if that is the way society wants to go, then we will wind up like inner chicago where multiple people wind up dead with no charges. That isn't right. and these gun laws only make it more likely to happen. Guns are a killing device. Not a tool.

You have an unhealthy phobia about guns. As the "man" in Waukesha proved, guns aren't the only killing weapons. I bet if a man was swinging a big, heavy skateboard at you, you'd fear for your life, too.

casinterest wrote:

johns624 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Guns are killing weapons. Skateboards are not. Plastic bags are not.

Yes, they are. It all depends on the mindset of the wielder. So are baseball bats, screwdrivers, ropes and SUVs.

Yes, but Guns allow for a bit easier trigger for a bad person. Especially if they just start waving it around. People with skateboards, plastic bags, and no intention to cause death, are just collateral damage to the gun lobby.

Yeah, skateboards are so much fun when they hit you in the head

https://twitter.com/treadondeeznuts/sta ... 03110?s=21

https://ibb.co/8M1GWQQ
https://ibb.co/8M1GWQQ

casinterest wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

casinterest wrote:

I care about facts. But I care about lives more than the gun folks. These gun laws only promote more needless deaths. if that is the way society wants to go, then we will wind up like inner chicago where multiple people wind up dead with no charges. That isn't right. and these gun laws only make it more likely to happen. Guns are a killing device. Not a tool.

You care about lives by defending an aggressive pedophile (convicted) attacking a guy that didn't agitate anything?
That's how you care?

So you are protecting a girl abusing coward that used a gun on a person he had no clue was the above?

No, an aggressive rioter who had already set a dumpster on fire.

johns624 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

No he's not.
Do you know that in Wisconsin when somebody grabs your weapon (can be just the tip of a barrel) that person is considered as armed?
AGAIN, just watch the thing. It is really eye opening if you care about facts, truth and all those values the left preaches so hard.

UNLESS you don't care about facts and you just want it your way.

I care about facts. But I care about lives more than the gun folks. These gun laws only promote more needless deaths. if that is the way society wants to go, then we will wind up like inner chicago where multiple people wind up dead with no charges. That isn't right. and these gun laws only make it more likely to happen. Guns are a killing device. Not a tool.

You have an unhealthy phobia about guns. As the "man" in Waukesha proved, guns aren't the only killing weapons. I bet if a man was swinging a big, heavy skateboard at you, you'd fear for your life, too.

No. I would be able to get away from a skateboard,. I am not afraid of guns. I am afraid of some of the folks I have seen that own them.

johns624 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

You care about lives by defending an aggressive pedophile (convicted) attacking a guy that didn't agitate anything?
That's how you care?

So you are protecting a girl abusing coward that used a gun on a person he had no clue was the above?

No, an aggressive rioter who had already set a dumpster on fire.

Oooh a dumpster fire. So deadly.

casinterest wrote:

No. I would be able to get away from a skateboard.

Maybe, maybe not. These things don't happen in a vacuum.

casinterest wrote:

johns624 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

I care about facts. But I care about lives more than the gun folks. These gun laws only promote more needless deaths. if that is the way society wants to go, then we will wind up like inner chicago where multiple people wind up dead with no charges. That isn't right. and these gun laws only make it more likely to happen. Guns are a killing device. Not a tool.

You have an unhealthy phobia about guns. As the "man" in Waukesha proved, guns aren't the only killing weapons. I bet if a man was swinging a big, heavy skateboard at you, you'd fear for your life, too.

No. I would be able to get away from a skateboard,. I am not afraid of guns. I am afraid of some of the folks I have seen that own them.

Sure you would lmao
https://ibb.co/8M1GWQQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok9_EqP ... X35Orlando
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n3oK2M ... evenBright

casinterest wrote:

johns624 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

So you are protecting a girl abusing coward that used a gun on a person he had no clue was the above?

No, an aggressive rioter who had already set a dumpster on fire.

Oooh a dumpster fire. So deadly.

What does setting fires have to do with protesting a police shooting?

johns624 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

johns624 wrote:

No, an aggressive rioter who had already set a dumpster on fire.

Oooh a dumpster fire. So deadly.

What does setting fires have to do with protesting a police shooting?

\What does shooting a man have to do with dumpster fires?

casinterest wrote:

johns624 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Oooh a dumpster fire. So deadly.

What does setting fires have to do with protesting a police shooting?

\What does shooting a man have to do with dumpster fires?

Watch the video and that question will be answered because it is actually a big part of this whole ordeal.
It's like you are scared of truth or something.

casinterest wrote:

johns624 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Oooh a dumpster fire. So deadly.

What does setting fires have to do with protesting a police shooting?

\What does shooting a man have to do with dumpster fires?

It's amazing how you know so much more than the jury!

johns624 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

johns624 wrote:

What does setting fires have to do with protesting a police shooting?

\What does shooting a man have to do with dumpster fires?

It's amazing how you know so much more than the jury!

Not worried about the jury at this point. I understand what they came back with. I just don't think guns belonged there, especially when the fear of losing it to another was what drove the use.

casinterest wrote:

I just don't think guns belonged there, especially when the fear of losing it to another was what drove the use.

So you admit that the deceased were attempting to disarm him?

johns624 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

I just don't think guns belonged there, especially when the fear of losing it to another was what drove the use.

So you admit that the deceased were attempting to disarm him?

Yes. And that is what is needed if you think he is an active shooter. What if someone had succeeded and killed him. They would have gotten self defense as well.

casinterest wrote:

johns624 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

I just don't think guns belonged there, especially when the fear of losing it to another was what drove the use.

So you admit that the deceased were attempting to disarm him?

Yes. And that is what is needed if you think he is an active shooter. What if someone had succeeded and killed him. They would have gotten self defense as well.

He wasn't an "active shooter" until he was attacked. You really need to read some of the testimony on what happened and not just what you "think" happened.

So, Rittenhouse got off. Given the circumstances and the laws in this country, this was bound to be the result. If I were on the jury, I would have reluctantly voted to acquit. However, I think there is something very wrong where mommy lets an underage punk kid have an AR-15 and drives him to a riot so that he can fulfill his vigilante fantasies. I think the whole situation was poorly handled by the authorities. The last thing you need in a tense situation like this is a bunch of untrained yahoos with their guns trying to "help" keep law and order.

johns624 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

johns624 wrote:

So you admit that the deceased were attempting to disarm him?

Yes. And that is what is needed if you think he is an active shooter. What if someone had succeeded and killed him. They would have gotten self defense as well.

He wasn't an "active shooter" until he was attacked.

Most in that mob only knew a gun has been fired elsewhere after the first death. Even the survivor thought he was an active shooter.