6
DestroyerofCobwebs 6 points ago +6 / -0

People aren't buying it nearly as much as the media is selling it.

If you had told the average person 2 years ago that the world was soon going to be in the clutches of a virus so deadly that 99.95 percent of healthy people survive it, and that they were going to need to lockdown in their homes for months, wear a facemask for years, and get an unending stream of experimental injections to stop this deadly scourge, they'd have laughed in your face.

As that popular 4chan meme goes, the whole thing has been a huge psyop, but the thing about psychological manipulations is, people eventually realize they're being fucked with. They may lack the language to express how exactly, but they know.

And they're starting to know.

2
DestroyerofCobwebs 2 points ago +2 / -0

How many hundreds of people is Nordstrom going to have to lay off over this?

Property crime is violent crime.

8
DestroyerofCobwebs 8 points ago +8 / -0

People tend to want where they live to look like the places they want to vacation, and IMO that's a huge mistake. From MCI I can be anywhere in the country without a few hours. Then I get to come back to a peaceful place that isn't full of clueless tourists and hoards of people to live my life.

It's terrible. Awful. Everyone should stay away from Kansas, that's my advice.

16
DestroyerofCobwebs 16 points ago +16 / -0

Kelly wants to get re-elected, and she's trying to take this weapon out of Derek Schmidt's hands.

Probably a mistake for her, though. Her own voters will lose enthusiasm over this decision, so she won't run up the numbers in JoCo and Crimedot she needs in order to overcome Derek's domination of the rural areas.

1
DestroyerofCobwebs 1 point ago +1 / -0

That upset me more than any other early show cancellation. Still does today. Because you're right, the show was starting to get really good. Had a great cast, solid plotlines, so much promise just flushed down the toilet.

Why no one else has picked up the basic premise of SG-1 and ran with it, that's the part I can't figure out. The Stargate was just a plot device, it was really a pretty simple show in the early seasons. It worked because the casting department knocked it out of the park with the four main characters.

2
DestroyerofCobwebs 2 points ago +2 / -0

Been rewatching the whole series. I'm now convinced this was the best scifi TV show in history. Seasons 3-7 were consistently good, and even the earlier and later stuff was worth a watch.

Star Trek probably owns the crown for best individual episodes, but SG-1 was a better TV show overall than any of them.

5
DestroyerofCobwebs 5 points ago +5 / -0

He was one of the more aggressive ones. Notice where the Ziminski's were, after Kyle played pop the chomo with Rosenbaum's skull? Nowhere to be seen, because they fucked off ricky tick when Kyle opened the tap. So did most of the bugs.

3
DestroyerofCobwebs 3 points ago +3 / -0

Taper off, or better yet completely eliminate, alcohol from your diet during the winter, if you have this problem.

That and the other items you mentioned, especially the exercise, are how I keep it at bay.

9
DestroyerofCobwebs 9 points ago +9 / -0

At this point Kyle has embraced it, like the McCloskey's did. Jury's still out on if that was a wise decision, but that's what he's done.

He might as well go full-send and start doing advertising for gun manufacturers, too. That'll rustle some jimmies.

7
DestroyerofCobwebs 7 points ago +7 / -0

Imagine having a son that actively takes bribes for his politician father to ensure strange events like this happen.

1
DestroyerofCobwebs 1 point ago +1 / -0

Watch some leftist post his bail just to piss everyone off, since Rittenhouse got his posted.

1
DestroyerofCobwebs 1 point ago +1 / -0

There were no protests happening when Kyle ventilated those fools. Protest has nothing to do with it.

2
DestroyerofCobwebs 2 points ago +2 / -0

So far I'm wondering just generally WTF the point of this interview is. Are they just going to re-litigate the just finished case, minus the prosecution?

What a wasted opportunity. Kinda feel like Tucker doesn't know how to do this interview. Being objective is one thing, but this kid needs to have the chance to address some of the horrible shit people have been saying about him for 15 months, not just rehash a case everyone already knows about.

1
DestroyerofCobwebs 1 point ago +1 / -0

The Constitution is how we got where we are. Any system devised by man can be corrupted by man, which is where the whole tree of liberty needing to be watered from time to time comes in.

2
DestroyerofCobwebs 2 points ago +2 / -0

It doesn't matter. In this case the 1st amendment isn't protecting Kyle, it's protecting his defamers. Sucks, but that's what it is. Nowhere in that ruling does it say voluntarily, or even allude to such a standard. In fact, prior SC cases have explicitly rejected the concept that a person has to deliberately seek out public notoriety to meet the public figure standard.

The fact that he didn't ask to be a public figure is irrelevant. He is one. The 1st amendment protection applies to the media, not the person the media is defaming.

For what it's worth, we haven't even gotten in to the nearly impossible hill to climb called proving damages. Kyle couldn't possibly prove damages while he was charged, so his ability to prove them started the second he was acquitted.

People want to draw inferences between this case and the Sandmann situation. Legally, they aren't even remotely similar. Sandmann had a far stronger defamation case, and he still lost on the most damaging allegations.

Not trying to attack you or pick a fight, I'm just saying Kyle's case for defamation is weak. It shouldn't be, but by our laws it is.

3
DestroyerofCobwebs 3 points ago +3 / -0

Our entire judicial system needs to be torn down to the dirt and rebuilt. On that point, I can agree with BLM.

What the rebuilt system should look like, though, I think we're not going to find much common ground there. This guy should have never been allowed to walk out of jail on the first set of charges.

By the way, for those that might not know, his speedy trial demand is a classic hardened criminal tactic designed to provoke an overloaded court system into doing exactly what it did.

But hey, we need to end cash bail, if you listen to BLM.

1
DestroyerofCobwebs 1 point ago +2 / -1

Yes it does. It shouldn't, but it does matter. The standard for being a public figure as defined in US Supreme Court case Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. specifically addresses people in situations like Kyle's (bolding mine):

Respondent’s characterization of petitioner as a public figure raises a different question. That designation may rest on either of two alternative bases. In some instances an individual may achieve such pervasive fame or notoriety that he becomes a public figure for all purposes and in all contexts. More commonly, an individual voluntarily injects himself or is drawn into a particular public controversy and thereby becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues. In either case such persons assume special prominence in the resolution of public questions.

You could argue that Kyle Rittenhouse already meets that standard. If, now that he has a choice in the matter, he continues to engage in public life, he certainly will.

2
DestroyerofCobwebs 2 points ago +3 / -1

The only way you stop an attack like this is through cultural homogeneity. No amount of armed people could make a difference, and a small community like this can't implement NYC style movement controls.

Either we change hearts and minds, remove the people who won't conform, or we learn to live with it.

I vote option a and b. We're pursing option c.

10
DestroyerofCobwebs 10 points ago +10 / -0

The only way Kyle has any hope of winning such cases, is if he keeps a low profile. If he becomes a public figure, which he's well on his way to being if he keeps doing interviews and media appearances, he's going to get tossed out of court.

And since I know someone is going to reply that he wasn't a public figure when these events happened; it won't matter. If public perception is that he's a person actively engaging in the media today, that'll be enough to screw him.

6
DestroyerofCobwebs 6 points ago +6 / -0

As a physician, if you accept health insurance at all, you are not free to give your patients what you believe is sound medical advice. You are little more than a spokesman for the insurance company.

If you accept medicare, now you're a spokesman for both the insurance companies and the government.

2
DestroyerofCobwebs 2 points ago +2 / -0

Fat Jerry is letting his neck go to his head. Kyle isn't a cop, so no civil rights violations. Never crossed state lines with the AR, so the ATF can get fucked.

He's just bloviating as a balm for the chapped asses of his idiotic voters. Kyle probably will face some civil suits, but he's a free man.

No federal prosecutor wants to risk an epic, precedent setting smackdown from the Supreme Court, one that might forevermore restrict the state's ability to charge civil rights violations against previously tried defendants, just to go after this kid who wasn't guilty of a crime to begin with.

1
DestroyerofCobwebs 1 point ago +1 / -0

Where is 'right to protest', in the constitution?

The law gives people the right to petition their government for redress, and to peacefully assemble on public lands.

A protest that occurs on private property without the consent of the property owner isn't protected speech, it's trespass.

A protest that disrupts commerce or the free movement of people, isn't a protest, it's an illegal gathering combined with a variety of more serious criminal offenses.

A protest that exceeds reasonable understanding of what a peaceful assembly is, stops being protected speech and starts being a riot.

Protest is really a narrowly defined set of activities under law. Our side needs to get more active in local elections, so we can remove these DAs and mayors who want to redefine protest into whatever the radical left wants to do.

view more: Next ›