Is the US on a path to civil unrest?

[spliff(TONE)]

#irrelevant

Absolutely relevant. With the tunnel visioned vigor you've approached this entire conversation, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if you had a poster of Kyle Rittenhouse hanging above your bed.

[NBA all the way]

Yet he claims to be right down the middle politically, which is obviously complete BS. Seems to be a common tactic of Trump supporters that are either in denial or straight up trying to trick the people they tell this to.

Ask me issues that are left or right and I guarantee you at the end if we tally stuff up I'm dang near moderate.

Don't even tell me the left or right opinion.

Just say like issue 1 2 3 etc, i can't say for certain but i bet I'd grade out overall, if its wide ranging topics, I'd fall in the middle.

[NBA all the way]

Absolutely relevant. With the tunnel visioned vigor you've approached this entire conversation, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if you had a poster of Kyle Rittenhouse hanging above your bed.

Heck no, the kid is a douche and I've said why, many times.

[NBA all the way]

HAHAHAHAHA

Alright so basically you are only capable of calling others partisan and never responding to actual context. Why don't you show me where he said he tackled someone? Why don't you quote me saying the things you made up previously? Why don't you respond to majorities of my posts and always focus on this type of aspect?

The clear answer, again, is your extreme partisanship shining through as others clearly have noted as well.

Dude bc you are harping on crap from weeks ago, that is entirely irrelevant.

Be gone

[mngopher35]

Dude bc you are harping on crap from weeks ago, that is entirely irrelevant.

Be gone

Everything that proves you have been wrong or ignoring context you just call irrelevant, it was the same when I engaged previously as well. You can't quote it because you keep making up tons of BS to defend this kid in extreme fashion and just won't admit it.

[NBA all the way]

Everything that proves you have been wrong or ignoring context you just call irrelevant, it was the same when I engaged previously as well. You can't quote it because you keep making up tons of BS to defend this kid in extreme fashion and just won't admit it.

Not everything I say is literal. You are like Drax The Destroyer.

You think when nastynice and i were talking I knew what the 2 dudes who died said? No, obviously I don't.

Some of the stuff I was saying it falls in line with your mindset.

Some of the stuff I was mocking you.

Some of the stuff I was exaggerating what you said.

Some of the stuff is simile or metaphors.

Idk why this has to be explained and you rebuttal with "quote me"... Like bro -_- really lol

Ok Drax, we get it, metaphors can't go over your head, because your reflexes are too fast and you would catch it. SMH

[emoji1751]

[mngopher35]

Not everything I say is literal. You are like Drax The Destroyer.

You think when nastynice and i were talking I knew what the 2 dudes who died said? No, obviously I don't.

Some of the stuff I was saying it falls in line with your mindset.

Some of the stuff I was mocking you.

Some of the stuff I was exaggerating what you said.

Some of the stuff is simile or metaphors.

Idk why this has to be explained and you rebuttal with "quote me"... Like bro -_- really lol

Ok Drax, we get it, metaphors can't go over your head, because your reflexes are too fast and you would catch it. SMH

[emoji1751]

The reason is because at no point have you ever quoted it and if you are just mocking me with things I never said just because I point out actual context it says a lot about you. You deflected from reality to make up a point then mock it even though I never even made that point.

You not understanding this basic concept says plenty and the rest of this is just lol. Nothing has gone over my head, you are the only one incapable of actually responding to others/reality without making up BS.

[Bramaca]

I am ok with Myles Garrett bashing Mason Rudolph in the head with his own helmet.

The men didn't engage with him, just broke in the house, he shot them from about 10 to 20 yards away. Just Google zach peters Oklahoma or something, it should come up. I can't post links anymore or people only focus on the source.

Well Garrett Foster was trying to stop the driver from running over people, or so he thought. Foster and the man who shot him were both legally allowed to have their weapons.

None of those really change anything or apply to the Rittenhouse shooting. What was the purpose of asking for people’s opinions on them?

[NBA all the way]

The reason is because at no point have you ever quoted it... Nothing has gone over my head, you are the only one incapable of actually responding to others/reality without making up BS.

Lmao thank you for proving my point, i literally just laughed out loud over this.

I'm sure you'll rip up YouTube as a source, but enjoy this short clip.

https://youtu.be/iLttd33j-GQ

[NBA all the way]

None of those really change anything or apply to the Rittenhouse shooting. What was the purpose of asking for people’s opinions on them?

Of course it does, I want opinions on those cases to see if people are just partial to this situation. Specifically spliff.

[mngopher35]

Lmao thank you for proving my point, i literally just laughed out loud over this.

I'm sure you'll rip up YouTube as a source, but enjoy this short clip.

https://youtu.be/iLttd33j-GQ

Thank you for proving mine. An inability to ever respond to reason/context and ALWAYS needing to just play these weird games. The only thing you are capable of throughout the entire conversation is ignoring reality/actual points made to deflect to meaningless nonsense that exposes your clear bias.

[NBA all the way]

Thank you for proving mine. An inability to ever respond to reason/context and ALWAYS needing to just play these weird games. The only thing you are capable of throughout the entire conversation is ignoring reality/actual points made to deflect to meaningless nonsense that exposes your clear bias.

Coming from the guy who can't discuss quoted verbatim Wisconsin law or quoted Richard McGinnis eye witness account.

You got it dude [emoji107]

[Bramaca]

Of course it does, I want opinions on those cases to see if people are just partial to this situation. Specifically spliff.

How people feel about these cases doesn’t change anything about the Rittenhouse one. You’re just fishing for something to deflect to.

[mngopher35]

Coming from the guy who can't discuss quoted verbatim Wisconsin law or quoted Richard McGinnis eye witness account.

You got it dude [emoji107]

I actually can, the issue is when I say something you don't respond. In fact you often just ignore it completely trying to mock me. At times you just make up things I never said and mock me as if I did when you have nothing else.

I have gone over all the context plenty, if you have an issue with what I have actually said go ahead and point it out. The real issue is your clear and obvious trolling while ignoring what others are actually saying. I am not the only poster in here that can't get through to you plenty of us are trying but you just repeat these ridiculous approaches over and over then saying this as if you actually understand the law and weren't the one saying he tackled him previously despite said witness but won't address it.

Why are you doing this? I think at this point it seems most likely due to some extreme beliefs around something here and you keep mentioning others political beliefs. Most can put 2+2 together.

[NBA all the way]

I actually can, the issue is when I say something you don't respond. In fact you often just ignore it completely trying to mock me. At times you just make up things I never said and mock me as if I did when you have nothing else.

I have gone over all the context plenty, if you have an issue with what I have actually said go ahead and point it out. The real issue is your clear and obvious trolling while ignoring what others are actually saying. I am not the only poster in here that can't get through to you plenty of us are trying but you just repeat these ridiculous approaches over and over then saying this as if you actually understand the law and weren't the one saying he tackled him previously despite said witness but won't address it.

Why are you doing this? I think at this point it seems most likely due to some extreme beliefs around something here and you keep mentioning others political beliefs. Most can put 2+2 together.

I just think he's justified in the shootings and you all don't, it's nothing deeper than that man.