jerryskids

In the spirit of Charlie Kirk, I have decided to not engage with TimHauck any more tonight. Anything I say would just be hateful.

I hope you are drunk.

Really now?

No it's not, I already said my opinion. I don't have the need to keep repeating it, unlike you moderates. I've already ignored your tags, I'm close to ignoring you entirely.

Seek help.

If this gets you the win you've been seeking for months, and allows you to finally delete your account, then yes.

What do you hope your son took out of that discussion?

I've made the mistake of re-engaging on this. Last comment and I'm done. Walk me through another situation where the government collected testimony, determined not to prosecute, then released the data they collected anyway.

Another dope, lol. lol, are you 12? It might take a lawyer to point out that powerful people will sue the crap out of people and/or the government for publicizing unsubstantiated testimony. Maybe you should go post some DropDeadStupid or Reuters Hamas tweet about how Israel sucks.

This tard keeps saying I support a child rapist. I'll remember it when you cry that your bagina hurts from similar accusations. The funny thing is that he thinks I've drunk the red koolaid. Yet his entire position is "well, uhh, Trump is a pedo, so obviously he did everything the MSM spoon feeds me. Derp." You've contributed nothing to this discussion with me other than 70 IQ level regurgitation of your talking points.

This response shows a complete non-understanding of everything I said. Congrats.

It's not my place to tell you how to parent your kid (or maybe he's an adult now?), but there is a lot I don't like about this. It basically says that Kirk hurt some feelings so he brought it upon himself.

I already answered this: To answer your followup of "but why did they say they would?!" the likely answer was that they got there thinking they would, but through combinations of legal and other advice, they didn't. And yes, "other" likely includes "you don't want to piss off these people." This isn't a whataboutism, but I always respected Obama for not closing Gitmo. Remember how he was going to close it on day 1? Yeah, he never did. The rational explanation was that he got into office and was privy to the reasons it was still being used, reasons that you don't learn as a candidate. I'm tagging @SaintsInDome2006in hopes that he reads it and doesn't engage with me again without reading what I wrote. I'd tag Gutter as well, but he is a hopeless cause.

No, that sounds like hyperbole.

BLM is built on marxism. Marxism is violent. Justified of course, like you with your rhetoric.

I feel like you've moved the goalposts here, not surprisingly. Certainly there were differences between the daytime, "mostly peaceful" protestors, and the nighttime hooligans. Certainly some overlap as well. We can argue the extent and never agree. But the question was political motivation. Sure, looters gonna loot, but Antifa and BLM instigated a lot of the mindless destruction, and they are politically motivated.

That's part of my point. "Insanity" in a legal sense is a much higher (lower?) bar than "mentally ill." We as a society have decided that if they understood what they did, it doesn't matter if their behavior was whackjob crazy.

Good discussion on mental health. I've historically said that other than defense of something, any proactive murder falls somewhere on the mental health spectrum. You brain isn't working correctly if it does that. It's basically my same argument of why transgenderism is a mental health issue. With trans, the question then is what do we do about it? Treat, council, medically change? But with murder, we've recognized that that is a particular behavior that we can't live with (pardon the pun) in society. Rightfully so. Same with pedophilia. So to me, the discussion of whether or not it is a mental health issue is not as important if we recognize that all mental health issues are not the same, nor do they have the same impact on society. Also, I'm not talking about serial killers or similar people that we would clearly call crazy.

I dunno Fnord, Tim's excuse err... explanation sounds more like one of those apologies your kid gives that you have to explain isn't really an apology. It's different when he uses rhetoric because he really believes it? That applies to most people, no?

I laugh every time I see that league name, because Jerry Porter is on my Mount Rushmore of dumb picks.

My arguments were fine. Quite good, actually. Tell us again how signing a birthday card is the same as enacting federal law, that's a great argument.

That's why I said "what they perceive". We've created a generation of soft people who would prefer censorship of speech that they don't like, vs. free speech and civil discourse.

Congrats, I knew you could find a way to bring your hatred for Israel into this. From the Brookings Institute earlier this year: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-we-learned-from-the-peoples-march-about-attitudes-toward-political-violence/ Granted, the people who participate in such a march are on the more extreme side. But there is a growing belief among young people especially that violence is an acceptable response for what they perceive as hate speech.

I'm not sure I can compete with the combined borg stupidity in this thread. We've got Gutter acting indignant about the most likely scenario with the letter, not to mention the collective hive mentality of THE LETTER IS ALL THE MOST IMPORTANTEST$#@!, no good answer about why Biden, Harris, or whoever was running the country didn't leak anything about the bad orange man, Saints added to the list of people who engage with me without reading what I say, and now we have Sean equating signing a birthday card to autopenning executive orders. I'm out for now anyway, you all keep up the MSDNC's good work. Git him for that card!

Well, Daily Wire had three AI tools analyze it, which is three more actual sources than you've ever provided defending Hamas. But yeah, you are right, Trump probably wrote that third-person play-like thing with "enigma" and all. Saying "but Biden" is still an irrefutable defense of Trump not being implicated directly. Another moderate post from you. Seriously, you might be the least self-aware person on the interwebs.