jakee

Of course it doesn't. You're far too closed minded to waver no matter how wrong you obviously are. The kid was at best - at best - dangerously naive, a deluded fantasist unprepared for and ignorant of the challenges and difficulties of his chosen course. Because of that, he shot people who were also concerned citizens trying to protect the people around them. Unwavering support of people like him is simply insane. If your suggestion that everyone should act like him was followed we'd be lucky to avoid the collapse of society. That's an abhorrent stance. What evidence do you have that the people he murdered were looters or property damaging vandals? What evidence do you have that they were not there for good moral reasons, genuinely protesting against institutional racism?

Just circling back on this - so it's Huber's own fault he was killed trying to protect others, because what did he expect? So what did Rittenhouse expect? Riot control is a difficult job, yet this untrained, unprepared and inexperienced teenager decided to head out and give it ago. He decided to confront crowds of angry protestors while armed only with an assault rifle with no non-lethal options, no authority, and no other form of personal protection. What did he think was going to happen? How well do YOU expect that scenario to unfold?

So how do you know he's a vigilante exactly like Rittenhouse? You're arguing against yourself. After he was shot by the guy and saw him murder two people? Yeah, I'm not suprised. But the fact remains that he did not do that, or attempt to do that. Despite that, you apparently think that his thought crime makes him a bad guy while Rittenhouse's real crimes make him a good guy. Go figure.

Bill didn't say anything about the teacher. The OP did, as an example of the thread title.

I love how obvious it is when you realise you've run out of excuses

See above. This is a really easy one, to be honest. Really don't know why you need something so obvious to be explained to you. Defunded doesn't mean abolished. Overlooked? That is literally the biggest point of defunding the police. Removing the massive amounts of mission creep that distract the police from their core duties. Taking some of the money away from providing more and more cops who are poorly trained at a vast multitude of tasks and using it to provide more social work and metal health etc. professionals who are well trained at specific tasks. Increasing the number of scenarios where police intervention is the last resort instead of the first resort. If you think the police have too much to deal with and someone else needs to take up the slack then you should be a vocal supporter of defunding the police. It's just a shame that your anti-left bias stops you from seeing that.

Right. So he was committing crimes. How ironic that you came into this thread shaking your head at people who aren't anti-crime enough yet here you are defending this kid's serious crimes which resulted in others deaths as being morally and socially correct. Not only, that, you're saying that everyone else should have participated in that criminal behaviour. No, it is because Grosskreutz was reacting to a murder he saw committed in front of him and made a snap decision to try and protect the lives of others. He did not go there with the express intention of being part of a paramilitary law enforcement group. Also, consider that although Grosskreutz had a gun, and although Grosskreutz had already seen Rittenhouse commit murder, Grosskreutz made no attempt to use his weapon on Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse on the other hand shot him without hesitation. In light of all of that I can see no reason but your partisan politics for you to be taking the stand you are on this matter.

But again, how does it demonstrate the hypocrisy of "the left"? The teacher thing happened nearly 4 years ago. If "the left" rallied around to defend her I'm pretty sure we'd have heard about it by now.

Sure. The media on one side will bring it up because they will look for any stupid thing to try and bring down their opponent. The other side will avoid it because, as you yourself have admitted, the accusation can't possibly be true. Of course you will criticise the second group rather than the first because you are a raging partisan. Obviously not everything. This. Duh. As long as you keep pushing this particular racist narrative I don't need to say anything to win, you're losing all on your own.

And is your thought now that you were wrong to assume that? That in fact only racist people would believe this claim because they wanted to be shown it? So that’s why you originally posted it. Why did you then continue to argue the point with your own thought and reason even after it was obvious that nothing but racism could justify it?

You make zero sense. What he was doing it with was an assault rifle. An assault rifle is what is illegal for him to be carrying and threatening people with. Yoou disagree with it either because a) you must disagree with anything the left says or b) you must always support white people over black people. Pick one.

IKYABWAI?

Opting for style over substance isn’t supposed to be something you’re proud of.

Sure, but that's not the racist argument.

Which he was doing illegally. I guess you were right, some people here aren’t nearly anti-criminal enough.

I don’t understand what change you’re talking about. I don’t remember ever not being allowed to call a racist statement racist. What about you, have you never called out a sexist argument?

Read that back to yourself and see if it makes sense.

Why does that make a difference?

Then you'd better stop doing it. No, he doesn't, he really doesn't. That's an absurd twisting of the words he wrote that can only be driven by a desire to give a white man credit for a black man's success. Desperate or obvious? You came into this thread complaining that the networks weren't giving credence and airtime to a racist attack on the black credentials of Kamala Harris, even though you have since admitted that rationally, the hypocrisy the racist attackers allege couldn't possibly exist. You tell me what sounds deplorable there.

The whole video is so vague it's hard to pin down any specific statement she's making. That's why I want Turtle to clarify what exactly he thinks the 'hard truth' is.

Unless you’re saying Clinton murdered those people on purpose your statement has no relevance. You realise that, right?

Wendy, that's not my fault. The criticism Turtle initially referred to is racist in nature. The fact that he's now arguing that it isn't, while pushing the validity of the criticism means that he is putting himself closer and closer to the point of being called a racist. Imagine if someone posted a paraphrased argument from Mein Kampf and it was pointed out that it was a Nazi sentiment. Imagine the person posting it claimed it wasn't Nazi and doubled down on his support for the argument. Does everyone else then have to immediately abandon that conversation because the guy has manufactured a situation where any relevant response would be a personal attack? It makes no sense. We have to be able to be honest about the arguments presented here, otherwise you generate a situation where the most extreme views see the least critical response.

Come on Turtle, you know how nonsensical and dishonest that is. I have been crystal clear on the reasons why it is nonsense. You are avoiding dissecting this issue. You want to be able to ciritcise Harris and the media by the back door, parroting the racist hyper right criticisms of her, calling it a controversy while never putting your cards on the table and explaining why you think it could possibly be controversial. Claiming it's the other way round is not only another lie, it's the height of sleazy politician-like behaviour. Grow a spine and state your position. Asking why the media isn't covering a meritless racist hit job is racist. So is 'some people' called him a hypocrite because of it they would clearly be wrong? And his ancestry would not be controversial? A ) You think he became successful because he was inspired by knowing he had a white slave owning ancestor? Dude, wow. I mean, WOW!!! You might want to reconsider that statement because it's racist as fuck. B ) Now you're saying there's nothing in Kamala Harris' ancestry that could possibly make her a hypocrite? Which means there's nothing controversial in her ancestry. Which means there's no reason for CNN and MSNBC to be covering that 'controversy'. Congratulations, you've finally answered your own question.

I twice asked you what the truth was and your response was 'watch the video'. Therefore you must think the entire video is true. Again, not great for your claims of being a centreist when you swallow up Republican campaign videos and believe every word of them.

More political squirming. You'd be right at home in the swamp.