Dascow
-
Posts
253 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Posts posted by Dascow
-
-
7 minutes ago, 17to85 said:
You bring a gun you aren't legally allowed to have to a riot you are looking for trouble I don't care what kind of excuses you make after the fact. Again as i said earlier they're probably trying him for the wrong things here and the prosecution ain't gonna make the charges stick... but that doesn't change anything about this piece of ****. It's not his job to protect these buildings. It's not his job to be putting put fires. And property is never more important than people's lives, even if they are pieces of **** too.
So you get a whole pile of shitty people in a volatile situation with guns and this osnwhay happens. There is a reason vigilantes aren't allowed.
But yeah you go on believing that this peace loving kid just happened to get caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.
You know what is worse than being caught in a riot? Being caught in a riot while holding a rifle opposite those rioters. He had no business being there and he had even less business being there with a rifle.
You have no right telling a free man where he can or can't be.
The rioters have no right telling a free man where he can or can't be.
Kyle has a right to self defence. Whether you think he should have been there or not.
No one got shot protecting buildings. No one got shot over property.
NO ONE!
Kyle was chased and attacked and acted in self defence. All of the facts show this.
The facts are clear in this case 17to85. I have noticed that you ignore the facts and you zone in on what kind of person you think Kyle is. But you have no idea what kind of person Kyle is because your are ignoring all of the evidence.
- Eternal optimist and Tracker
-
1
-
1
-
10 hours ago, 17to85 said:
So the gun just magically appeared in his hands? Pretty sure there's words from his own mouth in the trial that he was there to protect property. Get your head outta your ass, the guy went looking for trouble and you gotta be some kind of ignorant to not see that. Like I said, at best he is a vigilante... and that's not a good thing. Guys like that don't get to take the law into their own hands.
That video is made with a bias, but you have to consider that there is truth in some of that.
why on earth do people defend human trash like this? You can hold the position that rioters and the people who go there to "police" them and wind up killing them are trash too. Guy murdered 2 people and wounded a third. Why defend him?
Typical case of projection.
You're the ignorant one.
"Pretty sure there's words from his own mouth in the trial that he was there to protect property."
Here is an interview of Kyle Rittenhouse by Richie McGinniss on why he was there that evening.
Richie McGinniss: What are you doing out here, obviously you're armed and your in front of this building we saw burning last night so what's up?
Kyle Rittenhouse: People are getting injured and our job is to protect his business and part of my job is also helping people, if there's somebody hurt, I'm running into harms way, that's why I have my rifle because I can protect myself. I also have my med kit.
I apologize, I forgot that protecting property is a crime. I forgot that deterring the rioters from burning down a building is a crime. I apologize, I forgot that trying to stop rioters from burning down a building makes you a POS. I also forgot that bringing a med kit and trying to help the injured is "looking for trouble" lol so dumb...
There is ZERO evidence that Kyle was there "looking for trouble". In fact there is evidence that he was there for the exact opposite. Kyle Rittenhouse according to the multiple videos and multiple witnesses, was entirely peaceful the whole night. He literally spent the night putting out fires and helping injured people. We have video evidence of this. At no point was he aggressive or threatening people. If you have any evidence of this, I would love to see it.
There is a lot of evidence that Joseph Rosenbaum was there "looking for trouble". He was threatening people, starting fires and causing trouble all night. There is also witness and video evidence of this.
But again you don't care about the facts. Your problem with Kyle is that he had a gun. (Which he got in Kenosha and didn't "cross state lines" with.) That's it. That's what has triggered you.
Here are some facts that you are conveniently ignoring:
If Joseph Rosenbaum does not stalk, chase and then attack Kyle Rittenhouse no one would have been killed. Kyle Rittenhouse was running away. How is someone who is running away considered "looking for trouble". Give me a break.
After Roenbaum is shot, Kyle turns and starts running away from the mob. He is running to the police. We know he was trying to get to the police because there is a video of him saying, I'm trying to go to the police. That video was taken by Gaige Grosskreutz. So Gaige Grosskreutz KNEW he was trying to get to the police.
If Anthony Huber does not attack Kyle by cracking him in the head for a second time, with a skateboard, while Kyle is lying on his back, and grab his gun, Huber does not get killed. By the way, it was Anthony Huber who cracked Kyle in the head the first time, while he was running towards the police. It was that blow that eventually caused him to stumble and fall, which left Kyle in this vulnerable position sitting on the ground.
If Gaige Grosskreutz doesn't move in on Kyle who is in a defenceless position, and point his gun at Kyle's head, Grosskreutz doesn't get shot.
The only people that got shot that night were people who initiated the attack! That's a fact.
Kyle Rittenhouse attacked ZERO people!
But go ahead, ignore all of the facts and let your emotions run away with you.
51 minutes ago, 17to85 said:The only nonsense in this case is your comparison as you are defending the equivalent of the rapist in this analogy.
lol. You live in a pseudo reality. Sad.
-
8 minutes ago, bustamente said:
This video is ridiculous. lol You should be embarrassed. 😅😂
Forget about the facts...just use emotionally charged rhetoric and mention Trump...and there's your argument. lol
The prosecutions argument in this video about Kyle having the AR15 and Gaige having the hand gun was one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard. Gaige was moving towards Kyle, faked having his hands up and then proceeded towards him again, but this time with the weapon aimed at his head. This all happened within the span of seconds. Kyle had a gun aimed at his head and feared for his life. Kyle did not fire until Gaige moved closer and had the gun pointed at his head. (This was admitted my Gaige himself.) Clearly grounds for self defence.
The fact that you can see Kyle's reaction and think that is somehow fake is sad. The kid clearly had a panic attack. It was real and I saw it live. My goodness the reaction by these people to Kyles tears and emotional breakdown is just gross. People have really lost their humanity.
Oh and by the way, the judge isn't biased. He is considering a mistrial with prejudice because the prosecution broke a major rule, not once, but twice. There are those who are speculating, namely the defence, that the prosecution broke these rules on purpose to get a mistrial. He wants a mistrial because this trial has gone so bad for him that he wants to start over. The prosecution is not acting in good faith.
-
Like I said, you know nothing of the facts.
He did not travel to the area with weapons.
He did not travel there for the express purpose of "protecting property" and he wasn't "a guy looking for trouble". Unlike the rioters who travelled there to burn down property.
He travelled to Kenosha because he works there as a lifeguard. After his job he went to a local school to clean up graffiti left by the rioters. It was after all of that, that he went to a car dealership to help keep the rioters away. The rioters burned down the other car dealership and every car in the lot the previous night, so the owners asked for help to keep the rioters away.
However, Kyle was there as a medic as was seen helping in this capacity. Kyle literally spent the whole night putting out fires and helping people with injuries.
I shouldn't have to point this out, but the people burning down the buildings are the bad guys, not the ones protecting them.
"The issue is the guy put himself in that situation."
lol And a woman who wears a short skirt and gets raped, put herself in that position right? Nonsense.
"What happened after that isn't really the crux of the issue."
Nope, the crux of the issue is that those 3 people attacked Kyle unprovoked and Kyle acted in self defence.
You have no clue what you are talking about.
-
2 minutes ago, 17to85 said:
The prosecution is bungling the case now doubt... but self defense for a guy who escalated the situation? Not buying it. Guy went looking for trouble. Perhaps they are charging him with the wrong crimes but that kid is a murdering sack of **** and deserves jail time. But as I said the prosecution is ******* clownshoes.
You clearly know nothing about the facts. He didn't escalate anything. He was desperately trying to run away from the danger and in every case he was attacked.
Rosenbaum chased him through a parking lot, screamed at him, FU and then lunged at him and tried to grab his gun. (The prosecution's witness, Richie McGinniss, testified to this.)
Anthony Huber cracked him over the head with a skate board and then grabbed his gun.
Gaige Grosskreutz testified himself that when he had his hands up, Kyle Rittenhouse did not fire, it was only when he dropped his arms, aimed the gun at Kyle's head and moved towards Kyle that Kyle fired.
Rittenhouse is not a POS and deserves zero jail time. It's a clear example of self defence.
-
Amy Siskind is a moron. The song on the ringer was God Bless The USA. A pretty popular and patriotic song.
What Amy Siskind seems to have missed, is what the defence lawyer was talking about before the phone rang. The defence was talking about issuing a mistrial with prejudice because the prosecution broke some major rules in the cross with Kyle.
If Kyle Rittenhouse does not get acquitted, there are some real problems with the justice system. All of the evidence points to self defence. This one is obvious.
-
5 minutes ago, JCon said:
Maybe I'll make it bigger for you,...
But, he said, “It’s not a group or an organization. It’s a movement or an ideology.”
Should I highlight it too or are we good?
🤣 The point seems to be flying right over your head.
Antifa are not an "organization", as in they do not have a hierarchical structure. They are decentralized. Kind of like ISIS.
But they are organized. The point that they are not an "organization" is completely irrelevant because they are still dangerous and are still a threat, which is what the director of the FBI is stating.
-
3 minutes ago, JCon said:
Yes, I'm literate. Despite what Trump was saying, it's not a group or organized. Exactly what everyone has been saying.
But, he said, “It’s not a group or an organization. It’s a movement or an ideology.”
"He continued that the FBI has seen Antifa engage in "organized tactical activity" at the local and regional level. Its adherents have coalesced and worked together in "nodes" rather than a structured hierarchy across the country."
"The type of organization does not diminish how serious the FBI considers the threat"
I made it bigger for you to help you understand.
-
11 minutes ago, JCon said:
FBI director says antifa is an ideology, not an organization
https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/fbi-director-says-antifa-is-an-ideology-not-an-organization
JCon, read what you've quoted...😂
-
FBI Director Christopher Wray -
"Antifa is a real thing. It is not a fiction."
"The FBI has seen Antifa engage in "organized tactical activity" at the local and regional level. Its adherents have coalesced and worked together in "nodes" rather than a structured hierarchy across the country."
"The type of organization does not diminish how serious the FBI considers the threat, Wray said. "We don't view how nationally organized something is as a proxy for how dangerous it is."
-
6 minutes ago, the watcher said:
You missed my point.. Anyone who fought fascism in WW2 was an antifascist. Obviously they weren't part of the current group that names itself Antifa.( Note the capital) I personally don't care one iota about Antifa. They are no threat to anyone. Except maybe the Proud Boyz
Then your point was pointless.
People are clearly talking about Antifa. You are trying to obfuscate by declaring people who fought in WWII to be antifascist.
And Antifa are a threat. They have attacked innocent people on multiple occasions and they have been involved in numerous riots all across America, smashing up peoples property and burning down buildings.
3 minutes ago, 17to85 said:Antifa isn't even a real organization. The while idea is simply what the name means. Anti fascist.
What do you mean it's not a real organization?
It's decentralized, but it's definitely real. Please tell me you know that Antifa is real...
I mean, this is basic reality.
-
13 minutes ago, MOBomberFan said:
Doesn't antifa literally mean Anti-Fascist? Therefore, how were the allies not Antifa (regardless of their political leanings) when they were fighting fascists?
Nope.
It's a semantic game that they play. Don't fall for it.
If the NAZIs changed their name to "We Love Puppies" would you believe that they're are group that just loves puppies? Of course not, that would be stupid because they have an ideology beyond the name.
Like I said, Antifa are explicitly illiberal. In other words, Antifa are against the Canadians that fought in WWII because they are against liberalism.
Their name is irrelevant.
-
5 hours ago, the watcher said:
I was having a conversation with a young man who was really ragging on Antifa and I pointed out to him that both his grandfather and my uncle were antifa in the 1940s. He didn't seem to appreciate my observation.
I find it interesting that you used an Antifa meme to try and dismiss how radical they are.
Antifa was created by the communist party to fight the "Brown Shirts" in the streets of Germany.
The Canadians that fought in WWII were liberals not Antifa. And when I say liberal, I am specifically talking about liberal philosophy, liberal principles, by which both conservatives and progressives can adhere to.
Antifa are explicitly illiberal.
-
7 hours ago, rebusrankin said:
The New England states have fairly good vaccination rates and seem to be handling the 4th wave better as an example.
Florida has had over 150,000 cases each of the past two weeks. Adjusting for population that is like Manitoba having over 1300 cases a day for 14 straight days. I believe our record so far is 600 for one day. Florida's hospitals are also facing being completely full.
Its similar in other southern states such as Louisiana and Mississippi but with Florida DeSantis has made himself a lightning rod with his open the state up, no mask mandates, threatening school boards and what seems to be posturing for the 2024 election. Oh and he's done all this, while touting Regeneron, the largest shareholder of that company also being his largest donor
Manitoba has a fairly good vaccination rate. How do you think, Manitoba will do with the upcoming 4th wave?
Are we going to have to lock down again? (When I go into stores I am noticing that most people are still wearing masks.)
What is the metric by which we can open up fully again? And by that I mean no masks, no lock down, no nothing.
-
5 minutes ago, 17to85 said:
DeSantis I'd running a big circus is really what it comes down to. Other backasswards states aren't putting themselves in the spotlight they're just being lowkey incompetent.
I wonder, are there are any states that have done a good job with this thing? I'm not really following what's happening in individual states too much.
It seems like every province in Canada was a ****show.
-
I'm confused by all of this talk about DeSantis.
Florida is 25th in deaths per 100000. (And they have the second highest percentage of old people, who are more likely to die from Covid.)
In the month of August both Louisiana and Mississippi have had a worse deaths per 100000 and yet I hear nothing about those 2 states and their leaders.
Weird
-
Switzerland is Capitalist.
I would like to know if people here are using a colloquial definition of socialism or the actual definition.
For me the definition of Socialism is a system where the people own the means of production. Also within a Socialist system, there is no such thing as property rights. Socialism is clearly a left wing idea and it has never worked.
The implementation of social programs is not Socialism.
Socialism and Capitalism are antithetical to each other. You can't have a balance between the 2. (According to my definition and not the colloquial definition.)
I agree with Rich that we need a to leave room in a Capitalist system to implement social programs, (I am assuming that's what you meant by balancing Capitalism with Socialism.), but implementing social programs is not Socialism.
-
7 hours ago, Dee Urban Hermit said:
No they are not. 3 out of 12 is a 25% chance versus a 1 out of 3, a 33% chance. You are the coach, you have 10 seconds. what do you want to do?...
I think you've completely missed my point.
-
1 hour ago, Rich said:
Because it doesn't have to be proven to me or you. O'Shea makes the decision. O'Shea sees what Medlock can do in practice. We don't. He has an immense amount of information at his disposal to make the decision that we as fans don't.
If Medlock says he can hit 1 out of 3 (and I don't even know where that claim came from) and O'Shea has seen that in practice, then the decision making is sound.
And I'm not even convinced the kick was the right decision. But after hearing Westwood's thoughts on it this morning ... a retired kicker who has played the game ... I put more weight into his opinion than mine or yours.
But that's my point.
You're talking about opinions and I am talking about facts.
People are acting like the 3 out of 12 on 3rd down stat and the claim that Medlock made that he could probably hit 1 of 3 are equal. They are not.
That's what I am trying to get at. One is a verifiable fact and the other is just a claim made by the kicker.
So we as fans can't be trotting out that 1 in 3 number as if it means anything, because it doesn't. Where as the 3 in 12 stat is a fact.
(This part is my opinion)
The decision on O'Shea's part was also not sound.
How do I know that?
1. Because Medlock missed the kick by a mile. He wasn't even close.
2. Medlock has never in his career made a 61 yard field goal.
3. Only one kicker in the history of the CFL has made a kick from beyond the 60 and that kick was made out doors.
4. Because in the history of the CFL no kicker has ever made a field goal from 61 indoors.
5. Because According to Bauming Medlock said his limit was 57.
6. Because even Troy Westwood could make a 60 yarder in practice. Kicking in practice is obviously much different than kicking in the game.
7. Because he still had time left on the clock.
-
33 minutes ago, Rich said:
I think I would give Medlock the benefit of the doubt on his own stat based on what he has been able to do in practice and messing around
Just because it is not an official CFL stat, it doesn't mean Medlock doesn't know what he is capable of.
Interesting perspective on TSN1290 this morning. Westwood said as a kicker he wouldn't lie when asked whether or not he thought he could make a kick. He wouldn't want to be the one who lost the game if he missed
They questioned the decision to use a tee on the kick. But all felt he didn't get a full kick on the ball and that it was well within his usual range.
But Rich, if I said to you, prove that Medlock can hit 1 out of every 3 from 61 yards, how would you do that?
All it is, is a claim.
However, the 3 in 12 is a verifiable fact.
In other words if you asked me to prove it, I could by showing you every game that was played this year. I wouldn't because I am way too lazy, but I could because that fact is verifiable.
All I am saying is that you can't compare the 2 because one is a fact and the other is a claim that can not be taken as a fact.
-
2 minutes ago, bearpants said:
So what you're saying is he's never missed a 61 yarder...
No. I'm saying the opposite...
-
Just now, Mr Dee said:
There's no lol.
Medlock, one of, if not the best kicker in CFL history, tells me as a Coach, that he can do it, and, you've seen him do it, then that's a real enough statistic to me.
Um What?
It's not a real statistic.
If it is, please verify it for me.
According to CFL.ca Medlock has never made a field goal from 61 yards out. So if anything the stat would be 0 for how ever many times he has attempted it.
The 3 of 12 is a verifiable stat. It was accumulated from actual results in actual games.
The 1 of 3 is just something that Medlock said he could probably do. It's not a real stat.
Just now, mbrg said:"History is on my side" is also not a real statistic.
I never made the claim that it was.
- blueandgoldguy and TBURGESS
-
2
-
This year in the CFL teams in 3rd and 4 situations were 3 of 12 (25%) = Real statistic.
Medlock said he could make that 1/3 times = Not a real statistic.
Why are people comparing them as if they are? lol
- blueandgoldguy and DR. CFL
-
2
-
4 minutes ago, mbrg said:
If you're going to quote my whole post you also might as well read the whole thing.
I didn't agree with the call, but I'm also not going to pretend Medlock kicking 61 yards is preposterous. He will have tried a bunch of distances in warm up. He might have hit a 55 yarder already that day with leg to spare when the cameras weren't on.
History agrees with you? What does that even mean? Prior to 1903, history agreed with people who thought humans could and would never fly. It's obviously a long difficult kick. He had to hit it perfect. He didn't. Given his performance this year and in his career, I understand why the coach would put his faith in him. He's hit a lot of kicks perfectly in his career.
The reason, once again, that I'm passing in that situation is the time left on the clock, not because of history. I have no trouble believing Medlock can make history. He's already the best kicker in league history.
I did read the whole thing mbrg. Your splitting hairs by saying it isn't preposterous to ask him to kick a 61 yard field goal.
The reality is, asking a guy to kick a 61 yard field goal when there is a better option is not smart football because the odds are not on your side.
The reality is, in the history of the CFL only one man has kicked a field goal more than 60 yards and that was with a wind at Taylor field.
Was it preposterous? Kind of, since it's only been done one time in the history of the CFL.
If there's no time on the clock sure, you take any desperate attempt that you can. But with time left on the clock it's a bad decision to try and kick the second longest field goal in CFL history when all you need is 4 yards for a first down.
- blitzmore, SpeedFlex27, Blueandgold and 1 other
-
4
US Politics
in General Discussion
Posted
Justice prevailed today. The Jury came to the obvious conclusion...Not Guilty.
Anyone who sees the evidence comes to the same conclusion.