XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump   
   From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2026-01-17 06:56, NoBody wrote:   
   > On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 20:17:15 -0800, Alan  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 2026-01-16 19:44, Skeeter wrote:   
   >>> In article <10kes86$26qks$5@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   >>> uh@nope.com says...   
   >>>>   
   >>>> On 2026-01-16 18:14, Skeeter wrote:   
   >>>>> In article <10keiop$23gth$3@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   >>>>> uh@nope.com says...   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 2026-01-16 09:24, AlleyCat wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> ... and say this.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 14:34:23 -0800,  Alan says...   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Road?   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> https://i.imgur.com/OC9smu9.mp4   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> https://i.imgur.com/Lfbiqwg.jpeg   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> See those people standing thar, stoopit? WHAT are they standing on?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Were any of those people in the direction she intended to travel?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Sure they were.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> How do YOU know where Good was "intending to travel"?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> You don't.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> I was making an illustrative point. YOU moved the goalposts, as usual,   
   with   
   >>>>>>> your fallacy of the specific.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> She could have gone down the street MADE A 3-POINT TURN and came back   
   at the   
   >>>>>>> officers, them, having to draw the weapons again and shoot her again.   
   >>>>>> So by pretending you know her intent was to run over an "officer"...   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Well you seem to be able to read minds you tell us.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> So when he states her intent he's NOT reading minds?   
   >>>   
   >>> BUTWHATABOUT!   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> ...you then pretend they need to protect against future "attacks".   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> She was turning away from the officer, doofus.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> On a one way street on a very icy road. No telling what   
   >>>>> could happen.   
   >>>> Actually there is "telling" that the car could not have gone to its left   
   >>>> with the wheels turned right.   
   >>>   
   >>> But it went straight.   
   >>   
   >> No, it most certainly did not. COULD not have with the wheels turned all   
   >> the way to the right.   
   >   
   > But you claim he was standing in front.  If she turned she wouldn't   
   > have him with the front headlight.   
    > > You can't have things both ways dingdong.   
      
   1. We don't know that he was actually hit.   
      
   2. But if he'd been standing close enough he COULD have been hit.   
      
   Seriously, this isn't tough to have figured out on your own, numbnuts.   
      
   But neither changes the fact that her intent can be inferred from her   
   actions.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)