home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   can.politics      Libs bitching about what they voted for      997,123 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 996,342 of 997,123   
   Skeeter to All   
   Re: Poor Little Rich Kid... So Desperate   
   17 Jan 26 17:10:52   
   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump   
   From: invalid@none.com   
      
   In article <10kh0u8$2tajo$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   uh@nope.com says...   
   >   
   > On 2026-01-17 01:54, Socialism is for losers wrote:   
   > > On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 20:27:52 -0800, Alan  wrote:   
   > >   
   > >> On 2026-01-16 20:13, Skeeter wrote:   
   > >>> In article <10keu0j$27aph$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   > >>> uh@nope.com says...   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> On 2026-01-16 18:51, Skeeter wrote:   
   > >>>>> In article <10kelfi$24cdg$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   > >>>>> uh@nope.com says...   
   > >>>>>>   
   > >>>>>> On 2026-01-16 16:17, Socialism is for losers wrote:   
   > >>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 15:54:03 -0800, Alan  wrote:   
   > >>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>> On 2026-01-16 06:58, Socialism is for losers wrote:   
   > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 22:12:18 -0800, Alan  wrote:   
   > >>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>> On 2026-01-15 21:56, Socialism is for losers wrote:   
   > >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 03:14:15 +0000, Mitchell Holman   
      
   > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>> Skeeter  wrote in   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>> news:MPG.43d32e5ab2984fa998ab8b@usnews.blocknews.net:   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <10kbt0p$15km6$12@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>> uh@nope.com says...   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-01-14 22:07, Skeeter wrote:   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article ,   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noemail@aol.com says...   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Skeeter  wrote in   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:MPG.43d1df313a3f71e98ab02@usnews.blocknews.net:   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <10k96l8$8549$14@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uh@nope.com says...   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-01-12 09:39, AlleyCat wrote:   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 23:16:44 -0800,  Alan says...   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both criminals.   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You aren't allowed to shoot at someone when they aren't   
   a   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> threat.   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Correct... I guess.   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, no. (see bottom)   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even if his first shot was when he was near the front   
   of the   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vehicle, his next two were from directly beside the   
   driver's   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> door, and it was turning AWAY from him.   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I've explained this, moron.   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Law enforcement, after having been run over, plowed down,   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assaulted with a deadly weapon, vehicularly (Y, IK)   
   assaulted,   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or any other term you might want to use   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here, usually shoot until the perpetrator is   
   incapacitated or   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of range, to keep the driver from doing any more   
   harm to   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others or even themselves.   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except this officer was not "run over" OR "plowed down".   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But he was hit.   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A threat is not "over" just because the vehicle has   
   cleared the   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> officer's path.   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, actually it is.   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who says? You?  LOL   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Good has already demonstrated her intent (which the   
   officers   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did not KNOW) to use a vehicle as a weapon, they remain a   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'deadly threat" until they are stopped. Turning "away"   
   could   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply be a maneuver to reposition for another strike or   
   to   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flee at high speeds, endangering the public.   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Her obvious intent was to leave the area and an officer   
   with no   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> authority grabbed at her door, escalating the situation.   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No authority? He's a law officer you moron.   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           So were the Capitol Police that   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump (and you) want to prosecute.   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like the one that murdered Ashley?   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> She was breaking into a secure area and posed an immediate   
   threat to   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> those the police were defending behind that door.   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>> They had guns and she didn't.   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>          Just like Renee Good.   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>>> who weaponize her car.   
   > >>>>>>>>>> Who was just trying to leave the area.   
   > >>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>> By stomping on the gas with a man standing in front of her car?   
   > >>>>>>>> By turning her wheel all the way to her right and assuming that a   
   man   
   > >>>>>>>> who had been walking to her left would continue to walk left.   
   > >>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>> And there was no "stomping".   
   > >>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>> The car sure jerked ahead as it hit him.   
   > >>>>>> Nope. The "officer" might have jerked, but there is video taken from   
   > >>>>>> outside the car and it moved off in a completely ordinary manner.   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>> It jerked.   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> The officer seems to have jerked in his cellphone video...   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> ...but that doesn't prove that he was struck.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> The car jerked and so did he. Nice try. It's a good thing   
   > >>> she's dead because if you were her lawyer she would be   
   > >>> doomed.   
   > >>   
   > >> The car did NOT jerk we have video that clearly shows it just moved off   
   > >> in a normal manner.   
   > >>   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> Moving himself quickly out of the way could produce such a jerk.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> So can getting hit by a jerking car.   
   > >>   
   > >> But we know what he was supposed to do and he failed to do it.   
   > >>   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>>>>   
   > >>>>>> And you haven't addressed that she was clearly steering away from   
   him..   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>> Well she's a shitty driver then. Besides she was making a   
   > >>>>> u turn on a one way street. You defended her by saying she   
   > >>>>> didn't know it was a one way street. So not only is she a   
   > >>>>> shitty driver she shouldn't even be driving at all.   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> None of that changes that she was steering away from him.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> Why was she pointed in that direction in the first place?   
   > >>   
   > >> Attempting to go back the way she'd come because she came upon an ICE   
   > >> operation and thought going back would be best.   
   > >>   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>>>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca