XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump   
   From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2026-01-17 16:06, Skeeter wrote:   
   > In article <10kh15n$2tajo$4@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   > uh@nope.com says...   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > "we" do know.   
      
   Nope. That's your ideology doing your thinking for you.   
      
   >>   
   >> 2. But if he'd been standing close enough he COULD have been hit.   
   >   
   > And he was.   
      
   Prove it.   
      
   >>   
   >> Seriously, this isn't tough to have figured out on your own, numbnuts.   
   >   
   > Your opinions have gone from her having no idea where she   
   > was to she was only going home.   
      
   I never said she had "no idea" where she was.   
      
   >>   
   >> But neither changes the fact that her intent can be inferred from her   
   >> actions.   
   >   
   > How about her wifes actions?   
   Her wife's actions should have had no bearing on the agent's actions.   
      
   Period.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)