XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump   
   From: NoBody@nowhere.com   
      
   On Sat, 17 Jan 2026 14:06:47 -0800, Alan  wrote:   
      
   >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.   
   >   
      
   LAUGHTER.   
   Yeah sure.  All the videos were edited...   
      
   >2. But if he'd been standing close enough he COULD have been hit.   
      
   He WAS hit.   
      
   >   
   >Seriously, this isn't tough to have figured out on your own, numbnuts.   
      
   Oh I've already figured out the facts.  It's just you and a couple of   
   liberal dingdongs who haven't.   
      
   >   
   >But neither changes the fact that her intent can be inferred from her   
   >actions.   
      
   Intent is irrelevent in this case.  The actions taken by her is the   
   only evidence necessary.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)