XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump
From: invalid@none.com
In article <10khf80$2tnfv$12@dont-email.me>, nuh-
uh@nope.com says...
>
> 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.
But they do show you lied when you said they didn't know
who they were.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
