Rittenhouse wants Biden to Apologise to him

Post Reply New Topic

Well that's settled
https://www.newsweek.com/biden-will-not ... ki-1652666

Uggh, this guy again. Midwits really are the worst, just enough there to feel like it merits a response, but so tedious.



For a guy who seems to strongly object to implications about the relative intellect of other posters, this is an odd way to start out. Am I supposed to "realize what it feels like" and change my ways? Are you simply jealous that I'm better at it, given that your own signature style here is long winded rants berating people about how wrong they are about things, with all of the included implications? Maybe you're just a hypocrite? Who knows.



Heh, for a guy who's about to complain about "gaslighting", it's funny that you'd start out by misrepresenting the situation, as people aren't saying "I think he's a murderer", they're saying "he is a murderer", and if they're Fnord, doing so with his signature sneering moral superiority, which oddly you never seem to object to. I don't know about you, but I tend to value factual accuracy in absolute statements, and as you've astutely observed, "murderer" does have a specific meaning, one that does not apply to Kyle Rittenhouse, so "you're wrong, stop misstating the facts" is a completely anodyne and legitimate ask.



Don't sell me short, I also regularly accuse people of lying, deluding themselves, partisan blindness, hypocrisy, baseless moralizing, megalomania, bad faith, and projection, among other things, I pride myself on variety. For example, you're being very dishonest here regarding my posting style, and I know you know better because it's clear you follow many of the threads I participate in even if you don't post, so should I assume that you're being malicious because I know that you know what you say is wrong, should I assume you're not smart enough to know better, should I assume you're just trolling me with bait to waste my time, which is it?



How about the previous threads on the subject, where my and Brictoria and Pepe had it exactly right from the very beginning? Bric even had it 100% correct in the original thread from when it happened, which happens to mirror my own thinking on the case that took place away from here. It sure looks like you didn't understand what I meant in a comment not directed at you and went off half cocked, which is honestly pretty par for the course for you, as my months of explaining my position was readily available if you'd bothered to think about it for a second and look at the other threads.



Eh, you're not stupid, you just think you're smarter than you are and are both hostile and long winded, an unfortunate combination to be sure. However, as you're not stupid, I would invite you to look carefully at the posters you think I'm saying that about, and tell me you honestly disagree. In many ways, that's actually me being charitable, as intellect is something you're born with and can't really change much one way or the other, but dishonesty is, and with some of the people here, you really have to pick one or the other based on their behavior.

Such a long winded rant. Lotta words to just keep saying the same thing over and over though. Sir has apparently discovered a thesaurus to enrich his vocabulary, yet all you're doing is trash talking. Lots of telling me about myself, according to you, but it may as well be a child describing his imaginary friend. If 1000 ways to say "dont listen to him!" constitutes variety, then yeah, i guess, so - but it's still just a lot of screaming "don't listen to him!". "He's stupid! Well, he's not stupid, but he ACTS stupid, and he's probably just a troll, and a liar, and dishonest, and you should believe me cos I SAID SO!"

No, really, all that is, is a buncha trash talk and gaslighting about how stupid I've acted, and how lame I am and how much better you are - according to you.

Don't forget to click your ruby slippers together while you're screaming at the thread about how terrible I am. The magic won't work unless you do. Never have I seen someone so desperate to convince a room not to listen to someone else. Especially since my utter insanity is so totally obvious, one wonders why they so vehemently need to point it out to others.

Scream louder. You haven't put me in my place yet

Oh, and be careful using so many words. You might get mistaken for a liberal. That's literally an essay. Literally nobody can actually read that

I think he has his eye on making money out of his notoriety (like the "cash me outside" teen who used her infamy on Dr Phil to launch a music career).

I keep going back to Nicholas Sandmann as he is likely to become a millionaire from bullying an older native american on national TV and suing media outlets for defamation. The sock puppet anology is correct, both of these teens have become sock puppets for those who are pushing an anti-progressive agenda.

I think he has his eye on making money out of his notoriety (like the "cash me outside" teen who used her infamy on Dr Phil to launch a music career).

I will point out that the vast majority of Americans thought, at the time, those were the right moves. Should he apologize for representing the voters and believing the same things they did? Or just acknowledge that time has proven some positions to have either been wrong, or too riddled by unintended consequences to have been appropriate?

He’s kept what I’ve seen as the most important campaign promises, but any voter who expects a president to keep them all hasn’t got a clue how our government works. One man is not in control. He cannot act unilaterally. And, well, I accept that there will always be information driving policy that you and I just don’t know. That a candidate for president just doesn’t know. Some of the promises he should have been able to affect but has not seem to fall under that banner. Others have fallen into the trap that creating new policy is often easier than undoing existing policy. So I get it. I’m disappointed, but I get it.

Also Mr Biden should apologize.

Sandman was actually a victim of sloppy reporting, that didn’t verify what it saw in viral video, in a situation he hadn’t done anything at all. We idiots on social media “made” him, it could be said, so I don’t blame him for making lemonade.

But Rittenhouse made the news and went to court because two people died at his hand. He did something. I hate that he is trying to parlay this into something more. He’s no innocent victim here in any way, shape or form, IMHO.

Even if the actions that put him in the news were self-defense, he intentionally went to an area of violent civil unrest and known risk.

But once Rittenhouse hung out with those Proud Boys and let photos be taken he made it completely fair game to say he associates with those types.

If there's 9 Nazis at a table and one other person is sitting with them there's a meeting of 10 Nazis in progress.

I would much rather Biden apologized for the damage he has done to this country during his political career. We can start with being one of the primary authors of the 1994 crime bill would led to the mass incarceration of Americans, mostly people of color, for minor offenses. Perhaps he'd like to apologize for supporting the deregulation of Wall Street during the Clinton administration.

I'd also like him to apologize for supporting the Iraq War, and all the other wars since then. I'd like him to apologize for being a serial plagiarizer. (Look it up, it's hilarious. )

I'd also like him to apologize for all the campaign promises he's now abandoned.

But I guess as long as he ain't Trump, we're f*****g golden! Great times ahead! Let's shoot fireworks. I'm almost orgasmic at the thought!

My understanding, via a source connected to the defence team, is that the person who was managing the fundraising for his bail was the person who supplied the shirt he wore on leaving jail and had made arrangements for them to go there to celebrate his release, with Mr Rittenhouse being unaware who the people he was photographed with were, not having been expecting to meet anyone there.

His agreement to be photographed (as I recall from the time) was based on his understanding that they were simply people who donated to his bail fund, with no further information provided to him as to their background - he didn't approach them to be photographed, they approached him and he had no reason\expectation of a need to interrogate them on their backgrounds\personal lives.



Nice example of "guilt by association" - if there is one person sitting somewhere and 9 Nazis decide to sit beside them (maybe there are no other areas with enough spaces for them to sit), the person sitting there becomes a Nazi purely through proximity, you're claiming? Under that "logic", it seems you're cheering for the Nazi ideology to take over, as this sort of unwitting association would already be taking place, leading to people (under your definition) unknowingly becoming Nazis and spreading the association...

Words and subtlety can be tricky to some, so I'll try to explain this in a few words as possible.

Do you actually have any tricks other than modified gaslighting? You have a thousand ways of saying "everything you said is stupid", but that's about all you say.

Now, why exactly does anyone "have to admit" what you're claiming about bad information and bad takes? Because you said so? Surely you don't expect people to just take your word for it? Let me guess... "It's too stupid to even try to explain!" - more gaslighting. "It's stupid cos it's stupid, cos it's stupid! That should be OBVIOUS!" So it's obvious, but you still can't explain it. Wild.

Figuratively speaking, of course, you can GTFOOH with that "everyone who disagrees with me is stupid!" crap. Cos that's all it is. Naturally, you are in fact welcome to keep doing it. Sometimes it works, on those who aren't used to it. But those who know better, know better.

I will point out that the vast majority of Americans thought, at the time, those were the right moves. Should he apologize for representing the voters and believing the same things they did? Or just acknowledge that time has proven some positions to have either been wrong, or too riddled by unintended consequences to have been appropriate?

He’s kept what I’ve seen as the most important campaign promises, but any voter who expects a president to keep them all hasn’t got a clue how our government works. One man is not in control. He cannot act unilaterally. And, well, I accept that there will always be information driving policy that you and I just don’t know. That a candidate for president just doesn’t know. Some of the promises he should have been able to affect but has not seem to fall under that banner. Others have fallen into the trap that creating new policy is often easier than undoing existing policy. So I get it. I’m disappointed, but I get it.

Yeah, just like OJ Simpson.

We know what the law says, we know what the juries decided, and most of us "know" that both of them actually killed people needlessly.

I hope you know I'm just yankin' your chain, kraftie; I think you and I see very much eye-to-eye here.