Smells like desperation.
This is how Rittenhouse “identified” him (from the NY Times):
Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction .
This times, like, a thousand.
Stuff like this does not happen in a vacuum. It does not spring from nothing.
That’s likely because the Trump campaign did, in fact, collude with the Russians. A Republican-chaired intelligence committee literally released a report LAST WEEK laying out the evidence for it.
So that pursuer had a large scarlet “A” or “SO” or something on his jacket? The dumbass tripped and fell, panicked when he realized that he couldn’t outrun his pursuers, rolled, and started firing.
He certainly wasn’t trying to pick off the “sex offenders”.
False. They found Russian attempts to interfere in the election. There has been no finding of collusion.
Has anybody made that claim? Sounds like you are creating a straw man.
As others noted, your reply was pathetic, the point stands, it is you the one that needs to find better sources of information.
And, no, that was not posted to claim Rationalwiki is the only or good source, like Wikipedia it is the sources of the article one should check.
But you are saying that the democrats should be telling the protesters what not to say.
You even said earlier that you wanted people “like me” to stop using the phrase because you think that it is deceptive.
I guess wanting people to stop using a phrase isn’t exactly the same as telling them not to use it, but there’s not a whole lot of daylight there.
There is no rule of discourse that you are violating, I just don’t agree with your assessment that the phrase is doing more harm than trying to squash it would do.
Rational Wiki is also not a great source of information.
Oh, lord.
You’re the one that offered the justification for Rittenhouse’s actions by pointing out that one of the victims was an (unverified) “sex offender”.
I was just admiring his incredible ability to identify sex offenders under pressure.
Urban Dictionary is also not a great source of information.
I did no such thing. Never did I say anything about justifying his actions. But I will now. They were justified as self-defense.
Urban Dictionary is cited quite often at Rational Wiki:
Is there a reason that you brought up an unsubstantiated claim that one of the victims was a sex offender then?
If not true, then it’s just slandering a dead victim of a shooting.
If it is true, which you have done nothing to substantiate, it is still not relevant.
Feh. Weak sauce.
Offered, by you, as if it was relevant. And, for that matter, you still have not provided any legitimate cite to back up these claims.
Your claims of “self defense” are cute and all, but I believe I’ll let his legal defense argue that point, as he has been charged with two counts of intentional murder.
Also none found in Texas (where Rosenbaum recently moved from) or in the National Database. Very odd.
Huber is listed, with two convictions in his record (one for a felony battery charge and one for a misdemeanor domestic abuse charge).
I can’t imagine Ngo went to the trouble to fake a screenshot, so I wonder where he got it from. The DOC number listed for Rosenbaum doesn’t even seem to exist.
You aren’t a “victim” if you get shot while trying to kill someone
Read it again, I did agree with you ahead of time.
But, a bit related to that I check on them for passing my bias check for subjects, they are not supposed to be used as a final destination, as Red from Overly Sarcastic Productions reports.
It is the collection of sources in an article where the value is, and Rational Wiki passed the test for me, the test is to see how a source does look at very divisive subjects, and when the ones I used as a basic test: climate change that ruffles the feathers of righwingers and GMOs that ruffle the left, are loosked at and it is clear that they linked to the science and ridiculed the ignorant.
It is that kind of crowd, still, never stick with the condescending (although targets can be well deserved) articles and check the citations as I also advised.
On edit: I note that the contrarian poster fell for the falsehood that Rational wiki is just in favor of leftist causes.