Saint Kyle!

anonymoose said:
I gave nicknames to all the participants in previous posts. Kyle = Rifle Kid. Rosenbaum = Angry Jew Huber = Skateboard Dude Grosskreutz = Slow Draw McGraw
Click to expand...

So you say.

Quit wriggling.

Why did you think it was relevant to single out one assailant as "Jewish"? (Despite no evidence that he ever practiced Judaism)?

anonymoose said:
Six I think. Four into the Jewish Lunatic that tried to take Kyle’s rifle and use it against him as he so stated . One through the heart of the one of the criminals in the lynch mob. One in the arm of another criminal member of the lynch mob. Excellent shooting. He could have a future as a sniper in the army. And their criminal records. And the jury. That’s all fine, you can say anything you want. Slugs like you are on the wrong side of the law and the wrong side of morality. Not sure how that’s relevant to anything. Your criminal comrades certainly cared. They wanted to kill him.
Click to expand...
 
Legion said:
What were you driving at when you posted this?
Click to expand...
Ah, I see what you’re driving at. I’ll explain. Although saying someone is Jewish, or to be politically incorrect, a Jew, is not an insult because there’s nothing wrong with being Jewish or a Jew, many people consider it to be anti semitic for some reason.
So basically I’m slapping the face of political correctness by walking that fine line.
If one of the assailants’ name was named Yang would you have a problem with me calling him The Angry Chinese Guy?
Rosenbaum is a very common Jewish name and he obviously had serious anger issues as well as mental health problems.
 
Last edited:
Nomad said:
Only in the most technical sense.

But public officials cannot just sue on the basis of negligence in reporting like private citizens can.

Public officials must prove malice and intent to defame, which is nearly impossible.

Screenshot-20220225-154948.jpg


So for all intents and purposes, they cannot sue for libel or defamation.
Click to expand...

They sure can.
 
anonymoose said:
Ah, I see what you’re driving at. I’ll explain. Although saying someone is Jewish, or to be politically incorrect, a Jew, is not an insult because there’s nothing wrong with being Jewish or a Jew, many people consider it to be anti semitic for some reason. So basically I’m slapping the face of political correctness by walking that fine line.
Click to expand...

I don't buy that. You didn't single anyone else out.

Explain.
 
Concart said:
Irony noted. You literally don't understand anything about the law.
Click to expand...

You literally know nothing about reading comprehension. What part of......whether Rittenhouse ends up with a bag of money from people funding him or from winning some law suit he STILL ends up with a bag of money do you not understand? You dont think he hasnt already had a ton of money AND OPPORTUNITY come flooding in this past year? :rolleyes: :laugh:
 
Legion said:
I don't buy that. You didn't single anyone else out.

Explain.
Click to expand...

Rosenbaum initiated the whole episode.
And I’m making some cringe by walking that fine line I mentioned. Once again, purposely being politically incorrect.
Apparently some people consider it bad to be Jewish ( does that mean ‘kind of a Jew?) .
 
Last edited:
anonymoose said:
Rosenbaum initiated the whole episode.
Click to expand...

I told you to quit wriggling.

Why did you think it was relevant to single out one assailant as "Jewish"? (Despite no evidence that he ever practiced Judaism)?

anonymoose said:
Six I think. Four into the Jewish Lunatic that tried to take Kyle’s rifle and use it against him as he so stated . One through the heart of the one of the criminals in the lynch mob. One in the arm of another criminal member of the lynch mob. Excellent shooting. He could have a future as a sniper in the army. And their criminal records. And the jury. That’s all fine, you can say anything you want. Slugs like you are on the wrong side of the law and the wrong side of morality. Not sure how that’s relevant to anything. Your criminal comrades certainly cared. They wanted to kill him.
Click to expand...
 
Legion said:
I saw it. Quit wriggling.

Why did you think it was relevant to single out one assailant as "Jewish"? (Despite no evidence that he ever practiced Judaism)?
Click to expand...
Not relevance at all other than to piss off the woke.
Rosenbaum doesn’t sound Jewish to you?
 
Legion said:
I have news for you. Wanna know what it is?



I don't recall assuming anyone's religious practices from their surname.

Now, quit wriggling.

Why did you think it was relevant to single out one assailant as "Jewish"? (Despite no evidence that he ever practiced Judaism)?
Click to expand...
I’ve already answered. My old girlfriend (Kaplan) never practiced Judaism and she wore her jewness on her sleeve.
What do you think, or should I ask , what answer would be acceptable for you?
 
Last edited:
anonymoose said:
I’ve already answered. My old girlfriend (Kaplan) never practiced Judaism and she wore her jewness on her sleeve. What do you think or should I ask ,what answer would be acceptable for you?
Click to expand...

I think you're being evasive.

I think you know that anecdotes don't cut it.

I think you're smart enough to know that what you posted and your excuses for it are lame.

Please don't do anything like that again, and we'll say no more about it.

Deal?
 
Stone said:
I dont think you understand how this all works.
Click to expand...

I don't think you do. It's one thing to go after a corporation in a lawsuit like this because a settlement is a much easier route to attain. Going after an individual is MUCH HARDER.......for every reason. Rittenhouse should follow sandmanns advice and just go after media outlets, collect his money, then look to the future. A lawsuit against whoopi is destined to fail and cost him
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
ROFLMAO.

OK, please present your case. When you don't present a case, it will prove you and Rittenshouse have no case.
Your case must meet 3 standards to be valid.
1. You have to point to a specific statement made about Rittenhouse that is factually untrue and was presented as fact and not as opinion.
2. You have to show whoever made the statement knew the statement was false when they made that statement. Any correction by a media source is usually enough to show they didn't know it was false when the statement was first made.
3. You have to show actual harm to Rittenhouse of a monetary fashion. What business opportunities did he lose? The fact that he announced this on Fox News would show he clearly has media access after the statement.
Click to expand...

Jesse Ventura would disagree with you.

n 2014, professional wrestler Jesse Ventura walked away victorious with $1.845 million from a defamation lawsuit filed against late Navy SEAL Chris Kyle. A jury in Minnesota decided that Ventura had been ‘defamed’ when the ex-military man admitted that he had punched Ventura in a bar in 2006 over some comments the latter had made. Kyle said that the wrestler had insulted Navy SEALs by saying that they “deserved to lose some” for their exploitative acts in the war.

Ventura, on the other hand, insisted that the whole story was fabricated, and the majority of the jury appeared to agree with him

https://elawtalk.com/high-profile-defamation-lawsuits/
 
Dutch Uncle said:
So was OJ. Do you really believe OJ was innocent of two murders?
Click to expand...

the HUGE difference between these two is that there's actual video evidence of truth that rittenhouse employed self defense after trying to retreat from his attackers........but you like being shit stupid wrong all the time, so i'm guessing you'll have a different view of the video
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top