Anyone else watching the Kyle Rittenhouse trial?

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
just don't bother with rob, he's a fucking moron who will never see the truth. he's spent most of his life blaming everyone else for his own insanity, and trying to tell the entire rest of the world that they're fools and slaves because they don't buy into his horseshit idiocy.
he likes to tell everyone who doesn't live in a cave off the grid that they're tools who kiss government ass...but does he practice a single thing he preaches? no...he's the worst kind of hypocrite...the kind that never shuts the fuck up.
and he's a pedophile, a racist, and a mysoginist....if it's old enough to bleed, it's old enough to breed, unless it's a woman of color, then they can get the fuck out of his store and not come back...so...who does that leave?...young white boys...maybe rob is a catholic priest?
 

mooray

Well-Known Member
That's not an argument.
What's your argument when you refer to the constitution as, "oh you mean a piece of paper" and then hold it up as if it's much more than a piece of paper?

What's your argument when you think of taxes as literally enslavement and have the ability to live someplace where there are no taxes, yet choose not to do so because it's like...too hard-n-stuff?
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
What's your argument when you refer to the constitution as, "oh you mean a piece of paper" and then hold it up as if it's much more than a piece of paper?

What's your argument when you think of taxes as literally enslavement and have the ability to live someplace where there are no taxes, yet choose not to do so because it's like...too hard-n-stuff?
Thank you for asking politely.

The constitution (less the bill of rights) IS a piece of paper. It purports to grant powers to some people to rule over others, even those who might live in the future and who never actually consented to any of it. It is a nonbinding parchment fabricated not from actual consent and is pretty much a blueprint in assumptive power etc. Basically, horseshit.

On the other hand, the bill of rights is also a piece of paper, but it is a much better document and often runs counter to the assumptions in the constitution. Combining the two documents seems incongruent and absurd, since they represent opposing concepts. Rights and coercion based government are opposites.

Anyhow, when I refer to the bill of rights, I have the understanding that the concepts / rights embodied therein would exist whether they were written down or not. Rights don't come from pieces of paper, but pieces of paper can enumerate a right.

As far as taxation, it's clearly theft in many instances. Not because I say so, although normally what I say is accurate and agreeing with me, is usually a good course of action. Moving along. it's theft, because to transfer property without the willing uncoerced consent of the owner is theft.

Move away from taxes? Dude, I live in mom's basement, I thought you knew that!?
 
Last edited:

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Yeah they were pissed that the active shooter was running down the street.

Rittenhouse could have disarmed and they never would have known he was a killer that needed to be stopped.
"That slut deserved to be raped! She was traipsing around swishing her ass with half her tits hanging out" !
 

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
What's your argument when you refer to the constitution as, "oh you mean a piece of paper" and then hold it up as if it's much more than a piece of paper?

What's your argument when you think of taxes as literally enslavement and have the ability to live someplace where there are no taxes, yet choose not to do so because it's like...too hard-n-stuff?
because there are at least two sets of rules, one for rob, and one for everyone else...and of course, the set for rob are defined by rob
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
because there are at least two sets of rules, one for rob, and one for everyone else...and of course, the set for rob are defined by rob
That's partially true. I define what I do with myself and my justly acquired property, but I do not (should not) define what you do with yourself and your justly acquired property.

So in that regard we could each set our own rules for how we will run our own lives as long as we aren't running others lives where we have no business.

Of course none of that, precludes us from making mutual uncoerced agreements to interact, trade or engage each other on terms we agree to.

Thanks for almost pointing that out, when you're not wetting your pants and crying about it, you're almost okay.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Thank you for asking politely.

The constitution (less the bill of rights) IS a piece of paper. It purports to grant powers to some people to rule over others, even those who might live in the future and who never actually consented to any of it. It is a nonbinding parchment fabricated not from actual consent and is pretty much a blueprint in assumptive power etc. Basically, horseshit.

On the other hand, the bill of rights is also a piece of paper, but it is a much better document and often runs counter to the assumptions in the constitution. Combining the two documents seems incongruent and absurd, since they represent opposing concepts. Rights and coercion based government are opposites.

Anyhow, when I refer to the bill of rights, I have the understanding that the concepts / rights embodied therein would exist whether they were written down or not. Rights don't come from pieces of paper, but pieces of paper can enumerate a right.

As far as taxation, it's clearly theft in many instances. Not because I say so, although normally what I say is accurate and agreeing with me, is usually a good course of action. Moving along. it's theft, because to transfer property without the willing uncoerced consent of the owner is theft.

Move away from taxes? Dude, I live in mom's basement, I thought you knew that!?
"thank you for being polite" = "i know im a nazi piece of shit who doesn't deserve a shred of civility"
 

ASMALLVOICE

Well-Known Member
Gun charge dropped, as it was incorrect charge in the first place. He was completely within his right to keep and bear the arm that rid the earth of a couple of known criminals that were already up to no good in the first place. Acquittal in short order :bigjoint:
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Ooh good one! I am surprised it took you trolls this long to start making this stupid as shit comparison.

Dressing provocatively and killing someone by shooting them 4 times in a row are not the same thing. But I am guessing you knew that and are just doing your troll job by keeping this stupid radicalized idiots thread bumped like you had been doing all morning.

Screen Shot 2021-11-12 at 1.45.56 PM.png
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Ooh good one! I am surprised it took you trolls this long to start making this stupid as shit comparison.

Dressing provocatively and killing someone by shooting them 4 times in a row are not the same thing. But I am guessing you knew that and are just doing your troll job by keeping this stupid radicalized idiots thread bumped like you had been doing all morning.

View attachment 5027246
1636743382196.png
 
Top