Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam, Oso, you seem to have missed it before, so I am posting it again:

We agree the charges are not proven at this time, then. Do you agree with the presumption of innocence at this stage? If yes, then why use language implying guilt has already been established?

---

The presumption of innocence is a presumption of the legal system. Nothing we say here has any effect on it.

---

Presumption of innocence is a key attribute of a fair media too. Remember what the media did to Richard Jewell, for example?

It sucks for people to have to temper their accusations, but there's a vital difference between clearly stating an opinion and presenting a claim as if it were established fact.

---

We're not professional media. We could begin every sentence with "the government alleges that...," but what would be the point? It's not how people talk. Everyone understands that the facts may or may not be disputed in court.

---

In the end, the facts will play out, and if guilty those men will face the full consequences of their actions. But it's a poor excuse to sell an extreme interpretation, essentially assuming everything bad and nothing good, just because you're not a lawyer or work for a network. We also know damn well CNN and ABC/CBS/NBC have no interest in a fair hearing, and as 4th and Inches noted, the media has swung public opinion and influenced juries before now.

---

May we discuss on this board? May news networks report on it? Are we permitted to gather facts and begin to draw conclusions?

As I remember your posting, you were quite sure Rittenhouse was not guilty and were vocal about it. Weren't you afraid your posts might sway the jury?

---

I was clear that my opinion was that Rittenhouse was guilty. I was afraid - with reason - that the media hostile to Rittenhouse would influence the jury.

And you have to see that news networks are making no effort to be objective. The use of 'insurrection' alone demonstrates bias.

Again, come out and say if you think they are guilty. But just maybe you can be open to reasonable doubt, as I raised in a post just a few minutes ago.

Those torches will burn witches just fine a month from now as they will now. But maybe stop and consider alternatives to your assumptions.

---

I guess since it's alright for you to discuss ...

I read the indictment. Feds have disclosed they have videos and text messages of the defendants conspiring to keep Biden from being declared the Electoral College winner. From reading the indictment, it appears to me there are witnesses who were a part of the conspiracy who are witnesses for the prosecution.

---

OK. So what do you know apart from the indictment? You do know those are written from a very hostile POV and do not represent the whole sum of facts.

---

OK. What do you know?

---

I know that everything posted here comes from the prosecution. I know that the lack of any firearms used by any protester on January 6 does not fit the claims of the indictments we have seen.

That alone should caution a reasonable mind to look deeper before accepting one side's claims.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

There was kicking and hitting and hurt police outside the Whitehouse when Trump was in office, too. The President of the nation had to be ushered into a bunker due to the violence. No panel to investigate. No lives ruined of people that were merely there watching. No solitary confinement sans trial. No democrat emails and texts leaked. Nada

---

I don't know that anyone's life has been ruined just for watching. As for investigation, 1/6 is being investigated because of apparent failures by federal law enforcement and the possibility of collusion or incitement by government officials. I'm not sure what the basis for a congressional investigation of the White House incident would be. Trump was accused of acting too harshly, but that charge was groundless. Do you think Congress should have pursued it?

---

Kamala Harris was paying the bail of the rioters. Many democrat politicians were outright supporting and inciting the rioters. Absolutely their lives should have been turned upside down to find out who they were community organizing with to facilitate the nationwide riots, as well as the ones staged at the White House. The media who spread lies should have had their texts and emails revealed to the world, too. Of course I'm exaggerating a bit on the proper response, only applying the same actions by democrats to Jan 6th to their year of riots and murders and taking over federal buildings and land. What you are missing is these emails were not merely looked into, THEY WERE LEAKED TO THE PRESS. Leaking to the press is NOT part of our judicial process, not even if you think their private messages deserved derision.

---

I agree with you up to a point. Kamala and other Democrat politicians were a disgrace. BLM and Antifa should have been thoroughly investigated like the terrorist organizations that they are. I'm sure many on the left felt they stood to lose politically if they took a stand against their "allies," just as many on the right do today. But I don't think either party would hurt itself by being honest. It would be better for them and for the country.

---

Fair enough.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam, Oso, you seem to have missed it before, so I am posting it again:

We agree the charges are not proven at this time, then. Do you agree with the presumption of innocence at this stage? If yes, then why use language implying guilt has already been established?

---

The presumption of innocence is a presumption of the legal system. Nothing we say here has any effect on it.

---

Presumption of innocence is a key attribute of a fair media too. Remember what the media did to Richard Jewell, for example?

It sucks for people to have to temper their accusations, but there's a vital difference between clearly stating an opinion and presenting a claim as if it were established fact.

---

We're not professional media. We could begin every sentence with "the government alleges that...," but what would be the point? It's not how people talk. Everyone understands that the facts may or may not be disputed in court.

---

In the end, the facts will play out, and if guilty those men will face the full consequences of their actions. But it's a poor excuse to sell an extreme interpretation, essentially assuming everything bad and nothing good, just because you're not a lawyer or work for a network. We also know damn well CNN and ABC/CBS/NBC have no interest in a fair hearing, and as 4th and Inches noted, the media has swung public opinion and influenced juries before now.

---

May we discuss on this board? May news networks report on it? Are we permitted to gather facts and begin to draw conclusions?

As I remember your posting, you were quite sure Rittenhouse was not guilty and were vocal about it. Weren't you afraid your posts might sway the jury?

---

I was clear that my opinion was that Rittenhouse was guilty. I was afraid - with reason - that the media hostile to Rittenhouse would influence the jury.

And you have to see that news networks are making no effort to be objective. The use of 'insurrection' alone demonstrates bias.

Again, come out and say if you think they are guilty. But just maybe you can be open to reasonable doubt, as I raised in a post just a few minutes ago.

Those torches will burn witches just fine a month from now as they will now. But maybe stop and consider alternatives to your assumptions.

---

I guess since it's alright for you to discuss ...

I read the indictment. Feds have disclosed they have videos and text messages of the defendants conspiring to keep Biden from being declared the Electoral College winner. From reading the indictment, it appears to me there are witnesses who were a part of the conspiracy who are witnesses for the prosecution.

---

OK. So what do you know apart from the indictment? You do know those are written from a very hostile POV and do not represent the whole sum of facts.

---

OK. What do you know?

---

I know that the lack of any firearms used by any protester on January 6 does not fit the claims of the indictments we have seen.

---

Couldn't be less relevant.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam, Oso, you seem to have missed it before, so I am posting it again:

We agree the charges are not proven at this time, then. Do you agree with the presumption of innocence at this stage? If yes, then why use language implying guilt has already been established?

---

The presumption of innocence is a presumption of the legal system. Nothing we say here has any effect on it.

---

Presumption of innocence is a key attribute of a fair media too. Remember what the media did to Richard Jewell, for example?

It sucks for people to have to temper their accusations, but there's a vital difference between clearly stating an opinion and presenting a claim as if it were established fact.

---

We're not professional media. We could begin every sentence with "the government alleges that...," but what would be the point? It's not how people talk. Everyone understands that the facts may or may not be disputed in court.

---

In the end, the facts will play out, and if guilty those men will face the full consequences of their actions. But it's a poor excuse to sell an extreme interpretation, essentially assuming everything bad and nothing good, just because you're not a lawyer or work for a network. We also know damn well CNN and ABC/CBS/NBC have no interest in a fair hearing, and as 4th and Inches noted, the media has swung public opinion and influenced juries before now.

---

May we discuss on this board? May news networks report on it? Are we permitted to gather facts and begin to draw conclusions?

As I remember your posting, you were quite sure Rittenhouse was not guilty and were vocal about it. Weren't you afraid your posts might sway the jury?

---

I was clear that my opinion was that Rittenhouse was guilty. I was afraid - with reason - that the media hostile to Rittenhouse would influence the jury.

And you have to see that news networks are making no effort to be objective. The use of 'insurrection' alone demonstrates bias.

Again, come out and say if you think they are guilty. But just maybe you can be open to reasonable doubt, as I raised in a post just a few minutes ago.

Those torches will burn witches just fine a month from now as they will now. But maybe stop and consider alternatives to your assumptions.

---

I guess since it's alright for you to discuss ...

I read the indictment. Feds have disclosed they have videos and text messages of the defendants conspiring to keep Biden from being declared the Electoral College winner. From reading the indictment, it appears to me there are witnesses who were a part of the conspiracy who are witnesses for the prosecution.

---

OK. So what do you know apart from the indictment? You do know those are written from a very hostile POV and do not represent the whole sum of facts.

---

OK. What do you know?

---

I know that the lack of any firearms used by any protester on January 6 does not fit the claims of the indictments we have seen.

---

Couldn't be less relevant.

---

sam was caught on video taking out money from ATM at motel, we got him on prostitution charges right?!

Actually, I Agree that exact location of firearms means little in the seditious conspiracy charges. The fact there were firearms on video helps make the text message communication about the plan seem more "real" and that is the more damaging evidence.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam, Oso, you seem to have missed it before, so I am posting it again:

We agree the charges are not proven at this time, then. Do you agree with the presumption of innocence at this stage? If yes, then why use language implying guilt has already been established?

---

The presumption of innocence is a presumption of the legal system. Nothing we say here has any effect on it.

---

Presumption of innocence is a key attribute of a fair media too. Remember what the media did to Richard Jewell, for example?

It sucks for people to have to temper their accusations, but there's a vital difference between clearly stating an opinion and presenting a claim as if it were established fact.

---

We're not professional media. We could begin every sentence with "the government alleges that...," but what would be the point? It's not how people talk. Everyone understands that the facts may or may not be disputed in court.

---

In the end, the facts will play out, and if guilty those men will face the full consequences of their actions. But it's a poor excuse to sell an extreme interpretation, essentially assuming everything bad and nothing good, just because you're not a lawyer or work for a network. We also know damn well CNN and ABC/CBS/NBC have no interest in a fair hearing, and as 4th and Inches noted, the media has swung public opinion and influenced juries before now.

---

May we discuss on this board? May news networks report on it? Are we permitted to gather facts and begin to draw conclusions?

As I remember your posting, you were quite sure Rittenhouse was not guilty and were vocal about it. Weren't you afraid your posts might sway the jury?

---

I was clear that my opinion was that Rittenhouse was guilty. I was afraid - with reason - that the media hostile to Rittenhouse would influence the jury.

And you have to see that news networks are making no effort to be objective. The use of 'insurrection' alone demonstrates bias.

Again, come out and say if you think they are guilty. But just maybe you can be open to reasonable doubt, as I raised in a post just a few minutes ago.

Those torches will burn witches just fine a month from now as they will now. But maybe stop and consider alternatives to your assumptions.

---

I guess since it's alright for you to discuss ...

I read the indictment. Feds have disclosed they have videos and text messages of the defendants conspiring to keep Biden from being declared the Electoral College winner. From reading the indictment, it appears to me there are witnesses who were a part of the conspiracy who are witnesses for the prosecution.

---

OK. So what do you know apart from the indictment? You do know those are written from a very hostile POV and do not represent the whole sum of facts.

---

OK. What do you know?

---

I know that the lack of any firearms used by any protester on January 6 does not fit the claims of the indictments we have seen.

---

Couldn't be less relevant.

---

Completely relevant, just gets in the way of your narrative

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam, Oso, you seem to have missed it before, so I am posting it again:

We agree the charges are not proven at this time, then. Do you agree with the presumption of innocence at this stage? If yes, then why use language implying guilt has already been established?

---

The presumption of innocence is a presumption of the legal system. Nothing we say here has any effect on it.

---

Presumption of innocence is a key attribute of a fair media too. Remember what the media did to Richard Jewell, for example?

It sucks for people to have to temper their accusations, but there's a vital difference between clearly stating an opinion and presenting a claim as if it were established fact.

---

We're not professional media. We could begin every sentence with "the government alleges that...," but what would be the point? It's not how people talk. Everyone understands that the facts may or may not be disputed in court.

---

In the end, the facts will play out, and if guilty those men will face the full consequences of their actions. But it's a poor excuse to sell an extreme interpretation, essentially assuming everything bad and nothing good, just because you're not a lawyer or work for a network. We also know damn well CNN and ABC/CBS/NBC have no interest in a fair hearing, and as 4th and Inches noted, the media has swung public opinion and influenced juries before now.

---

May we discuss on this board? May news networks report on it? Are we permitted to gather facts and begin to draw conclusions?

As I remember your posting, you were quite sure Rittenhouse was not guilty and were vocal about it. Weren't you afraid your posts might sway the jury?

---

I was clear that my opinion was that Rittenhouse was guilty. I was afraid - with reason - that the media hostile to Rittenhouse would influence the jury.

And you have to see that news networks are making no effort to be objective. The use of 'insurrection' alone demonstrates bias.

Again, come out and say if you think they are guilty. But just maybe you can be open to reasonable doubt, as I raised in a post just a few minutes ago.

Those torches will burn witches just fine a month from now as they will now. But maybe stop and consider alternatives to your assumptions.

---

I guess since it's alright for you to discuss ...

I read the indictment. Feds have disclosed they have videos and text messages of the defendants conspiring to keep Biden from being declared the Electoral College winner. From reading the indictment, it appears to me there are witnesses who were a part of the conspiracy who are witnesses for the prosecution.

---

OK. So what do you know apart from the indictment? You do know those are written from a very hostile POV and do not represent the whole sum of facts.

---

OK. What do you know?

---

I know that the lack of any firearms used by any protester on January 6 does not fit the claims of the indictments we have seen.

---

Couldn't be less relevant.

---

Completely relevant, just gets in the way of your narrative

---

Check the statute.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam, Oso, you seem to have missed it before, so I am posting it again:

We agree the charges are not proven at this time, then. Do you agree with the presumption of innocence at this stage? If yes, then why use language implying guilt has already been established?

---

The presumption of innocence is a presumption of the legal system. Nothing we say here has any effect on it.

---

Presumption of innocence is a key attribute of a fair media too. Remember what the media did to Richard Jewell, for example?

It sucks for people to have to temper their accusations, but there's a vital difference between clearly stating an opinion and presenting a claim as if it were established fact.

---

We're not professional media. We could begin every sentence with "the government alleges that...," but what would be the point? It's not how people talk. Everyone understands that the facts may or may not be disputed in court.

---

In the end, the facts will play out, and if guilty those men will face the full consequences of their actions. But it's a poor excuse to sell an extreme interpretation, essentially assuming everything bad and nothing good, just because you're not a lawyer or work for a network. We also know damn well CNN and ABC/CBS/NBC have no interest in a fair hearing, and as 4th and Inches noted, the media has swung public opinion and influenced juries before now.

---

May we discuss on this board? May news networks report on it? Are we permitted to gather facts and begin to draw conclusions?

As I remember your posting, you were quite sure Rittenhouse was not guilty and were vocal about it. Weren't you afraid your posts might sway the jury?

---

I was clear that my opinion was that Rittenhouse was guilty. I was afraid - with reason - that the media hostile to Rittenhouse would influence the jury.

And you have to see that news networks are making no effort to be objective. The use of 'insurrection' alone demonstrates bias.

Again, come out and say if you think they are guilty. But just maybe you can be open to reasonable doubt, as I raised in a post just a few minutes ago.

Those torches will burn witches just fine a month from now as they will now. But maybe stop and consider alternatives to your assumptions.

---

I guess since it's alright for you to discuss ...

I read the indictment. Feds have disclosed they have videos and text messages of the defendants conspiring to keep Biden from being declared the Electoral College winner. From reading the indictment, it appears to me there are witnesses who were a part of the conspiracy who are witnesses for the prosecution.

---

OK. So what do you know apart from the indictment? You do know those are written from a very hostile POV and do not represent the whole sum of facts.

---

OK. What do you know?

---

I know that the lack of any firearms used by any protester on January 6 does not fit the claims of the indictments we have seen.

---

Couldn't be less relevant.

---

Completely relevant, just gets in the way of your narrative

---

Check the statute.

---

Irrelevant to the question of why those charges were made, why the timing, and what involvement by FBI instigators.

Sam is acting like the new Barney Fife - if he can find something to charge someone with, and he doesn't like that person, off he goes with no regard to whether the charge fits the situation and all the facts.

To put it another way Sam, if those guns were used as the indictment says, why didn't they get used, not even one of them, on January 6?

Yes it matters if you are looking for the truth. It's only "irrelevant" if all you care about is finding something to attack.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam, Oso, you seem to have missed it before, so I am posting it again:

We agree the charges are not proven at this time, then. Do you agree with the presumption of innocence at this stage? If yes, then why use language implying guilt has already been established?

---

The presumption of innocence is a presumption of the legal system. Nothing we say here has any effect on it.

---

Presumption of innocence is a key attribute of a fair media too. Remember what the media did to Richard Jewell, for example?

It sucks for people to have to temper their accusations, but there's a vital difference between clearly stating an opinion and presenting a claim as if it were established fact.

---

We're not professional media. We could begin every sentence with "the government alleges that...," but what would be the point? It's not how people talk. Everyone understands that the facts may or may not be disputed in court.

---

In the end, the facts will play out, and if guilty those men will face the full consequences of their actions. But it's a poor excuse to sell an extreme interpretation, essentially assuming everything bad and nothing good, just because you're not a lawyer or work for a network. We also know damn well CNN and ABC/CBS/NBC have no interest in a fair hearing, and as 4th and Inches noted, the media has swung public opinion and influenced juries before now.

---

May we discuss on this board? May news networks report on it? Are we permitted to gather facts and begin to draw conclusions?

As I remember your posting, you were quite sure Rittenhouse was not guilty and were vocal about it. Weren't you afraid your posts might sway the jury?

---

I was clear that my opinion was that Rittenhouse was guilty. I was afraid - with reason - that the media hostile to Rittenhouse would influence the jury.

And you have to see that news networks are making no effort to be objective. The use of 'insurrection' alone demonstrates bias.

Again, come out and say if you think they are guilty. But just maybe you can be open to reasonable doubt, as I raised in a post just a few minutes ago.

Those torches will burn witches just fine a month from now as they will now. But maybe stop and consider alternatives to your assumptions.

---

I guess since it's alright for you to discuss ...

I read the indictment. Feds have disclosed they have videos and text messages of the defendants conspiring to keep Biden from being declared the Electoral College winner. From reading the indictment, it appears to me there are witnesses who were a part of the conspiracy who are witnesses for the prosecution.

---

OK. So what do you know apart from the indictment? You do know those are written from a very hostile POV and do not represent the whole sum of facts.

---

OK. What do you know?

---

I know that the lack of any firearms used by any protester on January 6 does not fit the claims of the indictments we have seen.

---

Couldn't be less relevant.

---

Completely relevant, just gets in the way of your narrative

---

Check the statute.

---

Irrelevant to the question of why those charges were made, why the timing, and what involvement by FBI instigators.

Sam is acting like the new Barney Fife - if he can find something to charge someone with, and he doesn't like that person, off he goes with no regard to whether the charge fits the situation and all the facts.

To put it another way Sam, if those guns were used as the indictment says, why didn't they get used, not even one of them, on January 6?

Yes it matters if you are looking for the truth. It's only "irrelevant" if all you care about is finding something to attack.

---

That was explained in the indictment.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam, Oso, you seem to have missed it before, so I am posting it again:

We agree the charges are not proven at this time, then. Do you agree with the presumption of innocence at this stage? If yes, then why use language implying guilt has already been established?

---

The presumption of innocence is a presumption of the legal system. Nothing we say here has any effect on it.

---

Presumption of innocence is a key attribute of a fair media too. Remember what the media did to Richard Jewell, for example?

It sucks for people to have to temper their accusations, but there's a vital difference between clearly stating an opinion and presenting a claim as if it were established fact.

---

We're not professional media. We could begin every sentence with "the government alleges that...," but what would be the point? It's not how people talk. Everyone understands that the facts may or may not be disputed in court.

---

In the end, the facts will play out, and if guilty those men will face the full consequences of their actions. But it's a poor excuse to sell an extreme interpretation, essentially assuming everything bad and nothing good, just because you're not a lawyer or work for a network. We also know damn well CNN and ABC/CBS/NBC have no interest in a fair hearing, and as 4th and Inches noted, the media has swung public opinion and influenced juries before now.

---

May we discuss on this board? May news networks report on it? Are we permitted to gather facts and begin to draw conclusions?

As I remember your posting, you were quite sure Rittenhouse was not guilty and were vocal about it. Weren't you afraid your posts might sway the jury?

---

I was clear that my opinion was that Rittenhouse was guilty. I was afraid - with reason - that the media hostile to Rittenhouse would influence the jury.

And you have to see that news networks are making no effort to be objective. The use of 'insurrection' alone demonstrates bias.

Again, come out and say if you think they are guilty. But just maybe you can be open to reasonable doubt, as I raised in a post just a few minutes ago.

Those torches will burn witches just fine a month from now as they will now. But maybe stop and consider alternatives to your assumptions.

---

I guess since it's alright for you to discuss ...

I read the indictment. Feds have disclosed they have videos and text messages of the defendants conspiring to keep Biden from being declared the Electoral College winner. From reading the indictment, it appears to me there are witnesses who were a part of the conspiracy who are witnesses for the prosecution.

---

OK. So what do you know apart from the indictment? You do know those are written from a very hostile POV and do not represent the whole sum of facts.

---

OK. What do you know?

---

I know that the lack of any firearms used by any protester on January 6 does not fit the claims of the indictments we have seen.

---

Couldn't be less relevant.

---

Completely relevant, just gets in the way of your narrative

---

Check the statute.

---

Irrelevant to the question of why those charges were made, why the timing, and what involvement by FBI instigators.

Sam is acting like the new Barney Fife - if he can find something to charge someone with, and he doesn't like that person, off he goes with no regard to whether the charge fits the situation and all the facts.

To put it another way Sam, if those guns were used as the indictment says, why didn't they get used, not even one of them, on January 6?

Yes it matters if you are looking for the truth. It's only "irrelevant" if all you care about is finding something to attack.

---

That was explained in the indictment.

---

The indictment only covers the accusation. It does not necessarily represent the facts.

Sam thinks Poland invaded Germany in 1939, because the Wehrmacht released a report that said so.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam, Oso, you seem to have missed it before, so I am posting it again:

We agree the charges are not proven at this time, then. Do you agree with the presumption of innocence at this stage? If yes, then why use language implying guilt has already been established?

---

The presumption of innocence is a presumption of the legal system. Nothing we say here has any effect on it.

---

Presumption of innocence is a key attribute of a fair media too. Remember what the media did to Richard Jewell, for example?

It sucks for people to have to temper their accusations, but there's a vital difference between clearly stating an opinion and presenting a claim as if it were established fact.

---

We're not professional media. We could begin every sentence with "the government alleges that...," but what would be the point? It's not how people talk. Everyone understands that the facts may or may not be disputed in court.

---

In the end, the facts will play out, and if guilty those men will face the full consequences of their actions. But it's a poor excuse to sell an extreme interpretation, essentially assuming everything bad and nothing good, just because you're not a lawyer or work for a network. We also know damn well CNN and ABC/CBS/NBC have no interest in a fair hearing, and as 4th and Inches noted, the media has swung public opinion and influenced juries before now.

---

May we discuss on this board? May news networks report on it? Are we permitted to gather facts and begin to draw conclusions?

As I remember your posting, you were quite sure Rittenhouse was not guilty and were vocal about it. Weren't you afraid your posts might sway the jury?

---

I was clear that my opinion was that Rittenhouse was guilty. I was afraid - with reason - that the media hostile to Rittenhouse would influence the jury.

And you have to see that news networks are making no effort to be objective. The use of 'insurrection' alone demonstrates bias.

Again, come out and say if you think they are guilty. But just maybe you can be open to reasonable doubt, as I raised in a post just a few minutes ago.

Those torches will burn witches just fine a month from now as they will now. But maybe stop and consider alternatives to your assumptions.

---

I guess since it's alright for you to discuss ...

I read the indictment. Feds have disclosed they have videos and text messages of the defendants conspiring to keep Biden from being declared the Electoral College winner. From reading the indictment, it appears to me there are witnesses who were a part of the conspiracy who are witnesses for the prosecution.

---

OK. So what do you know apart from the indictment? You do know those are written from a very hostile POV and do not represent the whole sum of facts.

---

OK. What do you know?

---

I know that the lack of any firearms used by any protester on January 6 does not fit the claims of the indictments we have seen.

---

Couldn't be less relevant.

---

Completely relevant, just gets in the way of your narrative

---

Check the statute.

---

Irrelevant to the question of why those charges were made, why the timing, and what involvement by FBI instigators.

Sam is acting like the new Barney Fife - if he can find something to charge someone with, and he doesn't like that person, off he goes with no regard to whether the charge fits the situation and all the facts.

To put it another way Sam, if those guns were used as the indictment says, why didn't they get used, not even one of them, on January 6?

Yes it matters if you are looking for the truth. It's only "irrelevant" if all you care about is finding something to attack.

---

That was explained in the indictment.

---

The indictment only covers the accusation. It does not necessarily represent the facts.

Sam thinks Poland invaded Germany in 1939, because the Wehrmacht released a report that said so.

---

So…you want a different explanation from the one in the indictment?

What I want is for people to do better than parrot one opinion, and to only imply something has been established when that's actually happened, not just because you like that claim.

Oldbear83 said:

---

What I want is for people to do better than parrot one opinion, and to only imply something has been established when that's actually happened, not just because you like that claim.

---

The facts will be established when the verdict is in. Meanwhile you don't want to talk about them. Yet here you are...talking about them. What's your point? Are you sure your question wasn't rhetorical? It's okay if it was.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

What I want is for people to do better than parrot one opinion, and to only imply something has been established when that's actually happened, not just because you like that claim.

---

The facts will be established when the verdict is in. Meanwhile you don't want to talk about them. Yet here you are...talking about them. What's your point? Are you sure your question wasn't rhetorical? It's okay if it was.

---

Mothra is right Sam. You twist things around so you can pretend something else was said.

You have chosen to believe the accusations as fact. That's - to use your word from earlier - chicken****, but it's perfectly in character with how you post for going on a year now.

I have been plain all along that I care about finding out what happened, and waiting for facts to come out. I also believe that opinions are fine as long is someone is open to new evidence.

You have chosen to build your position in a moral sewer. Can't imagine why, but the idea that you hold any kind of ethical credibility is absurd, verging on obscene.

My only mistake was treating you as someone interested in a respectful discussion of the matter.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

What I want is for people to do better than parrot one opinion, and to only imply something has been established when that's actually happened, not just because you like that claim.

---

The facts will be established when the verdict is in. Meanwhile you don't want to talk about them. Yet here you are...talking about them. What's your point? Are you sure your question wasn't rhetorical? It's okay if it was.

---

Mothra is right Sam. You twist things around so you can pretend something else was said.

You have chosen to believe the accusations as fact. That's - to use your word from earlier - chicken****, but it's perfectly in character with how you post for going on a year now.

I have been plain all along that I care about finding out what happened, and waiting for facts to come out. I also believe that opinions are fine as long is someone is open to new evidence.

You have chosen to build your position in a moral sewer. Can't imagine why, but the idea that you hold any kind of ethical credibility is absurd, verging on obscene.

My only mistake was treating you as someone interested in a respectful discussion of the matter.

---

What. Is. Your. Point. Not about me, about the gun allegations.

Grow up.

Read what I already wrote.

Try to be an adult instead of this board's Pee Wee Herman.

It's been a waste of time, as usual. Get back to me when you've read the law and the pleadings.

Or don't.

Sam will always be Sam.

Often wrong, never more to be rational nor courteous, but determined in all things to show his arrogance at every chance.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam, Oso, you seem to have missed it before, so I am posting it again:

We agree the charges are not proven at this time, then. Do you agree with the presumption of innocence at this stage? If yes, then why use language implying guilt has already been established?

---

The presumption of innocence is a presumption of the legal system. Nothing we say here has any effect on it.

---

Presumption of innocence is a key attribute of a fair media too. Remember what the media did to Richard Jewell, for example?

It sucks for people to have to temper their accusations, but there's a vital difference between clearly stating an opinion and presenting a claim as if it were established fact.

---

We're not professional media. We could begin every sentence with "the government alleges that...," but what would be the point? It's not how people talk. Everyone understands that the facts may or may not be disputed in court.

---

In the end, the facts will play out, and if guilty those men will face the full consequences of their actions. But it's a poor excuse to sell an extreme interpretation, essentially assuming everything bad and nothing good, just because you're not a lawyer or work for a network. We also know damn well CNN and ABC/CBS/NBC have no interest in a fair hearing, and as 4th and Inches noted, the media has swung public opinion and influenced juries before now.

---

May we discuss on this board? May news networks report on it? Are we permitted to gather facts and begin to draw conclusions?

As I remember your posting, you were quite sure Rittenhouse was not guilty and were vocal about it. Weren't you afraid your posts might sway the jury?

---

I was clear that my opinion was that Rittenhouse was guilty. I was afraid - with reason - that the media hostile to Rittenhouse would influence the jury.

And you have to see that news networks are making no effort to be objective. The use of 'insurrection' alone demonstrates bias.

Again, come out and say if you think they are guilty. But just maybe you can be open to reasonable doubt, as I raised in a post just a few minutes ago.

Those torches will burn witches just fine a month from now as they will now. But maybe stop and consider alternatives to your assumptions.

---

I guess since it's alright for you to discuss ...

I read the indictment. Feds have disclosed they have videos and text messages of the defendants conspiring to keep Biden from being declared the Electoral College winner. From reading the indictment, it appears to me there are witnesses who were a part of the conspiracy who are witnesses for the prosecution.

---

OK. So what do you know apart from the indictment? You do know those are written from a very hostile POV and do not represent the whole sum of facts.

---

OK. What do you know?

---

I know that everything posted here comes from the prosecution. I know that the lack of any firearms used by any protester on January 6 does not fit the claims of the indictments we have seen.

That alone should caution a reasonable mind to look deeper before accepting one side's claims.

---

Were the guys who had the weapons in the hotel room connected to the guys in the Capitol?

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam, Oso, you seem to have missed it before, so I am posting it again:

We agree the charges are not proven at this time, then. Do you agree with the presumption of innocence at this stage? If yes, then why use language implying guilt has already been established?

---

The presumption of innocence is a presumption of the legal system. Nothing we say here has any effect on it.

---

Presumption of innocence is a key attribute of a fair media too. Remember what the media did to Richard Jewell, for example?

It sucks for people to have to temper their accusations, but there's a vital difference between clearly stating an opinion and presenting a claim as if it were established fact.

---

We're not professional media. We could begin every sentence with "the government alleges that...," but what would be the point? It's not how people talk. Everyone understands that the facts may or may not be disputed in court.

---

In the end, the facts will play out, and if guilty those men will face the full consequences of their actions. But it's a poor excuse to sell an extreme interpretation, essentially assuming everything bad and nothing good, just because you're not a lawyer or work for a network. We also know damn well CNN and ABC/CBS/NBC have no interest in a fair hearing, and as 4th and Inches noted, the media has swung public opinion and influenced juries before now.

---

May we discuss on this board? May news networks report on it? Are we permitted to gather facts and begin to draw conclusions?

As I remember your posting, you were quite sure Rittenhouse was not guilty and were vocal about it. Weren't you afraid your posts might sway the jury?

---

I was clear that my opinion was that Rittenhouse was guilty. I was afraid - with reason - that the media hostile to Rittenhouse would influence the jury.

And you have to see that news networks are making no effort to be objective. The use of 'insurrection' alone demonstrates bias.

Again, come out and say if you think they are guilty. But just maybe you can be open to reasonable doubt, as I raised in a post just a few minutes ago.

Those torches will burn witches just fine a month from now as they will now. But maybe stop and consider alternatives to your assumptions.

---

I guess since it's alright for you to discuss ...

I read the indictment. Feds have disclosed they have videos and text messages of the defendants conspiring to keep Biden from being declared the Electoral College winner. From reading the indictment, it appears to me there are witnesses who were a part of the conspiracy who are witnesses for the prosecution.

---

If so, makes more of a case for a mental evaluation if they thought that they were going to alter an election. Besides showing their displeasure with the system, there was and is no realistic shot of altering an election in th US.

---

Believers of the Big Lie disagree.

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

if people buy and transport weapons to DC in order to keep a losing candidate as POTUS, that is insurrection not shoplifting.

---

---

---

---

---

If people cache weapons nearby with the idea of bringing them to the Capitol to violently prevent the counting of the Electoral Votes, that's insurrection, not DUI.

---

Are you favor of charging people with crimes they might have committed? Every indictment is an allegation against a person for crimes they have committed.
I think you missed the point. So if a person thinks about killing someone but doesn't, should she be charged with murder? Conspiracy to commit murder

If they brought the guns for an insurrection, why didn't they bring them to the planned insurrection? The master mind did not call them to the Capitol. The conspirators are alleged to have brought weapons for the purpose of keeping Trump in office

---

The conspirators were on call with weapons they brought to DC area

---

So much for 'innocent until proven guilty', hmm?

---

It's in the indictment. Must be proven brd
Can't get to trial without an indictment

---

We agree the charges are not proven at this time, then. Do you agree with the presumption of innocence at this stage? If yes, then why use language implying guilt has already been established?

---

By Oso's line of reasoning, anyone in America who believes what the Founders believed (that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to make possible the natural right of the individual to defend him/herself against tyranny) is an insurrectionist.

The water here is so much deeper than he realizes. That ANTIFA bumper sticker on his car and cash donation to BLM could really come back to bite him.

---

This is what it has come to, defending the rule of law makes one a radical leftist?

Y'all lost your damn minds

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

if people buy and transport weapons to DC in order to keep a losing candidate as POTUS, that is insurrection not shoplifting.

---

---

---

---

---

If people cache weapons nearby with the idea of bringing them to the Capitol to violently prevent the counting of the Electoral Votes, that's insurrection, not DUI.

---

Are you favor of charging people with crimes they might have committed? Every indictment is an allegation against a person for crimes they have committed.
I think you missed the point. So if a person thinks about killing someone but doesn't, should she be charged with murder? Conspiracy to commit murder

If they brought the guns for an insurrection, why didn't they bring them to the planned insurrection? The master mind did not call them to the Capitol. The conspirators are alleged to have brought weapons for the purpose of keeping Trump in office

---

The conspirators were on call with weapons they brought to DC area

---

So much for 'innocent until proven guilty', hmm?

---

It's in the indictment. Must be proven brd
Can't get to trial without an indictment

---

We agree the charges are not proven at this time, then. Do you agree with the presumption of innocence at this stage? If yes, then why use language implying guilt has already been established?

---

By Oso's line of reasoning, anyone in America who believes what the Founders believed (that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to make possible the natural right of the individual to defend him/herself against tyranny) is an insurrectionist.

The water here is so much deeper than he realizes. That ANTIFA bumper sticker on his car and cash donation to BLM could really come back to bite him.

---

But ANTIFA and BLM say they believe what the Founders believed regarding the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. I guess that means anybody can do any damned thing they want to and you'll defend them (since there is no standard).

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

if people buy and transport weapons to DC in order to keep a losing candidate as POTUS, that is insurrection not shoplifting.

---

---

---

---

---

If people cache weapons nearby with the idea of bringing them to the Capitol to violently prevent the counting of the Electoral Votes, that's insurrection, not DUI.

---

Are you favor of charging people with crimes they might have committed? Every indictment is an allegation against a person for crimes they have committed.
I think you missed the point. So if a person thinks about killing someone but doesn't, should she be charged with murder? Conspiracy to commit murder

If they brought the guns for an insurrection, why didn't they bring them to the planned insurrection? The master mind did not call them to the Capitol. The conspirators are alleged to have brought weapons for the purpose of keeping Trump in office

---

The conspirators were on call with weapons they brought to DC area

---

So much for 'innocent until proven guilty', hmm?

---

It's in the indictment. Must be proven brd
Can't get to trial without an indictment

---

We agree the charges are not proven at this time, then. Do you agree with the presumption of innocence at this stage? If yes, then why use language implying guilt has already been established?

---

By Oso's line of reasoning, anyone in America who believes what the Founders believed (that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to make possible the natural right of the individual to defend him/herself against tyranny) is an insurrectionist.

The water here is so much deeper than he realizes. That ANTIFA bumper sticker on his car and cash donation to BLM could really come back to bite him.

---

No, by your line of reasoning any insurrectionist is merely exercising his 2nd Amendment rights.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

if people buy and transport weapons to DC in order to keep a losing candidate as POTUS, that is insurrection not shoplifting.

---

---

---

---

---

If people cache weapons nearby with the idea of bringing them to the Capitol to violently prevent the counting of the Electoral Votes, that's insurrection, not DUI.

---

Are you favor of charging people with crimes they might have committed? Every indictment is an allegation against a person for crimes they have committed.
I think you missed the point. So if a person thinks about killing someone but doesn't, should she be charged with murder? Conspiracy to commit murder

If they brought the guns for an insurrection, why didn't they bring them to the planned insurrection? The master mind did not call them to the Capitol. The conspirators are alleged to have brought weapons for the purpose of keeping Trump in office

---

The conspirators were on call with weapons they brought to DC area

---

So much for 'innocent until proven guilty', hmm?

---

It's in the indictment. Must be proven brd
Can't get to trial without an indictment

---

We agree the charges are not proven at this time, then. Do you agree with the presumption of innocence at this stage? If yes, then why use language implying guilt has already been established?

---

By Oso's line of reasoning, anyone in America who believes what the Founders believed (that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to make possible the natural right of the individual to defend him/herself against tyranny) is an insurrectionist.

The water here is so much deeper than he realizes. That ANTIFA bumper sticker on his car and cash donation to BLM could really come back to bite him.

---

No, by your line of reasoning any insurrectionist is merely exercising his 2nd Amendment rights.

---

It must be Happy Hour in Argentina for Sam to post something that far from rational this early in the day.