Kyle Rittenhouse trial

53,117 Views | 970 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by boognish_bear
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BylrFan said:

Rawhide said:

Porteroso said:

Amal Shuq-Up said:

Osodecentx said:

Amal Shuq-Up said:

Wangchung said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Disagree on C. When politicians hold back police and allow riots to continue it is up to citizens to step in and stop the violence. Citizens are literally the last line of defense against anarchy.
Do you think the 3 guys who killed Ahmaud Arbery are heroes who were fighting anarchy?
No.
I don't blame you
Do you think the three rioters shot by Kyle were marching for racial justice?
The 3 men who killed Arbery claim to be protecting the community, the same claim you make for Rittenhouse.
The man killed by the Georgia defendants wasn't marching for racial justice.
You claim "hero status" for Rittenhouse, yet are silent about the Georgia "heroes"
Do you think the three rioters shot by Kyle were marching for racial justice?


He doesn't think anything. He is a random word generator as demonstrated by his pitiful attempt to formulate an analogy.
An analogy nobody is disputing
I am disputing your analogy. It is a pitiful analogy. Arbrey was running from a group of violent men. Rittenhouse was running from a group of violent men. Arbrey was forced to defend himself from three aggressors. Rittenhouse was forced to defend himself from three aggressors.

Rittenhouse is alive today because he had a weapon to defend himself. Arbrey is not alive because he had no weapon to defend himself against his assailants.

Rittenhouse is Arbrey with a gun in your analogy. Go back to school.

At least one of the guys attacking Rittenhouse thought he had just murdered somebody. One of many reasons Rittenhouse should never have left the dealership he was protecting, and especially not alone. It's absolutely vigilante justice, and Rittenhouse is lucky he didn't die. His actions put lives in danger.
I would argue that the rioters are the ones that put lives in danger. Those rioters are idiots, especially the dead ones.


It can be both man. Rittenhouse should have never put himself in that situation. You're just asking for trouble. Courts got it right but neither side was bright in their actions.
I am grateful there are men like Kyle who will do stupid stuff like cleaning up graffiti and rendering first aid. I am also grateful to the manufacturers of the AR-15 so that when people do selfless, stupid stuff they can still defend themselves from others who would harm them just for being in what some consider to be the wrong place at the wrong time.
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Who's ready to be a millionaire?

Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm not big on suing everyone but so hope he goes after everyone in the media who smeared him and lied and called him a white supremacist. This stuff has to stop. It's a tragedy all around and the media is complacent for most of this as well as the city and the stand down orders.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BellCountyBear said:

America is not completely down the ****ter yet! I am shocked.
Still some life left in the old girl.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?

riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TenBears
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I may have missed something, but did this trial have a sports and/or racial connection? I ask because three people on ESPN (NBA today) are having a panel discussion and talking about how speechless they are. I don't begrudge them their opinion, but ESPN doesn't even try to find a sports tie in anymore.
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

About heroes:

I wasn't going to call Kyle Rittenhouse a hero until I learned that he went to put out fires, protect property and help the injured. He only took his gun for self-defense, and the facts prove that was a wise decision.

Now about heroes in general. Back in 1836, a bunch of men in Tennessee took it upon themselves to travel to Texas and provide support for a bunch of rebels in what we now call San Antonio. Some may say they were foolhardy, some would say they were looking for trouble, but a lot of people call them Heroes of the Alamo now.

Spin affects how people talk about things, sure. Bias also plays into it. But the facts are all on Kyle's side, with only vitriol and malice on the prosecutor's side, and underlying the MSM's account of these events.
Just a point of fact. Carrying a weapon to protect yourself (self defense) vs carrying a weapon to protect or secure something else is a completely different situation and type of engagement. And I hope you aren't drawing an analogy to the Alamo. Jim Bowie didn't flee the Alamo and happen to off some Mexican soldiers chasing him out behind the church.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thank God .
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
notbubbleboy said:

I may have missed something, but did this trial have a sports and/or racial connection? I ask because three people on ESPN (NBA today) are having a panel discussion and talking about how speechless they are. I don't begrudge them their opinion, but ESPN doesn't even try to find a sports tie in anymore.
Woke sports are the worst kind.

People wonder why I'm not anointing Rittenhouse as some type of "hero". It's because a. He isn't and b. The same idiots you mention above will argue the people who chased him down are heroes who sacrificed their lives trying to stop a white supremacist with a weapon at a BLM protest. No heroes there that day. Jury rendered the correct verdict. Time to move on.
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:


repeat that last part again, the POCs in the back missed it. Was he really there to affirm that blacks mattered?!
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”

–Horace


“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I imagine Kyle's attorneys will have a nice cigar and a brandy on the balcony tonight. Just like Alan Shore and Denny Crane would if they were still winning the big case.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Wangchung said:

Disagree on C. When politicians hold back police and allow riots to continue it is up to citizens to step in and stop the violence. Citizens are literally the last line of defense against anarchy.
He couldn't even stop them from lighting a dumpster on fire and you're convinced somehow the riots were going to be stopped by him and the others out there? What did you think was going to happen? Are you advocating open gun battles?
He wasn't there to stop the riots, step in for police, or engage in battle. You don't have to do any of those things to protect the community. Putting out fires is protecting. Standing between rioters and property is protecting. That doesn't change because he retreated when attacked. It just means he was doing the right thing. Having the weapon still makes it harder on the insurrect -- sorry, on the protesters, because it lets him work safely and lets them know there's a risk in violently interfering.
This makes absolutely no sense. Seriously, what was he protecting the community or whatever he was protecting from? You don't carry a weapon as a risk warning in a security situation unless you are willing to use it in the performance of your duties. He used it in self defense and that's precisely why he brought it to Kenosha. That and probably to play tough.
The same was basically true of the police. They weren't permitted to use their weapons to defend property at all, or even use them to make an arrest unless the suspect had already used deadly force. Their weapons served mainly as a show of force and as self-defense.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Disagree on C. When politicians hold back police and allow riots to continue it is up to citizens to step in and stop the violence. Citizens are literally the last line of defense against anarchy.
Do you think the 3 guys who killed Ahmaud Arbery are heroes who were fighting anarchy?
No.
I don't blame you
Do you think the three rioters shot by Kyle were marching for racial justice?
The 3 men who killed Arbery claim to be protecting the community, the same claim you make for Rittenhouse.
The man killed by the Georgia defendants wasn't marching for racial justice.
You claim "hero status" for Rittenhouse, yet are silent about the Georgia "heroes"
Do you think the three rioters shot by Kyle were marching for racial justice?
Of course not.
Do you think the Georgia defendants are heroes, the claim you make for Rittenhouse? If not, please distinguish the 2 cases
No. They ceased being any type of hero when they tried to unlawfully detain someone without any proof of a crime being committed. They are murderers.
But in the opinion of the 3 Georgia defendants, they were defending the community from a criminal and therefore justified. There had been several robberies in the neighborhood. At the time of the killing, a citizens arrest was legal in Georgia.
You've said that Rittenhouse was defending the community, the same claim made by the Georgia defendants.
But were they attacked? Neither a citizen nor police can kill if they're not in imminent danger.
He grabbed the barrel of the gun…
Of a defendant who likely had no right to be using it against him. It matters who starts stuff and why.
Bruin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

Canon said:

Doc Holliday said:

Thank god and poor kid. He defends himself and the entire scumbag left and corporate media tries to end his life.

He should have never been charged to begin with.

Unfortunately cities will burn.


He will be a rich man soon enough. SOOOOO many media outlets to sue, so little time.
I hope he does because that will teach some of these entities a lesson.
I don't think many of those entities are capable of learning anything.
ShooterTX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

ShooterTX said:


Shooter? I think you missed this.
"Sorry, did you just call me a pedophile based on my posts? Which ones?"

I don't remember calling you a pedophile, but I have noted your ardent support for the pedophile and wife beater.
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Wangchung said:

Disagree on C. When politicians hold back police and allow riots to continue it is up to citizens to step in and stop the violence. Citizens are literally the last line of defense against anarchy.
He couldn't even stop them from lighting a dumpster on fire and you're convinced somehow the riots were going to be stopped by him and the others out there? What did you think was going to happen? Are you advocating open gun battles?
He wasn't there to stop the riots, step in for police, or engage in battle. You don't have to do any of those things to protect the community. Putting out fires is protecting. Standing between rioters and property is protecting. That doesn't change because he retreated when attacked. It just means he was doing the right thing. Having the weapon still makes it harder on the insurrect -- sorry, on the protesters, because it lets him work safely and lets them know there's a risk in violently interfering.
This makes absolutely no sense. Seriously, what was he protecting the community or whatever he was protecting from? You don't carry a weapon as a risk warning in a security situation unless you are willing to use it in the performance of your duties. He used it in self defense and that's precisely why he brought it to Kenosha. That and probably to play tough.
The same was basically true of the police. They weren't permitted to use their weapons to defend property at all, or even use them to make an arrest unless the suspect had already used deadly force. Their weapons served mainly as a show of force and as self-defense.
What? I guess all the shield pushing, baton swinging, and tear gas was my imagination, not to mention the 100+ arrests.
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Disagree on C. When politicians hold back police and allow riots to continue it is up to citizens to step in and stop the violence. Citizens are literally the last line of defense against anarchy.
Do you think the 3 guys who killed Ahmaud Arbery are heroes who were fighting anarchy?
No.
I don't blame you
Do you think the three rioters shot by Kyle were marching for racial justice?
The 3 men who killed Arbery claim to be protecting the community, the same claim you make for Rittenhouse.
The man killed by the Georgia defendants wasn't marching for racial justice.
You claim "hero status" for Rittenhouse, yet are silent about the Georgia "heroes"
Do you think the three rioters shot by Kyle were marching for racial justice?
Of course not.
Do you think the Georgia defendants are heroes, the claim you make for Rittenhouse? If not, please distinguish the 2 cases
No. They ceased being any type of hero when they tried to unlawfully detain someone without any proof of a crime being committed. They are murderers.
But in the opinion of the 3 Georgia defendants, they were defending the community from a criminal and therefore justified. There had been several robberies in the neighborhood. At the time of the killing, a citizens arrest was legal in Georgia.
You've said that Rittenhouse was defending the community, the same claim made by the Georgia defendants.
But were they attacked? Neither a citizen nor police can kill if they're not in imminent danger.
He grabbed the barrel of the gun…
Of a defendant who likely had no right to be using it against him. It matters who starts stuff and why.
Of course. The guys are toast.
Forest Bueller_bf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Disagree on C. When politicians hold back police and allow riots to continue it is up to citizens to step in and stop the violence. Citizens are literally the last line of defense against anarchy.
Do you think the 3 guys who killed Ahmaud Arbery are heroes who were fighting anarchy?
No.
I don't blame you
Do you think the three rioters shot by Kyle were marching for racial justice?
The 3 men who killed Arbery claim to be protecting the community, the same claim you make for Rittenhouse.
The man killed by the Georgia defendants wasn't marching for racial justice.
You claim "hero status" for Rittenhouse, yet are silent about the Georgia "heroes"
Do you think the three rioters shot by Kyle were marching for racial justice?
Of course not.
Do you think the Georgia defendants are heroes, the claim you make for Rittenhouse? If not, please distinguish the 2 cases
No. They ceased being any type of hero when they tried to unlawfully detain someone without any proof of a crime being committed. They are murderers.
But in the opinion of the 3 Georgia defendants, they were defending the community from a criminal and therefore justified. There had been several robberies in the neighborhood. At the time of the killing, a citizens arrest was legal in Georgia.
You've said that Rittenhouse was defending the community, the same claim made by the Georgia defendants.
But were they attacked? Neither a citizen nor police can kill if they're not in imminent danger.
He grabbed the barrel of the gun…
Of a defendant who likely had no right to be using it against him. It matters who starts stuff and why.
Yea, you can't create the bad situation and then cry self defense, like with Aubrey.

Rittenhouse on the other hand retreated, and retreated, and retreated, until there was no where else to retreat. Then he defended himself.

These other *******s systematically cornered off a man from exit and pursued him. When left no other choice he fought for his life on the wrong end of a shotgun.

They should remain in jail until they die. Amazingly, if their accomplice/pursuer hadn't filmed it they would have gotten away with it.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wangchung said:

quash said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:

Jack Bauer said:

Another one of the ADA's "heroes"


BLM needs to get a handle on letting fools like this become their "spokespeople".

I would have walked out and muzzled her right away if I was part of the actual organization.



There is no national organization, there are no spokespeople on a national basis. Both sides just have people who know how to get attention.

So weird how one of the BLM leaders just bought a bunch of mansions but they don't have any organization.

That one is not even part of the actual founding bunch. Props for their fundraising skills.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

Oldbear83 said:

About heroes:

I wasn't going to call Kyle Rittenhouse a hero until I learned that he went to put out fires, protect property and help the injured. He only took his gun for self-defense, and the facts prove that was a wise decision.

Now about heroes in general. Back in 1836, a bunch of men in Tennessee took it upon themselves to travel to Texas and provide support for a bunch of rebels in what we now call San Antonio. Some may say they were foolhardy, some would say they were looking for trouble, but a lot of people call them Heroes of the Alamo now.

Spin affects how people talk about things, sure. Bias also plays into it. But the facts are all on Kyle's side, with only vitriol and malice on the prosecutor's side, and underlying the MSM's account of these events.
Just a point of fact. Carrying a weapon to protect yourself (self defense) vs carrying a weapon to protect or secure something else is a completely different situation and type of engagement. And I hope you aren't drawing an analogy to the Alamo. Jim Bowie didn't flee the Alamo and happen to off some Mexican soldiers chasing him out behind the church.
Just something to think about. Give it a try.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

nein51 said:

Mothra said:

nein51 said:

Right verdict just like OJ. You don't have to like the verdict for it to be correct.
Not even remotely comparable. There was DNA evidence of Goldman and his ex-wife in OJ's car for goodness sake.

Guy should have been convicted.

Yet the prosecution did not make that case in a way that Convinced 12 jurors. Literally the point I was making. You can think he is guilty but the prosecutor couldn't convince a jury of that. That is the system at work, imo.
You could say that same thing anytime a jury gets it wrong. Doesn't mean it was the "right" verdict.

Both verdicts were right in the sense that the evidence produced by the state was insufficient to convict. That's all nein51 is saying.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Disagree on C. When politicians hold back police and allow riots to continue it is up to citizens to step in and stop the violence. Citizens are literally the last line of defense against anarchy.
Do you think the 3 guys who killed Ahmaud Arbery are heroes who were fighting anarchy?
No.
I don't blame you
Do you think the three rioters shot by Kyle were marching for racial justice?
The 3 men who killed Arbery claim to be protecting the community, the same claim you make for Rittenhouse.
The man killed by the Georgia defendants wasn't marching for racial justice.
You claim "hero status" for Rittenhouse, yet are silent about the Georgia "heroes"
Do you think the three rioters shot by Kyle were marching for racial justice?
Of course not.
Do you think the Georgia defendants are heroes, the claim you make for Rittenhouse? If not, please distinguish the 2 cases
No. They ceased being any type of hero when they tried to unlawfully detain someone without any proof of a crime being committed. They are murderers.
But in the opinion of the 3 Georgia defendants, they were defending the community from a criminal and therefore justified. There had been several robberies in the neighborhood. At the time of the killing, a citizens arrest was legal in Georgia.
You've said that Rittenhouse was defending the community, the same claim made by the Georgia defendants.
But were they attacked? Neither a citizen nor police can kill if they're not in imminent danger.
He grabbed the barrel of the gun…
Of a defendant who likely had no right to be using it against him. It matters who starts stuff and why.
Apparently he had a right. He was found not guilty. So there's that.

If someone threatens me and says they are going to kill me when they get me alone, then later chases me and lunges at me even after a point my weapon at him as a deterrent and warning. You're damn right I have a right to use my gun.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Disagree on C. When politicians hold back police and allow riots to continue it is up to citizens to step in and stop the violence. Citizens are literally the last line of defense against anarchy.
Do you think the 3 guys who killed Ahmaud Arbery are heroes who were fighting anarchy?
No.
I don't blame you
Do you think the three rioters shot by Kyle were marching for racial justice?
The 3 men who killed Arbery claim to be protecting the community, the same claim you make for Rittenhouse.
The man killed by the Georgia defendants wasn't marching for racial justice.
You claim "hero status" for Rittenhouse, yet are silent about the Georgia "heroes"
Do you think the three rioters shot by Kyle were marching for racial justice?
Of course not.
Do you think the Georgia defendants are heroes, the claim you make for Rittenhouse? If not, please distinguish the 2 cases
No. They ceased being any type of hero when they tried to unlawfully detain someone without any proof of a crime being committed. They are murderers.
But in the opinion of the 3 Georgia defendants, they were defending the community from a criminal and therefore justified. There had been several robberies in the neighborhood. At the time of the killing, a citizens arrest was legal in Georgia.
You've said that Rittenhouse was defending the community, the same claim made by the Georgia defendants.
But were they attacked? Neither a citizen nor police can kill if they're not in imminent danger.
He grabbed the barrel of the gun…
Of a defendant who likely had no right to be using it against him. It matters who starts stuff and why.
Have a good cry, Sam. There will other riots, other monsters for you to cheer against those who would defend themselves.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
From the man who said Antifa was a "myth"

quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
**** Nadler.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:

From the man who said Antifa was a "myth"


I think someone needs to tell that windbag that Kyle Rittenhouse didn't cross state lines while armed.

Besides, I didn't know that destroying private and public property and assaulting people is a constitutionally protected right.
Friscobear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Disagree on C. When politicians hold back police and allow riots to continue it is up to citizens to step in and stop the violence. Citizens are literally the last line of defense against anarchy.
Do you think the 3 guys who killed Ahmaud Arbery are heroes who were fighting anarchy?
No.
I don't blame you
Do you think the three rioters shot by Kyle were marching for racial justice?
The 3 men who killed Arbery claim to be protecting the community, the same claim you make for Rittenhouse.
The man killed by the Georgia defendants wasn't marching for racial justice.
You claim "hero status" for Rittenhouse, yet are silent about the Georgia "heroes"
Do you think the three rioters shot by Kyle were marching for racial justice?
Of course not.
Do you think the Georgia defendants are heroes, the claim you make for Rittenhouse? If not, please distinguish the 2 cases
No. They ceased being any type of hero when they tried to unlawfully detain someone without any proof of a crime being committed. They are murderers.
But in the opinion of the 3 Georgia defendants, they were defending the community from a criminal and therefore justified. There had been several robberies in the neighborhood. At the time of the killing, a citizens arrest was legal in Georgia.
You've said that Rittenhouse was defending the community, the same claim made by the Georgia defendants.
But were they attacked? Neither a citizen nor police can kill if they're not in imminent danger.
He grabbed the barrel of the gun…
Of a defendant who likely had no right to be using it against him. It matters who starts stuff and why.
Have a good cry, Sam. There will other riots, other monsters for you to cheer against those who would defend themselves.
Pretty sure Sam is referring to the Aubrey case, not the Rittenhouse case.
“At the end of the day, for 40 minutes, we just kicked their ass.”

- Mark Vital
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Mothra said:

nein51 said:

Mothra said:

nein51 said:

Right verdict just like OJ. You don't have to like the verdict for it to be correct.
Not even remotely comparable. There was DNA evidence of Goldman and his ex-wife in OJ's car for goodness sake.

Guy should have been convicted.

Yet the prosecution did not make that case in a way that Convinced 12 jurors. Literally the point I was making. You can think he is guilty but the prosecutor couldn't convince a jury of that. That is the system at work, imo.
You could say that same thing anytime a jury gets it wrong. Doesn't mean it was the "right" verdict.

Both verdicts were right in the sense that the evidence produced by the state was insufficient to convict. That's all nein51 is saying.
Sometimes you get a jury that's not going to convict regardless of the evidence. The DNA evidence in that case is what should have nailed OJ. But that jury was never going to convict him.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:

From the man who said Antifa was a "myth"


Clearly he didn't follow the case, since Rittenhouse didn't cross state lines with the weapon. So uninformed. Merely repeating the talking points.
EatMoreSalmon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
People electing Nadler need some deep introspection.
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Jack Bauer said:

From the man who said Antifa was a "myth"


Clearly he didn't follow the case, since Rittenhouse didn't cross state lines with the weapon. So uninformed. Merely repeating the talking points.


And another NY idiot

Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

**** Nadler.
Just watch. Garland and this administration are sycophants for the left. They live in an cultish bubble and they're angry.

Federal charges incoming.
EatMoreSalmon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If the next election cycle is not able to convince the established politicians to stop digging that deep hole they are dragging us into...

 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.