Not Guilty on all counts

Wow! You guys are delusional. Originally Posted by pfunkdenver

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...mROeClZ1A71nei

I'll provide the wisdom that you NEED when ever you want. Just remember don't bet against me. Imagine how much money you could have lost arguing against me in the Rittenhouse case Originally Posted by HedonistForever

The “counselor” is over his head.

No, you just claim to understand economics better than any economist does.
Originally Posted by lustylad

I understand that you're no economist. No true economist would have been chirping about Trumps one quarter of 3% GDP like he'd just downed 5 pixie sticks.

I'm not defending Democrats?

You just think my counter to your constant pro Trump propaganda is a defense of Democrats. That is on you.

There are way way way too many inputs concerning the economy to give or place 100% blame/credit on any one person or policy.

What I do not care for is hypocrisy like yours that will cry about one side doing something that 2 years ago you were cheering your side doing.

You thinking I care one way or another what your opinions are is just me yanking your chains.

Now you have a nice weekend...and hopefully you'll dump you "Economics For Dimmies" into the trash bin.

... Not surely WHAT Trump and GDP have to do
with this thread.

Just sayin'

### Salty

And once AGAIN, you offer no proof to back up your assertions but I guess I ought to be use to that by now. Nope, I never argued the fraud angle other than to say that a couple of States illegally, according to their Constitution, made changes to their voting laws and that "might be" grounds for review. Apparently the SC didn't want to get involved in a States rights matter.


And saying "the Supreme Court will decide that" is supporting Trump some how? Didn't you say the same damn thing with regard to this case?



Glad you brought up the McMichaels case since you were making the case that the cases were the same. They were not. Sure, in both cases self defense was claimed but in that case, the McMicaels were the aggressor. They ran after Arbery, he did run towards them in an aggressive manner like the 3 idiots in the Rittenhouse case. McMichaels will say that Arbery tried to take McMichaels gun away and that provided him with a self defense plea but "the aggressor angle" carries more weight in my lay, legal opinion. I'd bet that is exactly what the Rittenhouse jurors would say. Brown case, Brown ran towards the cop. Martin case, he ran towards Zimerman and attacked him, physically attacked him not merely trying to take the gun away. One has to consider all the evidence and then apply the law not "feelings"



I think the McMicaels will be found guilty and should be found guilty. Two very similar but different cases Originally Posted by HedonistForever

How do you reconcile the difference in your mind between Martin and Ahberry. Those two cases are factually similar. Zimmerman and McMicheal both pursued the victim and then claimed self defense when the victim feeling cornered “attacked” the person following them.

Unless you believe Martin decided while walking home eating candy that he’d attack Simmernlman who was minding his own business.

Do you really think Rittenhouse would win a defamation case?

He took a gun to a dangerous location and killed two people.

I doubt any jury will give him money. Just my opinion. Originally Posted by pfunkdenver

the media stuck their leftist feet in their mouths over this for the entire time

they libeled and slandered him

... Obviously the "trillion dollars" was for Exclamation.

But the Rittenhouse lad DOES have proper standing to
SUE the Bastards who are slandering his good name
to defame him.

.. Good for him.

### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

Do they? Does everyone who is declared not guilty in court get to sue people that said they were guilty of a crime?

Attorneys are lining up to help Rittenhouse

https://www.redvoicemedia.com/2021/1...edia-ill-help/

Do they? Does everyone who is declared not guilty in court get to sue people that said they were guilty of a crime? Originally Posted by NoirMan

... See?

### Salty

The simple fact that he was indicted on the charges is going to lessen if not prevent a good number of the lawsuits that some of you seem to be clamoring for. That gives media a much wider berth than what they had with the kid in DC that successfully sued. Yeah- there are a few people that may have opened a door, but it won't be as big as it could have been had he never been indicted.

Kyle is going to sue MSNBC, CNN, and the rest of the MSM, out of existence.

Think Covington Roid Rage.

����And Trump’s DWAC group is going to be well positioned to acquire all of them!

@Patel Patriot

@Just Jodie ����Patriots Helping Patriots ����
https://t.me/PatriotshelpingPatriotschat

The simple fact that he was indicted on the charges is going to lessen if not prevent a good number of the lawsuits that some of you seem to be clamoring for. That gives media a much wider berth than what they had with the kid in DC that successfully sued. Yeah- there are a few people that may have opened a door, but it won't be as big as it could have been had he never been indicted. Originally Posted by Grace Preston

he never should have been charged to begin with. there shouldn't have been a trial. it was a political hack job.


what does that do for his case?

No true economist would have been chirping about Trumps one quarter of 3% GDP like he'd just downed 5 pixie sticks. Originally Posted by WTF

Wtf is a "pixie stick"? Oh, you mean this...





Why don't you tell everyone about the time you ordered a dozen of them?

After the bartender lined them up, you excitedly said "I'm celebrating my first blowjob!"

The bartender congratulated you, then asked whether 12 might be a bit excessive.

To which you replied, "I figure if this doesn't get the taste out of my mouth, nothing will!"

https://mobile.twitter.com/SaltyCrac...46848113557506

https://mobile.twitter.com/SaltyCrac...46848113557506 Originally Posted by bambino

BAAHHAHHAAAAAA