(01-15-2023, 04:03 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2023, 03:19 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]20 years ago, you just didn't hear about vigilantes with firearms. It was legal in most states but it just wasn't something you heard about. Owners would protect their own property. Hired security would help. But there were no unrelated local volunteers pitching in.
Rooftop Koreans say you're full of [BLEEP].
I didn't say there weren't people protecting their own property. I specifically said *we didn't hear much about* *unrelated volunteers* defending property.
The media and the politicians made a point to say very little about people defending their shops and homes with guns in the early 90s. And to the extent we heard about it, it was usually with a family connection, or down the street neighbors at most. Not someone from the next town over.
I guess you can nitpick it down to the very specific criteria you need to feel justified. You're still wrong. There's zero chance that if a group of people were rioting and burning and a volunteer from a neighboring community came to help protect local businesses, he wouldn't be hailed a hero in the year 2000. Furthermore, if he was attacked by said mob, showed great restraint in trying to flee the group without harming anyone, but ended up killing a thief, a pedophile, and a domestic abuser who were trying to kill him, that he wouldn't be on morning talk shows to share his harrowing experience. You are the chief priest of the gaslit, bro.
(01-15-2023, 11:13 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I guess you can nitpick it down to the very specific criteria you need to feel justified. You're still wrong. There's zero chance that if a group of people were rioting and burning and a volunteer from a neighboring community came to help protect local businesses, he wouldn't be hailed a hero in the year 2000. Furthermore, if he was attacked by said mob, showed great restraint in trying to flee the group without harming anyone, but ended up killing a thief, a pedophile, and a domestic abuser who were trying to kill him, that he wouldn't be on morning talk shows to share his harrowing experience. You are the chief priest of the gaslit, bro.
I think the more interesting question is why no one has documented the Koreans killing anyone during the riots. Yet Rittenhouse killed two. Is it because the Koreans in 1992 were shrewd enough to not get isolated from one another, or was the mob in Kenosha somehow more violent than the mob in LA?
(01-15-2023, 11:45 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2023, 11:13 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I guess you can nitpick it down to the very specific criteria you need to feel justified. You're still wrong. There's zero chance that if a group of people were rioting and burning and a volunteer from a neighboring community came to help protect local businesses, he wouldn't be hailed a hero in the year 2000. Furthermore, if he was attacked by said mob, showed great restraint in trying to flee the group without harming anyone, but ended up killing a thief, a pedophile, and a domestic abuser who were trying to kill him, that he wouldn't be on morning talk shows to share his harrowing experience. You are the chief priest of the gaslit, bro.
I think the more interesting question is why no one has documented the Koreans killing anyone during the riots. Yet Rittenhouse killed two. Is it because the Koreans in 1992 were shrewd enough to not get isolated from one another, or was the mob in Kenosha somehow more violent than the mob in LA?
It was neither, but you would have to be considerably more openminded to understand why. Koreans exchanging gunfire with, and killing rioters, was well documented. It just never received the attention that Rittenhouse did because, in 1992, the Democrats and supporting media were not yet obsessed with vilifying white people in general and those protecting their lives and property with firearms, in particular.
Now we're talking about Koreans instead of Mikesez's propensity for being gaslit. Mikey, you are a sucker, as is anyone who thinks Rittenhouse is polarizing for killing people assaulting him. Stop being led around by your emotions and use your brain.
Addendum: I have not followed Rittenhouse at all. I don't know what he is currently. Maybe he's in the KKK or something. If he's some weirdo radical, I retract my statement. However, he is not a polarizing figure based on the Kenosha riots. Sorry. Don't care what the media is telling you. It's just not true.
(01-16-2023, 09:33 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2023, 11:45 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I think the more interesting question is why no one has documented the Koreans killing anyone during the riots. Yet Rittenhouse killed two. Is it because the Koreans in 1992 were shrewd enough to not get isolated from one another, or was the mob in Kenosha somehow more violent than the mob in LA?
It was neither, but you would have to be considerably more openminded to understand why. Koreans exchanging gunfire with, and killing rioters, was well documented. It just never received the attention that Rittenhouse did because, in 1992, the Democrats and supporting media were not yet obsessed with vilifying white people in general and those protecting their lives and property with firearms, in particular.
We agree that the media landscape was totally different then.
Where did you find anything saying a Korean killed a rioter/looters?
There was a famous case of a korean shopkeeper killing a suspected black shoplifter, well before the riots, but I haven't seen anything saying a Korean killed somebody during the riots.
(01-15-2023, 12:11 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]What is so polarizing about the dude? 20 years ago, he would have been regarded as a hero. That Overton window is really messing with y'all.
His "message" whatever it is, is polarizing to some. HE is polarizing. I don't know why, don't care either. I don't follow him or know what he's up to. Would I go to one of his events? Not likely. I'm not into all the rah-rah political stuff. I don't need anyone telling me how great America is or how I need to support so-and-so. I can think for myself.
I suppose he's polarizing because he's a white, conservative man who shot and killed some folks who were trying to kill him and he was found not guilty. Then he sued some media companies for being douche wads and won those too.
For some crazy reason people take offense to that.
(01-17-2023, 10:35 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Leftists are stupid.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san-fra...orgiveness
They lost the House. What else are they going to work on but the most extreme proposals available. They see that their time in power is ending soon.
This will bankrupt California if even 1/20 th of that amount is agreed upon, assuming its applied 'equally' across all eligible people. And it won't do Newsom any good if he is planning a 2024 run at the White House, so if he has the opportunity to kill it, he most likely will.
There is nothing to say about that. At least not among sane people.
(01-17-2023, 04:39 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ] (01-17-2023, 10:35 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Leftists are stupid.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san-fra...orgiveness
They lost the House. What else are they going to work on but the most extreme proposals available. They see that their time in power is ending soon.
This will bankrupt California if even 1/20 th of that amount is agreed upon, assuming its applied 'equally' across all eligible people. And it won't do Newsom any good if he is planning a 2024 run at the White House, so if he has the opportunity to kill it, he most likely will.
Newsom would love nothing more than to have this come to his desk, so he can veto it. Gotta make a play for the moderates.
Lol. Yeah... for sure. The moderates in CA.
(01-17-2023, 11:03 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Lol. Yeah... for sure. The moderates in CA.
No. The moderates in other states. The man wants to be President.
(01-17-2023, 11:03 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Lol. Yeah... for sure. The moderates in CA.
Amazingly, there are some. My cousin in San Diego is a moderate. His brother in Murrieta is a DeSantis supporting conservative. It's fun to listen to them go at each other.
There are still pockets of conservatism, particularly between San Fran and LA along the Hwy 99 agriculture corridor, everything north of San Fran/Napa, and in Temecula south to the Mexican border. Its the obvious urban areas that contain most of the liberalism that ends up ruling the state.
Well, that's like 80% of the population.
I hate to break it to you, Mikey, but there are no more moderates in the Democratic party. Only progressives, cowards, and dupes.
(01-18-2023, 12:50 AM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ] (01-17-2023, 11:03 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Lol. Yeah... for sure. The moderates in CA.
Amazingly, there are some. My cousin in San Diego is a moderate. His brother in Murrieta is a DeSantis supporting conservative. It's fun to listen to them go at each other.
There are still pockets of conservatism, particularly between San Fran and LA along the Hwy 99 agriculture corridor, everything north of San Fran/Napa, and in Temecula south to the Mexican border. Its the obvious urban areas that contain most of the liberalism that ends up ruling the state.
(01-18-2023, 01:05 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Well, that's like 80% of the population.
I hate to break it to you, Mikey, but there are no more moderates in the Democratic party. Only progressives, cowards, and dupes.
California wasn't a liberal hellhole until more recently when they started the take over of the local governments. Then the election changes start slowly happening and now we end up with no way to not have liberals win. With vote harvesting there was no way to win.
From a population standpoint, I think it's probably closer to 50%. Basically it's 2 cities and the rest are conservative. Now that the republicans are doing vote harvesting, they actually flipped house seats. If the cheating is even, it may actually tilt back to be a conservative state.
That or the New California or whatever they call it will happen.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk