Bucks to boycott game 5

[Rocalcio]

NBA juste announced the Playoffs will continue :

https://twitter.com/wojespn/status/1...002231299?s=21

[cd98]

^Yeah, I'm sure you guys discuss it openly over beers.

No, but I've had conversations with many that have land right next to Mexico and have people crossing the border through their land. They are very against illegal immigration and don't like the danger it creates for them, but none of them want a bullet in the head of the people doing it. What you are expressing is a cartoon of an ill-informed left winger. You don't know any of these people and you make a judgment as heinous as that. You are part of the problem with discourse in this country and why we can't have honest discussions about things.

[TXstbobcat]

Per ESPN players agree to continue NBA playoffs

[TimDunkem]

Things I've learned in this thread vol. 2:

Local gun laws don't matter if the protest you're at may become a riot and you claim you're protecting property.

If you kill someone during said protest and are chased by people trying to disarm you, feel free to open fire directly into them.

Killing is brave and taking a human life is no big deal.

If you're at a BLM protest that may/already has ended up with a little rioting then you are as culpable as the person throwing molotovs and have no credibility when you're an eyewitness to said events.

If there's overwhelming evidence that the perp leans one way politically on all of his social media and postings it still is not evidence unless he is a liberal. Then you may jump to conclusions on his political stances or whether or not he is a rioter.

Destroying property to end murders = bad / Ending lives to stop the destruction of property = eh was it self defense?

[Nathan89]

[TimDunkem]

No, but I've had conversations with many that have land right next to Mexico and have people crossing the border through their land. They are very against illegal immigration and don't like the danger it creates for them, but none of them want a bullet in the head of the people doing it. What you are expressing is a cartoon of an ill-informed left winger. You don't know any of these people and you make a judgment as heinous as that. You are part of the problem with discourse in this country and why we can't have honest discussions about things.

Likewise with your blatant disregard of facts because you were ignorant to them initially. His writings and political stances were all over his social media pages.

[cd98]

Things I've learned in this thread vol. 2:

Local gun laws don't matter if the protest you're at may become a riot and you claim you're protecting property.

If you kill someone during said protest and are chased by people trying to disarm you, feel free to open fire directly into them.

Killing is brave and taking a human life is no big deal.

If you're at a BLM protest that may/already has ended up with a little rioting then you are as culpable as the person throwing molotovs and have no credibility when you're an eyewitness to said events.

If there's overwhelming evidence that the perp leans one way politically on all of his social media and postings it still is not evidence unless he is a liberal. Then you may jump to conclusions on his political stances or whether or not he is a rioter.

Destroying property to end murders = bad / Ending lives to stop the destruction of property = eh was it self defense?

Things you "learned" because that's how you interpret it, not as what is being said, but how you interpret it to fit your agenda.

[TimDunkem]

Things you "learned" because that's how you interpret it, not as what is being said, but how you interpret it to fit your agenda.

Go back in the thread and read weeks posts.

BTW you're the one who said number 5. Assumptions bad when it comes to your Kyle, but assumptions good when it comes to eyewitnesses at a BLM protest.

[ChumpDumper]

So let me get this straight, your argument is subject 1 committed a misdemeanor in public (that the people there at the time couldn't in any way prove - open carry of a long gun as a minor), is license to commit assault and potentially anything up to murder on subject 1, he has no self-defence rights at that point...

To illustrate just how bloody dumb an idea this is, let's consider something that could have happened 50 years ago, and didn't: Rosa Parks committed a (provable) misdemeanor by not giving up her seat to a white person, after the bus driver moved the colored people section sign. It would then have been legitimate to assault her...

Apparently you just believe that civil rights only apply to people you agree with politically.

Yep Rosa Parks brought a gun on to the bus saying she was there to protect the steering wheel and give medical care to anyone who might need it.

[Nathan89]

Time to shutdown the NBA.

[TimDunkem]

Time to shutdown the NBA.

TF you talking about. You know they voted to continue playing right?

[cd98]

Likewise with your blatant disregard of facts because you were ignorant to them initially. His writings and political stances were all over his social media pages.

I haven't read his social media posts. That's one reason why I don't jump to conclusions. But all that I have heard to this point, is that he posts a lot about supporting police officers and that he may have attended a Trump rally. Posting support for the police is not exclusive to right wingers. Lots of democrats support police and any attempt to classify it one way or the other is just...stereotyping. Going to a Trump rally doesn't make one right wing. You have no knowledge of why he went to a Trump rally. Maybe he likes Trump because he likes the police, but doesn't support his other views. That's why your type of logic is unreliable. Your conclusions depend on your agenda, not on the facts themselves. And your assumptions are not based on facts, they are based on your agenda. I don't disregard facts, I just don't assume stuff I don't know for sure.

[TimDunkem]

So YOU don't have all the info, and are still arguing despite not having it because you have an agenda to push. Therefore, your assumptions = okay. Those about your Kyle = not.

Got it.

[Nathan89]

"peaceful protests"

[TimDunkem]

"peaceful protests"

Tell us again how 200k COVID corpses are acceptable tho.

[cd98]

Go back in the thread and read weeks posts.

BTW you're the one who said number 5. Assumptions bad when it comes to your Kyle, but assumptions good when it comes to eyewitnesses at a BLM protest.

Ha. I haven't read his posts, so I don't know what he said. And I doubt you have either. You read reports that he went to a Trump rally and that he backs the men in blue and posts favorably about police. That's what was reported in the news. You haven't visited his Facebook account or whatever. You are just making assumptions that fit your agenda. I don't make judgments on liberals or conservatives based on a vague news report about what is on someone's social media. I wait for all the facts to come out and then I make a call based on the best information I have. I don't look for what would fit a particular agenda and then narrate the facts to that agenda.

[ChumpDumper]

"peaceful protests"

You don't want them to stop anymore than Posobiec or Trump do.

[Nathan89]

Tell us again how 200k COVID corpses are acceptable tho.

Seems relevant to the thread.

[cd98]

So YOU don't have all the info, and are still arguing despite not having it because you have an agenda to push. Therefore, your assumptions = okay. Those about your Kyle = not.

Got it.

You don't read my posts, apparently. I haven't said the shooter is one way or the other politically. I haven't said he is guilty of murder or that he is justified in self defense. I've said we don't know. Which is correct because we don't have enough information. You are the one making determinations with no information.

[TimDunkem]

Ha. I haven't read his posts, so I don't know what he said. And I doubt you have either.

You haven't visited his Facebook account or whatever. You are just making assumptions that fit your agenda.

JFC

[TimDunkem]

You don't read my posts, apparently. I haven't said the shooter is one way or the other politically. I haven't said he is guilty of murder or that he is justified in self defense. I've said we don't know. Which is correct because we don't have enough information. You are the one making determinations with no information.

Yet you keep heavily implying that HE IS NOT a Trump supporter and even keep throwing out the possibility that he's a Dem who likes Trump's policy on cops.

[Nathan89]

You don't want them to stop anymore than Posobiec or Trump do.

There is benefit to mass exposure to the results of leftist ideology. The current Dem VP candidate is a race baiter that influences this nonsense.

[RD2191]

I'm not ignoring it... I've said over and over that he was there with an illegal firearm and thatll ultimately be found guilty of that.

You are though when you say he 'killed people he went looking for'...you don't know that you just want it to be that way.... facts are stubborn and he was retreating when he shot people...two physically attacked him...one pointed a gun at him.... this isnt even close to what you assert

Yes, but an incident occurred while having a firearm illegally, that matters. You can't just ignore the before.

Why else was he there if not to be a hero/vigilante? Does he own property there? Is he a law enforcement official?

[TimDunkem]

Seems relevant to the thread.

200k COVID corpses = acceptable

32 people dead during riots = America is falling apart!!

[cd98]

Yet you keep heavily implying that HE IS NOT a Trump supporter and even keep throwing out the possibility that he's a Dem who likes Trump's policy on cops.

Do you even read what I write? He might very well be a huge right wing Trump supporter. I'm saying I don't know. Until more facts come out, neither do you. I'm also pointing out that you can't make assumptions based on your stereotypes. But I understand that you can't see that because of your habit of stereotyping.