Kyle Rittenhouse mother saying she's gonna Sue Joe Biden

Welcome to STLtoday.com's forum for lively discussion of the day's news. We hope you'll find the discussion informative and invigorating -- or take it on yourself to make it so.

Moderators: CA Moderators, STLtoday Forum Moderators

User avatar
BurntChurchMan
Forum User
Posts: 15110
Joined: 29 Apr 2010 17:07 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse mother saying she's gonna Sue Joe Biden

Post by BurntChurchMan »

mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 22:03 pm
abuxb wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:51 pm
BurntChurchMan wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:22 pm
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 18:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:21 pm
Spoiler
BluesCup2019 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:12 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 15:57 pm
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 14:33 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 20:10 pm
Spoiler
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 16:07 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 09:45 am

Exactly. Abuxb distorts and twists facts to fit the narrative he wants, even when his narratives are contradictory.
Looks like abuxb had to run away from this thread when he couldn’t explain his hypocrisy. He knows he has contradictory views, but he sure won’t admit that, or admit he is wrong.
Abuxb, why are you afraid to defend your views?
"You know that you would lose any argument..."
I like abuxb's "defense"...."I can't respond to comments I don't read."

Does he realize that only makes him look more cowardly? He is basically admitting he willfully avoids posts so that he doesn't have to respond to them. What a coward.
I"m not even sure how one can willfully avoid a comment when you're actively participating in a thread? I know I read every post in a thread when I'm going through it (unless of course it belongs to mnkyboy because he's on ignore) so I'm just not sure how he can say that he doesn't read certain comments? He's lying yet again because we all know that he reads each and every post that someone quotes him in no matter how badly he wants us to believe him that he doesn't. How many lies is he up to now that he's been caught in......20 or 30? :roll:
Abuxb reads all of the comments, despite what he claims. When he thinks he has a snarky reply, he will respond. When he thinks he can act superior, he responds. When he can point out a minor typo, he will respond.

But when he knows he is wrong about something, or that someone else is right, he doesn’t respond. He cannot admit he is wrong, and, more importantly, he can never admit someone else is right about something. I have never seen abuxb use the phrase, “I stand corrected. You are right. I was wrong to say {insert incorrect fact here}.”
I can recall at least a couple times he has admitted error (the threads in which this occurred have been archived, but I doubt he will deny it):
  • In a thread about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I pointed out his comments contradicted those he had made in an earlier post. He initially hedged, speculating that someone must have edited the original quote. When I linked him to his original post, he acknowledged the error.
  • In a thread about George Floyd (prior to the trial), he speculated that the prosecutor's decision to charge Chauvin with murder was racist (as an excessive charge to ensure a not guilty verdict) -- until he learned that the prosecutor was Keith "not Larry" Ellison (who is black and a supporter of BLM), whereupon he admitted he was wrong.
So yes, abuxb can admit he is wrong, wherefore his intransigence regarding the Rittenhouse topic is curious, as the facts have rendered his position steadily weaker.
Glad to see abuxb has admitted errors. I missed both of those occasions. And yes, it does seem strange that he is so unwilling to admit he was wrong here.

And I still would like him to address this:

Abuxb, those “white supporters of BLM” were setting dumpsters on fire and pushing them towards police cars and businesses. Do you agree that all of the other looters and rioters during the various protests were BLM supporters? In the past, you have claimed that the people doing the violence were NOT supporters of the BLM movement.

Has your stance changed?


He has seen this now a couple of times and has yet to address it. It makes it quite obvious to me that he knows he has contradicted himself, but he can’t admit it.
You can't support social justice without committing crimes against people and property.
Mommy doesn't want an answer to her inane questions, but she's getting one anyway. There were peaceful protesters and there were people bent on destruction. They are separate entities. I think Rittenhouse saw them all as the same. I have given my reasons, based on facts that no one has refuted, why I believe about him as I do. I don't see why Mommy, and others, keep repeating the same thing.
That doesn’t address your contradictory comments at all.

You posted, “He [Rittenhouse] shot white supporters of BLM.” FACT

The people Rittenhouse shot were setting dumpsters on fire and pushing them toward police cars. FACT

In past BLM protests there have been businesses and police cars vandalized. FACT

In the past, when asked about those violent acts, you have claimed that the people being violent were not supporters of BLM. FACT



If you maintain that Rittenhouse shot “supporters of BLM” and those “supporters of BLM” were being violent, then would you agree that past violence at BLM protests were done by “supporters of BLM”?


My questions are only “inane” to you because you don’t want to have to confront your contradictory views. You want to have one narrative for one situation, and another narrative for another situation. You don’t like being called out when your views don’t make sense.

And why do you think I don’t want my questions answered? That’s weird. Why would I ask them if I don’t want them answered??
Have you noticed how many assumptions abuxb has to make for him to believe Rittenhouse is a white supremacist murderer?

He "believes" that Rittenhouse thought only white owned businesses were being harmed.

He "believes" that Rittenhouse thought the BLM protestors were the ones looting and committing arson.

He doesn't have any facts to back up either of these opinions. It's all based on his feelings.
Image
This is the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia.
User avatar
drvtrnmnky
Forum User
Posts: 42735
Joined: 28 Dec 2013 10:04 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse mother saying she's gonna Sue Joe Biden

Post by drvtrnmnky »

BurntChurchMan wrote: 29 Nov 2021 08:11 am
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 22:03 pm
abuxb wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:51 pm
BurntChurchMan wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:22 pm
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 18:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:21 pm
Spoiler
BluesCup2019 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:12 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 15:57 pm
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 14:33 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 20:10 pm
Spoiler
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 16:07 pm

Looks like abuxb had to run away from this thread when he couldn’t explain his hypocrisy. He knows he has contradictory views, but he sure won’t admit that, or admit he is wrong.
Abuxb, why are you afraid to defend your views?
"You know that you would lose any argument..."
I like abuxb's "defense"...."I can't respond to comments I don't read."

Does he realize that only makes him look more cowardly? He is basically admitting he willfully avoids posts so that he doesn't have to respond to them. What a coward.
I"m not even sure how one can willfully avoid a comment when you're actively participating in a thread? I know I read every post in a thread when I'm going through it (unless of course it belongs to mnkyboy because he's on ignore) so I'm just not sure how he can say that he doesn't read certain comments? He's lying yet again because we all know that he reads each and every post that someone quotes him in no matter how badly he wants us to believe him that he doesn't. How many lies is he up to now that he's been caught in......20 or 30? :roll:
Abuxb reads all of the comments, despite what he claims. When he thinks he has a snarky reply, he will respond. When he thinks he can act superior, he responds. When he can point out a minor typo, he will respond.

But when he knows he is wrong about something, or that someone else is right, he doesn’t respond. He cannot admit he is wrong, and, more importantly, he can never admit someone else is right about something. I have never seen abuxb use the phrase, “I stand corrected. You are right. I was wrong to say {insert incorrect fact here}.”
I can recall at least a couple times he has admitted error (the threads in which this occurred have been archived, but I doubt he will deny it):
  • In a thread about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I pointed out his comments contradicted those he had made in an earlier post. He initially hedged, speculating that someone must have edited the original quote. When I linked him to his original post, he acknowledged the error.
  • In a thread about George Floyd (prior to the trial), he speculated that the prosecutor's decision to charge Chauvin with murder was racist (as an excessive charge to ensure a not guilty verdict) -- until he learned that the prosecutor was Keith "not Larry" Ellison (who is black and a supporter of BLM), whereupon he admitted he was wrong.
So yes, abuxb can admit he is wrong, wherefore his intransigence regarding the Rittenhouse topic is curious, as the facts have rendered his position steadily weaker.
Glad to see abuxb has admitted errors. I missed both of those occasions. And yes, it does seem strange that he is so unwilling to admit he was wrong here.

And I still would like him to address this:

Abuxb, those “white supporters of BLM” were setting dumpsters on fire and pushing them towards police cars and businesses. Do you agree that all of the other looters and rioters during the various protests were BLM supporters? In the past, you have claimed that the people doing the violence were NOT supporters of the BLM movement.

Has your stance changed?


He has seen this now a couple of times and has yet to address it. It makes it quite obvious to me that he knows he has contradicted himself, but he can’t admit it.
You can't support social justice without committing crimes against people and property.
Mommy doesn't want an answer to her inane questions, but she's getting one anyway. There were peaceful protesters and there were people bent on destruction. They are separate entities. I think Rittenhouse saw them all as the same. I have given my reasons, based on facts that no one has refuted, why I believe about him as I do. I don't see why Mommy, and others, keep repeating the same thing.
That doesn’t address your contradictory comments at all.

You posted, “He [Rittenhouse] shot white supporters of BLM.” FACT

The people Rittenhouse shot were setting dumpsters on fire and pushing them toward police cars. FACT

In past BLM protests there have been businesses and police cars vandalized. FACT

In the past, when asked about those violent acts, you have claimed that the people being violent were not supporters of BLM. FACT



If you maintain that Rittenhouse shot “supporters of BLM” and those “supporters of BLM” were being violent, then would you agree that past violence at BLM protests were done by “supporters of BLM”?


My questions are only “inane” to you because you don’t want to have to confront your contradictory views. You want to have one narrative for one situation, and another narrative for another situation. You don’t like being called out when your views don’t make sense.

And why do you think I don’t want my questions answered? That’s weird. Why would I ask them if I don’t want them answered??
Have you noticed how many assumptions abuxb has to make for him to believe Rittenhouse is a white supremacist murderer?

He "believes" that Rittenhouse thought only white owned businesses were being harmed.

He "believes" that Rittenhouse thought the BLM protestors were the ones looting and committing arson.

He doesn't have any facts to back up either of these opinions. It's all based on his feelings.
Mommy is twisted like you.
Image
User avatar
mommyof3
Forum User
Posts: 9213
Joined: 13 Aug 2012 18:36 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse mother saying she's gonna Sue Joe Biden

Post by mommyof3 »

BurntChurchMan wrote: 29 Nov 2021 08:11 am
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 22:03 pm
abuxb wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:51 pm
BurntChurchMan wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:22 pm
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 18:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:21 pm
Spoiler
BluesCup2019 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:12 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 15:57 pm
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 14:33 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 20:10 pm
Spoiler
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 16:07 pm

Looks like abuxb had to run away from this thread when he couldn’t explain his hypocrisy. He knows he has contradictory views, but he sure won’t admit that, or admit he is wrong.
Abuxb, why are you afraid to defend your views?
"You know that you would lose any argument..."
I like abuxb's "defense"...."I can't respond to comments I don't read."

Does he realize that only makes him look more cowardly? He is basically admitting he willfully avoids posts so that he doesn't have to respond to them. What a coward.
I"m not even sure how one can willfully avoid a comment when you're actively participating in a thread? I know I read every post in a thread when I'm going through it (unless of course it belongs to mnkyboy because he's on ignore) so I'm just not sure how he can say that he doesn't read certain comments? He's lying yet again because we all know that he reads each and every post that someone quotes him in no matter how badly he wants us to believe him that he doesn't. How many lies is he up to now that he's been caught in......20 or 30? :roll:
Abuxb reads all of the comments, despite what he claims. When he thinks he has a snarky reply, he will respond. When he thinks he can act superior, he responds. When he can point out a minor typo, he will respond.

But when he knows he is wrong about something, or that someone else is right, he doesn’t respond. He cannot admit he is wrong, and, more importantly, he can never admit someone else is right about something. I have never seen abuxb use the phrase, “I stand corrected. You are right. I was wrong to say {insert incorrect fact here}.”
I can recall at least a couple times he has admitted error (the threads in which this occurred have been archived, but I doubt he will deny it):
  • In a thread about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I pointed out his comments contradicted those he had made in an earlier post. He initially hedged, speculating that someone must have edited the original quote. When I linked him to his original post, he acknowledged the error.
  • In a thread about George Floyd (prior to the trial), he speculated that the prosecutor's decision to charge Chauvin with murder was racist (as an excessive charge to ensure a not guilty verdict) -- until he learned that the prosecutor was Keith "not Larry" Ellison (who is black and a supporter of BLM), whereupon he admitted he was wrong.
So yes, abuxb can admit he is wrong, wherefore his intransigence regarding the Rittenhouse topic is curious, as the facts have rendered his position steadily weaker.
Glad to see abuxb has admitted errors. I missed both of those occasions. And yes, it does seem strange that he is so unwilling to admit he was wrong here.

And I still would like him to address this:

Abuxb, those “white supporters of BLM” were setting dumpsters on fire and pushing them towards police cars and businesses. Do you agree that all of the other looters and rioters during the various protests were BLM supporters? In the past, you have claimed that the people doing the violence were NOT supporters of the BLM movement.

Has your stance changed?


He has seen this now a couple of times and has yet to address it. It makes it quite obvious to me that he knows he has contradicted himself, but he can’t admit it.
You can't support social justice without committing crimes against people and property.
Mommy doesn't want an answer to her inane questions, but she's getting one anyway. There were peaceful protesters and there were people bent on destruction. They are separate entities. I think Rittenhouse saw them all as the same. I have given my reasons, based on facts that no one has refuted, why I believe about him as I do. I don't see why Mommy, and others, keep repeating the same thing.
That doesn’t address your contradictory comments at all.

You posted, “He [Rittenhouse] shot white supporters of BLM.” FACT

The people Rittenhouse shot were setting dumpsters on fire and pushing them toward police cars. FACT

In past BLM protests there have been businesses and police cars vandalized. FACT

In the past, when asked about those violent acts, you have claimed that the people being violent were not supporters of BLM. FACT



If you maintain that Rittenhouse shot “supporters of BLM” and those “supporters of BLM” were being violent, then would you agree that past violence at BLM protests were done by “supporters of BLM”?


My questions are only “inane” to you because you don’t want to have to confront your contradictory views. You want to have one narrative for one situation, and another narrative for another situation. You don’t like being called out when your views don’t make sense.

And why do you think I don’t want my questions answered? That’s weird. Why would I ask them if I don’t want them answered??
Have you noticed how many assumptions abuxb has to make for him to believe Rittenhouse is a white supremacist murderer?

He "believes" that Rittenhouse thought only white owned businesses were being harmed.

He "believes" that Rittenhouse thought the BLM protestors were the ones looting and committing arson.

He doesn't have any facts to back up either of these opinions. It's all based on his feelings.
Yes! Abuxb has declared Rittenhouse a White Supremacist based on what abuxb THINKS Rittenhouse believes. And, as I recall, abuxb is the FIRST to chastise someone for telling anyone what they think. Yet here he is, telling us all what Rittenhouse believes and thinks.

Like I said earlier in this thread, I could claim abuxb is a racist because I believe he went to teach in Hazelwood because he thought only white kids lived there and so he thought he would be only teaching white kids. Those are the facts as I see them, and thus my opinion that abuxb is a racist is a valid one.

Of course there are actual reasons that I believe abuxb is a racist and a misogynist. Those reasons have been shown by me and others on this forum. This scenario with Hazelwood is made up, but it COULD be true. I was using the facts as I see them. I know as much about abuxb as he knows about Rittenhouse.
User avatar
abuxb
Forum User
Posts: 24829
Joined: 03 Nov 2010 11:53 am
Location: University City

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse mother saying she's gonna Sue Joe Biden

Post by abuxb »

Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 22:47 pm
abuxb wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:48 pm
Spoiler
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 18:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:21 pm
Spoiler
BluesCup2019 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:12 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 15:57 pm
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 14:33 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 20:10 pm
Spoiler
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 16:07 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 09:45 am
BurntChurchMan wrote: 27 Nov 2021 09:34 am
mommyof3 wrote: 26 Nov 2021 19:05 pm

Abuxb, those “white supporters of BLM” were setting dumpsters on fire and pushing them towards police cars and businesses. Do you agree that all of the other looters and rioters during the various protests were BLM supporters? In the past, you have claimed that the people doing the violence were NOT supporters of the BLM movement.

Has your stance changed?
There is no crime abuxb won't defend if it's done in the name of social justice.
Exactly. Abuxb distorts and twists facts to fit the narrative he wants, even when his narratives are contradictory.
Looks like abuxb had to run away from this thread when he couldn’t explain his hypocrisy. He knows he has contradictory views, but he sure won’t admit that, or admit he is wrong.
Abuxb, why are you afraid to defend your views?
"You know that you would lose any argument..."
I like abuxb's "defense"...."I can't respond to comments I don't read."

Does he realize that only makes him look more cowardly? He is basically admitting he willfully avoids posts so that he doesn't have to respond to them. What a coward.
I"m not even sure how one can willfully avoid a comment when you're actively participating in a thread? I know I read every post in a thread when I'm going through it (unless of course it belongs to mnkyboy because he's on ignore) so I'm just not sure how he can say that he doesn't read certain comments? He's lying yet again because we all know that he reads each and every post that someone quotes him in no matter how badly he wants us to believe him that he doesn't. How many lies is he up to now that he's been caught in......20 or 30? :roll:
Abuxb reads all of the comments, despite what he claims. When he thinks he has a snarky reply, he will respond. When he thinks he can act superior, he responds. When he can point out a minor typo, he will respond.

But when he knows he is wrong about something, or that someone else is right, he doesn’t respond. He cannot admit he is wrong, and, more importantly, he can never admit someone else is right about something. I have never seen abuxb use the phrase, “I stand corrected. You are right. I was wrong to say {insert incorrect fact here}.”
I can recall at least a couple times he has admitted error (the threads in which this occurred have been archived, but I doubt he will deny it):
  • In a thread about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I pointed out his comments contradicted those he had made in an earlier post. He initially hedged, speculating that someone must have edited the original quote. When I linked him to his original post, he acknowledged the error.
  • In a thread about George Floyd (prior to the trial), he speculated that the prosecutor's decision to charge Chauvin with murder was racist (as an excessive charge to ensure a not guilty verdict) -- until he learned that the prosecutor was Keith "not Larry" Ellison (who is black and a supporter of BLM), whereupon he admitted he was wrong.
So yes, abuxb can admit he is wrong, wherefore his intransigence regarding the Rittenhouse topic is curious, as the facts have rendered his position steadily weaker.
Hoodie, thank you for being reasonable. I can have an intelligent discussion with you. I still don't agree that the facts in the Rittenhouse case have rendered my position weaker. The facts remain that he came brandishing a high powered firearm, which only serves to intimidate. He put himself in a position where he didn't belong. He was known to congregate with The Proud Boys. To me those facts add up to my conclusion about him. Am I wrong about him? Maybe, but until I get more facts that contradict my opinion, I'm sticking with it.
"...reasonable..." and "...intelligent discussion..." is rather a departure from "dense...insecure...insane...", but whatever works.

I know you don't agree that the facts weaken your position (no need to keep repeating that, hoping for a different result). What you have so far failed to do is rebut (or at least, adequately rebut) my explanation of how those facts contradict your position, specifically:
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse communicated with one of the (non-white) Khindris prior to going to protect Car Source. Going to protect a business that one knows is minority-owned is inconsistent with your claim of him being a white supremacist. Simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse met another of the (non-white) Khindris while at Car Source, yet stayed to protect the minority-owned business (rather than going to find a business that was actually white-owned). This is again inconsistent with your claim he was a white supremacist, and simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.

And since you addressed mommyof3 directly, yet have her on ignore:
Spoiler
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 22:03 pm
Spoiler
abuxb wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:51 pm
BurntChurchMan wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:22 pm
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 18:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:21 pm
Spoiler
BluesCup2019 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:12 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 15:57 pm
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 14:33 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 20:10 pm
Spoiler
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 16:07 pm

Looks like abuxb had to run away from this thread when he couldn’t explain his hypocrisy. He knows he has contradictory views, but he sure won’t admit that, or admit he is wrong.
Abuxb, why are you afraid to defend your views?
"You know that you would lose any argument..."
I like abuxb's "defense"...."I can't respond to comments I don't read."

Does he realize that only makes him look more cowardly? He is basically admitting he willfully avoids posts so that he doesn't have to respond to them. What a coward.
I"m not even sure how one can willfully avoid a comment when you're actively participating in a thread? I know I read every post in a thread when I'm going through it (unless of course it belongs to mnkyboy because he's on ignore) so I'm just not sure how he can say that he doesn't read certain comments? He's lying yet again because we all know that he reads each and every post that someone quotes him in no matter how badly he wants us to believe him that he doesn't. How many lies is he up to now that he's been caught in......20 or 30? :roll:
Abuxb reads all of the comments, despite what he claims. When he thinks he has a snarky reply, he will respond. When he thinks he can act superior, he responds. When he can point out a minor typo, he will respond.

But when he knows he is wrong about something, or that someone else is right, he doesn’t respond. He cannot admit he is wrong, and, more importantly, he can never admit someone else is right about something. I have never seen abuxb use the phrase, “I stand corrected. You are right. I was wrong to say {insert incorrect fact here}.”
I can recall at least a couple times he has admitted error (the threads in which this occurred have been archived, but I doubt he will deny it):
  • In a thread about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I pointed out his comments contradicted those he had made in an earlier post. He initially hedged, speculating that someone must have edited the original quote. When I linked him to his original post, he acknowledged the error.
  • In a thread about George Floyd (prior to the trial), he speculated that the prosecutor's decision to charge Chauvin with murder was racist (as an excessive charge to ensure a not guilty verdict) -- until he learned that the prosecutor was Keith "not Larry" Ellison (who is black and a supporter of BLM), whereupon he admitted he was wrong.
So yes, abuxb can admit he is wrong, wherefore his intransigence regarding the Rittenhouse topic is curious, as the facts have rendered his position steadily weaker.
Glad to see abuxb has admitted errors. I missed both of those occasions. And yes, it does seem strange that he is so unwilling to admit he was wrong here.

And I still would like him to address this:

Abuxb, those “white supporters of BLM” were setting dumpsters on fire and pushing them towards police cars and businesses. Do you agree that all of the other looters and rioters during the various protests were BLM supporters? In the past, you have claimed that the people doing the violence were NOT supporters of the BLM movement.

Has your stance changed?


He has seen this now a couple of times and has yet to address it. It makes it quite obvious to me that he knows he has contradicted himself, but he can’t admit it.
You can't support social justice without committing crimes against people and property.
Mommy doesn't want an answer to her inane questions, but she's getting one anyway. There were peaceful protesters and there were people bent on destruction. They are separate entities. I think Rittenhouse saw them all as the same. I have given my reasons, based on facts that no one has refuted, why I believe about him as I do. I don't see why Mommy, and others, keep repeating the same thing.
That doesn’t address your contradictory comments at all.

You posted, “He [Rittenhouse] shot white supporters of BLM.” FACT

The people Rittenhouse shot were setting dumpsters on fire and pushing them toward police cars. FACT

In past BLM protests there have been businesses and police cars vandalized. FACT

In the past, when asked about those violent acts, you have claimed that the people being violent were not supporters of BLM. FACT



If you maintain that Rittenhouse shot “supporters of BLM” and those “supporters of BLM” were being violent, then would you agree that past violence at BLM protests were done by “supporters of BLM”?


My questions are only “inane” to you because you don’t want to have to confront your contradictory views. You want to have one narrative for one situation, and another narrative for another situation. You don’t like being called out when your views don’t make sense.

And why do you think I don’t want my questions answered? That’s weird. Why would I ask them if I don’t want them answered??
I see her comments when someone quotes her, and I can decide whether or not to respond. I thought you understood how that works.
User avatar
IrishGuy7798
Forum User
Posts: 4394
Joined: 25 Apr 2005 18:51 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse mother saying she's gonna Sue Joe Biden

Post by IrishGuy7798 »

abuxb wrote: 29 Nov 2021 09:44 am
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 22:47 pm
abuxb wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:48 pm
Spoiler
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 18:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:21 pm
Spoiler
BluesCup2019 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:12 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 15:57 pm
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 14:33 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 20:10 pm
Spoiler
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 16:07 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 09:45 am
BurntChurchMan wrote: 27 Nov 2021 09:34 am

There is no crime abuxb won't defend if it's done in the name of social justice.
Exactly. Abuxb distorts and twists facts to fit the narrative he wants, even when his narratives are contradictory.
Looks like abuxb had to run away from this thread when he couldn’t explain his hypocrisy. He knows he has contradictory views, but he sure won’t admit that, or admit he is wrong.
Abuxb, why are you afraid to defend your views?
"You know that you would lose any argument..."
I like abuxb's "defense"...."I can't respond to comments I don't read."

Does he realize that only makes him look more cowardly? He is basically admitting he willfully avoids posts so that he doesn't have to respond to them. What a coward.
I"m not even sure how one can willfully avoid a comment when you're actively participating in a thread? I know I read every post in a thread when I'm going through it (unless of course it belongs to mnkyboy because he's on ignore) so I'm just not sure how he can say that he doesn't read certain comments? He's lying yet again because we all know that he reads each and every post that someone quotes him in no matter how badly he wants us to believe him that he doesn't. How many lies is he up to now that he's been caught in......20 or 30? :roll:
Abuxb reads all of the comments, despite what he claims. When he thinks he has a snarky reply, he will respond. When he thinks he can act superior, he responds. When he can point out a minor typo, he will respond.

But when he knows he is wrong about something, or that someone else is right, he doesn’t respond. He cannot admit he is wrong, and, more importantly, he can never admit someone else is right about something. I have never seen abuxb use the phrase, “I stand corrected. You are right. I was wrong to say {insert incorrect fact here}.”
I can recall at least a couple times he has admitted error (the threads in which this occurred have been archived, but I doubt he will deny it):
  • In a thread about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I pointed out his comments contradicted those he had made in an earlier post. He initially hedged, speculating that someone must have edited the original quote. When I linked him to his original post, he acknowledged the error.
  • In a thread about George Floyd (prior to the trial), he speculated that the prosecutor's decision to charge Chauvin with murder was racist (as an excessive charge to ensure a not guilty verdict) -- until he learned that the prosecutor was Keith "not Larry" Ellison (who is black and a supporter of BLM), whereupon he admitted he was wrong.
So yes, abuxb can admit he is wrong, wherefore his intransigence regarding the Rittenhouse topic is curious, as the facts have rendered his position steadily weaker.
Hoodie, thank you for being reasonable. I can have an intelligent discussion with you. I still don't agree that the facts in the Rittenhouse case have rendered my position weaker. The facts remain that he came brandishing a high powered firearm, which only serves to intimidate. He put himself in a position where he didn't belong. He was known to congregate with The Proud Boys. To me those facts add up to my conclusion about him. Am I wrong about him? Maybe, but until I get more facts that contradict my opinion, I'm sticking with it.
"...reasonable..." and "...intelligent discussion..." is rather a departure from "dense...insecure...insane...", but whatever works.

I know you don't agree that the facts weaken your position (no need to keep repeating that, hoping for a different result). What you have so far failed to do is rebut (or at least, adequately rebut) my explanation of how those facts contradict your position, specifically:
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse communicated with one of the (non-white) Khindris prior to going to protect Car Source. Going to protect a business that one knows is minority-owned is inconsistent with your claim of him being a white supremacist. Simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse met another of the (non-white) Khindris while at Car Source, yet stayed to protect the minority-owned business (rather than going to find a business that was actually white-owned). This is again inconsistent with your claim he was a white supremacist, and simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.

And since you addressed mommyof3 directly, yet have her on ignore:
Spoiler
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 22:03 pm
Spoiler
abuxb wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:51 pm
BurntChurchMan wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:22 pm
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 18:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:21 pm
Spoiler
BluesCup2019 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:12 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 15:57 pm
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 14:33 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 20:10 pm
Spoiler
Abuxb, why are you afraid to defend your views?
"You know that you would lose any argument..."
I like abuxb's "defense"...."I can't respond to comments I don't read."

Does he realize that only makes him look more cowardly? He is basically admitting he willfully avoids posts so that he doesn't have to respond to them. What a coward.
I"m not even sure how one can willfully avoid a comment when you're actively participating in a thread? I know I read every post in a thread when I'm going through it (unless of course it belongs to mnkyboy because he's on ignore) so I'm just not sure how he can say that he doesn't read certain comments? He's lying yet again because we all know that he reads each and every post that someone quotes him in no matter how badly he wants us to believe him that he doesn't. How many lies is he up to now that he's been caught in......20 or 30? :roll:
Abuxb reads all of the comments, despite what he claims. When he thinks he has a snarky reply, he will respond. When he thinks he can act superior, he responds. When he can point out a minor typo, he will respond.

But when he knows he is wrong about something, or that someone else is right, he doesn’t respond. He cannot admit he is wrong, and, more importantly, he can never admit someone else is right about something. I have never seen abuxb use the phrase, “I stand corrected. You are right. I was wrong to say {insert incorrect fact here}.”
I can recall at least a couple times he has admitted error (the threads in which this occurred have been archived, but I doubt he will deny it):
  • In a thread about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I pointed out his comments contradicted those he had made in an earlier post. He initially hedged, speculating that someone must have edited the original quote. When I linked him to his original post, he acknowledged the error.
  • In a thread about George Floyd (prior to the trial), he speculated that the prosecutor's decision to charge Chauvin with murder was racist (as an excessive charge to ensure a not guilty verdict) -- until he learned that the prosecutor was Keith "not Larry" Ellison (who is black and a supporter of BLM), whereupon he admitted he was wrong.
So yes, abuxb can admit he is wrong, wherefore his intransigence regarding the Rittenhouse topic is curious, as the facts have rendered his position steadily weaker.
Glad to see abuxb has admitted errors. I missed both of those occasions. And yes, it does seem strange that he is so unwilling to admit he was wrong here.

And I still would like him to address this:

Abuxb, those “white supporters of BLM” were setting dumpsters on fire and pushing them towards police cars and businesses. Do you agree that all of the other looters and rioters during the various protests were BLM supporters? In the past, you have claimed that the people doing the violence were NOT supporters of the BLM movement.

Has your stance changed?


He has seen this now a couple of times and has yet to address it. It makes it quite obvious to me that he knows he has contradicted himself, but he can’t admit it.
You can't support social justice without committing crimes against people and property.
Mommy doesn't want an answer to her inane questions, but she's getting one anyway. There were peaceful protesters and there were people bent on destruction. They are separate entities. I think Rittenhouse saw them all as the same. I have given my reasons, based on facts that no one has refuted, why I believe about him as I do. I don't see why Mommy, and others, keep repeating the same thing.
That doesn’t address your contradictory comments at all.

You posted, “He [Rittenhouse] shot white supporters of BLM.” FACT

The people Rittenhouse shot were setting dumpsters on fire and pushing them toward police cars. FACT

In past BLM protests there have been businesses and police cars vandalized. FACT

In the past, when asked about those violent acts, you have claimed that the people being violent were not supporters of BLM. FACT



If you maintain that Rittenhouse shot “supporters of BLM” and those “supporters of BLM” were being violent, then would you agree that past violence at BLM protests were done by “supporters of BLM”?


My questions are only “inane” to you because you don’t want to have to confront your contradictory views. You want to have one narrative for one situation, and another narrative for another situation. You don’t like being called out when your views don’t make sense.

And why do you think I don’t want my questions answered? That’s weird. Why would I ask them if I don’t want them answered??
I see her comments when someone quotes her, and I can decide whether or not to respond. I thought you understood how that works.
We understand that you are a coward who is afraid to debate someone who constantly owns you.

That's why you have her, smallishbear, wilto, sherm, 4th, and solly on ignore.

I expect that Maple Hoodie will be on that list soon, because he is mopping the floor with your face.
Image
User avatar
abuxb
Forum User
Posts: 24829
Joined: 03 Nov 2010 11:53 am
Location: University City

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse mother saying she's gonna Sue Joe Biden

Post by abuxb »

BurntChurchMan wrote: 29 Nov 2021 08:11 am
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 22:03 pm
abuxb wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:51 pm
BurntChurchMan wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:22 pm
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 18:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:21 pm
Spoiler
BluesCup2019 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:12 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 15:57 pm
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 14:33 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 20:10 pm
Spoiler
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 16:07 pm

Looks like abuxb had to run away from this thread when he couldn’t explain his hypocrisy. He knows he has contradictory views, but he sure won’t admit that, or admit he is wrong.
Abuxb, why are you afraid to defend your views?
"You know that you would lose any argument..."
I like abuxb's "defense"...."I can't respond to comments I don't read."

Does he realize that only makes him look more cowardly? He is basically admitting he willfully avoids posts so that he doesn't have to respond to them. What a coward.
I"m not even sure how one can willfully avoid a comment when you're actively participating in a thread? I know I read every post in a thread when I'm going through it (unless of course it belongs to mnkyboy because he's on ignore) so I'm just not sure how he can say that he doesn't read certain comments? He's lying yet again because we all know that he reads each and every post that someone quotes him in no matter how badly he wants us to believe him that he doesn't. How many lies is he up to now that he's been caught in......20 or 30? :roll:
Abuxb reads all of the comments, despite what he claims. When he thinks he has a snarky reply, he will respond. When he thinks he can act superior, he responds. When he can point out a minor typo, he will respond.

But when he knows he is wrong about something, or that someone else is right, he doesn’t respond. He cannot admit he is wrong, and, more importantly, he can never admit someone else is right about something. I have never seen abuxb use the phrase, “I stand corrected. You are right. I was wrong to say {insert incorrect fact here}.”
I can recall at least a couple times he has admitted error (the threads in which this occurred have been archived, but I doubt he will deny it):
  • In a thread about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I pointed out his comments contradicted those he had made in an earlier post. He initially hedged, speculating that someone must have edited the original quote. When I linked him to his original post, he acknowledged the error.
  • In a thread about George Floyd (prior to the trial), he speculated that the prosecutor's decision to charge Chauvin with murder was racist (as an excessive charge to ensure a not guilty verdict) -- until he learned that the prosecutor was Keith "not Larry" Ellison (who is black and a supporter of BLM), whereupon he admitted he was wrong.
So yes, abuxb can admit he is wrong, wherefore his intransigence regarding the Rittenhouse topic is curious, as the facts have rendered his position steadily weaker.
Glad to see abuxb has admitted errors. I missed both of those occasions. And yes, it does seem strange that he is so unwilling to admit he was wrong here.

And I still would like him to address this:

Abuxb, those “white supporters of BLM” were setting dumpsters on fire and pushing them towards police cars and businesses. Do you agree that all of the other looters and rioters during the various protests were BLM supporters? In the past, you have claimed that the people doing the violence were NOT supporters of the BLM movement.

Has your stance changed?


He has seen this now a couple of times and has yet to address it. It makes it quite obvious to me that he knows he has contradicted himself, but he can’t admit it.
You can't support social justice without committing crimes against people and property.
Mommy doesn't want an answer to her inane questions, but she's getting one anyway. There were peaceful protesters and there were people bent on destruction. They are separate entities. I think Rittenhouse saw them all as the same. I have given my reasons, based on facts that no one has refuted, why I believe about him as I do. I don't see why Mommy, and others, keep repeating the same thing.
That doesn’t address your contradictory comments at all.

You posted, “He [Rittenhouse] shot white supporters of BLM.” FACT

The people Rittenhouse shot were setting dumpsters on fire and pushing them toward police cars. FACT

In past BLM protests there have been businesses and police cars vandalized. FACT

In the past, when asked about those violent acts, you have claimed that the people being violent were not supporters of BLM. FACT



If you maintain that Rittenhouse shot “supporters of BLM” and those “supporters of BLM” were being violent, then would you agree that past violence at BLM protests were done by “supporters of BLM”?


My questions are only “inane” to you because you don’t want to have to confront your contradictory views. You want to have one narrative for one situation, and another narrative for another situation. You don’t like being called out when your views don’t make sense.

And why do you think I don’t want my questions answered? That’s weird. Why would I ask them if I don’t want them answered??
Have you noticed how many assumptions abuxb has to make for him to believe Rittenhouse is a white supremacist murderer? About as many as the assumptions you have to make to believe he isn't. None of us knows him personally.

He "believes" that Rittenhouse thought only white owned businesses were being harmed. Yes, I believe that in his world, businesses are owned by white folks. It is in line with how a supporter of The Proud Boys would think.

He "believes" that Rittenhouse thought the BLM protestors were the ones looting and committing arson. He didn't care. I think that to him, all black people, and those who support them, were the enemy.

He doesn't have any facts to back up either of these opinions. It's all based on his feelings. That is wrong. I have listed the facts. I have no need to repeat them. BCM, I could just as easily say that your opinion of him is based merely on feelings. You support what he did because it makes you feel good.
User avatar
drvtrnmnky
Forum User
Posts: 42735
Joined: 28 Dec 2013 10:04 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse mother saying she's gonna Sue Joe Biden

Post by drvtrnmnky »

IrishGuy7798 wrote: 29 Nov 2021 09:47 am
abuxb wrote: 29 Nov 2021 09:44 am
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 22:47 pm
abuxb wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:48 pm
Spoiler
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 18:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:21 pm
Spoiler
BluesCup2019 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:12 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 15:57 pm
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 14:33 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 20:10 pm
Spoiler
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 16:07 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 09:45 am

Exactly. Abuxb distorts and twists facts to fit the narrative he wants, even when his narratives are contradictory.
Looks like abuxb had to run away from this thread when he couldn’t explain his hypocrisy. He knows he has contradictory views, but he sure won’t admit that, or admit he is wrong.
Abuxb, why are you afraid to defend your views?
"You know that you would lose any argument..."
I like abuxb's "defense"...."I can't respond to comments I don't read."

Does he realize that only makes him look more cowardly? He is basically admitting he willfully avoids posts so that he doesn't have to respond to them. What a coward.
I"m not even sure how one can willfully avoid a comment when you're actively participating in a thread? I know I read every post in a thread when I'm going through it (unless of course it belongs to mnkyboy because he's on ignore) so I'm just not sure how he can say that he doesn't read certain comments? He's lying yet again because we all know that he reads each and every post that someone quotes him in no matter how badly he wants us to believe him that he doesn't. How many lies is he up to now that he's been caught in......20 or 30? :roll:
Abuxb reads all of the comments, despite what he claims. When he thinks he has a snarky reply, he will respond. When he thinks he can act superior, he responds. When he can point out a minor typo, he will respond.

But when he knows he is wrong about something, or that someone else is right, he doesn’t respond. He cannot admit he is wrong, and, more importantly, he can never admit someone else is right about something. I have never seen abuxb use the phrase, “I stand corrected. You are right. I was wrong to say {insert incorrect fact here}.”
I can recall at least a couple times he has admitted error (the threads in which this occurred have been archived, but I doubt he will deny it):
  • In a thread about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I pointed out his comments contradicted those he had made in an earlier post. He initially hedged, speculating that someone must have edited the original quote. When I linked him to his original post, he acknowledged the error.
  • In a thread about George Floyd (prior to the trial), he speculated that the prosecutor's decision to charge Chauvin with murder was racist (as an excessive charge to ensure a not guilty verdict) -- until he learned that the prosecutor was Keith "not Larry" Ellison (who is black and a supporter of BLM), whereupon he admitted he was wrong.
So yes, abuxb can admit he is wrong, wherefore his intransigence regarding the Rittenhouse topic is curious, as the facts have rendered his position steadily weaker.
Hoodie, thank you for being reasonable. I can have an intelligent discussion with you. I still don't agree that the facts in the Rittenhouse case have rendered my position weaker. The facts remain that he came brandishing a high powered firearm, which only serves to intimidate. He put himself in a position where he didn't belong. He was known to congregate with The Proud Boys. To me those facts add up to my conclusion about him. Am I wrong about him? Maybe, but until I get more facts that contradict my opinion, I'm sticking with it.
"...reasonable..." and "...intelligent discussion..." is rather a departure from "dense...insecure...insane...", but whatever works.

I know you don't agree that the facts weaken your position (no need to keep repeating that, hoping for a different result). What you have so far failed to do is rebut (or at least, adequately rebut) my explanation of how those facts contradict your position, specifically:
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse communicated with one of the (non-white) Khindris prior to going to protect Car Source. Going to protect a business that one knows is minority-owned is inconsistent with your claim of him being a white supremacist. Simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse met another of the (non-white) Khindris while at Car Source, yet stayed to protect the minority-owned business (rather than going to find a business that was actually white-owned). This is again inconsistent with your claim he was a white supremacist, and simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.

And since you addressed mommyof3 directly, yet have her on ignore:
Spoiler
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 22:03 pm
Spoiler
abuxb wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:51 pm
BurntChurchMan wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:22 pm
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 18:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:21 pm
Spoiler
BluesCup2019 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:12 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 15:57 pm
I like abuxb's "defense"...."I can't respond to comments I don't read."

Does he realize that only makes him look more cowardly? He is basically admitting he willfully avoids posts so that he doesn't have to respond to them. What a coward.
I"m not even sure how one can willfully avoid a comment when you're actively participating in a thread? I know I read every post in a thread when I'm going through it (unless of course it belongs to mnkyboy because he's on ignore) so I'm just not sure how he can say that he doesn't read certain comments? He's lying yet again because we all know that he reads each and every post that someone quotes him in no matter how badly he wants us to believe him that he doesn't. How many lies is he up to now that he's been caught in......20 or 30? :roll:
Abuxb reads all of the comments, despite what he claims. When he thinks he has a snarky reply, he will respond. When he thinks he can act superior, he responds. When he can point out a minor typo, he will respond.

But when he knows he is wrong about something, or that someone else is right, he doesn’t respond. He cannot admit he is wrong, and, more importantly, he can never admit someone else is right about something. I have never seen abuxb use the phrase, “I stand corrected. You are right. I was wrong to say {insert incorrect fact here}.”
I can recall at least a couple times he has admitted error (the threads in which this occurred have been archived, but I doubt he will deny it):
  • In a thread about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I pointed out his comments contradicted those he had made in an earlier post. He initially hedged, speculating that someone must have edited the original quote. When I linked him to his original post, he acknowledged the error.
  • In a thread about George Floyd (prior to the trial), he speculated that the prosecutor's decision to charge Chauvin with murder was racist (as an excessive charge to ensure a not guilty verdict) -- until he learned that the prosecutor was Keith "not Larry" Ellison (who is black and a supporter of BLM), whereupon he admitted he was wrong.
So yes, abuxb can admit he is wrong, wherefore his intransigence regarding the Rittenhouse topic is curious, as the facts have rendered his position steadily weaker.
Glad to see abuxb has admitted errors. I missed both of those occasions. And yes, it does seem strange that he is so unwilling to admit he was wrong here.

And I still would like him to address this:

Abuxb, those “white supporters of BLM” were setting dumpsters on fire and pushing them towards police cars and businesses. Do you agree that all of the other looters and rioters during the various protests were BLM supporters? In the past, you have claimed that the people doing the violence were NOT supporters of the BLM movement.

Has your stance changed?


He has seen this now a couple of times and has yet to address it. It makes it quite obvious to me that he knows he has contradicted himself, but he can’t admit it.
You can't support social justice without committing crimes against people and property.
Mommy doesn't want an answer to her inane questions, but she's getting one anyway. There were peaceful protesters and there were people bent on destruction. They are separate entities. I think Rittenhouse saw them all as the same. I have given my reasons, based on facts that no one has refuted, why I believe about him as I do. I don't see why Mommy, and others, keep repeating the same thing.
That doesn’t address your contradictory comments at all.

You posted, “He [Rittenhouse] shot white supporters of BLM.” FACT

The people Rittenhouse shot were setting dumpsters on fire and pushing them toward police cars. FACT

In past BLM protests there have been businesses and police cars vandalized. FACT

In the past, when asked about those violent acts, you have claimed that the people being violent were not supporters of BLM. FACT



If you maintain that Rittenhouse shot “supporters of BLM” and those “supporters of BLM” were being violent, then would you agree that past violence at BLM protests were done by “supporters of BLM”?


My questions are only “inane” to you because you don’t want to have to confront your contradictory views. You want to have one narrative for one situation, and another narrative for another situation. You don’t like being called out when your views don’t make sense.

And why do you think I don’t want my questions answered? That’s weird. Why would I ask them if I don’t want them answered??
I see her comments when someone quotes her, and I can decide whether or not to respond. I thought you understood how that works.
We understand that you are a coward who is afraid to debate someone who constantly owns you.

That's why you have her, smallishbear, wilto, sherm, 4th, and solly on ignore.

I expect that Maple Hoodie will be on that list soon, because he is mopping the floor with your face.
Don't see it that way. They have never been identified as BLM or supporters. They were there as citizens against police over bearing. Stop trolling.
Image
User avatar
abuxb
Forum User
Posts: 24829
Joined: 03 Nov 2010 11:53 am
Location: University City

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse mother saying she's gonna Sue Joe Biden

Post by abuxb »

IrishGuy7798 wrote: 29 Nov 2021 09:47 am
abuxb wrote: 29 Nov 2021 09:44 am
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 22:47 pm
abuxb wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:48 pm
Spoiler
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 18:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:21 pm
Spoiler
BluesCup2019 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:12 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 15:57 pm
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 14:33 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 20:10 pm
Spoiler
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 16:07 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 09:45 am

Exactly. Abuxb distorts and twists facts to fit the narrative he wants, even when his narratives are contradictory.
Looks like abuxb had to run away from this thread when he couldn’t explain his hypocrisy. He knows he has contradictory views, but he sure won’t admit that, or admit he is wrong.
Abuxb, why are you afraid to defend your views?
"You know that you would lose any argument..."
I like abuxb's "defense"...."I can't respond to comments I don't read."

Does he realize that only makes him look more cowardly? He is basically admitting he willfully avoids posts so that he doesn't have to respond to them. What a coward.
I"m not even sure how one can willfully avoid a comment when you're actively participating in a thread? I know I read every post in a thread when I'm going through it (unless of course it belongs to mnkyboy because he's on ignore) so I'm just not sure how he can say that he doesn't read certain comments? He's lying yet again because we all know that he reads each and every post that someone quotes him in no matter how badly he wants us to believe him that he doesn't. How many lies is he up to now that he's been caught in......20 or 30? :roll:
Abuxb reads all of the comments, despite what he claims. When he thinks he has a snarky reply, he will respond. When he thinks he can act superior, he responds. When he can point out a minor typo, he will respond.

But when he knows he is wrong about something, or that someone else is right, he doesn’t respond. He cannot admit he is wrong, and, more importantly, he can never admit someone else is right about something. I have never seen abuxb use the phrase, “I stand corrected. You are right. I was wrong to say {insert incorrect fact here}.”
I can recall at least a couple times he has admitted error (the threads in which this occurred have been archived, but I doubt he will deny it):
  • In a thread about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I pointed out his comments contradicted those he had made in an earlier post. He initially hedged, speculating that someone must have edited the original quote. When I linked him to his original post, he acknowledged the error.
  • In a thread about George Floyd (prior to the trial), he speculated that the prosecutor's decision to charge Chauvin with murder was racist (as an excessive charge to ensure a not guilty verdict) -- until he learned that the prosecutor was Keith "not Larry" Ellison (who is black and a supporter of BLM), whereupon he admitted he was wrong.
So yes, abuxb can admit he is wrong, wherefore his intransigence regarding the Rittenhouse topic is curious, as the facts have rendered his position steadily weaker.
Hoodie, thank you for being reasonable. I can have an intelligent discussion with you. I still don't agree that the facts in the Rittenhouse case have rendered my position weaker. The facts remain that he came brandishing a high powered firearm, which only serves to intimidate. He put himself in a position where he didn't belong. He was known to congregate with The Proud Boys. To me those facts add up to my conclusion about him. Am I wrong about him? Maybe, but until I get more facts that contradict my opinion, I'm sticking with it.
"...reasonable..." and "...intelligent discussion..." is rather a departure from "dense...insecure...insane...", but whatever works.

I know you don't agree that the facts weaken your position (no need to keep repeating that, hoping for a different result). What you have so far failed to do is rebut (or at least, adequately rebut) my explanation of how those facts contradict your position, specifically:
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse communicated with one of the (non-white) Khindris prior to going to protect Car Source. Going to protect a business that one knows is minority-owned is inconsistent with your claim of him being a white supremacist. Simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse met another of the (non-white) Khindris while at Car Source, yet stayed to protect the minority-owned business (rather than going to find a business that was actually white-owned). This is again inconsistent with your claim he was a white supremacist, and simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.

And since you addressed mommyof3 directly, yet have her on ignore:
Spoiler
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 22:03 pm
Spoiler
abuxb wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:51 pm
BurntChurchMan wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:22 pm
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 18:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:21 pm
Spoiler
BluesCup2019 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:12 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 15:57 pm
I like abuxb's "defense"...."I can't respond to comments I don't read."

Does he realize that only makes him look more cowardly? He is basically admitting he willfully avoids posts so that he doesn't have to respond to them. What a coward.
I"m not even sure how one can willfully avoid a comment when you're actively participating in a thread? I know I read every post in a thread when I'm going through it (unless of course it belongs to mnkyboy because he's on ignore) so I'm just not sure how he can say that he doesn't read certain comments? He's lying yet again because we all know that he reads each and every post that someone quotes him in no matter how badly he wants us to believe him that he doesn't. How many lies is he up to now that he's been caught in......20 or 30? :roll:
Abuxb reads all of the comments, despite what he claims. When he thinks he has a snarky reply, he will respond. When he thinks he can act superior, he responds. When he can point out a minor typo, he will respond.

But when he knows he is wrong about something, or that someone else is right, he doesn’t respond. He cannot admit he is wrong, and, more importantly, he can never admit someone else is right about something. I have never seen abuxb use the phrase, “I stand corrected. You are right. I was wrong to say {insert incorrect fact here}.”
I can recall at least a couple times he has admitted error (the threads in which this occurred have been archived, but I doubt he will deny it):
  • In a thread about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I pointed out his comments contradicted those he had made in an earlier post. He initially hedged, speculating that someone must have edited the original quote. When I linked him to his original post, he acknowledged the error.
  • In a thread about George Floyd (prior to the trial), he speculated that the prosecutor's decision to charge Chauvin with murder was racist (as an excessive charge to ensure a not guilty verdict) -- until he learned that the prosecutor was Keith "not Larry" Ellison (who is black and a supporter of BLM), whereupon he admitted he was wrong.
So yes, abuxb can admit he is wrong, wherefore his intransigence regarding the Rittenhouse topic is curious, as the facts have rendered his position steadily weaker.
Glad to see abuxb has admitted errors. I missed both of those occasions. And yes, it does seem strange that he is so unwilling to admit he was wrong here.

And I still would like him to address this:

Abuxb, those “white supporters of BLM” were setting dumpsters on fire and pushing them towards police cars and businesses. Do you agree that all of the other looters and rioters during the various protests were BLM supporters? In the past, you have claimed that the people doing the violence were NOT supporters of the BLM movement.

Has your stance changed?


He has seen this now a couple of times and has yet to address it. It makes it quite obvious to me that he knows he has contradicted himself, but he can’t admit it.
You can't support social justice without committing crimes against people and property.
Mommy doesn't want an answer to her inane questions, but she's getting one anyway. There were peaceful protesters and there were people bent on destruction. They are separate entities. I think Rittenhouse saw them all as the same. I have given my reasons, based on facts that no one has refuted, why I believe about him as I do. I don't see why Mommy, and others, keep repeating the same thing.
That doesn’t address your contradictory comments at all.

You posted, “He [Rittenhouse] shot white supporters of BLM.” FACT

The people Rittenhouse shot were setting dumpsters on fire and pushing them toward police cars. FACT

In past BLM protests there have been businesses and police cars vandalized. FACT

In the past, when asked about those violent acts, you have claimed that the people being violent were not supporters of BLM. FACT



If you maintain that Rittenhouse shot “supporters of BLM” and those “supporters of BLM” were being violent, then would you agree that past violence at BLM protests were done by “supporters of BLM”?


My questions are only “inane” to you because you don’t want to have to confront your contradictory views. You want to have one narrative for one situation, and another narrative for another situation. You don’t like being called out when your views don’t make sense.

And why do you think I don’t want my questions answered? That’s weird. Why would I ask them if I don’t want them answered??
I see her comments when someone quotes her, and I can decide whether or not to respond. I thought you understood how that works.
We understand that you are a coward who is afraid to debate someone who constantly owns you.

That's why you have her, smallishbear, wilto, sherm, 4th, and solly on ignore.

I expect that Maple Hoodie will be on that list soon, because he is mopping the floor with your face.
If I were a coward, I would have stopped posting here several years ago. I have never been "owned" by anyone. I have those people on ignore because they don't want to debate. They just want to tear down and play gotcha. By doing that, they reveal their lack of knowledge. I have no need to go back and forth with anyone like that. I'm here to discuss issues, not to constantly defend false accusations.

Unlike those others, Maple Hoodie has made some valid points. I can debate with him without being falsely attacked. He gets my respect.
User avatar
Maple Hoodie
Forum User
Posts: 1850
Joined: 08 Jan 2017 15:05 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse mother saying she's gonna Sue Joe Biden

Post by Maple Hoodie »

abuxb wrote: 29 Nov 2021 09:44 am
Spoiler
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 22:47 pm
abuxb wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:48 pm
Spoiler
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 18:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:21 pm
Spoiler
BluesCup2019 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:12 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 15:57 pm
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 14:33 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 20:10 pm
Spoiler
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 16:07 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 09:45 am
BurntChurchMan wrote: 27 Nov 2021 09:34 am

There is no crime abuxb won't defend if it's done in the name of social justice.
Exactly. Abuxb distorts and twists facts to fit the narrative he wants, even when his narratives are contradictory.
Looks like abuxb had to run away from this thread when he couldn’t explain his hypocrisy. He knows he has contradictory views, but he sure won’t admit that, or admit he is wrong.
Abuxb, why are you afraid to defend your views?
"You know that you would lose any argument..."
I like abuxb's "defense"...."I can't respond to comments I don't read."

Does he realize that only makes him look more cowardly? He is basically admitting he willfully avoids posts so that he doesn't have to respond to them. What a coward.
I"m not even sure how one can willfully avoid a comment when you're actively participating in a thread? I know I read every post in a thread when I'm going through it (unless of course it belongs to mnkyboy because he's on ignore) so I'm just not sure how he can say that he doesn't read certain comments? He's lying yet again because we all know that he reads each and every post that someone quotes him in no matter how badly he wants us to believe him that he doesn't. How many lies is he up to now that he's been caught in......20 or 30? :roll:
Abuxb reads all of the comments, despite what he claims. When he thinks he has a snarky reply, he will respond. When he thinks he can act superior, he responds. When he can point out a minor typo, he will respond.

But when he knows he is wrong about something, or that someone else is right, he doesn’t respond. He cannot admit he is wrong, and, more importantly, he can never admit someone else is right about something. I have never seen abuxb use the phrase, “I stand corrected. You are right. I was wrong to say {insert incorrect fact here}.”
I can recall at least a couple times he has admitted error (the threads in which this occurred have been archived, but I doubt he will deny it):
  • In a thread about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I pointed out his comments contradicted those he had made in an earlier post. He initially hedged, speculating that someone must have edited the original quote. When I linked him to his original post, he acknowledged the error.
  • In a thread about George Floyd (prior to the trial), he speculated that the prosecutor's decision to charge Chauvin with murder was racist (as an excessive charge to ensure a not guilty verdict) -- until he learned that the prosecutor was Keith "not Larry" Ellison (who is black and a supporter of BLM), whereupon he admitted he was wrong.
So yes, abuxb can admit he is wrong, wherefore his intransigence regarding the Rittenhouse topic is curious, as the facts have rendered his position steadily weaker.
Hoodie, thank you for being reasonable. I can have an intelligent discussion with you. I still don't agree that the facts in the Rittenhouse case have rendered my position weaker. The facts remain that he came brandishing a high powered firearm, which only serves to intimidate. He put himself in a position where he didn't belong. He was known to congregate with The Proud Boys. To me those facts add up to my conclusion about him. Am I wrong about him? Maybe, but until I get more facts that contradict my opinion, I'm sticking with it.
"...reasonable..." and "...intelligent discussion..." is rather a departure from "dense...insecure...insane...", but whatever works.

I know you don't agree that the facts weaken your position (no need to keep repeating that, hoping for a different result). What you have so far failed to do is rebut (or at least, adequately rebut) my explanation of how those facts contradict your position, specifically:
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse communicated with one of the (non-white) Khindris prior to going to protect Car Source. Going to protect a business that one knows is minority-owned is inconsistent with your claim of him being a white supremacist. Simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse met another of the (non-white) Khindris while at Car Source, yet stayed to protect the minority-owned business (rather than going to find a business that was actually white-owned). This is again inconsistent with your claim he was a white supremacist, and simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.

And since you addressed mommyof3 directly, yet have her on ignore:
Spoiler
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 22:03 pm
Spoiler
abuxb wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:51 pm
BurntChurchMan wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:22 pm
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 18:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:21 pm
Spoiler
BluesCup2019 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:12 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 15:57 pm
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 14:33 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 20:10 pm
Spoiler
Abuxb, why are you afraid to defend your views?
"You know that you would lose any argument..."
I like abuxb's "defense"...."I can't respond to comments I don't read."

Does he realize that only makes him look more cowardly? He is basically admitting he willfully avoids posts so that he doesn't have to respond to them. What a coward.
I"m not even sure how one can willfully avoid a comment when you're actively participating in a thread? I know I read every post in a thread when I'm going through it (unless of course it belongs to mnkyboy because he's on ignore) so I'm just not sure how he can say that he doesn't read certain comments? He's lying yet again because we all know that he reads each and every post that someone quotes him in no matter how badly he wants us to believe him that he doesn't. How many lies is he up to now that he's been caught in......20 or 30? :roll:
Abuxb reads all of the comments, despite what he claims. When he thinks he has a snarky reply, he will respond. When he thinks he can act superior, he responds. When he can point out a minor typo, he will respond.

But when he knows he is wrong about something, or that someone else is right, he doesn’t respond. He cannot admit he is wrong, and, more importantly, he can never admit someone else is right about something. I have never seen abuxb use the phrase, “I stand corrected. You are right. I was wrong to say {insert incorrect fact here}.”
I can recall at least a couple times he has admitted error (the threads in which this occurred have been archived, but I doubt he will deny it):
  • In a thread about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I pointed out his comments contradicted those he had made in an earlier post. He initially hedged, speculating that someone must have edited the original quote. When I linked him to his original post, he acknowledged the error.
  • In a thread about George Floyd (prior to the trial), he speculated that the prosecutor's decision to charge Chauvin with murder was racist (as an excessive charge to ensure a not guilty verdict) -- until he learned that the prosecutor was Keith "not Larry" Ellison (who is black and a supporter of BLM), whereupon he admitted he was wrong.
So yes, abuxb can admit he is wrong, wherefore his intransigence regarding the Rittenhouse topic is curious, as the facts have rendered his position steadily weaker.
Glad to see abuxb has admitted errors. I missed both of those occasions. And yes, it does seem strange that he is so unwilling to admit he was wrong here.

And I still would like him to address this:

Abuxb, those “white supporters of BLM” were setting dumpsters on fire and pushing them towards police cars and businesses. Do you agree that all of the other looters and rioters during the various protests were BLM supporters? In the past, you have claimed that the people doing the violence were NOT supporters of the BLM movement.

Has your stance changed?


He has seen this now a couple of times and has yet to address it. It makes it quite obvious to me that he knows he has contradicted himself, but he can’t admit it.
You can't support social justice without committing crimes against people and property.
Mommy doesn't want an answer to her inane questions, but she's getting one anyway. There were peaceful protesters and there were people bent on destruction. They are separate entities. I think Rittenhouse saw them all as the same. I have given my reasons, based on facts that no one has refuted, why I believe about him as I do. I don't see why Mommy, and others, keep repeating the same thing.
That doesn’t address your contradictory comments at all.

You posted, “He [Rittenhouse] shot white supporters of BLM.” FACT

The people Rittenhouse shot were setting dumpsters on fire and pushing them toward police cars. FACT

In past BLM protests there have been businesses and police cars vandalized. FACT

In the past, when asked about those violent acts, you have claimed that the people being violent were not supporters of BLM. FACT



If you maintain that Rittenhouse shot “supporters of BLM” and those “supporters of BLM” were being violent, then would you agree that past violence at BLM protests were done by “supporters of BLM”?


My questions are only “inane” to you because you don’t want to have to confront your contradictory views. You want to have one narrative for one situation, and another narrative for another situation. You don’t like being called out when your views don’t make sense.

And why do you think I don’t want my questions answered? That’s weird. Why would I ask them if I don’t want them answered??
I see her comments when someone quotes her, and I can decide whether or not to respond. I thought you understood how that works.
I do understand that, which is why I quoted her, in order for you to respond. Yet you responded neither to her remarks, nor to mine:

"...reasonable..." and "...intelligent discussion..." is rather a departure from "dense...insecure...insane...", but whatever works.

I know you don't agree that the facts weaken your position (no need to keep repeating that, hoping for a different result). What you have so far failed to do is rebut (or at least, adequately rebut) my explanation of how those facts contradict your position, specifically:
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse communicated with one of the (non-white) Khindris prior to going to protect Car Source. Going to protect a business that one knows is minority-owned is inconsistent with your claim of him being a white supremacist. Simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse met another of the (non-white) Khindris while at Car Source, yet stayed to protect the minority-owned business (rather than going to find a business that was actually white-owned). This is again inconsistent with your claim he was a white supremacist, and simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.
User avatar
abuxb
Forum User
Posts: 24829
Joined: 03 Nov 2010 11:53 am
Location: University City

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse mother saying she's gonna Sue Joe Biden

Post by abuxb »

Maple Hoodie wrote: 29 Nov 2021 10:01 am
abuxb wrote: 29 Nov 2021 09:44 am
Spoiler
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 22:47 pm
abuxb wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:48 pm
Spoiler
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 18:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:21 pm
Spoiler
BluesCup2019 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:12 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 15:57 pm
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 14:33 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 20:10 pm
Spoiler
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 16:07 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 09:45 am

Exactly. Abuxb distorts and twists facts to fit the narrative he wants, even when his narratives are contradictory.
Looks like abuxb had to run away from this thread when he couldn’t explain his hypocrisy. He knows he has contradictory views, but he sure won’t admit that, or admit he is wrong.
Abuxb, why are you afraid to defend your views?
"You know that you would lose any argument..."
I like abuxb's "defense"...."I can't respond to comments I don't read."

Does he realize that only makes him look more cowardly? He is basically admitting he willfully avoids posts so that he doesn't have to respond to them. What a coward.
I"m not even sure how one can willfully avoid a comment when you're actively participating in a thread? I know I read every post in a thread when I'm going through it (unless of course it belongs to mnkyboy because he's on ignore) so I'm just not sure how he can say that he doesn't read certain comments? He's lying yet again because we all know that he reads each and every post that someone quotes him in no matter how badly he wants us to believe him that he doesn't. How many lies is he up to now that he's been caught in......20 or 30? :roll:
Abuxb reads all of the comments, despite what he claims. When he thinks he has a snarky reply, he will respond. When he thinks he can act superior, he responds. When he can point out a minor typo, he will respond.

But when he knows he is wrong about something, or that someone else is right, he doesn’t respond. He cannot admit he is wrong, and, more importantly, he can never admit someone else is right about something. I have never seen abuxb use the phrase, “I stand corrected. You are right. I was wrong to say {insert incorrect fact here}.”
I can recall at least a couple times he has admitted error (the threads in which this occurred have been archived, but I doubt he will deny it):
  • In a thread about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I pointed out his comments contradicted those he had made in an earlier post. He initially hedged, speculating that someone must have edited the original quote. When I linked him to his original post, he acknowledged the error.
  • In a thread about George Floyd (prior to the trial), he speculated that the prosecutor's decision to charge Chauvin with murder was racist (as an excessive charge to ensure a not guilty verdict) -- until he learned that the prosecutor was Keith "not Larry" Ellison (who is black and a supporter of BLM), whereupon he admitted he was wrong.
So yes, abuxb can admit he is wrong, wherefore his intransigence regarding the Rittenhouse topic is curious, as the facts have rendered his position steadily weaker.
Hoodie, thank you for being reasonable. I can have an intelligent discussion with you. I still don't agree that the facts in the Rittenhouse case have rendered my position weaker. The facts remain that he came brandishing a high powered firearm, which only serves to intimidate. He put himself in a position where he didn't belong. He was known to congregate with The Proud Boys. To me those facts add up to my conclusion about him. Am I wrong about him? Maybe, but until I get more facts that contradict my opinion, I'm sticking with it.
"...reasonable..." and "...intelligent discussion..." is rather a departure from "dense...insecure...insane...", but whatever works.

I know you don't agree that the facts weaken your position (no need to keep repeating that, hoping for a different result). What you have so far failed to do is rebut (or at least, adequately rebut) my explanation of how those facts contradict your position, specifically:
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse communicated with one of the (non-white) Khindris prior to going to protect Car Source. Going to protect a business that one knows is minority-owned is inconsistent with your claim of him being a white supremacist. Simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse met another of the (non-white) Khindris while at Car Source, yet stayed to protect the minority-owned business (rather than going to find a business that was actually white-owned). This is again inconsistent with your claim he was a white supremacist, and simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.

And since you addressed mommyof3 directly, yet have her on ignore:
Spoiler
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 22:03 pm
Spoiler
abuxb wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:51 pm
BurntChurchMan wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:22 pm
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 18:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:21 pm
Spoiler
BluesCup2019 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:12 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 15:57 pm
I like abuxb's "defense"...."I can't respond to comments I don't read."

Does he realize that only makes him look more cowardly? He is basically admitting he willfully avoids posts so that he doesn't have to respond to them. What a coward.
I"m not even sure how one can willfully avoid a comment when you're actively participating in a thread? I know I read every post in a thread when I'm going through it (unless of course it belongs to mnkyboy because he's on ignore) so I'm just not sure how he can say that he doesn't read certain comments? He's lying yet again because we all know that he reads each and every post that someone quotes him in no matter how badly he wants us to believe him that he doesn't. How many lies is he up to now that he's been caught in......20 or 30? :roll:
Abuxb reads all of the comments, despite what he claims. When he thinks he has a snarky reply, he will respond. When he thinks he can act superior, he responds. When he can point out a minor typo, he will respond.

But when he knows he is wrong about something, or that someone else is right, he doesn’t respond. He cannot admit he is wrong, and, more importantly, he can never admit someone else is right about something. I have never seen abuxb use the phrase, “I stand corrected. You are right. I was wrong to say {insert incorrect fact here}.”
I can recall at least a couple times he has admitted error (the threads in which this occurred have been archived, but I doubt he will deny it):
  • In a thread about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I pointed out his comments contradicted those he had made in an earlier post. He initially hedged, speculating that someone must have edited the original quote. When I linked him to his original post, he acknowledged the error.
  • In a thread about George Floyd (prior to the trial), he speculated that the prosecutor's decision to charge Chauvin with murder was racist (as an excessive charge to ensure a not guilty verdict) -- until he learned that the prosecutor was Keith "not Larry" Ellison (who is black and a supporter of BLM), whereupon he admitted he was wrong.
So yes, abuxb can admit he is wrong, wherefore his intransigence regarding the Rittenhouse topic is curious, as the facts have rendered his position steadily weaker.
Glad to see abuxb has admitted errors. I missed both of those occasions. And yes, it does seem strange that he is so unwilling to admit he was wrong here.

And I still would like him to address this:

Abuxb, those “white supporters of BLM” were setting dumpsters on fire and pushing them towards police cars and businesses. Do you agree that all of the other looters and rioters during the various protests were BLM supporters? In the past, you have claimed that the people doing the violence were NOT supporters of the BLM movement.

Has your stance changed?


He has seen this now a couple of times and has yet to address it. It makes it quite obvious to me that he knows he has contradicted himself, but he can’t admit it.
You can't support social justice without committing crimes against people and property.
Mommy doesn't want an answer to her inane questions, but she's getting one anyway. There were peaceful protesters and there were people bent on destruction. They are separate entities. I think Rittenhouse saw them all as the same. I have given my reasons, based on facts that no one has refuted, why I believe about him as I do. I don't see why Mommy, and others, keep repeating the same thing.
That doesn’t address your contradictory comments at all.

You posted, “He [Rittenhouse] shot white supporters of BLM.” FACT

The people Rittenhouse shot were setting dumpsters on fire and pushing them toward police cars. FACT

In past BLM protests there have been businesses and police cars vandalized. FACT

In the past, when asked about those violent acts, you have claimed that the people being violent were not supporters of BLM. FACT



If you maintain that Rittenhouse shot “supporters of BLM” and those “supporters of BLM” were being violent, then would you agree that past violence at BLM protests were done by “supporters of BLM”?


My questions are only “inane” to you because you don’t want to have to confront your contradictory views. You want to have one narrative for one situation, and another narrative for another situation. You don’t like being called out when your views don’t make sense.

And why do you think I don’t want my questions answered? That’s weird. Why would I ask them if I don’t want them answered??
I see her comments when someone quotes her, and I can decide whether or not to respond. I thought you understood how that works.
I do understand that, which is why I quoted her, in order for you to respond. Yet you responded neither to her remarks, nor to mine:

"...reasonable..." and "...intelligent discussion..." is rather a departure from "dense...insecure...insane...", but whatever works.

I know you don't agree that the facts weaken your position (no need to keep repeating that, hoping for a different result). What you have so far failed to do is rebut (or at least, adequately rebut) my explanation of how those facts contradict your position, specifically:
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse communicated with one of the (non-white) Khindris prior to going to protect Car Source. Going to protect a business that one knows is minority-owned is inconsistent with your claim of him being a white supremacist. Simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse met another of the (non-white) Khindris while at Car Source, yet stayed to protect the minority-owned business (rather than going to find a business that was actually white-owned). This is again inconsistent with your claim he was a white supremacist, and simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.
There is a set number of facts in this case. There is no need to repeat them. You have chosen to concentrate on facts that could exonerate him. I have chosen to concentrate on facts that cause me to believe he is a white supremacists who was bent on causing trouble. I am not trying to convince you to share my opinion, because neither of us have seen anything that would make us change. Until we can somehow see into his mind, we may never know which of us is right. I'm ok with that. Why aren't you?
User avatar
toughluv
Forum User
Posts: 11754
Joined: 19 Dec 2018 16:55 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse mother saying she's gonna Sue Joe Biden

Post by toughluv »

abuxb wrote: 29 Nov 2021 10:14 am
Maple Hoodie wrote: 29 Nov 2021 10:01 am
abuxb wrote: 29 Nov 2021 09:44 am
Spoiler
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 22:47 pm
abuxb wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:48 pm
Spoiler
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 18:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:21 pm
Spoiler
BluesCup2019 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:12 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 15:57 pm
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 14:33 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 20:10 pm
Spoiler
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 16:07 pm

Looks like abuxb had to run away from this thread when he couldn’t explain his hypocrisy. He knows he has contradictory views, but he sure won’t admit that, or admit he is wrong.
Abuxb, why are you afraid to defend your views?
"You know that you would lose any argument..."
I like abuxb's "defense"...."I can't respond to comments I don't read."

Does he realize that only makes him look more cowardly? He is basically admitting he willfully avoids posts so that he doesn't have to respond to them. What a coward.
I"m not even sure how one can willfully avoid a comment when you're actively participating in a thread? I know I read every post in a thread when I'm going through it (unless of course it belongs to mnkyboy because he's on ignore) so I'm just not sure how he can say that he doesn't read certain comments? He's lying yet again because we all know that he reads each and every post that someone quotes him in no matter how badly he wants us to believe him that he doesn't. How many lies is he up to now that he's been caught in......20 or 30? :roll:
Abuxb reads all of the comments, despite what he claims. When he thinks he has a snarky reply, he will respond. When he thinks he can act superior, he responds. When he can point out a minor typo, he will respond.

But when he knows he is wrong about something, or that someone else is right, he doesn’t respond. He cannot admit he is wrong, and, more importantly, he can never admit someone else is right about something. I have never seen abuxb use the phrase, “I stand corrected. You are right. I was wrong to say {insert incorrect fact here}.”
I can recall at least a couple times he has admitted error (the threads in which this occurred have been archived, but I doubt he will deny it):
  • In a thread about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I pointed out his comments contradicted those he had made in an earlier post. He initially hedged, speculating that someone must have edited the original quote. When I linked him to his original post, he acknowledged the error.
  • In a thread about George Floyd (prior to the trial), he speculated that the prosecutor's decision to charge Chauvin with murder was racist (as an excessive charge to ensure a not guilty verdict) -- until he learned that the prosecutor was Keith "not Larry" Ellison (who is black and a supporter of BLM), whereupon he admitted he was wrong.
So yes, abuxb can admit he is wrong, wherefore his intransigence regarding the Rittenhouse topic is curious, as the facts have rendered his position steadily weaker.
Hoodie, thank you for being reasonable. I can have an intelligent discussion with you. I still don't agree that the facts in the Rittenhouse case have rendered my position weaker. The facts remain that he came brandishing a high powered firearm, which only serves to intimidate. He put himself in a position where he didn't belong. He was known to congregate with The Proud Boys. To me those facts add up to my conclusion about him. Am I wrong about him? Maybe, but until I get more facts that contradict my opinion, I'm sticking with it.
"...reasonable..." and "...intelligent discussion..." is rather a departure from "dense...insecure...insane...", but whatever works.

I know you don't agree that the facts weaken your position (no need to keep repeating that, hoping for a different result). What you have so far failed to do is rebut (or at least, adequately rebut) my explanation of how those facts contradict your position, specifically:
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse communicated with one of the (non-white) Khindris prior to going to protect Car Source. Going to protect a business that one knows is minority-owned is inconsistent with your claim of him being a white supremacist. Simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse met another of the (non-white) Khindris while at Car Source, yet stayed to protect the minority-owned business (rather than going to find a business that was actually white-owned). This is again inconsistent with your claim he was a white supremacist, and simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.

And since you addressed mommyof3 directly, yet have her on ignore:
Spoiler
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 22:03 pm
Spoiler
abuxb wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:51 pm
BurntChurchMan wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:22 pm
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 18:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:21 pm
Spoiler
BluesCup2019 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:12 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 15:57 pm

I like abuxb's "defense"...."I can't respond to comments I don't read."

Does he realize that only makes him look more cowardly? He is basically admitting he willfully avoids posts so that he doesn't have to respond to them. What a coward.
I"m not even sure how one can willfully avoid a comment when you're actively participating in a thread? I know I read every post in a thread when I'm going through it (unless of course it belongs to mnkyboy because he's on ignore) so I'm just not sure how he can say that he doesn't read certain comments? He's lying yet again because we all know that he reads each and every post that someone quotes him in no matter how badly he wants us to believe him that he doesn't. How many lies is he up to now that he's been caught in......20 or 30? :roll:
Abuxb reads all of the comments, despite what he claims. When he thinks he has a snarky reply, he will respond. When he thinks he can act superior, he responds. When he can point out a minor typo, he will respond.

But when he knows he is wrong about something, or that someone else is right, he doesn’t respond. He cannot admit he is wrong, and, more importantly, he can never admit someone else is right about something. I have never seen abuxb use the phrase, “I stand corrected. You are right. I was wrong to say {insert incorrect fact here}.”
I can recall at least a couple times he has admitted error (the threads in which this occurred have been archived, but I doubt he will deny it):
  • In a thread about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I pointed out his comments contradicted those he had made in an earlier post. He initially hedged, speculating that someone must have edited the original quote. When I linked him to his original post, he acknowledged the error.
  • In a thread about George Floyd (prior to the trial), he speculated that the prosecutor's decision to charge Chauvin with murder was racist (as an excessive charge to ensure a not guilty verdict) -- until he learned that the prosecutor was Keith "not Larry" Ellison (who is black and a supporter of BLM), whereupon he admitted he was wrong.
So yes, abuxb can admit he is wrong, wherefore his intransigence regarding the Rittenhouse topic is curious, as the facts have rendered his position steadily weaker.
Glad to see abuxb has admitted errors. I missed both of those occasions. And yes, it does seem strange that he is so unwilling to admit he was wrong here.

And I still would like him to address this:

Abuxb, those “white supporters of BLM” were setting dumpsters on fire and pushing them towards police cars and businesses. Do you agree that all of the other looters and rioters during the various protests were BLM supporters? In the past, you have claimed that the people doing the violence were NOT supporters of the BLM movement.

Has your stance changed?


He has seen this now a couple of times and has yet to address it. It makes it quite obvious to me that he knows he has contradicted himself, but he can’t admit it.
You can't support social justice without committing crimes against people and property.
Mommy doesn't want an answer to her inane questions, but she's getting one anyway. There were peaceful protesters and there were people bent on destruction. They are separate entities. I think Rittenhouse saw them all as the same. I have given my reasons, based on facts that no one has refuted, why I believe about him as I do. I don't see why Mommy, and others, keep repeating the same thing.
That doesn’t address your contradictory comments at all.

You posted, “He [Rittenhouse] shot white supporters of BLM.” FACT

The people Rittenhouse shot were setting dumpsters on fire and pushing them toward police cars. FACT

In past BLM protests there have been businesses and police cars vandalized. FACT

In the past, when asked about those violent acts, you have claimed that the people being violent were not supporters of BLM. FACT



If you maintain that Rittenhouse shot “supporters of BLM” and those “supporters of BLM” were being violent, then would you agree that past violence at BLM protests were done by “supporters of BLM”?


My questions are only “inane” to you because you don’t want to have to confront your contradictory views. You want to have one narrative for one situation, and another narrative for another situation. You don’t like being called out when your views don’t make sense.

And why do you think I don’t want my questions answered? That’s weird. Why would I ask them if I don’t want them answered??
I see her comments when someone quotes her, and I can decide whether or not to respond. I thought you understood how that works.
I do understand that, which is why I quoted her, in order for you to respond. Yet you responded neither to her remarks, nor to mine:

"...reasonable..." and "...intelligent discussion..." is rather a departure from "dense...insecure...insane...", but whatever works.

I know you don't agree that the facts weaken your position (no need to keep repeating that, hoping for a different result). What you have so far failed to do is rebut (or at least, adequately rebut) my explanation of how those facts contradict your position, specifically:
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse communicated with one of the (non-white) Khindris prior to going to protect Car Source. Going to protect a business that one knows is minority-owned is inconsistent with your claim of him being a white supremacist. Simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse met another of the (non-white) Khindris while at Car Source, yet stayed to protect the minority-owned business (rather than going to find a business that was actually white-owned). This is again inconsistent with your claim he was a white supremacist, and simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.
There is a set number of facts in this case. There is no need to repeat them. You have chosen to concentrate on facts that could exonerate him. I have chosen to concentrate on facts that cause me to believe he is a white supremacists who was bent on causing trouble. I am not trying to convince you to share my opinion, because neither of us have seen anything that would make us change. Until we can somehow see into his mind, we may never know which of us is right. I'm ok with that. Why aren't you?
but you are not concentrating on facts. you are concentrating on maintaining your ignorant views in spite of the presented facts proving those views to be fiction. you are a lying idiot.
User avatar
BurntChurchMan
Forum User
Posts: 15110
Joined: 29 Apr 2010 17:07 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse mother saying she's gonna Sue Joe Biden

Post by BurntChurchMan »

toughluv wrote: 29 Nov 2021 10:16 am
abuxb wrote: 29 Nov 2021 10:14 am
Maple Hoodie wrote: 29 Nov 2021 10:01 am
abuxb wrote: 29 Nov 2021 09:44 am
Spoiler
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 22:47 pm
abuxb wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:48 pm
Spoiler
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 18:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:21 pm
Spoiler
BluesCup2019 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:12 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 15:57 pm
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 14:33 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 20:10 pm
Spoiler
Abuxb, why are you afraid to defend your views?
"You know that you would lose any argument..."
I like abuxb's "defense"...."I can't respond to comments I don't read."

Does he realize that only makes him look more cowardly? He is basically admitting he willfully avoids posts so that he doesn't have to respond to them. What a coward.
I"m not even sure how one can willfully avoid a comment when you're actively participating in a thread? I know I read every post in a thread when I'm going through it (unless of course it belongs to mnkyboy because he's on ignore) so I'm just not sure how he can say that he doesn't read certain comments? He's lying yet again because we all know that he reads each and every post that someone quotes him in no matter how badly he wants us to believe him that he doesn't. How many lies is he up to now that he's been caught in......20 or 30? :roll:
Abuxb reads all of the comments, despite what he claims. When he thinks he has a snarky reply, he will respond. When he thinks he can act superior, he responds. When he can point out a minor typo, he will respond.

But when he knows he is wrong about something, or that someone else is right, he doesn’t respond. He cannot admit he is wrong, and, more importantly, he can never admit someone else is right about something. I have never seen abuxb use the phrase, “I stand corrected. You are right. I was wrong to say {insert incorrect fact here}.”
I can recall at least a couple times he has admitted error (the threads in which this occurred have been archived, but I doubt he will deny it):
  • In a thread about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I pointed out his comments contradicted those he had made in an earlier post. He initially hedged, speculating that someone must have edited the original quote. When I linked him to his original post, he acknowledged the error.
  • In a thread about George Floyd (prior to the trial), he speculated that the prosecutor's decision to charge Chauvin with murder was racist (as an excessive charge to ensure a not guilty verdict) -- until he learned that the prosecutor was Keith "not Larry" Ellison (who is black and a supporter of BLM), whereupon he admitted he was wrong.
So yes, abuxb can admit he is wrong, wherefore his intransigence regarding the Rittenhouse topic is curious, as the facts have rendered his position steadily weaker.
Hoodie, thank you for being reasonable. I can have an intelligent discussion with you. I still don't agree that the facts in the Rittenhouse case have rendered my position weaker. The facts remain that he came brandishing a high powered firearm, which only serves to intimidate. He put himself in a position where he didn't belong. He was known to congregate with The Proud Boys. To me those facts add up to my conclusion about him. Am I wrong about him? Maybe, but until I get more facts that contradict my opinion, I'm sticking with it.
"...reasonable..." and "...intelligent discussion..." is rather a departure from "dense...insecure...insane...", but whatever works.

I know you don't agree that the facts weaken your position (no need to keep repeating that, hoping for a different result). What you have so far failed to do is rebut (or at least, adequately rebut) my explanation of how those facts contradict your position, specifically:
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse communicated with one of the (non-white) Khindris prior to going to protect Car Source. Going to protect a business that one knows is minority-owned is inconsistent with your claim of him being a white supremacist. Simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse met another of the (non-white) Khindris while at Car Source, yet stayed to protect the minority-owned business (rather than going to find a business that was actually white-owned). This is again inconsistent with your claim he was a white supremacist, and simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.

And since you addressed mommyof3 directly, yet have her on ignore:
Spoiler
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 22:03 pm
Spoiler
abuxb wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:51 pm
BurntChurchMan wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:22 pm
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 18:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:21 pm
Spoiler
BluesCup2019 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:12 pm

I"m not even sure how one can willfully avoid a comment when you're actively participating in a thread? I know I read every post in a thread when I'm going through it (unless of course it belongs to mnkyboy because he's on ignore) so I'm just not sure how he can say that he doesn't read certain comments? He's lying yet again because we all know that he reads each and every post that someone quotes him in no matter how badly he wants us to believe him that he doesn't. How many lies is he up to now that he's been caught in......20 or 30? :roll:
Abuxb reads all of the comments, despite what he claims. When he thinks he has a snarky reply, he will respond. When he thinks he can act superior, he responds. When he can point out a minor typo, he will respond.

But when he knows he is wrong about something, or that someone else is right, he doesn’t respond. He cannot admit he is wrong, and, more importantly, he can never admit someone else is right about something. I have never seen abuxb use the phrase, “I stand corrected. You are right. I was wrong to say {insert incorrect fact here}.”
I can recall at least a couple times he has admitted error (the threads in which this occurred have been archived, but I doubt he will deny it):
  • In a thread about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I pointed out his comments contradicted those he had made in an earlier post. He initially hedged, speculating that someone must have edited the original quote. When I linked him to his original post, he acknowledged the error.
  • In a thread about George Floyd (prior to the trial), he speculated that the prosecutor's decision to charge Chauvin with murder was racist (as an excessive charge to ensure a not guilty verdict) -- until he learned that the prosecutor was Keith "not Larry" Ellison (who is black and a supporter of BLM), whereupon he admitted he was wrong.
So yes, abuxb can admit he is wrong, wherefore his intransigence regarding the Rittenhouse topic is curious, as the facts have rendered his position steadily weaker.
Glad to see abuxb has admitted errors. I missed both of those occasions. And yes, it does seem strange that he is so unwilling to admit he was wrong here.

And I still would like him to address this:

Abuxb, those “white supporters of BLM” were setting dumpsters on fire and pushing them towards police cars and businesses. Do you agree that all of the other looters and rioters during the various protests were BLM supporters? In the past, you have claimed that the people doing the violence were NOT supporters of the BLM movement.

Has your stance changed?


He has seen this now a couple of times and has yet to address it. It makes it quite obvious to me that he knows he has contradicted himself, but he can’t admit it.
You can't support social justice without committing crimes against people and property.
Mommy doesn't want an answer to her inane questions, but she's getting one anyway. There were peaceful protesters and there were people bent on destruction. They are separate entities. I think Rittenhouse saw them all as the same. I have given my reasons, based on facts that no one has refuted, why I believe about him as I do. I don't see why Mommy, and others, keep repeating the same thing.
That doesn’t address your contradictory comments at all.

You posted, “He [Rittenhouse] shot white supporters of BLM.” FACT

The people Rittenhouse shot were setting dumpsters on fire and pushing them toward police cars. FACT

In past BLM protests there have been businesses and police cars vandalized. FACT

In the past, when asked about those violent acts, you have claimed that the people being violent were not supporters of BLM. FACT



If you maintain that Rittenhouse shot “supporters of BLM” and those “supporters of BLM” were being violent, then would you agree that past violence at BLM protests were done by “supporters of BLM”?


My questions are only “inane” to you because you don’t want to have to confront your contradictory views. You want to have one narrative for one situation, and another narrative for another situation. You don’t like being called out when your views don’t make sense.

And why do you think I don’t want my questions answered? That’s weird. Why would I ask them if I don’t want them answered??
I see her comments when someone quotes her, and I can decide whether or not to respond. I thought you understood how that works.
I do understand that, which is why I quoted her, in order for you to respond. Yet you responded neither to her remarks, nor to mine:

"...reasonable..." and "...intelligent discussion..." is rather a departure from "dense...insecure...insane...", but whatever works.

I know you don't agree that the facts weaken your position (no need to keep repeating that, hoping for a different result). What you have so far failed to do is rebut (or at least, adequately rebut) my explanation of how those facts contradict your position, specifically:
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse communicated with one of the (non-white) Khindris prior to going to protect Car Source. Going to protect a business that one knows is minority-owned is inconsistent with your claim of him being a white supremacist. Simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse met another of the (non-white) Khindris while at Car Source, yet stayed to protect the minority-owned business (rather than going to find a business that was actually white-owned). This is again inconsistent with your claim he was a white supremacist, and simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.
There is a set number of facts in this case. There is no need to repeat them. You have chosen to concentrate on facts that could exonerate him. I have chosen to concentrate on facts that cause me to believe he is a white supremacists who was bent on causing trouble. I am not trying to convince you to share my opinion, because neither of us have seen anything that would make us change. Until we can somehow see into his mind, we may never know which of us is right. I'm ok with that. Why aren't you?
but you are not concentrating on facts. you are concentrating on maintaining your ignorant views in spite of the presented facts proving those views to be fiction. you are a lying idiot.
The only fact he has is Rittenhouse posing in a picture in a bar with someone that's in the Proud Boys.

That's it.

Everything else is stuff he made up.
Image
This is the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia.
User avatar
toughluv
Forum User
Posts: 11754
Joined: 19 Dec 2018 16:55 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse mother saying she's gonna Sue Joe Biden

Post by toughluv »

BurntChurchMan wrote: 29 Nov 2021 10:20 am
toughluv wrote: 29 Nov 2021 10:16 am
abuxb wrote: 29 Nov 2021 10:14 am
Maple Hoodie wrote: 29 Nov 2021 10:01 am
abuxb wrote: 29 Nov 2021 09:44 am
Spoiler
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 22:47 pm
abuxb wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:48 pm
Spoiler
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 18:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:21 pm
Spoiler
BluesCup2019 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:12 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 15:57 pm
I like abuxb's "defense"...."I can't respond to comments I don't read."

Does he realize that only makes him look more cowardly? He is basically admitting he willfully avoids posts so that he doesn't have to respond to them. What a coward.
I"m not even sure how one can willfully avoid a comment when you're actively participating in a thread? I know I read every post in a thread when I'm going through it (unless of course it belongs to mnkyboy because he's on ignore) so I'm just not sure how he can say that he doesn't read certain comments? He's lying yet again because we all know that he reads each and every post that someone quotes him in no matter how badly he wants us to believe him that he doesn't. How many lies is he up to now that he's been caught in......20 or 30? :roll:
Abuxb reads all of the comments, despite what he claims. When he thinks he has a snarky reply, he will respond. When he thinks he can act superior, he responds. When he can point out a minor typo, he will respond.

But when he knows he is wrong about something, or that someone else is right, he doesn’t respond. He cannot admit he is wrong, and, more importantly, he can never admit someone else is right about something. I have never seen abuxb use the phrase, “I stand corrected. You are right. I was wrong to say {insert incorrect fact here}.”
I can recall at least a couple times he has admitted error (the threads in which this occurred have been archived, but I doubt he will deny it):
  • In a thread about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I pointed out his comments contradicted those he had made in an earlier post. He initially hedged, speculating that someone must have edited the original quote. When I linked him to his original post, he acknowledged the error.
  • In a thread about George Floyd (prior to the trial), he speculated that the prosecutor's decision to charge Chauvin with murder was racist (as an excessive charge to ensure a not guilty verdict) -- until he learned that the prosecutor was Keith "not Larry" Ellison (who is black and a supporter of BLM), whereupon he admitted he was wrong.
So yes, abuxb can admit he is wrong, wherefore his intransigence regarding the Rittenhouse topic is curious, as the facts have rendered his position steadily weaker.
Hoodie, thank you for being reasonable. I can have an intelligent discussion with you. I still don't agree that the facts in the Rittenhouse case have rendered my position weaker. The facts remain that he came brandishing a high powered firearm, which only serves to intimidate. He put himself in a position where he didn't belong. He was known to congregate with The Proud Boys. To me those facts add up to my conclusion about him. Am I wrong about him? Maybe, but until I get more facts that contradict my opinion, I'm sticking with it.
"...reasonable..." and "...intelligent discussion..." is rather a departure from "dense...insecure...insane...", but whatever works.

I know you don't agree that the facts weaken your position (no need to keep repeating that, hoping for a different result). What you have so far failed to do is rebut (or at least, adequately rebut) my explanation of how those facts contradict your position, specifically:
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse communicated with one of the (non-white) Khindris prior to going to protect Car Source. Going to protect a business that one knows is minority-owned is inconsistent with your claim of him being a white supremacist. Simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse met another of the (non-white) Khindris while at Car Source, yet stayed to protect the minority-owned business (rather than going to find a business that was actually white-owned). This is again inconsistent with your claim he was a white supremacist, and simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.

And since you addressed mommyof3 directly, yet have her on ignore:
Spoiler
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 22:03 pm
Spoiler
abuxb wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:51 pm
BurntChurchMan wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:22 pm
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 18:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:21 pm
Spoiler
Abuxb reads all of the comments, despite what he claims. When he thinks he has a snarky reply, he will respond. When he thinks he can act superior, he responds. When he can point out a minor typo, he will respond.

But when he knows he is wrong about something, or that someone else is right, he doesn’t respond. He cannot admit he is wrong, and, more importantly, he can never admit someone else is right about something. I have never seen abuxb use the phrase, “I stand corrected. You are right. I was wrong to say {insert incorrect fact here}.”
I can recall at least a couple times he has admitted error (the threads in which this occurred have been archived, but I doubt he will deny it):
  • In a thread about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I pointed out his comments contradicted those he had made in an earlier post. He initially hedged, speculating that someone must have edited the original quote. When I linked him to his original post, he acknowledged the error.
  • In a thread about George Floyd (prior to the trial), he speculated that the prosecutor's decision to charge Chauvin with murder was racist (as an excessive charge to ensure a not guilty verdict) -- until he learned that the prosecutor was Keith "not Larry" Ellison (who is black and a supporter of BLM), whereupon he admitted he was wrong.
So yes, abuxb can admit he is wrong, wherefore his intransigence regarding the Rittenhouse topic is curious, as the facts have rendered his position steadily weaker.
Glad to see abuxb has admitted errors. I missed both of those occasions. And yes, it does seem strange that he is so unwilling to admit he was wrong here.

And I still would like him to address this:

Abuxb, those “white supporters of BLM” were setting dumpsters on fire and pushing them towards police cars and businesses. Do you agree that all of the other looters and rioters during the various protests were BLM supporters? In the past, you have claimed that the people doing the violence were NOT supporters of the BLM movement.

Has your stance changed?


He has seen this now a couple of times and has yet to address it. It makes it quite obvious to me that he knows he has contradicted himself, but he can’t admit it.
You can't support social justice without committing crimes against people and property.
Mommy doesn't want an answer to her inane questions, but she's getting one anyway. There were peaceful protesters and there were people bent on destruction. They are separate entities. I think Rittenhouse saw them all as the same. I have given my reasons, based on facts that no one has refuted, why I believe about him as I do. I don't see why Mommy, and others, keep repeating the same thing.
That doesn’t address your contradictory comments at all.

You posted, “He [Rittenhouse] shot white supporters of BLM.” FACT

The people Rittenhouse shot were setting dumpsters on fire and pushing them toward police cars. FACT

In past BLM protests there have been businesses and police cars vandalized. FACT

In the past, when asked about those violent acts, you have claimed that the people being violent were not supporters of BLM. FACT



If you maintain that Rittenhouse shot “supporters of BLM” and those “supporters of BLM” were being violent, then would you agree that past violence at BLM protests were done by “supporters of BLM”?


My questions are only “inane” to you because you don’t want to have to confront your contradictory views. You want to have one narrative for one situation, and another narrative for another situation. You don’t like being called out when your views don’t make sense.

And why do you think I don’t want my questions answered? That’s weird. Why would I ask them if I don’t want them answered??
I see her comments when someone quotes her, and I can decide whether or not to respond. I thought you understood how that works.
I do understand that, which is why I quoted her, in order for you to respond. Yet you responded neither to her remarks, nor to mine:

"...reasonable..." and "...intelligent discussion..." is rather a departure from "dense...insecure...insane...", but whatever works.

I know you don't agree that the facts weaken your position (no need to keep repeating that, hoping for a different result). What you have so far failed to do is rebut (or at least, adequately rebut) my explanation of how those facts contradict your position, specifically:
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse communicated with one of the (non-white) Khindris prior to going to protect Car Source. Going to protect a business that one knows is minority-owned is inconsistent with your claim of him being a white supremacist. Simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse met another of the (non-white) Khindris while at Car Source, yet stayed to protect the minority-owned business (rather than going to find a business that was actually white-owned). This is again inconsistent with your claim he was a white supremacist, and simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.
There is a set number of facts in this case. There is no need to repeat them. You have chosen to concentrate on facts that could exonerate him. I have chosen to concentrate on facts that cause me to believe he is a white supremacists who was bent on causing trouble. I am not trying to convince you to share my opinion, because neither of us have seen anything that would make us change. Until we can somehow see into his mind, we may never know which of us is right. I'm ok with that. Why aren't you?
but you are not concentrating on facts. you are concentrating on maintaining your ignorant views in spite of the presented facts proving those views to be fiction. you are a lying idiot.
The only fact he has is Rittenhouse posing in a picture in a bar with someone that's in the Proud Boys.

That's it.

Everything else is stuff he made up.
and that was months after the shooting.
User avatar
abuxb
Forum User
Posts: 24829
Joined: 03 Nov 2010 11:53 am
Location: University City

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse mother saying she's gonna Sue Joe Biden

Post by abuxb »

BurntChurchMan wrote: 29 Nov 2021 10:20 am
toughluv wrote: 29 Nov 2021 10:16 am
abuxb wrote: 29 Nov 2021 10:14 am
Maple Hoodie wrote: 29 Nov 2021 10:01 am
abuxb wrote: 29 Nov 2021 09:44 am
Spoiler
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 22:47 pm
abuxb wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:48 pm
Spoiler
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 18:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:21 pm
Spoiler
BluesCup2019 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:12 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 15:57 pm
I like abuxb's "defense"...."I can't respond to comments I don't read."

Does he realize that only makes him look more cowardly? He is basically admitting he willfully avoids posts so that he doesn't have to respond to them. What a coward.
I"m not even sure how one can willfully avoid a comment when you're actively participating in a thread? I know I read every post in a thread when I'm going through it (unless of course it belongs to mnkyboy because he's on ignore) so I'm just not sure how he can say that he doesn't read certain comments? He's lying yet again because we all know that he reads each and every post that someone quotes him in no matter how badly he wants us to believe him that he doesn't. How many lies is he up to now that he's been caught in......20 or 30? :roll:
Abuxb reads all of the comments, despite what he claims. When he thinks he has a snarky reply, he will respond. When he thinks he can act superior, he responds. When he can point out a minor typo, he will respond.

But when he knows he is wrong about something, or that someone else is right, he doesn’t respond. He cannot admit he is wrong, and, more importantly, he can never admit someone else is right about something. I have never seen abuxb use the phrase, “I stand corrected. You are right. I was wrong to say {insert incorrect fact here}.”
I can recall at least a couple times he has admitted error (the threads in which this occurred have been archived, but I doubt he will deny it):
  • In a thread about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I pointed out his comments contradicted those he had made in an earlier post. He initially hedged, speculating that someone must have edited the original quote. When I linked him to his original post, he acknowledged the error.
  • In a thread about George Floyd (prior to the trial), he speculated that the prosecutor's decision to charge Chauvin with murder was racist (as an excessive charge to ensure a not guilty verdict) -- until he learned that the prosecutor was Keith "not Larry" Ellison (who is black and a supporter of BLM), whereupon he admitted he was wrong.
So yes, abuxb can admit he is wrong, wherefore his intransigence regarding the Rittenhouse topic is curious, as the facts have rendered his position steadily weaker.
Hoodie, thank you for being reasonable. I can have an intelligent discussion with you. I still don't agree that the facts in the Rittenhouse case have rendered my position weaker. The facts remain that he came brandishing a high powered firearm, which only serves to intimidate. He put himself in a position where he didn't belong. He was known to congregate with The Proud Boys. To me those facts add up to my conclusion about him. Am I wrong about him? Maybe, but until I get more facts that contradict my opinion, I'm sticking with it.
"...reasonable..." and "...intelligent discussion..." is rather a departure from "dense...insecure...insane...", but whatever works.

I know you don't agree that the facts weaken your position (no need to keep repeating that, hoping for a different result). What you have so far failed to do is rebut (or at least, adequately rebut) my explanation of how those facts contradict your position, specifically:
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse communicated with one of the (non-white) Khindris prior to going to protect Car Source. Going to protect a business that one knows is minority-owned is inconsistent with your claim of him being a white supremacist. Simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse met another of the (non-white) Khindris while at Car Source, yet stayed to protect the minority-owned business (rather than going to find a business that was actually white-owned). This is again inconsistent with your claim he was a white supremacist, and simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.

And since you addressed mommyof3 directly, yet have her on ignore:
Spoiler
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 22:03 pm
Spoiler
abuxb wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:51 pm
BurntChurchMan wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:22 pm
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 18:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:21 pm
Spoiler
Abuxb reads all of the comments, despite what he claims. When he thinks he has a snarky reply, he will respond. When he thinks he can act superior, he responds. When he can point out a minor typo, he will respond.

But when he knows he is wrong about something, or that someone else is right, he doesn’t respond. He cannot admit he is wrong, and, more importantly, he can never admit someone else is right about something. I have never seen abuxb use the phrase, “I stand corrected. You are right. I was wrong to say {insert incorrect fact here}.”
I can recall at least a couple times he has admitted error (the threads in which this occurred have been archived, but I doubt he will deny it):
  • In a thread about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I pointed out his comments contradicted those he had made in an earlier post. He initially hedged, speculating that someone must have edited the original quote. When I linked him to his original post, he acknowledged the error.
  • In a thread about George Floyd (prior to the trial), he speculated that the prosecutor's decision to charge Chauvin with murder was racist (as an excessive charge to ensure a not guilty verdict) -- until he learned that the prosecutor was Keith "not Larry" Ellison (who is black and a supporter of BLM), whereupon he admitted he was wrong.
So yes, abuxb can admit he is wrong, wherefore his intransigence regarding the Rittenhouse topic is curious, as the facts have rendered his position steadily weaker.
Glad to see abuxb has admitted errors. I missed both of those occasions. And yes, it does seem strange that he is so unwilling to admit he was wrong here.

And I still would like him to address this:

Abuxb, those “white supporters of BLM” were setting dumpsters on fire and pushing them towards police cars and businesses. Do you agree that all of the other looters and rioters during the various protests were BLM supporters? In the past, you have claimed that the people doing the violence were NOT supporters of the BLM movement.

Has your stance changed?


He has seen this now a couple of times and has yet to address it. It makes it quite obvious to me that he knows he has contradicted himself, but he can’t admit it.
You can't support social justice without committing crimes against people and property.
Mommy doesn't want an answer to her inane questions, but she's getting one anyway. There were peaceful protesters and there were people bent on destruction. They are separate entities. I think Rittenhouse saw them all as the same. I have given my reasons, based on facts that no one has refuted, why I believe about him as I do. I don't see why Mommy, and others, keep repeating the same thing.
That doesn’t address your contradictory comments at all.

You posted, “He [Rittenhouse] shot white supporters of BLM.” FACT

The people Rittenhouse shot were setting dumpsters on fire and pushing them toward police cars. FACT

In past BLM protests there have been businesses and police cars vandalized. FACT

In the past, when asked about those violent acts, you have claimed that the people being violent were not supporters of BLM. FACT



If you maintain that Rittenhouse shot “supporters of BLM” and those “supporters of BLM” were being violent, then would you agree that past violence at BLM protests were done by “supporters of BLM”?


My questions are only “inane” to you because you don’t want to have to confront your contradictory views. You want to have one narrative for one situation, and another narrative for another situation. You don’t like being called out when your views don’t make sense.

And why do you think I don’t want my questions answered? That’s weird. Why would I ask them if I don’t want them answered??
I see her comments when someone quotes her, and I can decide whether or not to respond. I thought you understood how that works.
I do understand that, which is why I quoted her, in order for you to respond. Yet you responded neither to her remarks, nor to mine:

"...reasonable..." and "...intelligent discussion..." is rather a departure from "dense...insecure...insane...", but whatever works.

I know you don't agree that the facts weaken your position (no need to keep repeating that, hoping for a different result). What you have so far failed to do is rebut (or at least, adequately rebut) my explanation of how those facts contradict your position, specifically:
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse communicated with one of the (non-white) Khindris prior to going to protect Car Source. Going to protect a business that one knows is minority-owned is inconsistent with your claim of him being a white supremacist. Simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse met another of the (non-white) Khindris while at Car Source, yet stayed to protect the minority-owned business (rather than going to find a business that was actually white-owned). This is again inconsistent with your claim he was a white supremacist, and simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.
There is a set number of facts in this case. There is no need to repeat them. You have chosen to concentrate on facts that could exonerate him. I have chosen to concentrate on facts that cause me to believe he is a white supremacists who was bent on causing trouble. I am not trying to convince you to share my opinion, because neither of us have seen anything that would make us change. Until we can somehow see into his mind, we may never know which of us is right. I'm ok with that. Why aren't you?
but you are not concentrating on facts. you are concentrating on maintaining your ignorant views in spite of the presented facts proving those views to be fiction. you are a lying idiot.
The only fact he has is Rittenhouse posing in a picture in a bar with someone that's in the Proud Boys.

That's it.

Everything else is stuff he made up.
I didn't need to make up a thing. BCM, for once have the decency to be specific. What did I make up? Will BCM do his usual disappearing act, or will he, for once, stand behind his flimsy accusation?
User avatar
Maple Hoodie
Forum User
Posts: 1850
Joined: 08 Jan 2017 15:05 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse mother saying she's gonna Sue Joe Biden

Post by Maple Hoodie »

abuxb wrote: 29 Nov 2021 10:14 am
Maple Hoodie wrote: 29 Nov 2021 10:01 am
Spoiler
abuxb wrote: 29 Nov 2021 09:44 am
Spoiler
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 22:47 pm
abuxb wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:48 pm
Spoiler
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 18:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:21 pm
Spoiler
BluesCup2019 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:12 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 15:57 pm
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 14:33 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 20:10 pm
Spoiler
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 16:07 pm

Looks like abuxb had to run away from this thread when he couldn’t explain his hypocrisy. He knows he has contradictory views, but he sure won’t admit that, or admit he is wrong.
Abuxb, why are you afraid to defend your views?
"You know that you would lose any argument..."
I like abuxb's "defense"...."I can't respond to comments I don't read."

Does he realize that only makes him look more cowardly? He is basically admitting he willfully avoids posts so that he doesn't have to respond to them. What a coward.
I"m not even sure how one can willfully avoid a comment when you're actively participating in a thread? I know I read every post in a thread when I'm going through it (unless of course it belongs to mnkyboy because he's on ignore) so I'm just not sure how he can say that he doesn't read certain comments? He's lying yet again because we all know that he reads each and every post that someone quotes him in no matter how badly he wants us to believe him that he doesn't. How many lies is he up to now that he's been caught in......20 or 30? :roll:
Abuxb reads all of the comments, despite what he claims. When he thinks he has a snarky reply, he will respond. When he thinks he can act superior, he responds. When he can point out a minor typo, he will respond.

But when he knows he is wrong about something, or that someone else is right, he doesn’t respond. He cannot admit he is wrong, and, more importantly, he can never admit someone else is right about something. I have never seen abuxb use the phrase, “I stand corrected. You are right. I was wrong to say {insert incorrect fact here}.”
I can recall at least a couple times he has admitted error (the threads in which this occurred have been archived, but I doubt he will deny it):
  • In a thread about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I pointed out his comments contradicted those he had made in an earlier post. He initially hedged, speculating that someone must have edited the original quote. When I linked him to his original post, he acknowledged the error.
  • In a thread about George Floyd (prior to the trial), he speculated that the prosecutor's decision to charge Chauvin with murder was racist (as an excessive charge to ensure a not guilty verdict) -- until he learned that the prosecutor was Keith "not Larry" Ellison (who is black and a supporter of BLM), whereupon he admitted he was wrong.
So yes, abuxb can admit he is wrong, wherefore his intransigence regarding the Rittenhouse topic is curious, as the facts have rendered his position steadily weaker.
Hoodie, thank you for being reasonable. I can have an intelligent discussion with you. I still don't agree that the facts in the Rittenhouse case have rendered my position weaker. The facts remain that he came brandishing a high powered firearm, which only serves to intimidate. He put himself in a position where he didn't belong. He was known to congregate with The Proud Boys. To me those facts add up to my conclusion about him. Am I wrong about him? Maybe, but until I get more facts that contradict my opinion, I'm sticking with it.
"...reasonable..." and "...intelligent discussion..." is rather a departure from "dense...insecure...insane...", but whatever works.

I know you don't agree that the facts weaken your position (no need to keep repeating that, hoping for a different result). What you have so far failed to do is rebut (or at least, adequately rebut) my explanation of how those facts contradict your position, specifically:
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse communicated with one of the (non-white) Khindris prior to going to protect Car Source. Going to protect a business that one knows is minority-owned is inconsistent with your claim of him being a white supremacist. Simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse met another of the (non-white) Khindris while at Car Source, yet stayed to protect the minority-owned business (rather than going to find a business that was actually white-owned). This is again inconsistent with your claim he was a white supremacist, and simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.

And since you addressed mommyof3 directly, yet have her on ignore:
Spoiler
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 22:03 pm
Spoiler
abuxb wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:51 pm
BurntChurchMan wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:22 pm
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 18:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:21 pm
Spoiler
BluesCup2019 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:12 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 15:57 pm

I like abuxb's "defense"...."I can't respond to comments I don't read."

Does he realize that only makes him look more cowardly? He is basically admitting he willfully avoids posts so that he doesn't have to respond to them. What a coward.
I"m not even sure how one can willfully avoid a comment when you're actively participating in a thread? I know I read every post in a thread when I'm going through it (unless of course it belongs to mnkyboy because he's on ignore) so I'm just not sure how he can say that he doesn't read certain comments? He's lying yet again because we all know that he reads each and every post that someone quotes him in no matter how badly he wants us to believe him that he doesn't. How many lies is he up to now that he's been caught in......20 or 30? :roll:
Abuxb reads all of the comments, despite what he claims. When he thinks he has a snarky reply, he will respond. When he thinks he can act superior, he responds. When he can point out a minor typo, he will respond.

But when he knows he is wrong about something, or that someone else is right, he doesn’t respond. He cannot admit he is wrong, and, more importantly, he can never admit someone else is right about something. I have never seen abuxb use the phrase, “I stand corrected. You are right. I was wrong to say {insert incorrect fact here}.”
I can recall at least a couple times he has admitted error (the threads in which this occurred have been archived, but I doubt he will deny it):
  • In a thread about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I pointed out his comments contradicted those he had made in an earlier post. He initially hedged, speculating that someone must have edited the original quote. When I linked him to his original post, he acknowledged the error.
  • In a thread about George Floyd (prior to the trial), he speculated that the prosecutor's decision to charge Chauvin with murder was racist (as an excessive charge to ensure a not guilty verdict) -- until he learned that the prosecutor was Keith "not Larry" Ellison (who is black and a supporter of BLM), whereupon he admitted he was wrong.
So yes, abuxb can admit he is wrong, wherefore his intransigence regarding the Rittenhouse topic is curious, as the facts have rendered his position steadily weaker.
Glad to see abuxb has admitted errors. I missed both of those occasions. And yes, it does seem strange that he is so unwilling to admit he was wrong here.

And I still would like him to address this:

Abuxb, those “white supporters of BLM” were setting dumpsters on fire and pushing them towards police cars and businesses. Do you agree that all of the other looters and rioters during the various protests were BLM supporters? In the past, you have claimed that the people doing the violence were NOT supporters of the BLM movement.

Has your stance changed?


He has seen this now a couple of times and has yet to address it. It makes it quite obvious to me that he knows he has contradicted himself, but he can’t admit it.
You can't support social justice without committing crimes against people and property.
Mommy doesn't want an answer to her inane questions, but she's getting one anyway. There were peaceful protesters and there were people bent on destruction. They are separate entities. I think Rittenhouse saw them all as the same. I have given my reasons, based on facts that no one has refuted, why I believe about him as I do. I don't see why Mommy, and others, keep repeating the same thing.
That doesn’t address your contradictory comments at all.

You posted, “He [Rittenhouse] shot white supporters of BLM.” FACT

The people Rittenhouse shot were setting dumpsters on fire and pushing them toward police cars. FACT

In past BLM protests there have been businesses and police cars vandalized. FACT

In the past, when asked about those violent acts, you have claimed that the people being violent were not supporters of BLM. FACT



If you maintain that Rittenhouse shot “supporters of BLM” and those “supporters of BLM” were being violent, then would you agree that past violence at BLM protests were done by “supporters of BLM”?


My questions are only “inane” to you because you don’t want to have to confront your contradictory views. You want to have one narrative for one situation, and another narrative for another situation. You don’t like being called out when your views don’t make sense.

And why do you think I don’t want my questions answered? That’s weird. Why would I ask them if I don’t want them answered??
I see her comments when someone quotes her, and I can decide whether or not to respond. I thought you understood how that works.
I do understand that, which is why I quoted her, in order for you to respond. Yet you responded neither to her remarks, nor to mine:

"...reasonable..." and "...intelligent discussion..." is rather a departure from "dense...insecure...insane...", but whatever works.

I know you don't agree that the facts weaken your position (no need to keep repeating that, hoping for a different result). What you have so far failed to do is rebut (or at least, adequately rebut) my explanation of how those facts contradict your position, specifically:
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse communicated with one of the (non-white) Khindris prior to going to protect Car Source. Going to protect a business that one knows is minority-owned is inconsistent with your claim of him being a white supremacist. Simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse met another of the (non-white) Khindris while at Car Source, yet stayed to protect the minority-owned business (rather than going to find a business that was actually white-owned). This is again inconsistent with your claim he was a white supremacist, and simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.
There is a set number of facts in this case. There is no need to repeat them. You have chosen to concentrate on facts that could exonerate him. I have chosen to concentrate on facts that cause me to believe he is a white supremacists who was bent on causing trouble. I am not trying to convince you to share my opinion, because neither of us have seen anything that would make us change. Until we can somehow see into his mind, we may never know which of us is right. I'm ok with that. Why aren't you?
There is a need to repeat the facts, as long as you don't address them. At this point, the only fact you are relying on to support your claim that Rittenhouse is a white supremacist is the encounter with the Proud Boys at the bar, after the shootings. Everything else you have offered to support your theory is what you think: You think he thought all the businesses were white-owned; you think he thought the mob was "mostly black" -- which you apparently amended to "BLM supporters", to better align with the fact the men he shot were all white.

I am unwilling to simply agree to disagree, because I contend that what you think is refuted by the facts: The fact that he spoke with one of the non-white owners of Car Source prior to going to protect it; and the fact he remained at Car Source after meeting another of the non-white owners refutes what you think. Your only response to these facts is "He was already there". I contend that that is insufficient to validate your hypothesis of him being a white supremacist: A white supremacist, interested only in protecting white-owned businesses, would have gone looking for a white-owned business to protect upon learning the business he was protecting was minority-owned, rather than staying to protect that minority-owned business -- at least that's what I think.

So please validate your hypothesis by providing a robust explanation of why a white supremacist would remain on site protecting a business he knew to be non-white-owned; or concede that the aforementioned facts invalidate your hypothesis -- and amend your disclaimer from "I might be wrong" to "I am wrong."
Last edited by Maple Hoodie on 29 Nov 2021 10:56 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
drvtrnmnky
Forum User
Posts: 42735
Joined: 28 Dec 2013 10:04 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse mother saying she's gonna Sue Joe Biden

Post by drvtrnmnky »

Maple Hoodie wrote: 29 Nov 2021 10:51 am
abuxb wrote: 29 Nov 2021 10:14 am
Maple Hoodie wrote: 29 Nov 2021 10:01 am
Spoiler
abuxb wrote: 29 Nov 2021 09:44 am
Spoiler
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 22:47 pm
abuxb wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:48 pm
Spoiler
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 18:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:21 pm
Spoiler
BluesCup2019 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:12 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 15:57 pm
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 14:33 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 27 Nov 2021 20:10 pm
Spoiler
Abuxb, why are you afraid to defend your views?
"You know that you would lose any argument..."
I like abuxb's "defense"...."I can't respond to comments I don't read."

Does he realize that only makes him look more cowardly? He is basically admitting he willfully avoids posts so that he doesn't have to respond to them. What a coward.
I"m not even sure how one can willfully avoid a comment when you're actively participating in a thread? I know I read every post in a thread when I'm going through it (unless of course it belongs to mnkyboy because he's on ignore) so I'm just not sure how he can say that he doesn't read certain comments? He's lying yet again because we all know that he reads each and every post that someone quotes him in no matter how badly he wants us to believe him that he doesn't. How many lies is he up to now that he's been caught in......20 or 30? :roll:
Abuxb reads all of the comments, despite what he claims. When he thinks he has a snarky reply, he will respond. When he thinks he can act superior, he responds. When he can point out a minor typo, he will respond.

But when he knows he is wrong about something, or that someone else is right, he doesn’t respond. He cannot admit he is wrong, and, more importantly, he can never admit someone else is right about something. I have never seen abuxb use the phrase, “I stand corrected. You are right. I was wrong to say {insert incorrect fact here}.”
I can recall at least a couple times he has admitted error (the threads in which this occurred have been archived, but I doubt he will deny it):
  • In a thread about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I pointed out his comments contradicted those he had made in an earlier post. He initially hedged, speculating that someone must have edited the original quote. When I linked him to his original post, he acknowledged the error.
  • In a thread about George Floyd (prior to the trial), he speculated that the prosecutor's decision to charge Chauvin with murder was racist (as an excessive charge to ensure a not guilty verdict) -- until he learned that the prosecutor was Keith "not Larry" Ellison (who is black and a supporter of BLM), whereupon he admitted he was wrong.
So yes, abuxb can admit he is wrong, wherefore his intransigence regarding the Rittenhouse topic is curious, as the facts have rendered his position steadily weaker.
Hoodie, thank you for being reasonable. I can have an intelligent discussion with you. I still don't agree that the facts in the Rittenhouse case have rendered my position weaker. The facts remain that he came brandishing a high powered firearm, which only serves to intimidate. He put himself in a position where he didn't belong. He was known to congregate with The Proud Boys. To me those facts add up to my conclusion about him. Am I wrong about him? Maybe, but until I get more facts that contradict my opinion, I'm sticking with it.
"...reasonable..." and "...intelligent discussion..." is rather a departure from "dense...insecure...insane...", but whatever works.

I know you don't agree that the facts weaken your position (no need to keep repeating that, hoping for a different result). What you have so far failed to do is rebut (or at least, adequately rebut) my explanation of how those facts contradict your position, specifically:
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse communicated with one of the (non-white) Khindris prior to going to protect Car Source. Going to protect a business that one knows is minority-owned is inconsistent with your claim of him being a white supremacist. Simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse met another of the (non-white) Khindris while at Car Source, yet stayed to protect the minority-owned business (rather than going to find a business that was actually white-owned). This is again inconsistent with your claim he was a white supremacist, and simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.

And since you addressed mommyof3 directly, yet have her on ignore:
Spoiler
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 22:03 pm
Spoiler
abuxb wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:51 pm
BurntChurchMan wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 21:22 pm
Maple Hoodie wrote: 28 Nov 2021 18:45 pm
mommyof3 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:21 pm
Spoiler
BluesCup2019 wrote: 28 Nov 2021 16:12 pm

I"m not even sure how one can willfully avoid a comment when you're actively participating in a thread? I know I read every post in a thread when I'm going through it (unless of course it belongs to mnkyboy because he's on ignore) so I'm just not sure how he can say that he doesn't read certain comments? He's lying yet again because we all know that he reads each and every post that someone quotes him in no matter how badly he wants us to believe him that he doesn't. How many lies is he up to now that he's been caught in......20 or 30? :roll:
Abuxb reads all of the comments, despite what he claims. When he thinks he has a snarky reply, he will respond. When he thinks he can act superior, he responds. When he can point out a minor typo, he will respond.

But when he knows he is wrong about something, or that someone else is right, he doesn’t respond. He cannot admit he is wrong, and, more importantly, he can never admit someone else is right about something. I have never seen abuxb use the phrase, “I stand corrected. You are right. I was wrong to say {insert incorrect fact here}.”
I can recall at least a couple times he has admitted error (the threads in which this occurred have been archived, but I doubt he will deny it):
  • In a thread about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I pointed out his comments contradicted those he had made in an earlier post. He initially hedged, speculating that someone must have edited the original quote. When I linked him to his original post, he acknowledged the error.
  • In a thread about George Floyd (prior to the trial), he speculated that the prosecutor's decision to charge Chauvin with murder was racist (as an excessive charge to ensure a not guilty verdict) -- until he learned that the prosecutor was Keith "not Larry" Ellison (who is black and a supporter of BLM), whereupon he admitted he was wrong.
So yes, abuxb can admit he is wrong, wherefore his intransigence regarding the Rittenhouse topic is curious, as the facts have rendered his position steadily weaker.
Glad to see abuxb has admitted errors. I missed both of those occasions. And yes, it does seem strange that he is so unwilling to admit he was wrong here.

And I still would like him to address this:

Abuxb, those “white supporters of BLM” were setting dumpsters on fire and pushing them towards police cars and businesses. Do you agree that all of the other looters and rioters during the various protests were BLM supporters? In the past, you have claimed that the people doing the violence were NOT supporters of the BLM movement.

Has your stance changed?


He has seen this now a couple of times and has yet to address it. It makes it quite obvious to me that he knows he has contradicted himself, but he can’t admit it.
You can't support social justice without committing crimes against people and property.
Mommy doesn't want an answer to her inane questions, but she's getting one anyway. There were peaceful protesters and there were people bent on destruction. They are separate entities. I think Rittenhouse saw them all as the same. I have given my reasons, based on facts that no one has refuted, why I believe about him as I do. I don't see why Mommy, and others, keep repeating the same thing.
That doesn’t address your contradictory comments at all.

You posted, “He [Rittenhouse] shot white supporters of BLM.” FACT

The people Rittenhouse shot were setting dumpsters on fire and pushing them toward police cars. FACT

In past BLM protests there have been businesses and police cars vandalized. FACT

In the past, when asked about those violent acts, you have claimed that the people being violent were not supporters of BLM. FACT



If you maintain that Rittenhouse shot “supporters of BLM” and those “supporters of BLM” were being violent, then would you agree that past violence at BLM protests were done by “supporters of BLM”?


My questions are only “inane” to you because you don’t want to have to confront your contradictory views. You want to have one narrative for one situation, and another narrative for another situation. You don’t like being called out when your views don’t make sense.

And why do you think I don’t want my questions answered? That’s weird. Why would I ask them if I don’t want them answered??
I see her comments when someone quotes her, and I can decide whether or not to respond. I thought you understood how that works.
I do understand that, which is why I quoted her, in order for you to respond. Yet you responded neither to her remarks, nor to mine:

"...reasonable..." and "...intelligent discussion..." is rather a departure from "dense...insecure...insane...", but whatever works.

I know you don't agree that the facts weaken your position (no need to keep repeating that, hoping for a different result). What you have so far failed to do is rebut (or at least, adequately rebut) my explanation of how those facts contradict your position, specifically:
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse communicated with one of the (non-white) Khindris prior to going to protect Car Source. Going to protect a business that one knows is minority-owned is inconsistent with your claim of him being a white supremacist. Simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.
  • The evidence that Rittenhouse met another of the (non-white) Khindris while at Car Source, yet stayed to protect the minority-owned business (rather than going to find a business that was actually white-owned). This is again inconsistent with your claim he was a white supremacist, and simply saying you disagree (yet again) does not rebut this.
There is a set number of facts in this case. There is no need to repeat them. You have chosen to concentrate on facts that could exonerate him. I have chosen to concentrate on facts that cause me to believe he is a white supremacists who was bent on causing trouble. I am not trying to convince you to share my opinion, because neither of us have seen anything that would make us change. Until we can somehow see into his mind, we may never know which of us is right. I'm ok with that. Why aren't you?
There is a need to repeat the facts, as long as you don't address them. At this point, the only fact you are relying on to support your claim that Rittenhouse is a white supremacist is the encounter with the Proud Boys at the bar, after the shootings. Everything else you have offered to support your theory is what you think: You think he thought all the businesses were white-owned; you think he thought the mob was "mostly black" -- which you apparently amended to "BLM supporters", to better align with the fact the men he shot were all white.

I am unwilling to simply agree to disagree, because I contend that what you think is refuted by the facts: The fact that he spoke with one of the non-white owners of Car Source prior to going to protect it; and the fact he remained at Car Source after meeting another of the non-white owners refutes what you think. Your only response to these facts is "he was already there". I contend that that is insufficient to validate your hypothesis of him being a white supremacist: A white supremacist, interested only in protecting white-owned businesses, would have gone looking for an actually white-owned business to protect, rather than staying to protect a minority-owned business -- at least that's what I think.

So please validate your hypothesis by providing a robust explanation of why a white supremacist would remain on site protecting a business he knew to be non-white-owned; or concede that the aforementioned facts invalidate your hypothesis -- and amend your disclaimer from "I might be wrong" to "I am wrong."
Was Kyle seeking the support of the proud boys at that meeting? The proud boys are white supremacists.
Image