Ah, Tucker Carlson. The fearless investigative journalist who didn't think it might be worth querying the President of Russia's claim that Poland started WW2.
Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
You don't ask uncomfortable questions of the people who pay you.
If you actually think Rittenhouse's case wasn't a super obvious case of self-defense, you're clearly delusional. There's video evidence of each of the incidents and it's very very very very very clearly self-defense. Even the guy that Rittenhouse shot that lived testified that it was self-defense. I couldn't care less if Rittenhouse is some horrible person or an angel, it's self-defense regardless of the character of the person.
Oh, now, he didn't testify that it was self defense, just that he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse shot him. Totally unrelated. /S
Being serious though, I remember watching his testimony and that question being the exact moment I knew he'd be found not guilty on that charge. There was no chance he was going to be found guilty for Huber (guy knocks you to the ground and comes at you with an improvised bludgeon is pretty safely in the realm of "self defense"), and I think Rosenbaum really came down to the ME testimony - sure he exercised his duty to flee from Rosenbaum and was chased down, sure Rosenbaum was pretty close when Rittenhouse turned, but you don't have a clear view that he was trying to take the gun from Rittenhouse and the ME testifying that what he saw examining the body was in line with that claim is what tipped the scales there.
The civil case is going to have to rely heavily on the lower standard of evidence for civil cases and even then will likely need an alternative expert witness to explain away why it's not more likely than not that Rosenbaum didn't try to take the gun, I don't know what they'd do for Huber, but Grosskreutz is going to have to have an argument why what he said in sworn testimony in the criminal trial is more likely than not to mean something other than the obvious. Or just find a way to block evidence from the criminal trial entirely.
That's what I meant by that. If someone is pointing a gun at you, it's a fucking threat and you can defend yourself. If you had to wait for someone to shoot at you first, that would be a bunch of a bullshit (because that would mean you have a free shot at people essentially before they can do anything).
What else was Rosenbaum gonna do? It's not like it was a crowded area and he just so happened to be close to Rittenhouse by accident/coincidence, he was chasing him down. If you have a gun and you have to wait for someone to take your gun for it to be self-defense, then what's the point of having a gun for self-defense? Even if Rosenbaum was just trying to take the gun from Rittenhouse purely for disarming purposes (which I doubt based on Rosenbaum's record, though that doesn't matter if he's a criminal or a saint), how is it required that Rittenhouse (or you or anyone) just have to trust the other person in that kind of situation? Rittenhouse even stopped and pointed to gun at him for a second and probably said like "stop" or "get away" or "stay back" and then put the gun down and continued running, what else is Rittenhouse supposed to do in that situation? People act like he was just shooting his gun all willy nilly when he, in fact, did everything you should do in that circumstance and acted very controlled. Even after getting attacked TWICE, he just didn't shoot at the 3rd guy and waited for the guy to actually threaten him. How many people would actually not have an itchy trigger finger in that circumstance?
Fuck Him.
And fuck them.
This is why Reagan's Star Wars/SDI should have advanced into a layered anti-nuclear defense for the US. Whenever a tin-pot dictatorship gets angry, they get to point nuclear weapons toward Washington, like North Korea, and Russia, and say our way or the highway, and since America and other democracies are risk-averse,, they will of course accede to some of those demands.
Iran will get a nuclear weapon whether we like it or not because Shia mullahs want political immunity from being dickheads to schoolchildren who don't want to wear religious clothing and head coverings, and they want it more than we in the West want a war in the Middle East. And then Myanmar will get one so that they get to beat up supporters of Aung San Suu Kyi, and then maybe Venezuela will want one. It just goes on until their elites are extorting democracies for whatever wishes they want.
The vast majority of nations aren't nuclear capable, the nuclear defense thing is no guarantee, but the US (and the rest of the world's) response to an attack is.
Iran is a large and regionally-powerful country, with a history of being a very major player stretching back over 2000 years. It wants nukes I would suggest for two reasons: because Iran feels unusually threatened, not just by the West but also Sunni Muslim states, and secondly for status and to reflect that sense of importance.
Arguably, rather than develop nukes, Iran would do a lot better simply by "playing ball", facilitating trade and greater co-operation with the international community, as it could undergo a massive, China-like economic modernisation and industrialisation. On the other hand, it's not as if its intensely conservative, theocratic leadership, geopolitical situation and last century of history predispose it to that sort of outlook. Nevertheless, I would suggest that forms of security guarantees, economic and diplomatic progress would indeed make Iran less interested in developing nukes. And then there's also even less chance for war.
I dunno, nukes my be the only way to forestall an invasion or significant bombardment of Iran
Like, security guaranteed by *who*?
Welp, answers that
Shocking nobody, that "Oklahoma mandates Bibles in schools" thing is not only massive Christian overreach, but an obvious grift. Real smiteable shit
Shocking nobody, that "Oklahoma mandates Bibles in schools" thing is not only massive Christian overreach, but an obvious grift. Real smiteable shit
Really isn't. Even with conventional missiles, you can't afford a mistake there. Now, intercepting enough to give you a good chance of having enough military to mess up the attacking country in response, that's easy.
In any case, an attack doesn't have to be by missile. Smuggling a device by container ship, or submarine depositing something on the seabed at or near a coastal city is also an option, one people have worried about for generations.
You can track ships, as for submarines the US has methods to track them too.
No one in Washington wants another revisionist, powerful anti-US country. I think the US would rather Iran be sanctioned like North Korea with nukes than without nukes but with the economic strength to back up China, and Russia in the region. Also for half of the American elites, this is a no-go, and the other half is trying to get donors from the first half to run their campaigns for Congress.
So now a movie directed by a man who claims to have stopped doing comedies because of "woke culture"... is considered woke by the people who praised him for those comments.
Last edited:
I wasn’t interested in the movie before. Then I heard it was a musical. Then I saw people were pissed off. Then I saw people compare it to Matrix Resurrection. Now I'm interested.
Mostly, the USA: essentially, an agreement that it will not attack Iran, and attempt to restrain other countries that might attack Iran. The latter could be by things like blocking arms sales in case of infringements, or forms of sanctions.
It's tricky, of course, because Iran is running de facto hostilities through proxies (Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, etc.). If Iran is funding and arming terrorist groups attacking other countries, it's hard to argue that Iran has that much right to protection of its own territory from retaliation. But I'd imagine the long-term aim would be to dissaude Iran from supporting terrorism.