Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Rittenhouse verdict
Comments
-
Up against kidsHHusky said:
pressingPitchfork51 said: -
{rimshot}hardhat said: -
Maybe I do since you won't define it.HHusky said:
But you don’t have a dog in the fight.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Curious minds want to know.
I'm sure your astute political science takes will be as informed as your economic ones. -
HHusky said:
Surprised my name even came up then.RaceBannon said:
Yeah no one believes youHHusky said:
Police shooting. Multiple changes in the cop's story.RaceBannon said:
Still obsessing over Mike Brown but just no interest in this oneHHusky said:
For some reason it fascinated you ladies and lots of other people. Not me.WestlinnDuck said:
You clarified nothing with that word salad of yours. Glad you never followed the case. It was so damn complicated what with the video and the eyewitness on one side and all the lying on the other side.HHusky said:
Verdicts happen in cases that I didn't follow closely every day.WestlinnDuck said:The topic of this thread is: Notice how there isn’t a single leftist here supporting this verdict? So, thanks for your post which you felt necessary to make which doesn't change Bob's observations. You suck at this.
"The only comment I think I've ever made related to this case was to agree that the prosecutor was appropriately chastised by the judge."
I support verdicts being entered.
I particularly support jurors acquitting criminal defendants when they have reasonable doubts about their guilt.
So glad I could clarify this for you, Gasbag.
Bray on!
Some people follow NASCAR too.
Not really a question of whether it's complicated.
Lies flow like water in the rain
It interested me.
Vigilante shoots a few rioters? Similar to Pitch, I dislike everyone involved.
As you were.
Does UW_Doog_Bot intimidate the Counselor much?HHusky said:
But you don’t have a dog in the fight.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Question too tough? -
So you’re desperately seeking to be interesting.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Maybe I do since you won't define it.HHusky said:
But you don’t have a dog in the fight.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Curious minds want to know.
I'm sure your astute political science takes will be as informed as your economic ones.
It’s not working. -
15 pages in and someone doesn’t want to admit the role CNN, MSNBC, Joe Biden, and the Democrats played in getting the rittenhouse case, trial, and verdict wrong. Sad.
-
You’ve never been one to run and hide.HHusky said:
So you’re desperately seeking to be interesting.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Maybe I do since you won't define it.HHusky said:
But you don’t have a dog in the fight.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Curious minds want to know.
I'm sure your astute political science takes will be as informed as your economic ones.
It’s not working.
Time to dazzle everyone with that UW law degree and MBA you’re so proud of.
Oh wait, Doog_Bot has embarrassed you when you’ve engaged with him before. -
HHusky said:
So you’re desperately seeking to be interesting.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Maybe I do since you won't define it.HHusky said:
But you don’t have a dog in the fight.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Curious minds want to know.
I'm sure your astute political science takes will be as informed as your economic ones.
It’s not working.
It wasn’t interesting, that’s why What’s His Name is 15 pages deep.hardhat said:15 pages in and someone doesn’t want to admit the role CNN, MSNBC, Joe Biden, and the Democrats played in getting the rittenhouse case, trial, and verdict wrong. Sad.
Meltdown still rolling -
-
You painted yourself into a corner with a ridiculously stupid take and have nowhere to go.HHusky said:
So you’re desperately seeking to be interesting.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Maybe I do since you won't define it.HHusky said:
But you don’t have a dog in the fight.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Curious minds want to know.
I'm sure your astute political science takes will be as informed as your economic ones.
It’s not working.
So now it's deflect, slink away, or triple down.
What's it going to be?
Nothing but popcorn.gif for the rest of us.
