Kyle Rittenhouse - guilty or not guilty?

[CountValentine]

Link?

https://news.yahoo.com/fox-news-anchor-reluctantly-reveals-165137652.html

[as2]

https://news.yahoo.com/fox-news-anchor-reluctantly-reveals-165137652.html

See my edit. All I see here is an extremely politicized occurrence that is being further politicized by both sides. Still not sure where race plays in.

[zh cohen]

The latest uproar is the "false flag" he is trying to peddle with his Jan 6 so called documentary.

Are you denying that there were informants who "stormed the capitol" and were seen on video encouraging people to go in?

some have resigned over it.

Fox confirmed that their contract was expiring and that it was not going to be renewed. They resigned as a publicity stunt, just before they were going to be out regardless.

[CountValentine]

Are you denying that there were informants who "stormed the capitol" and were seen on video encouraging people to go in?

To imply the FBI was involved without any facts is no different than claiming the election was stolen without facts.
Both are positions of the nutcase right.

[as2]

To imply the FBI was involved without any facts is no different than claiming the election was stolen without facts.
Both are positions of the nutcase right.

I specifically was trying not to get into this argument. I'm just looking for instances of TC being racist. I've already given you that he's an extremist, and assuming all of what you believe is true, it only seems to imply he's a conspiracy theorist or extremist.

[CountValentine]

I specifically was trying not to get into this argument. I'm just looking for instances of TC being racist. I've already given you that he's an extremist, and assuming all of what you believe is true, it only seems to imply he's a conspiracy theorist or extremist.

Ok no argument. You want which segments were racist.
Won't it just be an argument if they are racist or not? 

[as2]

Ok no argument. You want which segments were racist.
Won't it just be an argument if they are racist or not? 

I'm pretty sure racism is pretty clear cut. I'll be the first to call out a Jew who screams anti-Semitism when it's not the case. Facts are allowed to be discussed without them being labeled as racist. But I'd definitely like to know what you believe is racist so I can understand it from your point of view, and who knows, it may be right in line with mine  

[CountValentine]

I'm pretty sure racism is pretty clear cut. I'll be the first to call out a Jew who screams anti-Semitism when it's not the case. Facts are allowed to be discussed without them being labeled as racist. But I'd definitely like to know what you believe is racist so I can understand it from your point of view, and who knows, it may be right in line with mine

We are getting way OT. Another one off the top of my head is “great replacement theory.”

[as2]

We are getting way OT. Another one off the top of my head is “great replacement theory.”

OT? This is JS. I don't take labeling individuals as Racist or and other form of "ist" lightly without clear proof. I've agreed with almost everything else you said about him. I don't know much about this that you mentioned either. A little reading seems to imply certain things, but I need to read more. Most articles are pushing a biased view, so hard to get a clear story. Bottom line is, when any individual takes facts, real facts, and makes an argument that can reasonably be seen from those facts, it's not racist even though people may want you to think so. When people take their personal interpretation of something and decide other personal opinions based on those opinions and use them to make a racial statement, that usually would be racist. I try to ask myself about anyone who is labeled a racist, "Do I believe this person would want [insert race, religion etc] to be [insert method of harm, segregation, or extermination]?". I think the answer is usually no.

[CountValentine]

OT? This is JS. I don't take labeling individuals as Racist or and other form of "ist" lightly without clear proof. I've agreed with almost everything else you said about him. I don't know much about this that you mentioned either. A little reading seems to imply certain things, but I need to read more. Most articles are pushing a biased view, so hard to get a clear story. Bottom line is, when any individual takes facts, real facts, and makes an argument that can reasonably be seen from those facts, it's not racist even though people may want you to think so. When people take their personal interpretation of something and decide other personal opinions based on those opinions and use them to make a racial statement, that usually would be racist. I try to ask myself about anyone who is labeled a racist, "Do I believe this person would want [insert race, religion etc] to be [insert method of harm, segregation, or extermination]?". I think the answer is usually no.

Ok let's play by your rules.
It is a fact there are many Jews in the media. So, it is fair game to have a discussion about Jews controlling the media?

[as2]

Ok let's play by your rules.
It is a fact there are many Jews in the media. So, it is fair game to have a discussion about Jews controlling the media?

Most definitely. I don't know that to be fact, but I have no reason to believe otherwise. Obviously you can make it a religious based argument, or a fact based argument. Which path you go down shows what your motive is.

[CountValentine]

Most definitely. I don't know that to be fact, but I have no reason to believe otherwise. Obviously you can make it a religious based argument, or a fact based argument. Which path you go down shows what your motive is.

Then we turn to the fact that in many neighborhoods the homes are being bought by Jews. Fair discussion if this is racist based?

After how many of these so-called fact-based discussions do you say wait a minute?

[as2]

Then we turn to the fact that in many neighborhoods the homes are being bought by Jews. Fair discussion if this is racist based?

After how many of these so-called fact-based discussions do you say wait a minute?

Are Jews not doing that? Are we not allowed to talk about it because it's Jews? You won't get me on those, because I believe you can discuss it. You definitely can make it racist, but you usually need to insert personal emotion or opinion into it to do so. "Why are Jews buying so many homes up in this area?" Ok, fair question. "Why are these money hungry, Hitler evaders, stealing all our real estate from us?" You're a hater. Open dialogue is amazing. It shows you other perspective, and believe it or not, actually outs the haters more often than silence does.

[CountValentine]

Are Jews not doing that? Are we not allowed to talk about it because it's Jews? You won't get me on those, because I believe you can discuss it. You definitely can make it racist, but you usually need to insert personal emotion or opinion into it to do so. "Why are Jews buying so many homes up in this area?" Ok, fair question. "Why are these money hungry, Hitler evaders, stealing all our real estate from us?" You're a hater. Open dialogue is amazing. It shows you other perspective, and believe it or not, actually outs the haters more often than silence does.

This is what I try to point out all the time. Any one statement/segment can be defended. When there is a long pattern then that is no longer possible.

[as2]

This is what I try to point out all the time. Any one statement/segment can be defended. When there is a long pattern then that is no longer possible.

I don't believe that to be true. I don't think someone who genuine feels that we have a true issue with something in this country, and has the facts to back it up, can't regularly speak about said topic, solely because the individuals at the crux of said issue are a particular race. If you constantly find issues with said race, there may be more of a case to be made, assuming those arguments aren't still in line with your topic at hand. If we were discussing issues with the real estate market in area x, and you bring up Jews purchasing majority percent of those, fair argument. If you now go onto every fact based issue with Jews, that seems to show malice, although not always.

[yuneeq]

Ok let's play by your rules.
It is a fact there are many Jews in the media. So, it is fair game to have a discussion about Jews controlling the media?

No.
Fact: Many Jews own media companies. Go ahead and discuss how or why Jews collectively own a lot of media companies, fair game. But discussing Jewish media owners collaborating to control the news and media is nothing except racist conspiracy and not based on facts.

And I know you hate my analogies - there are so many blacks in the NBA, let's discuss why. Is it genetics, upbringing, or something else? Fair game. But it would be racist conspiracy to discuss how the blacks hijacked control of the NBA.

[CountValentine]

No.

I am glad you agree with me.

[CountValentine]

Fox calling out anyone on this is beyond funny.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-strikes-far-different-tone-after-arbery-verdict-than-rittenhouse/ar-AAR7X8x?ocid=msedgntp

[yesitsme]

I was once in טבריא for Shabbos, after Shabbos while i was waiting by the bus stop a local told me how excited he is that the Frum are looking into moving to Tiberias and he said "rav kook omar be'oid eser shanim yiyeh poh cmo bnei brak" I felt like, i don't know what you like about bnei brak if you tell me my neighborhood is turning into bnei brak I would not be too excited

[yuneeq]

I was once in טבריא for Shabbos, after Shabbos while i was waiting by the bus stop a local told me how excited he is that the Frum are looking into moving to Tiberias and he said "rav kook omar be'oid eser shanim yiyeh poh cmo bnei brak" I felt like, i don't know what you like about bnei brak if you tell me my neighborhood is turning into bnei brak I would not be too excited

מה ענין שמיטה להר סיני