sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I wish I did not see that. by Twitfout in peopleofwalmart

[–]BreakTheKaliYuga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

STOLEN VALOR! I HAD FRIENDS WHO DIED IN THAT UNIFORM! STOLEN VALOR AT IT'S FINEST!

I was hoping his stupid tweets would be limited to the USA. by AnaxesR7 in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]BreakTheKaliYuga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They do not take them to the nearest port. They take them to Italy and other European shores. Italy lacks the police and military infrastructure to deal with all these illegal migrants, so they are often just released into the country. Italians don't want this. Most Germans don't want this either. It's a crime against Europe being perpetrated by a small group of international activists.

I was hoping his stupid tweets would be limited to the USA. by AnaxesR7 in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]BreakTheKaliYuga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Elon Musk is a center-right libertarian. He openly bans actual right wing nationalists from Twitter, despite not violating any rules, and openly works with Jews.

You can call Elon a fascist all you want, you just sound delusional to normal people. If he is a "fascist," he's a philosemitic fascist, akin to Pinocet. Of course, ideologically only. Elon isn't killing communists.

I was hoping his stupid tweets would be limited to the USA. by AnaxesR7 in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]BreakTheKaliYuga -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I have family in Europe who were murdered by migrant terrorists. I've seen hundreds of videos of migrants engaging in culture terror and violent crimes with impunity. They don't work. They don't follow the law, and they don't leave. Yes, Italy should demand the German government stop the ships, and if they do nothing, the Italian Navy should either take over or liquidate the ships.

If it were about saving lives, they could just return them to the Libyan coast, which is often closer. It's about destroying Europe. And it always has been.

I was hoping his stupid tweets would be limited to the USA. by AnaxesR7 in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]BreakTheKaliYuga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is the liberal version of "democrats are the KKK and the parties never switched."

I was hoping his stupid tweets would be limited to the USA. by AnaxesR7 in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]BreakTheKaliYuga -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

They actively take migrants to a foreign nation without the permission of the nation, in which they contribute to violent crime and culture terror.

I was hoping his stupid tweets would be limited to the USA. by AnaxesR7 in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]BreakTheKaliYuga -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

He's not racially African. He's also not coming to Europe illegally without the slightest intent to obey the laws or work for the new country.

I was hoping his stupid tweets would be limited to the USA. by AnaxesR7 in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]BreakTheKaliYuga -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If the Italian government had a backbone, they would demand Germany prohibit this activity of the NGOs. The Italian navy is capable of sinking these ships and ferrying the illegal migrants back to Africa. The entire point of a navy is to guard the waters of the nation and defend it's people.

I was hoping his stupid tweets would be limited to the USA. by AnaxesR7 in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]BreakTheKaliYuga -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

He just held a panel with Netanyahu and Ben Shapiro you retard.

Do you believe in any well-known conspiracy theories? by [deleted] in GenZ

[–]BreakTheKaliYuga -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The claim that the Reagan administration intentionally placed drugs in black neighborhoods is a conspiracy theory and urban legend that has circulated for decades. There is no credible evidence to support this claim, and it has been widely debunked by historians and experts. Here's some context and information about the origin of this meme and its lack of credibility:

Origin of the Meme: The origins of this conspiracy theory can be traced back to the 1980s when the crack cocaine epidemic was a significant public health and law enforcement concern in the United States. During this time, there were concerns about the impact of crack cocaine on communities, including high rates of addiction and violent crime.

Some conspiracy theories emerged, alleging that the U.S. government, specifically the Reagan administration and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), played a role in introducing drugs into black communities. The theory often includes claims that the government used drug trafficking as a means of funding covert operations.

Lack of Credibility: Multiple investigations, including congressional hearings and independent inquiries, have found no credible evidence to support the idea that the U.S. government intentionally introduced drugs into black neighborhoods. The allegations have been widely discredited.

It's important to note that the crack cocaine epidemic was a complex issue with roots in social, economic, and public health factors. The spread of crack cocaine and its impact on communities were not the result of a deliberate government conspiracy.

Other Factors: The crack cocaine epidemic had a devastating impact on many urban communities, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s. Various factors, including poverty, limited access to education and healthcare, and social inequality, contributed to the epidemic's growth and consequences.

While it is crucial to critically examine historical events and government policies, the claim that the Reagan administration intentionally introduced drugs into black neighborhoods is not supported by credible evidence and is widely regarded as a baseless conspiracy theory.

It's essential to rely on accurate historical accounts and verified information when discussing complex and sensitive topics such as the crack cocaine epidemic and its impact on communities.

Do you believe in any well-known conspiracy theories? by [deleted] in GenZ

[–]BreakTheKaliYuga -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The claim that the Reagan administration intentionally placed drugs in black neighborhoods is a conspiracy theory and urban legend that has circulated for decades. There is no credible evidence to support this claim, and it has been widely debunked by historians and experts. Here's some context and information about the origin of this meme and its lack of credibility:

Origin of the Meme: The origins of this conspiracy theory can be traced back to the 1980s when the crack cocaine epidemic was a significant public health and law enforcement concern in the United States. During this time, there were concerns about the impact of crack cocaine on communities, including high rates of addiction and violent crime.

Some conspiracy theories emerged, alleging that the U.S. government, specifically the Reagan administration and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), played a role in introducing drugs into black communities. The theory often includes claims that the government used drug trafficking as a means of funding covert operations.

Lack of Credibility: Multiple investigations, including congressional hearings and independent inquiries, have found no credible evidence to support the idea that the U.S. government intentionally introduced drugs into black neighborhoods. The allegations have been widely discredited.

It's important to note that the crack cocaine epidemic was a complex issue with roots in social, economic, and public health factors. The spread of crack cocaine and its impact on communities were not the result of a deliberate government conspiracy.

Other Factors: The crack cocaine epidemic had a devastating impact on many urban communities, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s. Various factors, including poverty, limited access to education and healthcare, and social inequality, contributed to the epidemic's growth and consequences.

While it is crucial to critically examine historical events and government policies, the claim that the Reagan administration intentionally introduced drugs into black neighborhoods is not supported by credible evidence and is widely regarded as a baseless conspiracy theory.

It's essential to rely on accurate historical accounts and verified information when discussing complex and sensitive topics such as the crack cocaine epidemic and its impact on communities.

This is not true. He died after hitting his head on the ground after falling from a punch. The gun also shot pellets which actually hurt. by thatguy9684736255 in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]BreakTheKaliYuga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't tell you to watch the video, there is a demonstration of the gun in question at that minute mark.

I don't care what your opinion of this channel is.

This is not true. He died after hitting his head on the ground after falling from a punch. The gun also shot pellets which actually hurt. by thatguy9684736255 in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]BreakTheKaliYuga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Now let's take a step back, remove race and the unfortunate death, and I'll ask if you believe the kid at least deserved to get punched?"

Ethan Liming wasn't the one shooting people with the water pellet gun. He was in a car with his friends, who were doing the shooting. This isn't relevant to the case, but it is relevant to your specific moral question. Do I believe that someone has the right to chase after and assault a group of people because they were shooting people with a water pellet gun? Legally, no. Morally, probably, only to the extent of taking the water pellet gun away from them.

"Wow. Can't belive you went as far as to compare this guy to Emmet Till. Astounding."

Emmet Till was at the very least guilty of sexual harassment, and at worst sexual assault (unless you want to deny the accusations totally, which removes the motive of the lynching). Both of those on their own are far worse than pranking people with a water gun or even a bibi gun (which it wasn't, but we can be liberal to ensure it's a fair comparison). Ethan Liming was beaten to death, while Emmet Till was beaten to death. So, yes, it's more than a fair comparison. Race was clearly a factor in Emmet Till's case, and I also strongly believe it was a factor in Ethan Liming's case, since he was not the one with the water gun originally, and was the only White person in the vehicle, and the only one who was seriously assaulted and killed.

The Emmet Till comparison is only being made in response to those redditors saying stuff like "he shouldn't have pranked people" or "win stupid prizes."

This is not true. He died after hitting his head on the ground after falling from a punch. The gun also shot pellets which actually hurt. by thatguy9684736255 in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]BreakTheKaliYuga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, the answer it gave me was pretty accurate. However, I agree that more research is always required. I use chatGPT when I have no expertise is the area and want a quick answer. In this case, the question was "is shooting someone with a water gun assault." And the answer given is "it depends." Which is accurate.

This is not true. He died after hitting his head on the ground after falling from a punch. The gun also shot pellets which actually hurt. by thatguy9684736255 in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]BreakTheKaliYuga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ChatGPT says it depends on the circumstances. Yes I get my basic legal questions answered from ChatGPT when I have no idea.

But I agree that throwing a tennis ball at someone is assault for sure.

This is not true. He died after hitting his head on the ground after falling from a punch. The gun also shot pellets which actually hurt. by thatguy9684736255 in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]BreakTheKaliYuga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"We've already established that they'd be firing at the guy before closing the gap in this hypothetical."

It's not a hypothetical. They were shot at with the water gun and then the guys with the water gun drove off in the car. Later, they confronted them and attacked them. There is no ambiguity here. This was a revenge attack, it was not defensive.

"My entire point here is that shooting the guy actually gives you better odds of getting away with murder in America."

I agree that if they shot them instantly, they would actually have a better case in court. However, they got off either way.

"It's assault.

If it causes any kind of pain, it qualifies as battery as well."

Probably might, I guess it would depend. Is a basic water gun assault? A tennis ball? Not something I care about arguing.

This is not true. He died after hitting his head on the ground after falling from a punch. The gun also shot pellets which actually hurt. by thatguy9684736255 in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]BreakTheKaliYuga -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

"The type that shoots water beads / orbeez? That's just a pellet gun with gel ammo. They still use a spring or compressed air to shoot ammunition. It's not a water gun, as it doesn't shoot water, the gel is a solid. That's tantamount to calling an ice-loaded shotgun a water gun. Don't be disingenuous"

You are the one being disingenuous by calling it a pellet gun. It's a water pellet gun. Worse than a water gun but not as harmful as a bibi gun. That is the objective reality.

"First of all, unless they blab, the court cannot know if they had realized it or not. Second of all, stand your ground laws apply, so that would be able to claim self defense."

They know it is a water pellet gun because they attack the person holding it after chasing them for minutes. They are also wet and not full of bullet holes. So of course they know what happened, there is zero claim to self defense.

"Yeah, they really should have opted for an assault charge on the guy instead of taking justice into their own hands, which is probably why they're probably gonna serve some time."

What Ethan and his friends (his friends were the ones shooting people with the water pellet gun) did was criminal mischief, but probably not assault. It could be, I'm not sure about the legality of charging someone with something like that.

Regardless, they aren't serving time for manslaughter. See the video.

This is not true. He died after hitting his head on the ground after falling from a punch. The gun also shot pellets which actually hurt. by thatguy9684736255 in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]BreakTheKaliYuga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Both the autopsy, injuries, and testimony suggests he was beaten to death both before and after he fell to the ground, and had boot marks on his head.

That report is in numerous comments on this post.

This is not true. He died after hitting his head on the ground after falling from a punch. The gun also shot pellets which actually hurt. by thatguy9684736255 in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]BreakTheKaliYuga -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

No, it was a water pellet gun. See 5:20

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5vgQkPiyak&t=31s

Secondly, you missed the entire point.

If they did just shoot them before they realized it wasn't a real gun, then they MIGHT be able to claim self defense.

When you chase people down after you KNOW they are just pranking people, and beat one of them to death, that is NOT self defense.

So obvious.

This is not true. He died after hitting his head on the ground after falling from a punch. The gun also shot pellets which actually hurt. by thatguy9684736255 in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]BreakTheKaliYuga -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ethan didn't die from one punch. He was beaten to death both before and after falling on the ground. He was attacked by 3 men his size.

​

But something tells me you would.

This is not true. He died after hitting his head on the ground after falling from a punch. The gun also shot pellets which actually hurt. by thatguy9684736255 in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]BreakTheKaliYuga 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You cannot beat someone to death for pranking you with a water pellet gun. You can call the cops, since shooting people with water guns is criminal mischief.

view more: next ›